# Slagging off the TTOC



## ronin

Fucking disgusted at some of the comments going the commitees way.
Having been privileged enough to be a rep in the past its a non paid position and done purely out of enthusiam.
Who gives a fuck who went, surely the point is they were invited.
My guess is a lot more groups/magazines etc wanted to attend but out of a paltry 800 invites they warranted 4 - well deserved in my eyes.
Should anyone who has slagged them off attend this years meet, and if its anything like last year,marvel at what is there, remember they have done this for fuck all.
Frankly can't be arsed to research if any of the commenters have contributed in anyway to the TTOC but my money says they haven't.
Fucking whinging wonkies.


----------



## jonah

Well Said


----------



## scoTTy

It would seem some/many aren't even members so I doubt some/many have contributed anything.


----------



## kmpowell

Ronin, just out of curiosity am I included in the group of people you are aiming this thread at, seeing as I made a contribution in that thread venting my opinion of the TTOC at this current time?


----------



## ronin

kmpowell said:


> Ronin, just out of curiosity am I included in the group of people you are aiming this thread at, seeing as I made a contribution in that thread venting my opinion of the TTOC at this current time?





ronin said:


> Frankly can't be arsed to research if any of the commenters have contributed in anyway to the TTOC but my money says they haven't.


As stated Kev


----------



## kmpowell

ronin said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin, just out of curiosity am I included in the group of people you are aiming this thread at, seeing as I made a contribution in that thread venting my opinion of the TTOC at this current time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly can't be arsed to research if any of the commenters have contributed in anyway to the TTOC but my money says they haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As stated Kev
Click to expand...

Well it's a shame you feel that way, but my comments and opinions are based on *FACT*. As I said in my post, I have been helping Jae for the past few weeks on this TT MK2 launch, so I have had first hand experience of what being going on (more than you may realise). Jae has been more diplomatic and restrained than me granted (maybe for his own personal reasons), but I stick by what I have said and my opinion of the TTOC at the present time has not changed.


----------



## ronin

kmpowell said:


> ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronin, just out of curiosity am I included in the group of people you are aiming this thread at, seeing as I made a contribution in that thread venting my opinion of the TTOC at this current time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ronin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly can't be arsed to research if any of the commenters have contributed in anyway to the TTOC but my money says they haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As stated Kev
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it's a shame you feel that way, but my comments and opinions are based on *FACT*. As I said in my post, I have been helping Jae for the past few weeks on this TT MK2 launch, so I have had first hand experience of what being going on (more than you may realise). Jae has been more diplomatic and restrained than me granted (maybe for his own personal reasons), but I stick by what I have said and my opinion of the TTOC at the present time has not changed.
Click to expand...

Deliberated over posing this or not, but by typing this you can tell which side of the argument won. Not all the posts were constructively put - some were childish and idiotic. Im not going to get in to naming names, or providing an exclusion list.
Merely expressing an opinion, some will agree, some won't.


----------



## W7 PMC

Just found out this thread was back  but where are the last few posts?? I'd just started reading Clive's 1st post on this thread, but now all his posts on here have vanished. Did it really get that bad?? This is the Flame Room after all.


----------



## TTotal

Paul this aint it, it was 17 pages long .


----------



## Jae

Ronin has a point, as I too am angered at some of the comments, which were unnecessary. Where a point has been raised, that is valid, they will be taken seriously.

I intitially pulled the thread as it was out of control and was not respecting what I had asked. Rather than hiding it from view, I decided to reinstate the thread, but locking it.

I would politely request that only constructive comments are made, should any other thread be started (a bit pointless in my view, and others, as the key issues have been raised already, and appropriate moves are being made).

I consider the events of the past few days a step towards a better TTF and TTOC, and I, and others, will support the TTOC going forward, to make both the TTF and the TTOC even better than today. Constructive comments lead to improvements, and change. Others end up in bitterness and a conterproductive outcome.

If you are a TTF member, it is not your place to criticise the TTOC, it is down to their membership alone. Comments and suggestions are, however, invited, as too are new members.

Ive spent a long time the last few days on this, Clived an age preparing a fair statement from the TTOC, Graham and Kell working crazy hours to get the magazine ready for print (no mean task having had my staff working on it before), not to mention the efforts on Thursday of the lucky few in Berlin. No matter what has been said about the trip, or the way in which is has been communicated, a hell of a lot of work has gone into the Launch, and it should be applauded. Im sure readers of Absolutte will have a cracking read.

Jae


----------



## W7 PMC

TTotal said:


> Paul this aint it, it was 17 pages long .


It was, but i've also only just found re-found the other thread, so my comments now are old news :lol: :lol:

This thread did have posts from Clived that have vanished, only a couple but the post count was around 10 when i started reading it, then it was locked, deleted, re-instated but the post count went down to 6(ish).

Never mind, this topic has now been over-covered. Not sure if anything has been resolved but i still stand by the hollier than thou approach & 100% agree with KMP on the TTOC would be nothing without the TTF point. The rest about who went & why is none of my business & i don't care. I do however feel that Jae should for many reasons have been invited & if not by Audi directly then the TTOC should have bent a rule or whatever as a sign of gratitude & support. Rules can always be broken & FFS he could have called himself Klaus for the evening if required :wink:


----------



## Kell

I'm not entirely sure where any committee member has stated that we are either bigger than the TTF or that we're not grateful to the support shown.

I'm also not sure where people get the idea there was anything more we could have done wrt to Jae going. He asked, and was declined, we asked and were also declined. To think that he could just slip in to an event like this easily - well you must have been watching too much Beverly Hills Cop. It's not as easy as that.

The four committee members were vetted and approved by Audi - they even asked their local dealers about their relationship before they would agree to let them go on the chartered plane that took them to the launch.

I was, of course, disappointed at not being able to go - but as has (I think) been stated elsewhere, originally we were only going to get tickets for the event and all transport and accommodation was going to be paid for by ourselves. Without wanting to construct a tale of hardship, unfortunately, I couldn't afford to go. So I removed my name from the list of possibles. I then had holiday booked that was subsequently cancelled, so I could go again, but felt it would be unfair on those that were prepared to spend their own money bringing this story back to our members to suddenly put myself back in the picture simply because it was now free.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have as it seems most people have problems with Rich going - I don't. We invited him to be Features Editor of the magazine and that was his original title before we discovered he had other skills we could utilise and offered him another position - which he holds alongside his mag role.

As for why Louise should go, I'm ashamed at some of you. You've been around this forum and met both Mark and Louise enough times to realise that far from being 'just' Mark's girlfriend, she is also jointly the longest serving committee member (with Mark and myself) and has held down TWO committee roles for the past nine months because no one else was willing to step up to the plate and take them on.

That aside, it's very important as a club to strenghten and develop our female membership and Louise can offer a perspective and insight that few of the other committee members can.

AND - you can't argue that Louise should be a committee member as she doesn't have a TT without further strengthening the argument against the reason that Jae can't be a committee member. The fact that Mark and Louise live together and share the TT is enough to qualify. If we're talking about names on 'pinks' then I shouldn't be a committee member eitehr as my car is registered to my wife. As are ScoTTy's cars, so maybe he shouldn't have held an honourary title either.

At no point have we withheld information back from the TTF - and in fact the official press release appeared on this site before I had access to it as Fourtitude obviously have better contacts than we do. The only thing I had in possession was the price and options list - but it was embargoed until the information was made public - again, it appeared on this site (courtesy of Karcsi) before I could post it (as I had no way of knowing when it would be public).

Lastly, the first time I got to see the pictures from the show was when Mark posted them on this site.

All in all, I do believe we were wrong to keep the information 'secret', but that wasn't done out of malice or forethought, we were too busy working towards our exclusive to actually give it any thought. In retrospect that was a bad decision, however, none of us has run a car club before and we're still learning.

All that's come of this is that Graham has resigned as designer and we will need to find someone else willing to devote the time he did to the magzine for free - or once again, we'll have to pay for it to be done.

I believe the rate when we did it for the first four issues was Â£12,000 for design and printing. So that's a fair chunk of money that this year has been used to arrange things like the track days that TIM, Carlos, Kev et al enjoyed. Not only was it arranged through hard work, it was also subsidised by the club. Not just stuffing envelopes eh Carl?

I would just like to say though that out of all the non TTOC people, Jae has been by far the most diplomatic. If that means he's holding back as Kev suggests, then so be it, I'm not party to that information so unlike most of the detractors in the original thread, I won't comment on something I know nothing about.

At first I was incredibly angry at the reaction, now I just feel disappointed and ashamed that I thought many of you were OK. Guess it just goes to show you that too many people hide their true colours behind their computer screens. I did think of handing in my resignation too, but then thought 'no, I enjoy doing what I do, and I still want to help the club out'.

So you're stuck with me for the time being.


----------



## jampott

So, Ronin, am I included on your list?

I'm not alone in believing that, despite the hard work of the "few", the TTOC isn't always properly run, for the benefit of its members. Dedication, time and "effort" don't always guarantee professionalism.

Its an opinion - nothing more - but an opinion that I've nowhere else to voice, seeing as the AGM is generally held on a date I can't attend.

At its inception, I held a Rep position, and wanted to be able to help more - but wasn't in a position to do so, as I was living in Cardiff, unable to attend meetings etc, and was travelling hundreds of miles per week. I'm fully aware that people DO put a lot of effort in, and that the club doesn't run itself.

I recently took up a pro-TTOC committee stance on a completely different subject, and have taken an anti-TTF stance at other times - my viewpoint changes according to the facts, not any other reason, so for that alone I'd consider my opinion to be largely without any bias.

As has been pointed out, the TTOC should take note that some of their members wish to see things done differently. That isn't a personal attack or an abusive comment, merely a suggestion. I personally don't think they've handled this very well at all. Firstly, no word that they were going to the event, secondly a desire to retain information for their own printed magazine, rather than share it with the TTF immediately. Thirdly, some of the comments after the event have been just as personal (and more so) than comments from the members or other interested parties. Fourthly? Well, nothing that needs airing here, because I'm trying to keep this well above the line.

Before all the cries of "well, could you do any better?" start (like they have to another forum member) I don't think that would help. Even if I had the desire AND the time, I no longer own a TT (therefore am not supposed to be able to accept a position on the committee) and I doubt very much that many of the current committee would wish to see me in such a position. All things considered. I don't blame them.

I will continue to "support" the club via my membership, in the hope things can move on from here, and the club can go forward.

I will, however, continue to voice my opinion whenever and however I feel it necessary to do so. This is my right as a member of this forum, irrespective of my TTOC membership status.

I'm a big believer, however, in the fact that if you wish to run a club for the benefit of its members, you need to understand what those members actually want the club to do. Having gotten the TTOC "off the ground" by leading it away from the mire which Russell left, perhaps it is now time to garner the opinion of thoes who pay their subs (or are considering paying their subs) and actually find out what they want their club to do for them.

That's fair comment, isn't it?

A word to Graham if he's reading this thread - I've nothing but admiration for the time you spend working on AbsoluTTe. Its a great publication, but ultimately was always going to be a difficult media in which to try and offer your members what they really wanted. In hindsight, time spent on a web launch instead of a paper document (which needs printing, mailing out etc) might have enabled you to get your "scoop", and saved much aggro. "We" (some of us) wanted information as quickly as possible, not "next week", regardless of how pretty the magazine will look when it hits our doormat. You only have to look at the thread where people were awaiting the launch, listening to the speeches, to understand that time was of the essence...


----------



## Kell

Oh - and PS - the view above is entirely my own and is NOT intended to be a committee standpoint. Just in case any confusion arises.


----------



## saint

On the above point - I always wondered as to why AbsoluTTe was not published simultaneously in PDF format.


----------



## Kell

saint said:


> On the above point - I always wondered as to why AbsoluTTe was not published simultaneously in PDF format.


Because the current issue is only available to members. If we published a PDF (which we could do easily as that's how it goes to print) then it could go to anyone.

It's the same logic as why we toyed with the idea of leaving free copies in dealerships, but were shot down (fairly in my opininion) on that. It's a member benefit which they pay for as part of thier subscription, as such we don't provide it free to anyone else.

Even old copies on the website are cut down PDFs so they provide a 'flavour' of the magazine rather than allow someone to read it all.


----------



## vlastan

Kell said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the above point - I always wondered as to why AbsoluTTe was not published simultaneously in PDF format.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the current issue is only available to members. If we published a PDF (which we could do easily as that's how it goes to print) then it could go to anyone.
> 
> It's the same logic as why we toyed with the idea of leaving free copies in dealerships, but were shot down (fairly in my opininion) on that. It's a member benefit which they pay for as part of thier subscription, as such we don't provide it free to anyone else.
> 
> Even old copies on the website are cut down PDFs so they provide a 'flavour' of the magazine rather than allow someone to read it all.
Click to expand...

Have you thought of producing a "teaser" of the magazine for marketing purposes? Then you can distribute to the dealer network and hopefully attract more members that way.


----------



## jampott

> As for why Louise should go, I'm ashamed at some of you. You've been around this forum and met both Mark and Louise enough times to realise that far from being 'just' Mark's girlfriend, she is also jointly the longest serving committee member (with Mark and myself) and has held down TWO committee roles for the past nine months because no one else was willing to step up to the plate and take them on.
> 
> That aside, it's very important as a club to strenghten and develop our female membership and Louise can offer a perspective and insight that few of the other committee members can.
> 
> AND - you can't argue that Louise should be a committee member as she doesn't have a TT without further strengthening the argument against the reason that Jae can't be a committee member. The fact that Mark and Louise live together and share the TT is enough to qualify. If we're talking about names on 'pinks' then I shouldn't be a committee member eitehr as my car is registered to my wife. As are ScoTTy's cars, so maybe he shouldn't have held an honourary title either.


Kell, I'm aware the above was a point that I raised.

The TTOC needs to clarify its position regarding the requirements to be a committee member, and to uphold them where necessary. If there is no requirement to own a TT, it should be made clear. The lack of definition is the root of the problem, not Lou herself (as well she knows). The club has RULES, however, and these should apply equally. I sound like a stuck record here. The rules of the forum should also apply equally, else not apply at all. If Lou doesn't qualify to be a committee member, you should vote at the AGM to change the rules concerning the matter - as doubtless she would be missed greatly if she wasn't doing what she does - but that doesn't detract from the fact (if it is, indeed, a fact) that ownership of a TT is a mainstay of committee membership. You cannot, however, have RULES which are deliberately broken on a whim, and not expect your members to pass comment. As I've said, it wasn't a comment on Lou herself, simply on the fact that (when it suits) the committee are prepared to bend the rules to suit them.



> All that's come of this is that Graham has resigned as designer and we will need to find someone else willing to devote the time he did to the magzine for free - or once again, we'll have to pay for it to be done.
> 
> I believe the rate when we did it for the first four issues was Â£12,000 for design and printing. So that's a fair chunk of money that this year has been used to arrange things like the track days that TIM, Carlos, Kev et al enjoyed. Not only was it arranged through hard work, it was also subsidised by the club. Not just stuffing envelopes eh Carl?


Another one directed at me. I'm deeply sorry that Graham has resigned - however, as my post above suggests, trying to retain the information for the TTOC magazine, when people wanted it IMMEDIATELY was possibly counterproductive. A lot of hard work has gone into producing something which, by the time it hits our mats, is going to be quite old news. You have to ask, is this what the members of the TTOC actually wanted you to do? Or was it what you thought we wanted? I can't speak for the other members (or AbsoluTTe readers) but am happy to put forward my opinion on the matter. I'm sorry its been wasted effort, but that's the danger of publishing brand new material using old media. I don't wish to appear thankless, but surely you kinda understand the point I'm making?

It is your right to appear disappointed at the reaction that some members have shown. Perhaps the committee needs a better understanding of what its members want. Far from being "stuck with you", its good that you're staying.

One thing, though - don't ever accuse me of hiding my true colours behind the computer screen. You know that's not the case.


----------



## W7 PMC

Having now taken on board some of the facts it does appear that efforts were made to get Jae down as an attendee but for many fair reasons this was not possible, so i retract my dis-pleasure as it appears their was no way the TTOC could have got Jae to attend (even if he called himslef Klaus).

Still think the TTOC should show it's gratitude to the TTF far more as without their really would be no TTOC & i sometimes wonder (personal opinion) if it's run correctly & fairly, but as an on-looker i can only assume & oppinionate.

The only valid point then relates to communication & i think all agree that the TTOC smoke & mirrors was far from appropriate but i see this as a lesson that HAS been learnt.

TTFN :wink:


----------



## clived

jampott said:


> I personally don't think they've handled this very well at all. Firstly, no word that they were going to the event, secondly a desire to retain information for their own printed magazine, rather than share it with the TTF immediately.


Hi Tim,

I think your post is entirely reasonable ;-) Not wholy correct, but very reasonable.

Just a couple of words on the above points. I know you've read the TTOC statement, so you'll have seen that we acknowledge why people were not happy with the awareness around TTOC's attendence at the event and that we'd not want to let this slip out of focus as it did this time in a similar situation in the future. However, I have to disagree on your second point for two reasons. Firstly, as I have pointed out previously, the very first place that we released anything from the event was here on TT-F, which we took time out to do in the middle of preparing material for absoluTTe. Secondly, as Kell alludes to, by no means all TTOC members are active on TT-F (or indeed the internet at all!) and the club obviously has a responsibility to deliver content to its members. I think by publishing a selection of shots of TT-F at the first possible opportunity AND keeping other shots / content for the magazine, a very reasonable balance was found.

Cheers, Clive


----------



## Kell

jampott said:


> As for why Louise should go, I'm ashamed at some of you. You've been around this forum and met both Mark and Louise enough times to realise that far from being 'just' Mark's girlfriend, she is also jointly the longest serving committee member (with Mark and myself) and has held down TWO committee roles for the past nine months because no one else was willing to step up to the plate and take them on.
> 
> That aside, it's very important as a club to strenghten and develop our female membership and Louise can offer a perspective and insight that few of the other committee members can.
> 
> AND - you can't argue that Louise should be a committee member as she doesn't have a TT without further strengthening the argument against the reason that Jae can't be a committee member. The fact that Mark and Louise live together and share the TT is enough to qualify. If we're talking about names on 'pinks' then I shouldn't be a committee member eitehr as my car is registered to my wife. As are ScoTTy's cars, so maybe he shouldn't have held an honourary title either.
> 
> 
> 
> Kell, I'm aware the above was a point that I raised.
> 
> The TTOC needs to clarify its position regarding the requirements to be a committee member, and to uphold them where necessary. If there is no requirement to own a TT, it should be made clear. The lack of definition is the root of the problem, not Lou herself (as well she knows). The club has RULES, however, and these should apply equally. I sound like a stuck record here. The rules of the forum should also apply equally, else not apply at all. If Lou doesn't qualify to be a committee member, you should vote at the AGM to change the rules concerning the matter - as doubtless she would be missed greatly if she wasn't doing what she does - but that doesn't detract from the fact (if it is, indeed, a fact) that ownership of a TT is a mainstay of committee membership. You cannot, however, have RULES which are deliberately broken on a whim, and not expect your members to pass comment. As I've said, it wasn't a comment on Lou herself, simply on the fact that (when it suits) the committee are prepared to bend the rules to suit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that's come of this is that Graham has resigned as designer and we will need to find someone else willing to devote the time he did to the magzine for free - or once again, we'll have to pay for it to be done.
> 
> I believe the rate when we did it for the first four issues was Â£12,000 for design and printing. So that's a fair chunk of money that this year has been used to arrange things like the track days that TIM, Carlos, Kev et al enjoyed. Not only was it arranged through hard work, it was also subsidised by the club. Not just stuffing envelopes eh Carl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one directed at me. I'm deeply sorry that Graham has resigned - however, as my post above suggests, trying to retain the information for the TTOC magazine, when people wanted it IMMEDIATELY was possibly counterproductive. A lot of hard work has gone into producing something which, by the time it hits our mats, is going to be quite old news. You have to ask, is this what the members of the TTOC actually wanted you to do? Or was it what you thought we wanted? I can't speak for the other members (or AbsoluTTe readers) but am happy to put forward my opinion on the matter. I'm sorry its been wasted effort, but that's the danger of publishing brand new material using old media. I don't wish to appear thankless, but surely you kinda understand the point I'm making?
> 
> It is your right to appear disappointed at the reaction that some members have shown. Perhaps the committee needs a better understanding of what its members want. Far from being "stuck with you", its good that you're staying.
> 
> One thing, though - don't ever accuse me of hiding my true colours behind the computer screen. You know that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Tim - didn't meant to single your name out in caps in the list above - that was just a typo. However, you do make some very good points - and normally do in many of your posts - which is why the sarcastic jibes at Louise hurt even more as they were not well thought out or considered. And this is me talking - Christ knows how she must have felt when reading that.

As for the new/media vs old media, of course you're right and eight days after the event is going to be old news for many of the TTF frequenting members, but then as is pointed out on many occasions, the way that we commucincate with TTOC members is primarily through our magazine. As our website hasn't been updated for some time (you'll see why shortly), the next best thing was to post pictures on here as soon as they were available - which Mark did at 3.30 am on Friday.

Other information we had - spec etc - was emabrgoed as I mentioned and then appeared here before I knew it was public and therefore could relaese it.

In terms of sharing inforamtion with our internet members (and TTF members) I believe there was not a lot more we could have done. As you correctly stated our Web Admin guy was at the launch making it impossible to update the site - something which we had hoped to be able to do as soon as he got back.

I'm not saying that the TTOC is without fault - and there are probably many things that need revising - but then it's always easy to see that with the benefit of hindsight. And unfortunately a lot of these things are only noticed when they become a problem (or when they highlight a problem).


----------



## Kell

vlastan said:


> Have you thought of producing a "teaser" of the magazine for marketing purposes? Then you can distribute to the dealer network and hopefully attract more members that way.


Yes we have - but time abd resource are against us. :?

As you may have read, Marketing Secretary is still a vacant position and we need someone to come in and own it.

It's probably one of the hardest jobs on the committee as the results are tangible in a way that some of the other stuff isn't. Only Rob's job is harder.


----------



## W7 PMC

jampott said:


> As for why Louise should go, I'm ashamed at some of you. You've been around this forum and met both Mark and Louise enough times to realise that far from being 'just' Mark's girlfriend, she is also jointly the longest serving committee member (with Mark and myself) and has held down TWO committee roles for the past nine months because no one else was willing to step up to the plate and take them on.
> 
> That aside, it's very important as a club to strenghten and develop our female membership and Louise can offer a perspective and insight that few of the other committee members can.
> 
> AND - you can't argue that Louise should be a committee member as she doesn't have a TT without further strengthening the argument against the reason that Jae can't be a committee member. The fact that Mark and Louise live together and share the TT is enough to qualify. If we're talking about names on 'pinks' then I shouldn't be a committee member eitehr as my car is registered to my wife. As are ScoTTy's cars, so maybe he shouldn't have held an honourary title either.
> 
> 
> 
> Kell, I'm aware the above was a point that I raised.
> 
> The TTOC needs to clarify its position regarding the requirements to be a committee member, and to uphold them where necessary. If there is no requirement to own a TT, it should be made clear. The lack of definition is the root of the problem, not Lou herself (as well she knows). The club has RULES, however, and these should apply equally. I sound like a stuck record here. The rules of the forum should also apply equally, else not apply at all. If Lou doesn't qualify to be a committee member, you should vote at the AGM to change the rules concerning the matter - as doubtless she would be missed greatly if she wasn't doing what she does - but that doesn't detract from the fact (if it is, indeed, a fact) that ownership of a TT is a mainstay of committee membership. You cannot, however, have RULES which are deliberately broken on a whim, and not expect your members to pass comment. As I've said, it wasn't a comment on Lou herself, simply on the fact that (when it suits) the committee are prepared to bend the rules to suit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that's come of this is that Graham has resigned as designer and we will need to find someone else willing to devote the time he did to the magzine for free - or once again, we'll have to pay for it to be done.
> 
> I believe the rate when we did it for the first four issues was Â£12,000 for design and printing. So that's a fair chunk of money that this year has been used to arrange things like the track days that TIM, Carlos, Kev et al enjoyed. Not only was it arranged through hard work, it was also subsidised by the club. Not just stuffing envelopes eh Carl?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one directed at me. I'm deeply sorry that Graham has resigned - however, as my post above suggests, trying to retain the information for the TTOC magazine, when people wanted it IMMEDIATELY was possibly counterproductive. A lot of hard work has gone into producing something which, by the time it hits our mats, is going to be quite old news. You have to ask, is this what the members of the TTOC actually wanted you to do? Or was it what you thought we wanted? I can't speak for the other members (or AbsoluTTe readers) but am happy to put forward my opinion on the matter. I'm sorry its been wasted effort, but that's the danger of publishing brand new material using old media. I don't wish to appear thankless, but surely you kinda understand the point I'm making?
> 
> It is your right to appear disappointed at the reaction that some members have shown. Perhaps the committee needs a better understanding of what its members want. Far from being "stuck with you", its good that you're staying.
> 
> One thing, though - don't ever accuse me of hiding my true colours behind the computer screen. You know that's not the case.
Click to expand...

It would have to be a fcukin big computer screen. Do Samsung do 58" TFT computer screens???

Sorry Tim, just could not resist. :wink:


----------



## jonah

W7 PMC said:


> Still think the TTOC should show it's gratitude to the TTF far more as without their really would be no TTOC & i sometimes wonder (personal opinion) if it's run correctly & fairly, but as an on-looker i can only assume & oppinionate.
> 
> TTFN :wink:


So showing respect could be classed as inviting members of the TTF to say a TTOC track day? so lets not say the TTOC does sod all for the TTF and it's members.
Also Absolute allways carries the link to this site and we must accept they are two seperate items running side by side.

A few Car forums have split for less than this in the past which has resulted in friction which still goes on to this day, I would hate for anything like that to happen here.


----------



## jampott

> Tim - didn't meant to single your name out in caps in the list above - that was just a typo.


That's OK. I didn't feel it worth pointing out that, if non-TT Owners such as myself hadn't deigned to attend, your TT Owners wouldn't have had a trackday at all. That would have been petty. Call it a mutually beneficial trackday, eh? :wink:

As for the "jibes" at Lou - there is some truth in what I was saying. I've expanded the point in my later post - but you have to see that, if things aren't done properly, they WILL be questioned. Grant your membership base with a LITTLE sense. In the spirit of that entire thread "who went and why, and why didn't the TTOC members know anything about it" I felt it justified to raise those points. Granted both Mark and Lou put a lot of time in for the club, and I'm sure you're all very capable of working out between yourselves "who gets to go"... but for 1/2 of the ticket allocation to go to the same "family" - that is open to comment, just like anything else. You could call it a "cheap shot", of course, and I'm sure (when told there were 4 tickets available) Mark didn't just say "Well, that's me and Lou going, who shall the other 2 be?" - but if you don't understand that it *could* raise eyebrows, you're a little naive, and are probably thinking more like a committee member and less like a TTOC / TTF member... :wink:



> I'm not saying that the TTOC is without fault - and there are probably many things that need revising - but then it's always easy to see that with the benefit of hindsight. And unfortunately a lot of these things are only noticed when they become a problem (or when they highlight a problem).


Very true. But how will you know there is a problem unless people speak out and let you know?

You can remain upset and disappointed in the reaction if you like, or you can use the benefit of hindsight and look forwards.

The club's biggest failing is that they don't communicate with their members. They communicate TO them, sure... AbsoluTTe takes care of that - but there is very little interaction between the TTOC committee and its members regarding what the members actually want from the club. As much as I've benefitted from the Track Days, it seems pretty clear that it isn't that, for instance...


----------



## Wak

jampott said:


> but for 1/2 of the ticket allocation to go to the same "family" - that is open to comment, just like anything else. .


I'm concerned at why this is such a sticking point being brought up... from my more distant perspective both members of that family put a shed load of time and effort into the club.

We have been to the same events and there's no doubt in my mind the same two people are committed to everyone elses benefit (along with their helpers)

I'm happy they went and got something back from the efforts/time they have given up for the owners that enjoy the club and annual events, even if it probably was hard work as well.

please stop bring this up Tim... this should not be focal in this argument...! :?


----------



## jampott

Wak said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> but for 1/2 of the ticket allocation to go to the same "family" - that is open to comment, just like anything else. .
> 
> 
> 
> I'm concerned at why this is such a sticking point being brought up... from my more distant perspective both members of that family put a shed load of time and effort into the club.
> 
> We have been to the same events and there's no doubt in my mind the same two people are committed to everyone elses benefit (along with their helpers)
> 
> I'm happy they went and got something back from the efforts/time they have given up for the owners that enjoy the club and annual events, even if it probably was hard work as well.
> 
> please stop bring this up Tim... this should not be focal in this argument...! :?
Click to expand...

It isn't the focal point of ANY argument. Are you selectively reading only parts of my posts?

Yes, we have been to the same events. I continue to support the TTOC by paying my membership AND attending their events, despite it being well over 2 years since I sold my TT. Whilst I'm not alone in doing so, it does at least try to highlight that I'm not just saying these things from behind a computer - and that I'm not just someone who has mud to sling and doesn't support the TTOC (or, indeed, the TTF) by actually getting "involved".

I'm a concerned member, that's all. If there was more transparency, questions like this would never be raised. :?


----------



## Carlos

I don't understand why LoveiTT has felt the need to resign when as far as I can see, there was zero criticism of him.


----------



## ronin

jampott said:


> So, Ronin, am I included on your list?


 See my reply to KMP


----------



## jampott

ronin said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Ronin, am I included on your list?
> 
> 
> 
> See my reply to KMP
Click to expand...

So you won't name names then...  :roll:


----------



## Carlos

And looking back through the original Mk II thread I can see that some of my comments are unfair. At the time they were meant to be tongue in cheek and to point out the apparent lack of care/communication at the top (cf Orwellian reference). With the benefit of hindsight I might have expressed myself differently.


----------



## clived

Carlos said:


> I don't understand why LoveiTT has felt the need to resign when as far as I can see, there was zero criticism of him.


He's a TTOC committee member. All we do is stuff envelopes. Sounds like criticism to me ;-)


----------



## Wak

jampott said:


> It isn't the focal point of ANY argument. Are you selectively reading only parts of my posts?


my apologies Tim, Focal is the wrong term.... I didnt mean that point was focal to the argument ...

I am reading all views objectively , I guess my issue with mentioning that particular point was with foundation of the need to own a tt arguments as well.

They both put in a huge amount of effort and I dont think anyone should be raising issue with them both attending in light of their efforts together.

As for the other arguments there are some on both sides and objectively viewed there is something to be learnt by all.

The position they have available was one I had and I couldnt find time to do it with all my other activities and I know how hard it is to give up your time to a club so TTOC get my admiration for their efforts.

I understand how they must feel with some of the less sensitive comments that have been thrown around the last few days but they are also grown ups and hopefully understanding of range of people out in forum land and can rise above and look over those comments.

If there are some lessons learnt from this I'm sure they will benefit and grow in strength but losing Graham is a sad loss and I hope he'll reconsider and let this all blow over.


----------



## Carlos

clived said:


> He's a TTOC committee member. All we do is stuff envelopes. Sounds like criticism to me ;-)


Oh I'm sure he's able to spot-a-tongue in cheek comment for what it is.

Better get off this forum or the next pamphlet will be late :wink:


----------



## jampott

Wak said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't the focal point of ANY argument. Are you selectively reading only parts of my posts?
> 
> 
> 
> my apologies Tim, Focal is the wrong term.... I didnt mean that point was focal to the argument ...
> 
> I am reading all views objectively , I guess my issue with mentioning that particular point was with foundation of the need to own a tt arguments as well.
> 
> They both put in a huge amount of effort and I dont think anyone should be raising issue with them both attending in light of their efforts together.
> 
> As for the other arguments there are some on both sides and objectively viewed there is something to be learnt by all.
> 
> The position they have available was one I had and I couldnt find time to do it with all my other activities and I know how hard it is to give up your time to a club so TTOC get my admiration for their efforts.
> 
> I understand how they must feel with some of the less sensitive comments that have been thrown around the last few days but they are also grown ups and hopefully understanding of range of people out in forum land and can rise above and look over those comments.
> 
> If there are some lessons learnt from this I'm sure they will benefit and grow in strength but losing Graham is a sad loss and I hope he'll reconsider and let this all blow over.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I too, regret the loss of Graham. I trust he will reconsider, as his involvement was key to producing a good magazine - something the TTOC is obviously keen to promote as its means of communication with its members.

I don't believe any of my comments were insensitive. Sometimes things need to be said. The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...


----------



## jonah

jampott said:


> I don't believe any of my comments were insensitive. Sometimes things need to be said. The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...


Why not write a letter to the editor Absolutte and that will get published too so ALL TTOC members would see it not just the TTF and online members of the TTOC :?

Then again knowing your posts it would add another 2 pages to Absolutte and add to costs :wink:


----------



## genocidalduck

I have since posted an apology about some of my remarks. I have never once said that the TTOC Committee dont work hard for the club. Infact i think they do an amazing job. But i still feel the club needs to be more transparent. It may have been a simple oversight made by the Committee not to post in the OC forum that they had been invited to the launch. the TTOC and its members this was probably the biggest event in TT history. Even more important that the original launch of the MKI. That alone should have made the Committee realise that members would want to know. I still don't see why a "TTOC invited to launch" thread was never posted. Explaining why they was invited and for what reasons. Plus asking members to compile a list of anything in particular they wanted to know. I don't know if it is just me but i personally think that is a no brainer. This is to me where the TTOC have missed a trick.

Also after reading the official TTOC response. It mentioned that the Committee members finance TTOC work out of their own pocket. I think that should be looked at. If for instance a Committee member has to drive halfway across country for a meeting to do with, lets say the annual event. That person should be able to receive expenses. I dont understand why committee members should pay out of their own pocket something that involves organising something like the national event.


----------



## clived

jampott said:


> The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...


The TTOC forum on TT-F?

IM or email to any committee member?

An in person discussion?

Or are you suggesting that you think the right thing for the TTOC to do is break it's association with ******** and have it's own forum, in order for the TTOC to be specifically providing such a mechanism on it's own? Of course, all this assumes that all our membership live on the web, which is not the case.... and also relevent to my response to one of your points earlier in the thread which I think you may have missed as you seem to have responded to everyone else and not me  :wink:



clived said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't think they've handled this very well at all. Firstly, no word that they were going to the event, secondly a desire to retain information for their own printed magazine, rather than share it with the TTF immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I think your post is entirely reasonable ;-) Not wholy correct, but very reasonable.
> 
> Just a couple of words on the above points. I know you've read the TTOC statement, so you'll have seen that we acknowledge why people were not happy with the awareness around TTOC's attendence at the event and that we'd not want to let this slip out of focus as it did this time in a similar situation in the future. However, I have to disagree on your second point for two reasons. Firstly, as I have pointed out previously, the very first place that we released anything from the event was here on TT-F, which we took time out to do in the middle of preparing material for absoluTTe. Secondly, as Kell alludes to, by no means all TTOC members are active on TT-F (or indeed the internet at all!) and the club obviously has a responsibility to deliver content to its members. I think by publishing a selection of shots of TT-F at the first possible opportunity AND keeping other shots / content for the magazine, a very reasonable balance was found.
> 
> Cheers, Clive
Click to expand...


----------



## jampott

jonah said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe any of my comments were insensitive. Sometimes things need to be said. The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not write a letter to the editor Absolutte and that will get published too so ALL TTOC members would see it not just the TTF and online members of the TTOC :?
> 
> Then again knowing your posts it would add another 2 pages to Absolutte and add to costs :wink:
Click to expand...

Ha Ha. A letter. Which they can edit or decide not to run altogether. You really think that's a valid way to get views aired? I think not... :?

I'm sorry if my lengthy posts bore you. You can always skim read them or ignore them altogether, like many people do. :wink:


----------



## jampott

clived said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...
> 
> 
> 
> The TTOC forum on TT-F?
> 
> IM or email to any committee member?
> 
> An in person discussion?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that you think the right thing for the TTOC to do is break it's association with ******** and have it's own forum, in order for the TTOC to be specifically providing such a mechanism on it's own? Of course, all this assumes that all our membership live on the web, which is not the case.... and also relevent to my response to one of your points earlier in the thread which I think you may have missed as you seem to have responded to everyone else and not me  :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> clived said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't think they've handled this very well at all. Firstly, no word that they were going to the event, secondly a desire to retain information for their own printed magazine, rather than share it with the TTF immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I think your post is entirely reasonable ;-) Not wholy correct, but very reasonable.
> 
> Just a couple of words on the above points. I know you've read the TTOC statement, so you'll have seen that we acknowledge why people were not happy with the awareness around TTOC's attendence at the event and that we'd not want to let this slip out of focus as it did this time in a similar situation in the future. However, I have to disagree on your second point for two reasons. Firstly, as I have pointed out previously, the very first place that we released anything from the event was here on TT-F, which we took time out to do in the middle of preparing material for absoluTTe. Secondly, as Kell alludes to, by no means all TTOC members are active on TT-F (or indeed the internet at all!) and the club obviously has a responsibility to deliver content to its members. I think by publishing a selection of shots of TT-F at the first possible opportunity AND keeping other shots / content for the magazine, a very reasonable balance was found.
> 
> Cheers, Clive
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, the TTOC-Forum on the TTF was a public forum... :roll: hence me saying "so a public forum it must be.."

I doubt "the committee" would actually take the trouble to answer an IM or an email with the same effort as they'd defend themselves on a public forum. I might be wrong, of course, but that's the perception anyway. I also take the fact that nobody has subsequently contacted me privately to discuss my views as further belief that the TTOC committee wishes to discuss this in public.

Still, everyone who spoke out the other day appears to have retracted their comments, so it looks like the TTOC doesn't have a problem to deal with anymore. Everything must be OK and rosy again.


----------



## genocidalduck

jampott said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...
> 
> 
> 
> The TTOC forum on TT-F?
> 
> IM or email to any committee member?
> 
> An in person discussion?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that you think the right thing for the TTOC to do is break it's association with ******** and have it's own forum, in order for the TTOC to be specifically providing such a mechanism on it's own? Of course, all this assumes that all our membership live on the web, which is not the case.... and also relevent to my response to one of your points earlier in the thread which I think you may have missed as you seem to have responded to everyone else and not me  :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> clived said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't think they've handled this very well at all. Firstly, no word that they were going to the event, secondly a desire to retain information for their own printed magazine, rather than share it with the TTF immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I think your post is entirely reasonable ;-) Not wholy correct, but very reasonable.
> 
> Just a couple of words on the above points. I know you've read the TTOC statement, so you'll have seen that we acknowledge why people were not happy with the awareness around TTOC's attendence at the event and that we'd not want to let this slip out of focus as it did this time in a similar situation in the future. However, I have to disagree on your second point for two reasons. Firstly, as I have pointed out previously, the very first place that we released anything from the event was here on TT-F, which we took time out to do in the middle of preparing material for absoluTTe. Secondly, as Kell alludes to, by no means all TTOC members are active on TT-F (or indeed the internet at all!) and the club obviously has a responsibility to deliver content to its members. I think by publishing a selection of shots of TT-F at the first possible opportunity AND keeping other shots / content for the magazine, a very reasonable balance was found.
> 
> Cheers, Clive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I checked, the TTOC-Forum on the TTF was a public forum... :roll: hence me saying "so a public forum it must be.."
> 
> I doubt "the committee" would actually take the trouble to answer an IM or an email with the same effort as they'd defend themselves on a public forum. I might be wrong, of course, but that's the perception anyway. I also take the fact that nobody has subsequently contacted me privately to discuss my views as further belief that the TTOC committee wishes to discuss this in public.
> 
> Still, everyone who spoke out the other day appears to have retracted their comments, so it looks like the TTOC doesn't have a problem to deal with anymore. Everything must be OK and rosy again.
Click to expand...

Everyone?


----------



## jampott

genocidalduck said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clived said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TTOC doesn't seem to provide a mechanism for members to express their views, so a public forum it must be...
> 
> 
> 
> The TTOC forum on TT-F?
> 
> IM or email to any committee member?
> 
> An in person discussion?
> 
> Or are you suggesting that you think the right thing for the TTOC to do is break it's association with ******** and have it's own forum, in order for the TTOC to be specifically providing such a mechanism on it's own? Of course, all this assumes that all our membership live on the web, which is not the case.... and also relevent to my response to one of your points earlier in the thread which I think you may have missed as you seem to have responded to everyone else and not me  :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> clived said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally don't think they've handled this very well at all. Firstly, no word that they were going to the event, secondly a desire to retain information for their own printed magazine, rather than share it with the TTF immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I think your post is entirely reasonable ;-) Not wholy correct, but very reasonable.
> 
> Just a couple of words on the above points. I know you've read the TTOC statement, so you'll have seen that we acknowledge why people were not happy with the awareness around TTOC's attendence at the event and that we'd not want to let this slip out of focus as it did this time in a similar situation in the future. However, I have to disagree on your second point for two reasons. Firstly, as I have pointed out previously, the very first place that we released anything from the event was here on TT-F, which we took time out to do in the middle of preparing material for absoluTTe. Secondly, as Kell alludes to, by no means all TTOC members are active on TT-F (or indeed the internet at all!) and the club obviously has a responsibility to deliver content to its members. I think by publishing a selection of shots of TT-F at the first possible opportunity AND keeping other shots / content for the magazine, a very reasonable balance was found.
> 
> Cheers, Clive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last time I checked, the TTOC-Forum on the TTF was a public forum... :roll: hence me saying "so a public forum it must be.."
> 
> I doubt "the committee" would actually take the trouble to answer an IM or an email with the same effort as they'd defend themselves on a public forum. I might be wrong, of course, but that's the perception anyway. I also take the fact that nobody has subsequently contacted me privately to discuss my views as further belief that the TTOC committee wishes to discuss this in public.
> 
> Still, everyone who spoke out the other day appears to have retracted their comments, so it looks like the TTOC doesn't have a problem to deal with anymore. Everything must be OK and rosy again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone?
Click to expand...

Seems so. Well, apart from me, obviously... :?


----------



## genocidalduck

Ive apologised for going OTT on some of my posts. Mainly regarding Leg. However i still stand by just about everything i said.

As someone knows i still feel abit bitter about something that happened previously. However that isnt to be posted on the forum.


----------



## vlastan

> I'm sorry if my lengthy posts bore you.


King of waffle!

I really can't believe that you find the patience to write so much in here. I can't read all of them.

If you have so much time to provide constructive feedback to the club, why don't you become a member of it, so you can influence their decisions/direction?


----------



## W7 PMC

jonah said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still think the TTOC should show it's gratitude to the TTF far more as without their really would be no TTOC & i sometimes wonder (personal opinion) if it's run correctly & fairly, but as an on-looker i can only assume & oppinionate.
> 
> TTFN :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> So showing respect could be classed as inviting members of the TTF to say a TTOC track day? so lets not say the TTOC does sod all for the TTF and it's members.
> Also Absolute allways carries the link to this site and we must accept they are two seperate items running side by side.
> 
> A few Car forums have split for less than this in the past which has resulted in friction which still goes on to this day, I would hate for anything like that to happen here.
Click to expand...

Oh pleeeease. Lets be a little sensible, the invites for TTF members are hardly done as a big favour or show of gratitude to the TTF, although i'm sure it's appreciated (i enjoyed the one i attended), but given the membership levels you'd not fill these track days without the TTF & you've come close to having to cancel even with the TTF members invited, plus you levy the non-TTOC attendees anyhow (don't disagree with you doing that).

Ps. I never said the TTOC did sod all for/with the TTF (at least i don't think i said that), however the gratitude could perhaps be a little more obvious & retorting to silly comments about events you need the TTF for does not help this arguement.


----------



## jampott

vlastan said:


> I'm sorry if my lengthy posts bore you.
> 
> 
> 
> King of waffle!
> 
> I really can't believe that you find the patience to write so much in here. I can't read all of them.
> 
> If you have so much time to provide constructive feedback to the club, why don't you become a member of it, so you can influence their decisions/direction?
Click to expand...

Have you missed a few posts? I can't become a "member" of it - at least not at committee level - because I don't own a TT. :evil: :wink:


----------



## vlastan

Rules are meant to be broken.

Hey guys...get Tim in please! He will promise to buy another TT in the future. :wink:


----------



## vlastan

I wouldn't mind sharing my TT with you Tim if it gets you in. :wink:


----------



## jampott

vlastan said:


> I wouldn't mind sharing my TT with you Tim if it gets you in. :wink:


I think there's a LITTLE more to it than that...


----------



## vlastan

jampott said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind sharing my TT with you Tim if it gets you in. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's a LITTLE more to it than that...
Click to expand...

 [smiley=stop.gif] Pervert!


----------



## Wak

jampott said:


> Have you missed a few posts? I can't become a "member" of it - at least not at committee level - because I don't own a TT. :evil: :wink:


I dont believe that should be a requirement, enthusiasm, objectivity are needed.

If you can provide input that helps the club grow then you car shouldnt matter, after all you spend most of your time here because of the nature of forum and type of people you meet so there is evidence of your input here is strong.....(and lengthy according to V) :roll:


----------



## genocidalduck

Wak said:


> .....(and lengthy according to V) :roll:


 :? [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## vlastan

genocidalduck said:


> Wak said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....(and lengthy according to V) :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> :? [smiley=sick2.gif]
Click to expand...

 :?: Lengthy? Not following you chaps.


----------



## Carlos

It's not my intention to retract the gist of my comments, merely to admit that the language I used was unfair. By this I mean that I know that the job involves a hell of a lot of effort and to describe this as "envelope stuffing" denigrates the hard work that the committee puts in.

However the essence of what I was saying, that it appeared that the committee had kept their invitations secret, well that just doesn't look good. It allowed conclusions to be made which perhaps weren't correct.

It's unfortunate, but committee members of a not-for-profit club like the TTOC have to be seen to be whiter-than-white. This means that pre-emptive action has to be taken to rule out any accusations of favouritism or taking advantage of position.


----------



## t7

jampott said:


> Last time I checked, the TTOC-Forum on the TTF was a public forum... :roll: hence me saying "so a public forum it must be.."
> 
> I doubt "the committee" would actually take the trouble to answer an IM or an email with the same effort as they'd defend themselves on a public forum. I might be wrong, of course, but that's the perception anyway. I also take the fact that nobody has subsequently contacted me privately to discuss my views as further belief that the TTOC committee wishes to discuss this in public.
> 
> Still, everyone who spoke out the other day appears to have retracted their comments, so it looks like the TTOC doesn't have a problem to deal with anymore. Everything must be OK and rosy again.


The usual caveat about this not being the committee view applies.

Tim - after trying to appear balanced and impartial why post so controversially with a speculative comment with no basis in fact. When did you last email the TTOC? In the last month I have sent 15 emails to members and prospective members answering queries. We always respond to member enquiries (they are mostly email to [email protected] or [email protected] ttoc.co.uk - though some times they do appear in the mail). The last copy of absoluTTe contained a number of member queries/correspondence as does this one.

And the reason that I, for one, havent personally IMed you to discuss your comments is that I was hugely offended by your posts.

Firstly the crass implication that I attended the launch solely as "someones girlfriend" rather than as a founding committee member who for the past 9 months has been holding down 2 committee roles. As youve already admitted you personally know that I put a lot of time in for the club. So why make that implication?

Secondly your completely intrusive and inaccurate statements implying that I don't own a TT. The detail of who owns what in my personal life would be none of your business on a one to one basis. To state your assumptions about it on a public forum, and then use those assumptions to imply that I am not entitled to be a committee member is totally uncalled for.

Its your choice to bury some constructive feedback in negative remarks and unfounded implications - if your posts were more constructive and less critical then you might find more people willing to engage in debates with you.

Lou


----------



## jampott

t7 said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, the TTOC-Forum on the TTF was a public forum... :roll: hence me saying "so a public forum it must be.."
> 
> I doubt "the committee" would actually take the trouble to answer an IM or an email with the same effort as they'd defend themselves on a public forum. I might be wrong, of course, but that's the perception anyway. I also take the fact that nobody has subsequently contacted me privately to discuss my views as further belief that the TTOC committee wishes to discuss this in public.
> 
> Still, everyone who spoke out the other day appears to have retracted their comments, so it looks like the TTOC doesn't have a problem to deal with anymore. Everything must be OK and rosy again.
> 
> 
> 
> The usual caveat about this not being the committee view applies.
> 
> Tim - after trying to appear balanced and impartial why post so controversially with a speculative comment with no basis in fact. When did you last email the TTOC? In the last month I have sent 15 emails to members and prospective members answering queries. We always respond to member enquiries (they are mostly email to [email protected] or [email protected] ttoc.co.uk - though some times they do appear in the mail). The last copy of absoluTTe contained a number of member queries/correspondence as does this one.
> 
> And the reason that I, for one, havent personally IMed you to discuss your comments is that I was hugely offended by your posts.
> 
> Firstly the crass implication that I attended the launch solely as "someones girlfriend" rather than as a founding committee member who for the past 9 months has been holding down 2 committee roles. As youve already admitted you personally know that I put a lot of time in for the club. So why make that implication?
> 
> Secondly your completely intrusive and inaccurate statements implying that I don't own a TT. The detail of who owns what in my personal life would be none of your business on a one to one basis. To state your assumptions about it on a public forum, and then imply I am somehow not entitled to be a committee member is totally uncalled for.
> 
> Its your choice to bury some constructive feedback in negative remarks and unfounded implications - if your posts were more contructive and less critical then you might find more people willing to engage in debates with you.
> 
> Lou
Click to expand...

Criticism IS constructive. Even it is isn't, criticism is still perfectly valid.

It doesn't matter one jot to me what you "own". I've no interest whatsoever in your personal life - You're correct, indeed it IS none of my business - or at least it wouldn't be if I weren't a member of the TTOC. I was simply trying to interpret the "facts" as I saw them. For all I know, you both own a TT still, in which case you both fulfil the entry criteria to the TTOC Committee.

Right now, it doesn't appear that you both do. If that is the case, as I've suggested, you need to change that rule at the earliest opportunity. It isn't a crime to point such anomalies out, is it?

Or, of course, you could just set me straight and let me know that ownership of a TT isn't a prerequisite?

Its just the sort of question that pops into someone's head when they think the people in charge are keeping things a bit more secret than is absolutely necessary. Hiding behind "we've been too busy to post and tell people we're going" sort of bullshit... :roll:

I'm sorry you took offence. Certainly none was intended. Having been at the thick end of the TTOC for some time, I thought you'd have a thicker skin than that.


----------



## t7

Thanks for the apology Tim. For Â£25 a year you dont get to insult me.


----------



## jampott

t7 said:


> Thanks for the apology Tim. For Â£25 a year you dont get to insult me.


 :?:


----------



## jonah

W7 PMC said:


> jonah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still think the TTOC should show it's gratitude to the TTF far more as without their really would be no TTOC & i sometimes wonder (personal opinion) if it's run correctly & fairly, but as an on-looker i can only assume & oppinionate.
> 
> TTFN :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> So showing respect could be classed as inviting members of the TTF to say a TTOC track day? so lets not say the TTOC does sod all for the TTF and it's members.
> Also Absolute allways carries the link to this site and we must accept they are two seperate items running side by side.
> 
> A few Car forums have split for less than this in the past which has resulted in friction which still goes on to this day, I would hate for anything like that to happen here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh pleeeease. Lets be a little sensible, the invites for TTF members are hardly done as a big favour or show of gratitude to the TTF, although i'm sure it's appreciated (i enjoyed the one i attended), but given the membership levels you'd not fill these track days without the TTF & you've come close to having to cancel even with the TTF members invited, plus you levy the non-TTOC attendees anyhow (don't disagree with you doing that).
> 
> Ps. I never said the TTOC did sod all for/with the TTF (at least i don't think i said that), however the gratitude could perhaps be a little more obvious & retorting to silly comments about events you need the TTF for does not help this arguement.
Click to expand...

Paul I think you will find that the TTF has tried on several occasions to organise a trackday I think KMP and Scotty will back me up on that I also tried to get one off the ground, None of these happened because we couldn't get enough intrested parties to attend and deposits for the track were required etc etc.

The fact that the TTOC has managed to organise this where others have failed should be recognised as a great achievment and not just put down to the TTF being invited as some have said because of numbers. Dont forget by simply logging onto thsi site would entitle someone to attend one of the TTOC days so in doing that the TTF has more members although some will never be seen again till the next one :?


----------



## Carlos

How do you define ownership of a car? Doesn't just one person's name have to go on the V5?


----------



## saint

Kell said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the above point - I always wondered as to why AbsoluTTe was not published simultaneously in PDF format.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the current issue is only available to members. If we published a PDF (which we could do easily as that's how it goes to print) then it could go to anyone.
> 
> It's the same logic as why we toyed with the idea of leaving free copies in dealerships, but were shot down (fairly in my opininion) on that. It's a member benefit which they pay for as part of thier subscription, as such we don't provide it free to anyone else.
> 
> Even old copies on the website are cut down PDFs so they provide a 'flavour' of the magazine rather than allow someone to read it all.
Click to expand...

Again off topic - but not even available as a member option?


----------



## Kell

saint said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saint said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the above point - I always wondered as to why AbsoluTTe was not published simultaneously in PDF format.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the current issue is only available to members. If we published a PDF (which we could do easily as that's how it goes to print) then it could go to anyone.
> 
> It's the same logic as why we toyed with the idea of leaving free copies in dealerships, but were shot down (fairly in my opininion) on that. It's a member benefit which they pay for as part of thier subscription, as such we don't provide it free to anyone else.
> 
> Even old copies on the website are cut down PDFs so they provide a 'flavour' of the magazine rather than allow someone to read it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again off topic - but not even available as a member option?
Click to expand...

Not saying it will never happen - but if it did it would have to be paid for. We sell back issues in the shop and to offer the PDF free, would mean that it would/could impact sales.

However, as has been patently obvious through some of these comments, we need to listen to our members more, so if enough people wanted it, then I guess it would/could happen.


----------



## mighTy Tee

O/T

If you sell the PDF then how long before it is published on a website?


----------



## W7 PMC

jonah said:


> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jonah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W7 PMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still think the TTOC should show it's gratitude to the TTF far more as without their really would be no TTOC & i sometimes wonder (personal opinion) if it's run correctly & fairly, but as an on-looker i can only assume & oppinionate.
> 
> TTFN :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> So showing respect could be classed as inviting members of the TTF to say a TTOC track day? so lets not say the TTOC does sod all for the TTF and it's members.
> Also Absolute allways carries the link to this site and we must accept they are two seperate items running side by side.
> 
> A few Car forums have split for less than this in the past which has resulted in friction which still goes on to this day, I would hate for anything like that to happen here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh pleeeease. Lets be a little sensible, the invites for TTF members are hardly done as a big favour or show of gratitude to the TTF, although i'm sure it's appreciated (i enjoyed the one i attended), but given the membership levels you'd not fill these track days without the TTF & you've come close to having to cancel even with the TTF members invited, plus you levy the non-TTOC attendees anyhow (don't disagree with you doing that).
> 
> Ps. I never said the TTOC did sod all for/with the TTF (at least i don't think i said that), however the gratitude could perhaps be a little more obvious & retorting to silly comments about events you need the TTF for does not help this arguement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paul I think you will find that the TTF has tried on several occasions to organise a trackday I think KMP and Scotty will back me up on that I also tried to get one off the ground, None of these happened because we couldn't get enough intrested parties to attend and deposits for the track were required etc etc.
> 
> The fact that the TTOC has managed to organise this where others have failed should be recognised as a great achievment and not just put down to the TTF being invited as some have said because of numbers. Dont forget by simply logging onto thsi site would entitle someone to attend one of the TTOC days so in doing that the TTF has more members although some will never be seen again till the next one :?
Click to expand...

I agree in part, but you'll find given the bulk of TTF members/viewers have TT's (i guess about 50% now), it's easier & less intimidating for novices to join an event organised by a club than by a general car-forum so with the TTF & TTOC combined these events can be filled fairly easily. It's success was the TTOC & TTF, not one or the other. You'd have had to cancel the TTOC trackdays without the support of the TTF (including non TT attendees), but likewise the reverse also applies.

Track-days are difficult to organise as most who are regular track dayers tend to book through specific sites/companies such as book a track & trackdayheroes etc. so the TTOC / TTF ones tend to aim themselves more at novices (this is a very good thing) where as others are more geared for regulars or at least more experienced track dayers.

The TTF does not have a specific enough audience to arrange it's own track-days, as more than likely we'd only ever get around 10-20 drivers, combine this with the TTOC marketing an open/novice event & that brings the numbers up to an acceptable level.

I was not been critical, but just pointing out that the relationship works both ways.


----------



## Kell

mighTy Tee said:


> O/T
> 
> If you sell the PDF then how long before it is published on a website?


Well - that would be my problem with it. Makes it worrthless.


----------



## jampott

Kell said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> 
> O/T
> 
> If you sell the PDF then how long before it is published on a website?
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that would be my problem with it. Makes it worrthless.
Click to expand...

By the same token, someone could photocopy the mag itself if they wanted - amounts to the same thing.

You can take steps to protect your intelectual property, even on the web, and "go after" a site which is hosting your (or the clubs) copyright.

Agreed that an online would undermine the written mag, but consider:

1) time savings for the club (not having to stuff 1000+ envelopes 4 times a year)

2) cost savings for the club (not having to print 1000+ magazines, plus keep a stock of back issues @ cost)

3) speed of publication (you can work all night, as per the Berlin launch, and publish your "scoop" to your readers the next morning rather than the following week)

This is in no way a suggestion to drop one of the mainstays of the club (its published magazine) but is at least food for thought.

I can well imagine that a large % of the TTOC membership aren't regulars on this forum, but I simply will not believe that even a smallish percentage don't have internet access. That's just silly. The demographics of ownership surely point against that - internet coverage of the UK is running at an extremely high level. In Oct 2005, 64% of the UK's adults accessed the internet during the previous 3 months, and this is rising year on year. Considering the likely household incomes and / or workplaces of your average TT owner, I'd strongly expect internet access to be running well above average - say 85-90%.

Put it this way, I really don't think you can use "our members can't all access the internet" as an excuse. If a large percentage of your members tell you they can't access the internet, I'm afraid they're lying.


----------



## Kell

For me electronic versions of things have no real value. I'd rather buy a book to read than download it. I'd rather own the CD than download a CD from iTunes.

I imagine most people feel the same way, but then maybe that's just me.


----------



## R6B TT

jampott said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> 
> O/T
> 
> If you sell the PDF then how long before it is published on a website?
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that would be my problem with it. Makes it worrthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the same token, someone could photocopy the mag itself if they wanted - amounts to the same thing.
> 
> You can take steps to protect your intelectual property, even on the web, and "go after" a site which is hosting your (or the clubs) copyright.
> 
> Agreed that an online would undermine the written mag, but consider:
> 
> 1) time savings for the club (not having to stuff 1000+ envelopes 4 times a year)
> 
> 2) cost savings for the club (not having to print 1000+ magazines, plus keep a stock of back issues @ cost)
> 
> 3) speed of publication (you can work all night, as per the Berlin launch, and publish your "scoop" to your readers the next morning rather than the following week)
> 
> This is in no way a suggestion to drop one of the mainstays of the club (its published magazine) but is at least food for thought.
> 
> I can well imagine that a large % of the TTOC membership aren't regulars on this forum, but I simply will not believe that even a smallish percentage don't have internet access. That's just silly. The demographics of ownership surely point against that - internet coverage of the UK is running at an extremely high level. In Oct 2005, 64% of the UK's adults accessed the internet during the previous 3 months, and this is rising year on year. Considering the likely household incomes and / or workplaces of your average TT owner, I'd strongly expect internet access to be running well above average - say 85-90%.
> 
> Put it this way, I really don't think you can use "our members can't all access the internet" as an excuse. If a large percentage of your members tell you they can't access the internet, I'm afraid they're lying.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea Tim - maybe we should look at a 'Paper' membership and an Online membership. I see 2 issues though - 1) Maintaining the 'quality' publication over the web and 2) that if too many people took it up, it would become uneconomic to produce the paper mag. Which would upset our 'paper' members.


----------



## Neil

Kell said:



> For me electronic versions of things have no real value. I'd rather buy a book to read than download it. I'd rather own the CD than download a CD from iTunes.
> 
> I imagine most people feel the same way, but then maybe that's just me.


I'm exactly the same Kell, it's not just you :wink:

The "physical ownership" of the item means more to me than having an electronic equivalent - I just don't get the whole "buying albums off iTunes" thing, vs buying a CD for the same price.

Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)


----------



## mighTy Tee

neil1003 said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me electronic versions of things have no real value. I'd rather buy a book to read than download it. I'd rather own the CD than download a CD from iTunes.
> 
> I imagine most people feel the same way, but then maybe that's just me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm exactly the same Kell, it's not just you :wink:
> 
> The "physical ownership" of the item means more to me than having an electronic equivalent - I just don't get the whole "buying albums off iTunes" thing, vs buying a CD for the same price.
> 
> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)
Click to expand...

I agree, to have AbsoluTTe.PDF it would only get a scant read. Paper AbsoluTTe is a collection which I refer to on a regular basis.


----------



## jampott

Kell said:


> For me electronic versions of things have no real value. I'd rather buy a book to read than download it. I'd rather own the CD than download a CD from iTunes.
> 
> I imagine most people feel the same way, but then maybe that's just me.


I quite agree - but with a caveat. If I was able to download a track and start to play it immediately, I'd like to do so. If I then buy the CD to own the physical media at a later date, then so be it... but there is a certain immediacy to downloading something which you can't get from ordering a CD and waiting for it to arrive, or (worse) having to drive somewhere to find a physical shop to go and buy it.

I have a magazine rack in my downstairs loo, the contents of which is absoluTTe and Audi Driver, which gives me something to do in there until such time as I decide to fit yet another flatscreen telly. Sure, its a good read, but maybe I get my fill of TT related articles simply by reading the main Forum on a regular basis. 

I'm just saying there is a trade-off, that's all.


----------



## dj c225

neil1003 said:


> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)


Bit of a childish thing to say, also shows how backwards you are.

Electronic version, would be easier for many... especially those who travel an are not always at home when the mag arrives or those who want up-to-date info without a wait.

Think its a good idea, having magazines pile up is a pain, prefer clean living and no paperwork.

This is the way most firms are going, phonebills by PDF, Newsletters, books etc.


----------



## jonah

dj c225 said:


> neil1003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a childish thing to say, also shows how backwards you are.
> 
> Electronic version, would be easier for many... especially those who travel an are not always at home when the mag arrives or those who want up-to-date info without a wait.
> 
> Think its a good idea, having magazines pile up is a pain, prefer clean living and no paperwork.
> 
> This is the way most firms are going, phonebills by PDF, Newsletters, books etc.
Click to expand...

How many mags do you know of that do this, I don't know of any :?


----------



## Mrs Wallsendmag

How would I read a pdf in the bath :roll: :lol: :lol:


----------



## jampott

jonah said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neil1003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a childish thing to say, also shows how backwards you are.
> 
> Electronic version, would be easier for many... especially those who travel an are not always at home when the mag arrives or those who want up-to-date info without a wait.
> 
> Think its a good idea, having magazines pile up is a pain, prefer clean living and no paperwork.
> 
> This is the way most firms are going, phonebills by PDF, Newsletters, books etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many mags do you know of that do this, I don't know of any :?
Click to expand...

Evo etc have most things "online", the viewing of which is (probably) funded by advertising etc...


----------



## dj c225

jonah said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neil1003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a childish thing to say, also shows how backwards you are.
> 
> Electronic version, would be easier for many... especially those who travel an are not always at home when the mag arrives or those who want up-to-date info without a wait.
> 
> Think its a good idea, having magazines pile up is a pain, prefer clean living and no paperwork.
> 
> This is the way most firms are going, phonebills by PDF, Newsletters, books etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many mags do you know of that do this, I don't know of any :?
Click to expand...

Motorcycle magazine called the MCN ... available weekly in PDF format - large publication.

A few others out there too.


----------



## digimeisTTer

jampott said:


> or (worse) having to drive somewhere to find a physical shop to go and buy it.


Lol :lol:


----------



## Neil

dj c225 said:


> neil1003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a childish thing to say, also shows how backwards you are.
Click to expand...

err, I don't think it's childish at all, or that I am "backwards" :?

At the extreme, my grandparents, for example, would not dream of using anything in electronic form - they've never used it before, and are certainly not going to start using it now.

At the other end of the scale, kids today are brought up to use all kinds of electronic media, and it's the norm to them. Hence they would be all-embracing to anything in electronic form, and probably much prefer it to physical forms of the same thing.

In the middle of the scale, I frequently use electronic media, but my *preference* for CD's / books etc is to own the physical object. My preference, that's all.

I only meant that younger people would get the electronic concept _more_ than the older generation, and struggle to see what is childish (or even incorrect) about that :?


----------



## Love_iTT

I've just been on the MCN website, a big banner at the top says to get the esubscription it's Â£10 per month for 4 issues - is this the pdf you were talking about? I don't want to register to find out.

Graham


----------



## dj c225

neil1003 said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> neil1003 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kids would get the electronic thing more, but I guess the TTOC is not aiming it's membership towards them :roll: (well, maybe in the future when they grow up....)
> 
> 
> 
> Bit of a childish thing to say, also shows how backwards you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> err, I don't think it's childish at all, or that I am "backwards" :?
> 
> At the extreme, my grandparents, for example, would not dream of using anything in electronic form - they've never used it before, and are certainly not going to start using it now.
> 
> At the other end of the scale, kids today are brought up to use all kinds of electronic media, and it's the norm to them. Hence they would be all-embracing to anything in electronic form, and probably much prefer it to physical forms of the same thing.
> 
> In the middle of the scale, I frequently use electronic media, but my *preference* for CD's / books etc is to own the physical object. My preference, that's all.
> 
> I only meant that younger people would get the electronic concept _more_ than the older generation, and struggle to see what is childish (or even incorrect) about that :?
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread your comments.

Agree on young'un and electonics, the way forward


----------



## dj c225

Love_iTT said:


> I've just been on the MCN website, a big banner at the top says to get the esubscription it's Â£10 per month for 4 issues - is this the pdf you were talking about? I don't want to register to find out.
> 
> Graham


Correct, otherwise its Â£2.70 weekly at shops (afaik)


----------



## Love_iTT

OK, thanks for that. Out of interst, what would you say roughly was the split between editorial copy and adverts is - just very roughly; 50/50; 60/40; 70/30?

Graham


----------



## dj c225

Love_iTT said:


> OK, thanks for that. Out of interst, what would you say roughly was the split between editorial copy and adverts is - just very roughly; 50/50; 60/40; 70/30?
> 
> Graham


http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page=motorcyclenews.contactUs

Find a telephone number and ask


----------



## Love_iTT

I could do but as you read it I just thought that you would be able to tell me more quickly thats all.

Graham


----------



## dj c225

Love_iTT said:


> I could do but as you read it I just thought that you would be able to tell me more quickly thats all.
> 
> Graham


I actually received an invite from MCN and received it free a while back, no longer read it though, thus not being able to answer your question, sorry.

However I am sure the bulk is advertising, as with most 'major' mags.


----------



## Love_iTT

Thats really all I needed to know - thanks for your help.

Graham


----------



## dj c225

So no answer back? about how the OC mag has little advertising, I thought you were going to argue a point! :?


----------



## Love_iTT

Thats what I thought you would think :roll:

No argument :wink:

I was genuinely interested. Not everything has to be an argument but they can be discussions.

Graham


----------



## Carlos

I'm not so sure there is a big copyright issue.

It's the "thing" - the physical magazine, the collection that's important.

IMO making the mag available online with a suitable delay (say one full issue cycle) would not harm membership figures, nor would it pee off existing members.

Home Cinema Choice do this - they put their valuable content - the reviews - on their website as PDFs with a 3 month delay (think its 3 months).


----------



## Kell

FWIW - I think it could be a good idea for crucial or timely information.

In this instance - Tim's right but as with his post, with a caveat.

I don't think it's right to have the whole magazine as a PDF, but accept that with exclusive information we get given, it would be great to utilise that facility.

It wouldn't have to be a PDF file (is it just me or does that alwasy sound like Paedophile), but then why shouldn't it be?

It's certainly something to consider in the future. I think a lot of lessons have been learned from this (and various other points raised). I hope some good comes of it all.


----------



## dj c225

Love_iTT said:


> Thats what I thought you would think :roll:
> 
> No argument :wink:
> 
> I was genuinely interested. Not everything has to be an argument but they can be discussions.
> 
> Graham


Fair enough, it was just the way you can across.

No worries.


----------



## saint

Is there a members only area of the TTOC website?


----------



## genocidalduck

Kell said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same logic as why we toyed with the idea of leaving free copies in dealerships, but were shot down (fairly in my opininion) on that. It's a member benefit which they pay for as part of thier subscription, as such we don't provide it free to anyone else.
Click to expand...

I had thought about leaving copies of Absolutte in Dealers. As it would be a good way of getting more TT owners that arnt aware of the TTOC at least the thought about checking it out. I know i would have joined a few years earlier if i had known. However the thought came up that I wouldnt think Audi would be happy with a magazine in their showrooms that advertise Audi specialist garages. Afterall they would be worried about losing buisness. But if Audi agreed. How about a shortened version. More like a news letter or fliers. If the advertising was taken out. I don't think Audi would have a problem with it. Esp if we could convince them that it was in their benefit aswell.


----------



## Marque

I do agree Absolute is a TTOC members benefit.

But as a 1 page flyer abbreviated article then, I think that might preserve the detail for hte TTOC memebers & yet interest the prospective TT purchaser without too much trouble.

Just a thought/suggestion.

M


----------



## che6mw

genocidalduck said:


> I had thought about leaving copies of Absolutte in Dealers. As it would be a good way of getting more TT owners that arnt aware of the TTOC at least the thought about checking it out. I know i would have joined a few years earlier if i had known. However the thought came up that I wouldnt think Audi would be happy with a magazine in their showrooms that advertise Audi specialist garages. Afterall they would be worried about losing buisness. But if Audi agreed. How about a shortened version. More like a news letter or fliers. If the advertising was taken out. I don't think Audi would have a problem with it. Esp if we could convince them that it was in their benefit aswell.


Does that mean AbsoluTTe is a glorified "we love Audi" then? I can't imagine Audi would be happy about a magazine which looked in depth at REAL TT ownership such as the problems everyone has, the modification people do, etc, etc. I can't imagine corporate Audi liking something like that in their showrooms.


----------



## Kell

We've talked about it and AFAIK, they're happy with the idea (of wither magazines or cut down versions), but there are problems.

First of all resource and time to do these and cost. It needs to look professionsal so even getting something printed A3 and double sided then stapled would cost us money. Which is why we thought of using the excess from each print run, but then there were complaints from TTOC members about doing this too.

More importantly though, all Audi Dealerships are franchised and far from being one call to one central source, it involves making individual deals with all the franchisees.

Which is why we need a Marketing Secretary to look at these sorts of hurdles.

The things about the stuff we've talked about is that we're great at ideas, but not so good when it comes to implementation. If it were a business, it would be different, but as we juggle TTOC time with work and home life, there simply aren't enough hours in the day to do all the things we'd like.


----------



## jampott

Kell said:


> We've talked about it and AFAIK, they're happy with the idea (of wither magazines or cut down versions), but there are problems.
> 
> First of all resource and time to do these and cost. It needs to look professionsal so even getting something printed A3 and double sided then stapled would cost us money. Which is why we thought of using the excess from each print run, but then there were complaints from TTOC members about doing this too.
> 
> More importantly though, all Audi Dealerships are franchised and far from being one call to one central source, it involves making individual deals with all the franchisees.
> 
> Which is why we need a Marketing Secretary to look at these sorts of hurdles.
> 
> The things about the stuff we've talked about is that we're great at ideas, but not so good when it comes to implementation. If it were a business, it would be different, but as we juggle TTOC time with work and home life, there simply aren't enough hours in the day to do all the things we'd like.


To put it bluntly, if the club has already outgrown the "free" resources available, and there is scope for paid positions, perhaps this should be looked into. Obviously there are economies of scale with operating a club with a larger membership, and if the current committee don't have the time to work towards this, perhaps it is time to put the club onto the next level - "professional" standing.

I'm sure other owner's clubs have gone down that route. Providing there is the correct level of accountability and justification, I think it would be a good step forward. At the moment people take offence when their decisions are questioned because they give their time for free, so expectations (rightly) are lower...

Paid positions give a greater degree of accountability...

Just a thought.


----------



## scoTTy

I know responses are not very high when absolutte runs competions etc but couldn't a small thing be put in an edition asking the members whether they'd like a lower membership charge with electronic absolutte instead. If it's a clear majority then perhaps that's the way to go.

Also it's often quoted about members of the TTOC which aren't on here :

[1] How do you know if people are on TTF? Is is on the application form?
[2] What ratio are we looking at?


----------



## saint

I'd really like to see what the TTOC could offer me!


----------



## garyc

I just found an unopened invite to the new TT launch in my post.

Glad I didn't go. The car looks rubbish. :wink:


----------

