PAY your Mumsnet subs...so we can stop this madness...

Maybe you and I could set up together MI, and con some venture capitalists into launching us on the stockmarket, cash in our shares before the crash and drive off into the sunset yelling 'so long, suckers' at the Revenue?
Or maybe I've been up way too long...

Make sense to be a limited company. I'm one - and Edam, you should look into it too.

Then I wish that you had chosen a different thread title. It implies otherwise.

LM, I had no idea MN was a limited company. Never given it a thought before today.

There is "always" one member of MN towers on duty to step in when needed (eg at a mod's request or when posters request their attention)

"I think it's the policing of the site that takes time "

Unpaid mods do that.

But running a website takes a lot of time, - I know we do it with our business one and only get tiny number of hits per days - but the "behind the scenes" stuff that goes on is incredible - and that's with no-one paying to advertise on our website, no salary to pay ourself and without 10,000 memebers!!!

I always click on the adverts - helps income keep coming in from them. Wont click on formula ad though.

But the moderators are unpaid...

olive am i being a loon (v possible)? full moon was a few days ago ackcherly..

I assume the staff at MN HQ's have bills to pay like the rest of us (don't they !).

Is it a full moon?

of course what is reasonable goes hand in hand with what do i earn and of course the money will in part go on salaries????? what is wrong with that?

Edam, yes you can pay to see them for £1 from the Companies house site. If you are looking to understand them, then, amongst other things, you should look at the list of costs on the last page and consider where the money goes (eg there are salaries and someone gets paid for using part of their home as an office). The IT costs of hosting the site are surprisingly small.

Please note that I am not saying that the owners make excessive profits from the company! But I am curious as to what subscribers would expect to see? And I suspect the idea as to "what is reasonable" will often go hand in hand with "what do I earn".

ladymuck, your post does smack of some kind envy of mn's success? it's twisted logic whereby if mn is making money you shouldn't subscribe....you seem to be berating the people that run it and your posts on this thread are out of proportionately emotive and quite honestly pretty weird? has this touched some kind of raw nerve for you?

i know that mn run on a tight budget as justine and rachel say as much when the subject comes up (for eg there was a recent one about clicking on a princess doll thing on the homepage wasn't there.)

i don't know how you can in all conscience consider frequently using but not subscribing if you can afford to...

'have fewer ads', ladymuck

Sorry

all limited companies have to file thier accounts at companies house and are available for anyone to see, check their website (you have to pay a small sum to download)

Are the accounts publicly available? Just being nosy...

I'm not offended, and I'm a subscriber. I'm just feel that when people say that "Mumsnet runs on a tight budget", I wonder what information they are basing this on?

Twiglett, the point I'm making is that in my mind there is a very great difference between looking to the whole MN community to share the costs of running the site, and asking the community to pay shareholders and other stakeholders profits. It is particularly emotive when you end up paying some people salaries from these subscriptions. I feel that some of the threads recently on "why not pay more subs, and have less ads" miss the point that the owners want a healthy return. I have subscribed, but having looked at the accounts I may reconsider for next year.

if you don't get why she feels part of the whole mumsnet site now ladymuck you never will