Bring back former posters

[asiu]

certainly re the afl and to a lesser extent the stkfc , imo , they can stick their heads where
the sun dont shine.

this site is and always has been about the contributions of the posters
... their opinions , their emotional responses , their angst 'n humour shared
amongst our own tribe ... st kilda supporters

at the end of the day its eff the afl ,
'n eff the club and yes to freedom of expression 'n the right to yack about footy , st kilda
'n G1 shite

but thats not how it is , according to the views of simon as expressed in this thread
(if i understand correctly)

being a st kilda supporter aint for the sheep of the world.
we've more than paid our dues ,
'n i certainly dont wanna come here and be treated by one.

i can go to afl and club run media for that !

[BackFromUSA]

As I have expressed many times if what you say about warnings and breaches was true it would be good but it seems do to lack of mods that dobbing is the main reason for warnings and breaches. Again that would be ok if everyone who broke the rules was diobbed on but it doesnt happen.

==> while you perceive that it is only those who are dobbed in that receive PMs and warnings this is only partially true
==> many "alerts" or as you call them "dobbing" are dealt with without a warning being issued
==> sometimes I read posts in the forum that have not been dobbed in and issue warnings

the only way it ill ever be fair is getting more mods and for some reason you or whoever picks the mods seem to reject the ones that say they will do it.

==> simply put posters who are repeat offenders and have received multiple warnings are obviously not good candidates to maintain the forum rules as moderators
==> moderators have been appointed but QUIT due to the abuse they received

Yes those people may not be the perfect mod but the way it is run using dobbing as the main reason now is very much less than ideal.

==> agree that dobbing ISN'T ideal and you are dobbed in a lot .. not sure why ... perhaps your posting style? You are certainly not warned each time.
==> ideal would be that posters don't breach the rules and no warnings would need to be issued

By the way I think you are way to serious thanking the AFL for letting us use their product. We talk about the product but we dont use anything. If people post stuff that has been printed that is completely different to us having opinions on players or the state of thegame. They cant stop that I would think.

==> http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/archi ... 49694.html

==> http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=440948

==> http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/“ ... ok.829970/

And the AE isnt adults only at all. You not reregister and prove your age to go on there. Doubt that saves any type of action that could be taken on any other part of the forum.

==> Animal Enclosure is set up in such a way that the FIRST time you enter, you agree to rules and state you are 18 years or older, but only necessary the 1st time

==> I am told that it can be set so that each time a poster enters it we can get them to agree / state age each time BUT it was thought this was over the top

==> internet laws dictate that we only have to get the user to confirm that they are over 18 before entering an adult only area so offers us enough protection

By the way why dont we get new mods and who picks them if someone wants to do it?

==> anyone can apply to the ADMIN to become a MOD. The admin then decides their suitability. That is how I became a MOD. Anyone is welcome to apply.

[BackFromUSA]

GrumpyOne

The site is "community owned" ....

No it's not.

After all these years, I feel that I am part of the community of Saintsational, no matter how much that fact sticks in certain people's craws.

I have never been asked to take part in any sort of vote regarding ownership, administration or moderation of the site.

Each time a change has happened, pre yourself being involved, it came as a pronouncement from God.

It has been different since your involvement, but only that the intention to change was announced, with the change being a fait accompli a few days later.

It is a private site where ownership has been assumed by Battye on the principle of Terra Nullius.

Many of the old-timers here contributed to keep the site operational. They have told me that they have bugger-all say as well.

That is a dead parrot you are trying to sell us.

A couple of key points as clarification.

==> the site was started by a 12 year old "Damien" about 15 years ago

==> in 2008 "Damien" was unable to continue his management of the site due to his work commitments (which at the time were high starting in his chosen field)

==> at that point he put forward to the administrators / moderators at the time that he needed them to take over

==> they said they would and took the keys to the car and got this place up and running again (it had really fallen over)

==> they did so with his complete blessing

==> at that stage the site became funded by voluntary donations

==> there is no formal owner or management although the ADMIN (listed clearly) hold the keys under Damien's instruction

==> there is no formal voting mechanism

==> everything I have done has been done with community feedback and a decision made and then a proposal put forward to the ADMIN

==> ADMIN have and had veto power

==> even when some things were decided done they were altered after further community consultation and feedback e.g. General Forum & Animal Enclosure

[BackFromUSA]

Great contributions starting to come in now, there are three things that stood out from reading different contributions above:

Contribution number one from Principle of Q'uo: and in 'simons way' i see much of that behaviour.

(thats NOT a slight against simon or his agenda ... but the methodologies he embraces
to fullfill his agenda)


Contribution number two from P66: By the way I think you are way to serious thanking the AFL for letting us use their product. We talk about the product but we dont use anything. If people post stuff that has been printed that is completely different to us having opinions on players or the state of thegame. They cant stop that I would think. And the AE isnt adults only at all. You not reregister and prove your age to go on there. Doubt that saves any type of action that could be taken on any other part of the forum.

Contribution number three from Grumpy One: It is a private site where ownership has been assumed by Battye on the principle of Terra Nullius.

Many of the old-timers here contributed to keep the site operational. They have told me that they have bugger-all say as well.


That is a dead parrot you are trying to sell us.

Simon you are to be commended for the volunteer work you do and I for one will put my hand up to help if I can in any way including donating money but I just think that the first thing we need to do is give this site to the people. They have made it and they own it IMO. The discussions and opinion on this board are not the property of the club/AFL and without the fanatic dedication of many people that visit and contribute to this site, toxic or not is irrelevant because in actual fact this site creates value for the club/AFL and steps should be taken to protect it's ownership and it's independence. I know with your background that you know that but for some reason you are against that. And another thing that puzzles me is that when you have seemingly been painted into a corner with our recent correspondence you default with your favourred get of jail card "I am just mod, you need to talk to admin".

I just don't know how many times I have to tell you ... the things you are asking me to do are matters for the ADMIN not a MODERATOR.

I don't have access or authority to do the things you want regarding constitution / ownership / management and voting rights!

Nor do I have access to google analytic data or any of the information on the ADMIN panel ... because I am not ADMIN and I am just a moderator.

You are not painting me into ANY corners.

I simply cant do what you require.

You have to approach and discuss with ADMIN.

I have told you that around 20 times now.

Is that really too hard to understand?

I may have an opinion on the subjects but it carries no more weight than any other opinion.

[BackFromUSA]

certainly re the afl and to a lesser extent the stkfc , imo , they can stick their heads where
the sun dont shine.

this site is and always has been about the contributions of the posters
... their opinions , their emotional responses , their angst 'n humour shared
amongst our own tribe ... st kilda supporters

at the end of the day its eff the afl ,
'n eff the club and yes to freedom of expression 'n the right to yack about footy , st kilda
'n G1 shite

but thats not how it is , according to the views of simon as expressed in this thread
(if i understand correctly)

being a st kilda supporter aint for the sheep of the world.
we've more than paid our dues ,
'n i certainly dont wanna come here and be treated by one.

i can go to afl and club run media for that !

I support what you say and I support freedom of speech ... but the legal reality is different.

This site must have some rules and moderation in order to stay on the air.

Otherwise this happens:

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/archi ... 49694.html

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/“ ... ok.829970/

[Cairnsman]

Great contributions starting to come in now, there are three things that stood out from reading different contributions above:

Contribution number one from Principle of Q'uo: and in 'simons way' i see much of that behaviour.

(thats NOT a slight against simon or his agenda ... but the methodologies he embraces
to fullfill his agenda)


Contribution number two from P66: By the way I think you are way to serious thanking the AFL for letting us use their product. We talk about the product but we dont use anything. If people post stuff that has been printed that is completely different to us having opinions on players or the state of thegame. They cant stop that I would think. And the AE isnt adults only at all. You not reregister and prove your age to go on there. Doubt that saves any type of action that could be taken on any other part of the forum.

Contribution number three from Grumpy One: It is a private site where ownership has been assumed by Battye on the principle of Terra Nullius.

Many of the old-timers here contributed to keep the site operational. They have told me that they have bugger-all say as well.


That is a dead parrot you are trying to sell us.

Simon you are to be commended for the volunteer work you do and I for one will put my hand up to help if I can in any way including donating money but I just think that the first thing we need to do is give this site to the people. They have made it and they own it IMO. The discussions and opinion on this board are not the property of the club/AFL and without the fanatic dedication of many people that visit and contribute to this site, toxic or not is irrelevant because in actual fact this site creates value for the club/AFL and steps should be taken to protect it's ownership and it's independence. I know with your background that you know that but for some reason you are against that. And another thing that puzzles me is that when you have seemingly been painted into a corner with our recent correspondence you default with your favourred get of jail card "I am just mod, you need to talk to admin".

I just don't know how many times I have to tell you ... the things you are asking me to do are matters for the ADMIN not a MODERATOR.

I don't have access or authority to do the things you want regarding constitution / ownership / management and voting rights!

Nor do I have access to google analytic data or any of the information on the ADMIN panel ... because I am not ADMIN and I am just a moderator.

You are not painting me into ANY corners.

I simply cant do what you require.

You have to approach and discuss with ADMIN.

I have told you that around 20 times now.

Is that really too hard to understand?

I may have an opinion on the subjects but it carries no more weight than any other opinion.

I get that Simon but I still don't get how you can do all of these other things that don't have much to do with moderation yet on the face of it you seem like you are the leader of all of these proposed website changes. I know that you keep claiming that all of these changes must be approved by Battye yet we haven't heard from Battye. On the face of it you or Battye seem like you are able to build another website that intends to use the SS name and draw on it's posters value. If you can do all these things then surely you can address other non moderating issues, like for instance can you invite Battye out here into the open to join this discussion about the proposed website changes? And can you invite Damien out here to join in the discussion also? I have sent a PM to Battye and as you say he can take weeks, even months to respond but we know that you will be in contact with him at some point so please if he doesn't respond to my PM can you invite him to contribute to the discussion as well? Simon I just think that we need to have more discussion on the proposed changes to be sure everyone is heard on all of the wider issues that are now being raised? Would it be possible for you to put a sticky on the thread(s) where these changes have been previously discussed so they can be reviewed?

[BakesFan]

The admin/owner's disinterest is the main thing holding this site back.

BfUSA, you're to be commended for your efforts.....but sadly you've been hobbled by the owner's "couldn't G.A.F" attitude.

[BackFromUSA]

I get that Simon but I still don't get how you can do all of these other things that don't have much to do with moderation yet on the face of it you seem like you are the leader of all of these proposed website changes.

==> I again refer you back to the July thread where all these issues were discussed and the community had their input regarding what it wanted from Saintsational

I know that you keep claiming that all of these changes must be approved by Battye yet we haven't heard from Battye.

==> Contact battye to ask him to comment - this is not for me to answer.

On the face of it you or Battye seem like you are able to build another website that intends to use the SS name and draw on it's posters value.

==> Only if battye and the other ADMIN allow it and it was the input of posters back in july describing what they wanted that lead to the website hub solution

==> AND as I have stated MANY times now in PM and in posts here, the news hub I shall build will not be Saintsational due to your objection

==> as such I am no longer requesting from battye the access information to saintsational.com to load the website

If you can do all these things then surely you can address other non moderating issues, like for instance can you invite Battye out here into the open to join this discussion about the proposed website changes?

==> I don't have any more ability to do so than you! How about you invite him?

And can you invite Damien out here to join in the discussion also?

==> You invite him ... his poster name is the very cryptic "Saintsational" and many on here have his facebook contacts (I don't) but I believe he is living and working overseas and has much bigger fish to fry ... as I have told you (maybe you cannot read?) I have his father's mobile number but not sure why I would call

I have sent a PM to Battye and as you say he can take weeks, even months to respond but we know that you will be in contact with him at some point so please if he doesn't respond to my PM can you invite him to contribute to the discussion as well?

==> FYI he hasn't even opened the PMs I sent him on 19 and 23 January, so I have no greater access to battye than anyone else here and I have to await his return

Simon I just think that we need to have more discussion on the proposed changes to be sure everyone is heard on all of the wider issues that are now being raised?

==> the only proposed changes I have made as request to Battye are

==> (a) to incorporate TAPATALK compatibility to the forum

==> (b) to allow unregistered people to view the forum, while retaining the function that only registered members can post

==> As stated previously, the news hub website will NOT run under the Saintsational banner because of your objection

Would it be possible for you to put a sticky on the thread(s) where these changes have been previously discussed so they can be reviewed?

==> just for you I shall go to find the thread and put them up as reopened for discussion ... so you can have your say

[GrumpyOne]

GrumpyOne

The site is "community owned" ....

No it's not.

After all these years, I feel that I am part of the community of Saintsational, no matter how much that fact sticks in certain people's craws.

I have never been asked to take part in any sort of vote regarding ownership, administration or moderation of the site.

Each time a change has happened, pre yourself being involved, it came as a pronouncement from God.

It has been different since your involvement, but only that the intention to change was announced, with the change being a fait accompli a few days later.

It is a private site where ownership has been assumed by Battye on the principle of Terra Nullius.

Many of the old-timers here contributed to keep the site operational. They have told me that they have bugger-all say as well.

That is a dead parrot you are trying to sell us.

A couple of key points as clarification.

==> the site was started by a 12 year old "Damien" about 15 years ago

==> in 2008 "Damien" was unable to continue his management of the site due to his work commitments (which at the time were high starting in his chosen field)

==> at that point he put forward to the administrators / moderators at the time that he needed them to take over

==> they said they would and took the keys to the car and got this place up and running again (it had really fallen over)

==> they did so with his complete blessing

==> at that stage the site became funded by voluntary donations

==> there is no formal owner or management although the ADMIN (listed clearly) hold the keys under Damien's instruction

==> there is no formal voting mechanism

==> everything I have done has been done with community feedback and a decision made and then a proposal put forward to the ADMIN

==> ADMIN have and had veto power

==> even when some things were decided done they were altered after further community consultation and feedback e.g. General Forum & Animal Enclosure

And that differs from what I said exactly how?

History is written by the winners.

[BackFromUSA]

It differs here:

"It has been different since your involvement, but only that the intention to change was announced, with the change being a fait accompli a few days later."

When I have made a change (based on feedback from the forum) and it has not worked out or flaws in the decision pointed out then I was more than willing to get changes made e.g. initially we converted the General Forum into the Animal Enclosure but feedback was that this was unfair to regular and valued contributors to the General Forum and as a result we reinstated the general Forum (as the New General Forum) and created the Animal Enclosure as an all new forum with new forum rules.

It is incorrect to say that my implementation is done without consultation and delivered as a fait accompli.

I work within the limitations I have in implementation i.e. it all has to go through ADMIN (who also have veto power) but what I take to ADMIN is a I believe a fair representation of what the forum (as a collective) wants ... which may not be what some individuals want ... but is what the majority want and usually I hope in the spirit of what Saintsational was created for ... a forum where ALL SAINTS, of ALL AGES could comment on St Kilda stuff.

[Cairnsman]

AND as I have stated MANY times now in PM and in posts here, the news hub I shall build will not be Saintsational due to your objection

Simon as I stated very early on in our correspondence, in general I think the new website could work however I stated my concerns about protecting the sites ownership and independence. I said I felt there needed to be caution about developing a closer relationship with the club/AFL without addressing the issue of ownership and independence first. From there we spawned a much wider discussion that is now moving into the public domain. I don't think there is anything wrong with that as I don't recall the discussions back in July addressing such issues. I'm not saying they weren't, I just don't recall them as such that is all.

I really hope you do not abort the current plans until all of these issues are discussed in wider detail with many more posters because you may just find that you are on the right track and that your plan has benefited from more rigorous testing thus gaining more confidence that it can be a successful plan. To abort it before hand would seem strange.

[SENsei]

I think it's pretty clear that much of what is being discussed is only able to implements with ADMIN approval. It's pretty clear Simon has ideas but little ability to implement anything without input from ADMIN. The philosophical discussion about the website and the future will remain just that, a discussion without any implementation, until ADMIN shows any interest. Until then, it's all very interesting but in reality means little.

[Cairnsman]

I think it's pretty clear that much of what is being discussed is only able to implements with ADMIN approval. It's pretty clear Simon has ideas but little ability to implement anything without input from ADMIN. The philosophical discussion about the website and the future will remain just that, a discussion without any implementation, until ADMIN shows any interest. Until then, it's all very interesting but in reality means little.

I'm not so sure. Simon claims that if he wanted to take over Saintsational he could.

Simon says that he is 99% confident that if he simply asked Damien if he could takeover Saintsational that Damien would contact Battye and ask him to hand over the site to him. That to me suggests that Simon some pull in the ownership stakes and also can heavily influence the direction of Saintsational.

<Warning for publishing private message on public forum>

[BackFromUSA]

Cairnsman!

This is more of your trouble making and misquoting and why I do not trust your intentions.

Here is the direct quote for all to see from our PMs.

CAIRNSMAN SAYS:

I actually think you (and possibly others we don't know) want to take over Saintsational and I think I am getting in your way.

BACKFROMUSA RESPONDS:

you are seriously delusional. I am working with nobody. If I wanted to take over Saintsational I would have to be ADMIN which is a position I was offered and REFUSED. And further more my history with Damien goes back to when he was that young teenage kid who started this site and helped me create a similar forum for WWF (WWE fans) to collet 6000 signatures to get WWF onto free to air TV and Damien and his 2 WWF fan friends got 60,000 signatures and WWF went onto Channel 10 weekly. That laid the platform for Foxtel to then sign it up. By the way I am 99% confident if I simply asked Damien if I could takeover Saintsational he would contact battye and ask him to hand over the site to me. I don't want that. It isn't my aim or plan at all.

LOOK AT WHAT YOU OMITTED ...

The fact that I was responding to your accusation that I was aiming to take over the site AND that I clearly stated that it was not my intention or desire at all.

You have accused me of being slippery ...

OMG look in the mirror.

<Warning for publishing private message on public forum>

[BackFromUSA]

And to be clear I have ZERO pull in the ownership stakes because I choose not to be an Admin and I have not spoken to Damien for years although I do occasionally bump into his dad. IF I had the intent to take over Saintsational ... I could have done it with almost nobody knowing! It is not my intent at all. My intent has been clear from the start.

1) make the fan forum the place for footy discussion for people of all ages (what it was created as)

2) move the baiting, abuse and bickering off the fan forum (and now can continue in the Animal Enclosure)

3) ensure that the forum remains active and not shut down (so does not upset the AFL or breach State and Federal laws)

4) improve the set up of the forum with tech advances (e.g. TAPATALK)

5) attract new and old posters to Saintsation to contribute to the footy talk

I felt that the best way to do this was as a moderator (as the site needed more moderation) and by working with battye in cooperation to enhance the site features.

[Cairnsman]

And to be clear I have ZERO pull in the ownership stakes because I choose not to be an Admin and I have not spoken to Damien for years although I do occasionally bump into his dad. IF I had the intent to take over Saintsational ... I could have done it with almost nobody knowing! It is not my intent at all. My intent has been clear from the start.

1) make the fan forum the place for footy discussion for people of all ages (what it was created as)

2) move the baiting, abuse and bickering off the fan forum (and now can continue in the Animal Enclosure)

3) ensure that the forum remains active and not shut down (so does not upset the AFL or breach State and Federal laws)

4) improve the set up of the forum with tech advances (e.g. TAPATALK)

5) attract new and old posters to Saintsation to contribute to the footy talk

I felt that the best way to do this was as a moderator (as the site needed more moderation) and by working with battye in cooperation to enhance the site features.

But Simon! You are doing admin work, so doesn't that make you admin? You have links that go back to Damien at the startup and as you claim, you can get in contact with him, so why not get in contact with him and ask him a few questions on the sites behalf?. At the very least become co admin with Battye so you don't have to wait for weeks or even months for him to respond to PMs or requests for help. It would seem more and more people agree that one of the main problems the site has is it doesn't have an owner/admin. Why should we not do everything we possible can to address that.

[WellardSaint]

Cairnsman!

This is more of your trouble making and misquoting and why I do not trust your intentions.

Here is the direct quote for all to see from our PMs.
CAIRNSMAN SAYS...
BACKFROMUSA RESPONDS

Note, I have edited the quoted text as everyone can see it anyway, just scroll up

Within the Fan Forum Rules (from 24 July 2013)
I spotted Privacy Policy
"it is not appropriate to publish private messages in public on saintsational fan forums..."

To whom can I report this breach?

[BackFromUSA]

I have already given myself a warning.

The warning is worth proving that Cairnsman misquotes to serve his own agenda.

He misquoted me twice in a PM to Battye in which he CC'd me - both of which I pointed out to him - neither of which have been corrected even though he admits to me that in misquoted.

From this point on I am no longer entering discussions with him.

He must contact admin as i do.

[Cairnsman]

Cairnsman!

This is more of your trouble making and misquoting and why I do not trust your intentions.

Here is the direct quote for all to see from our PMs.
CAIRNSMAN SAYS...
BACKFROMUSA RESPONDS

Note, I have edited the quoted text as everyone can see it anyway, just scroll up

Within the Fan Forum Rules (from 24 July 2013)
I spotted Privacy Policy
"it is not appropriate to publish private messages in public on saintsational fan forums..."

To whom can I report this breach?

Simon is a good moderator but like all of us I suppose he is prone to making mistakes. I wish he hadn't started that but we move on. I hope he keeps up the good fight.

[BackFromUSA]

Cairnsman.

You are talking to the wrong guy.

I am not admin.

All things I propose (that i flag first inbthe forum) go through to admin.

They approve or not.

Propose your stuff to admin.

Has nothing to do with me.

Leave me out of it.

Useless me even replying.

Good luck.

[BackFromUSA]

And I don't want to be admin or takeover this site.

I have Clearly stated my limited objectives.

[Cairnsman]

Cairnsman!

This is more of your trouble making and misquoting and why I do not trust your intentions.

Here is the direct quote for all to see from our PMs.
CAIRNSMAN SAYS...
BACKFROMUSA RESPONDS

Note, I have edited the quoted text as everyone can see it anyway, just scroll up

Within the Fan Forum Rules (from 24 July 2013)
I spotted Privacy Policy
"it is not appropriate to publish private messages in public on saintsational fan forums..."

To whom can I report this breach?

Simon is a good moderator but like all of us I suppose he is prone to making mistakes. I wish he hadn't started that but we move on. I hope he keeps up the good fight.

I can't believe it. Simon just gave ME the warning. He breaks the rule first then gives me a warning. Are you drinking Simon because I am at a loss to explain that.

[plugger66]

Its all far to serious.

[SENsei]

In my view a healthy discussion is now turning into a clear case of a dog with a bone and hidden agendas.

Cairnsman - "just make yourself a co-admin with battye". Gee it's that easy is it? Where is that switch that can make that happen? No offence, but comments like that show little knowledge of the workings of a forum where underlings are not the Admin. battye is the Admin and the only person who is able to change anything of note. Simon might be acting in some fashion with an Admin slant as a Moderator, but he has no control to effect the change. And he would have no control to appoint himself an Admin, particularly if he cannot get in contact with the actual Admin. Your badgering on this point is rather pointless.

Stick to the constructive argument and debate over the future of the forum, which originally had the potential to be positive. This degeneration in discussion does no one any favours.

IMO Simon is making plans/decisions/change......and HE is the only one doing it. Give him a break FFS. We might not agree on every point but he's having a crack! No one else cares enough to have a crack...not even the flaming Admin of the site!!

[Cairnsman]

In my view a healthy discussion is now turning into a clear case of a dog with a bone and hidden agendas.

Cairnsman - "just make yourself a co-admin with battye". Gee it's that easy is it? Where is that switch that can make that happen? No offence, but comments like that show little knowledge of the workings of a forum where underlings are not the Admin. battye is the Admin and the only person who is able to change anything of note. Simon might be acting in some fashion with an Admin slant as a Moderator, but he has no control to effect the change. And he would have no control to appoint himself an Admin, particularly if he cannot get in contact with the actual Admin. Your badgering on this point is rather pointless.

Stick to the constructive argument and debate over the future of the forum, which originally had the potential to be positive. This degeneration in discussion does no one any favours.

IMO Simon is making plans/decisions/change......and HE is the only one doing it. Give him a break FFS. We might not agree on every point but he's having a crack! No one else cares enough to have a crack...not even the flaming Admin of the site!!

Fairpoit SEN and I think in most part myself and BackfromUSA are debating the issues we think are important. Just to be clear my main concern is the future of the site, more specifically it's ownership and independence. I believe this place could prosper with the right administration and I have proposed to BackfromUSA that we go to the forum with a debate over various types of community based ownership where there is possibly a shareholder and voting type arrangement, and possibly a constitution that governs administration. I believe that if we think-tank this properly as a community and come up with the right model then it could work, because really when you think about it, this place has largely self-managed and regulated itself for most of its existence and with a little work that model could be formalised to help make the place survive and prosper well into the future.

I agree lets not degenerate the discussion, that is the last thing I would want which I hope is clearly evident.