Fast golf website

Raffles said

I agree.

There is no point in information being tucked away when it could be used to make things better.

Unless your the goverment

Tian is that a Robinsons Goliwog as you avater? I think thats how you spell it  :dontknow: I aint seen one of them since i was about 9 or 10.

Ive got around 50 of the original plaster musicians. should be a cool display when sorted out renovating the front room.

I am the goverment lol

Tian said

paul_c said

Tian said

thunderace said

lets hope this info is not lost forever.
                     

I'm sure it won't be but from the lack of reply I don't imagine you'll see it on here anytime soon. I get the feeling Paul's not up for for it, shame.

T :?

Negotiations are in process, please be patient to allow these to continue to a happy conclusion. Don't panic!!!!!

Negotiations?

T :dontknow:

At what price ?    

Lots of valuable MK1 information was lost and it should be returned free to this site  

 

chudd said

Tian said

paul_c said

Tian said

thunderace said

lets hope this info is not lost forever.
                     

I'm sure it won't be but from the lack of reply I don't imagine you'll see it on here anytime soon. I get the feeling Paul's not up for for it, shame.

T :?

Negotiations are in process, please be patient to allow these to continue to a happy conclusion. Don't panic!!!!!

Negotiations?

T :dontknow:

At what price ?    

Lots of valuable MK1 information was lost and it should be returned free to this site  

 

Really? :mrgreen:

chudd said

Lots of valuable MK1 information was lost and it should be returned free to this site  

 

Kind of a contradiction there. Rest assured, negotiations are under way, if/when the data is all transferred over to this site its up to the people who run this one, whether they make all the info avaible freely, or whether they restrict it to paid members, or charge for it, etc. Fastgolf.org.uk never charged for the information so its hoped this would remain the principle.

Its good to see that the contribution made by Fastgolf was valuable and hopefully this site can carry on with some of the positive stuff from it!

paul_c said

 Fastgolf.org.uk never charged for the information so its hoped this would remain the principle.

This statement would suggest that you and Ben are not charging this club for the information you have via your now redundant fastgolf web site, which contradicts the pm i have received which you want to charge this club ?170 for the data.

if you still wish to charge the club for the data i feel this decision would need to be agreed by the members and not just the committee, so if you still want to charge I will put it to a vote and i shall be allowing none paid members to have a say, as we will be allowing all forum users to have the benefit of this information

let me know if you wish it to go to a public vote and i will put the wheels in motion its the only open and fair thing to do.

A5OPY said

paul_c said

 Fastgolf.org.uk never charged for the information so its hoped this would remain the principle.

This statement would suggest that you and Ben are not charging this club for the information you have via your now redundant fastgolf web site, which contradicts the pm i have received which you want to charge this club ?170 for the data.

if you still wish to charge the club for the data i feel this decision would need to be agreed by the members and not just the committee, so if you still want to charge I will put it to a vote and i shall be allowing none paid members to have a say, as we will be allowing all forum users to have the benefit of this information

let me know if you wish it to go to a public vote and i will put the wheels in motion its the only open and fair thing to do.

Its your call. The price was based on the costs involved in running the site for a year (hosting costs, domain registration, etc) and we're simply trying to break even. I think its fair enough to pay for the data, if the members don't think its fair enough then they may vote! The only thing that remains is the actual cost - ?170 was our counter offer to your ?0, if you want the vote to be for the ?170 then, once again, your call. If you wanted to negotiate on the cost, then by putting it into the public domain you've restricted your bargaining position, but I'm still willing to discuss etc.

Blimey all getting very confusing this  :dontknow:  :dontknow:  :dontknow:

Go for the vote if you want to but I certainly wouldn't pay for it as it would set a president.  

You can have my engine rebuild thread for free, you can have my future engine conversions free too (doing a big block in new year) in order to help newbies, the younger generation and anyone else who wants it.

I'm sure this site would benefit from the info… but pay any costs for it to be copied from a discontinued site?… nah….  Everyone will ask to be paid for giving people info on the mk1  :roll:

Paul its quite obvious they are not going to pay for the info so i guess its lost forever as they say

Andy i dissapointed that you have revealed what i pm'd you i find that very non professional thanks

Paul there was never an offer from me or any other committee member whether it be ?0 or 170 the 1st message i received from ben never mentioned a fee

it has to be remembered here that the mk1 golf owners club never asked you or Ben to set the fastgolf website up so why we have to pay for its failure mystifies me

Im not in favour of a payment for this information the reasons are

Tian has spent hrs of his time working on the callender and the cassette banners that where on display at the NEC (NO CHARGE)

Yomp set up lights and used cables and light fittings etc (NO CHARGE)

Dano came down and we used his chairs and he made numerous phone calls etc and stationary (NO CHARGE)

Doug who has spent hrs sorting this website out in his own time phone calls etc and he isn't even a member, you wanted to charge ?15 per hr

other members have contributed to other technical posts on this site will they now want payments for this info??????

Sorry Paul and Ben but as far as i can see the members who do things for the club do it for the love of the car and the club and are not in it for what they can get out of it.

It will go to a vote….

Its quantity vs quality really.

The forum is full of good info - but there's a lot of threads to pick through, and a lot of sideline comments, etc. That's the reason that fastgolf focused on articles, rather than the forum. Basically it was a lot of accurate, verified, concise, properly-written-up technical articles. In addition, there were online interactive features - the wiring database and the 0-60 and 1/4 mile calculator.

The fact is, the technical section on here hasn't been updated for a couple of years, so for whatever reason it wasn't done, it wasn't done. Maybe people prefer to search through the forum, or ask their own questions on the forum, than read technical articles?

If the vote is to NOT pay for the ex-fastgolf data but it spurs a new wave of contributions of quality and well-written articles from a wide range of members; and an infrastructure to properly present them on the web than in forum stickies, or a FAQ section which seems to get overlooked a lot; then that's great, its at least had some type of impact.

A5OPY said

 not in it for what they can get out of it.

Neither are we, we're trying to recover hosting costs!!!!!

perhaps the members should vote and not the biased commitee :mrgreen:

lets face your here for the members not yourselves or your own singular opinion :wink:

paul_c said

A5OPY said

 not in it for what they can get out of it.

Neither are we, we're trying to recover hosting costs!!!!!

Like I said the failure of your web site isn't our responsibility
if you feel we need to compensate for your loss please state the reasons why.

bens_cab said

perhaps the members should vote and not the biased commitee :mrgreen:

lets face your here for the members not yourselves or your own singular opinion :wink:

That why i suggested it

Load of rubbish.  People will always ask for info even if there arelinks/guides etc… people like to feel someone is there guiding them (especially the younger generation)… and with this site… there normally are people behind them each step of the way…. long may that and the free advice continue.

JSeaman has wrote the gear linkage guide which is probably one of the most used.  He's not charged a fee… or taken it elsewhere to resell to the site at a later date…. this is really sad to see to be honest.  Seriously never seen this coming from you guys.

A5OPY said

paul_c said

A5OPY said

 not in it for what they can get out of it.

Neither are we, we're trying to recover hosting costs!!!!!

Like I said the failure of your web site isn't our responsibility
if you feel we need to compensate for your loss please state the reasons why.

no one failed andy but we decided due to other commitments not to renew the site why is that a faliure???

theres other partys interested in the data so no big loss to us weather you have it or not but it was offered to you first so like i said in the pm let us know

end off

Haha I've just read the gear linkage reconditioning guide!



Will be using this in the next couple of weeks!

And being one of the younger ones,

I have posted a few topics on here in various sections now, expecting help in return to my problems/queries regarding my mark 1 and am eternally grateful so far for all the help and advice people have offered me, regardless of how long i've been on the site or not.

All I'm saying here is it is a comforting thought that there are others out there looking to offer you support and advice, all because we are all on here for the same reason - we all share a passion for the Mark 1 golf!

Keep advice and knowledge sharing free in my opinion!

:y:

A5OPY said

paul_c said

A5OPY said

 not in it for what they can get out of it.

Neither are we, we're trying to recover hosting costs!!!!!

Like I said the failure of your web site isn't our responsibility
if you feel we need to compensate for your loss please state the reasons why.

The reasons for the site's closure are accurately described above. Both Ben and I have 'moved on' in a sense, and no longer have the time to put 100% behind the old site. Specifically, it was not marketed since we didn't attend VW Shows in 2009 (and once it was started to be marketed, it would have been necessary to continue etc). Failure? Possibly. Would I have done it any different way if I did it all again? No.

Don't feel like you're compensating for anything, its a simple deal, based on a block of data and a shortcut into having a much fuller tech section. Also I have explained the basis for the price given.

I'd say the other volunteers have done a good job too, but there is an anomoly in that the club uses volunteers time and efforts/expenses, yet charges a membership fee in real money. Also previous committee members have claimed expenses in their duties, so your previous post is not fully accurate.

The accounts are publically available to members and show that there's ?8000 in the bank; and that for ?15 membership, the actual 'costs' per member amount to approx ?4.50, the rest is pure profit for the club!





I think its worth clarifying - if you wish to negotiate the deal - do it.

If you don't, and want to commit to a vote - commit to it. I'll assume its one vote per person, not block or multiple voting for committee/moderators etc.