[Paul™]

Do you think that there should be a fee to pay for forum users that want to sell parts on the forum ?

Ive just noticed that there is little or no discretion by the moderators on how much or what people are selling.

There are now people breaking cars that are not even paid members, that is without any doubt, not right.

In my opinion, there should be a threshold or limit on how much someone is allowed to sell, and if the moderating team think that the forum user is trading, then the forum user should apply to trade.

If someone is breaking a car, then without any doubt they should pay the traders fee. If someone is selling multiple parts, then there should be upto the moderators discretion if the seller should apply to be a trader, and subsequently pay the fee.

What is the point in traders fee's or even membership fee's if anyone can just join or sell what they want.

It needs addressing in my opinion.

[Stoo]

See your point Paul aye. Selling an ATR requires subscription, maybe breaking an ATR should too? Not sure if they should be considered a trader as they don't actually run a business

Maybe there should be a tiered way of doing it... selling a car = subs, breaking = mini-trader, garages/suppliers = trader?

[fordham1984]

Paul™, on 17 September 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

Do you think that there should be a fee to pay for forum users that want to sell parts on the forum ?

Ive just noticed that there is little or no discretion by the moderators on how much or what people are selling.

There are now people breaking cars that are not even paid members, that is without any doubt, not right.

In my opinion, there should be a threshold or limit on how much someone is allowed to sell, and if the moderating team think that the forum user is trading, then the forum user should apply to trade.

If someone is breaking a car, then without any doubt they should pay the traders fee. If someone is selling multiple parts, then there should be upto the moderators discretion if the seller should apply to be a trader, and subsequently pay the fee.

What is the point in traders fee's or even membership fee's if anyone can just join or sell what they want.

It needs addressing in my opinion.

Hmmmm bit harsh if someone has owned the ATR then due to circumstances they end up breaking the car, why should they have to pay any fee's the parts are going back into the people on the forum or they at least get first dib's. Yes if they appear again saying they are breaking one it should be looked into but what you are saying will make people stop breaking them and have them turned into little boxes of metal which is no use to anyone.

[Paul™]

Stoo, on 17 September 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

See your point Paul aye. Selling an ATR requires subscription, maybe breaking an ATR should too? Not sure if they should be considered a trader as they don't actually run a business

Maybe there should be a tiered way of doing it... selling a car = subs, breaking = mini-trader, garages/suppliers = trader?

Some good points mate

Which ever way I don't care, as long as they pay £99 for the privilege

£99 is pence compared to the profit that you make when breaking cars.

Why should user only members be allowed to USE the forum for profit, when everyone else in the trade has to pay

Anyone who wants to break an ATR should pay it, and its as simple as that.

[Paul™]

fordham1984, on 17 September 2011 - 11:29 AM, said:

Paul™, on 17 September 2011 - 10:00 AM, said:

Do you think that there should be a fee to pay for forum users that want to sell parts on the forum ?

Ive just noticed that there is little or no discretion by the moderators on how much or what people are selling.

There are now people breaking cars that are not even paid members, that is without any doubt, not right.

In my opinion, there should be a threshold or limit on how much someone is allowed to sell, and if the moderating team think that the forum user is trading, then the forum user should apply to trade.

If someone is breaking a car, then without any doubt they should pay the traders fee. If someone is selling multiple parts, then there should be upto the moderators discretion if the seller should apply to be a trader, and subsequently pay the fee.

What is the point in traders fee's or even membership fee's if anyone can just join or sell what they want.

It needs addressing in my opinion.

Hmmmm bit harsh if someone has owned the ATR then due to circumstances they end up breaking the car, why should they have to pay any fee's the parts are going back into the people on the forum or they at least get first dib's. Yes if they appear again saying they are breaking one it should be looked into but what you are saying will make people stop breaking them and have them turned into little boxes of metal which is no use to anyone.

But, without the forum, they couldn't give the members "first dibs" as you so rightly say, or make money back.

So why not pay to upkeep the forum that there trading on ? That is all Ed ask's for if you read the subscription sub menu.

Your last statement is nonesense.

[EdLeake]

I can understand Paul wanting to protect his position, he's paid trader fees to break a car and his 'competition' are members breaking their own and old ATRs for free. However, that doesn't make the member a trader - it's a catch 22!

[Rhys]

At the very least anyone breaking a car and selling parts on here should pay a basic subscription !

[Paul™]

EdLeake, on 17 September 2011 - 11:41 AM, said:

I can understand Paul wanting to protect his position, he's paid trader fees to break a car and his 'competition' are members breaking their own and old ATRs for free. However, that doesn't make the member a trader - it's a catch 22!

Understood Ed, however I havent broken an ATR on the forum for ages, and this forum offers me little in need of income, I very very rarely tout for any work as you know. So, it doesn't effect me really.

I agree, it doesn't make the member a authorised trader, but it certainly makes them a trader as such.

They should at least pay a fee, like somewhere in the middle of premium membership and traders fee costs, and on a temporary traders subscription with a duration time of maybe 1 month, 1 car breaking, 1 month subscription of say £75 ?

If they break another ATR, then they apply for full traders rights.

Its only fair Ed in my opinion, as it kind of deems the already paid traders fee's a little bit pointless

Im only trying to protect everyones interests

[Le8]

Rhys, on 17 September 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

At the very least anyone breaking a car and selling parts on here should pay a basic subscription !

[urban]

Le8, on 17 September 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

Rhys, on 17 September 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

At the very least anyone breaking a car and selling parts on here should pay a basic subscription !

at least

[Paul™]

Excellent

The forums upkeep is being taken care of

[MIKEYS-R]

Rhys, on 17 September 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

At the very least anyone breaking a car and selling parts on here should pay a basic subscription !

[stux]

some guy breaking cars in his garage as a part-time hobby/extra income/helping out members that need parts - £99

international company, turning over hundreds of thousands a year - £99

fair?

[TypeRDan]

stux, on 17 September 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

some guy breaking cars in his garage as a part-time hobby/extra income/helping out members that need parts - £99

international company, turning over hundreds of thousands a year - £99

fair?

Stu it's the only fair way of making sure EVERYONE pays what they should be paying. Company or individual, makes no difference. That way a crooked individual who intends to break 'x' amount of cars on here and NEVER intends to pay a penny for the privilege should be caught out by the system. If you don't pay you shouldn't sell anything on here.

In short I agree with most of what Paul is saying. Perhaps the first car could be free and then subsequent cars charged In this way, the guy who only wants to break a single car is spared the cost.

[slightyfasteracing]

Rhys, on 17 September 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

At the very least anyone breaking a car and selling parts on here should pay a basic subscription !

At the very minimum

[stux]

if Hobbyists are charged the same as companies which turn over hundreds of thousands per year then i cant see how that is fair....

unless you can prove that somebody is blatantly buying/selling to make a living, then i can't see how it would be fair to enforce a £99 fee.

By all means, charge a tenner, but you can't have a situation where hobbyists are subsiding the unbelievably cheap annual fee that the big traders pay.

To me, the numbers just don't add up. It costs £25 to sell £3000 worth of personal property (an ATR), which little / no profit is made, but traders can turnover tens/hundreds of thousands per year in parts sales and servicing.

how about £12.50p for selling an ATR (you might get more adverts)
£20-£40 to break, buy and sell ATR parts (for profit)
£50-100 to sell modifications (like CF, brake kits & exhausts)
£100-300 to advertise as an approved specialist/international parts company

[Rhys]

stux, on 17 September 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

if Hobbyists are charged the same as companies which turn over hundreds of thousands per year then i cant see how that is fair....

unless you can prove that somebody is blatantly buying/selling to make a living, then i can't see how it would be fair to enforce a £99 fee.

By all means, charge a tenner, but you can't have a situation where hobbyists are subsiding the unbelievably cheap annual fee that the big traders pay.

To me, the numbers just don't add up. It costs £25 to sell £3000 worth of personal property (an ATR), which little / no profit is made, but traders can turnover tens/hundreds of thousands per year in parts sales and servicing.

how about £12.50p for selling an ATR (you might get more adverts)
£20-£40 to break, buy and sell ATR parts (for profit)
£50-100 to sell modifications (like CF, brake kits & exhausts)
£100-300 to advertise as an approved specialist/international parts company

Fair play Stu that sounds bang on the money (no pun intended )

[Joe_Blob]

I don't see why I should pay a £99 fee for breaking an ATR that I loved and cherished fro 3 years of paid membership. I am merely trying to recover the losses from the incident that the scam insurance company didn't cough up.

As a one off thing I think paying a trader fee is unfair, but I do agree that a paid membership should be required.

[EdLeake]

Joe_Blob, on 17 September 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

I don't see why I should pay a £99 fee for breaking an ATR that I loved and cherished fro 3 years of paid membership. I am merely trying to recover the losses from the incident that the scam insurance company didn't cough up.

As a one off thing I think paying a trader fee is unfair, but I do agree that a paid membership should be required.

[Le8]

EdLeake, on 17 September 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:

Joe_Blob, on 17 September 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

I don't see why I should pay a £99 fee for breaking an ATR that I loved and cherished fro 3 years of paid membership. I am merely trying to recover the losses from the incident that the scam insurance company didn't cough up.

As a one off thing I think paying a trader fee is unfair, but I do agree that a paid membership should be required.

+2