NEW OO gauge Crowdfunded Class 92 initiative

[Nile_Griffith]

OK. Am I missing something here?

 

I thought that this was a crowd funded project. In that an agreed number of people agree to fund the specific production of an agreed number of model locomotives in a number of livery guises/formats. That what this isn't, is a pool of people supplying venture capital for a new product to market that may have any number of production runs over the coming years and those people making funds available doing so on the understanding of no ongoing financial reward on our investment other than the supply of an agreed number of model loco's produced.

 

If it's the first example, then as I see it we are effectively group commissioning a model loco that is not currently available to us or available to a required level of quality/standard. The fact that a other manufacturer are considering making their own version of the model for sale at some undecided point in the future, should not impede the group commissioning of a specified manufacturing run.

 

However if this is about subsequent manufacturing runs and releases of the model then that's something altogether different.

[Hilux5972]

Yes it is a crowd funded proposal. I would suggest that Dave goes ahead with it. If people are willing to put the money down for him then it is a win win situation. A new model comes out that is limited to the funders, and then subsequently models are released that are different than those available only to the crowd funders, so the wider model community wins as well.

[amwells]

Keep going Dave (at least in OO!)

[DJM Dave]

OK. Am I missing something here?

I thought that this was a crowd funded project. In that an agreed number of people agree to fund the specific production of an agreed number of model locomotives in a number of livery guises/formats. That what this isn't, is a pool of people supplying venture capital for a new product to market that may have any number of production runs over the coming years and those people making funds available doing so on the understanding of no ongoing financial reward on our investment other than the supply of an agreed number of model loco's produced.

If it's the first example, then as I see it we are effectively group commissioning a model loco that is not currently available to us or available to a required level of quality/standard. The fact that a other manufacturer are considering making their own version of the model for sale at some undecided point in the future, should not impede the group commissioning of a specified manufacturing run.

However if this is about subsequent manufacturing runs and releases of the model then that's something altogether different.

I think your post sums it up nicely. Thank you.

 

cheers

Dave

[MGR Hooper!]

Keep going Dave (at least in OO!)

Keep going Dave (at least in N!)

[Legend]

Oh dear, what a shame. I do feel for both manufacturers who will have invested a lot of time in this bringing what they thought would be an unlikely to be duplicated model to market.

 

But surely under crowd funding if sufficient numbers are reached then the model should go ahead . Presumably it's wise to build in a provision for people who may default after paying the initial deposit. It might be wise to increase that provision here. But if, taking this into account, sufficient numbers are reached then why would you not go ahead in either gauge.

 

Something I find puzzling. If the alternate supplier has not announced his 92 in "n" or "OO" yet then how do people know to cancel their existing orders with DJM? I'm not sure why but if there's been an orchestrated effort to let some people know there is an alternative on the go , but not inform others then I find that a bit distasteful. Surely the other party should have made an announcement when Dave launched the crowd funding initiative. I appreciate they only want to announce when they've got something ready for market, but clearly there had been an important development here.

 

If I read these threads correctly then DJM is the only one to have secured Caledonian Sleeper rights , so would that not make this the most popular model and therefore the one most likely to go ahead?

 

I think Dave is right, however, once approached a we will do an "n" gauge one and you do an "OO" one would be construed as anti competitive carving up the market. Now standing back from this you might say this is only model railways and therefore not as important as something more mainstream,but it is the principle that counts and where does trivial end and important begin .

 

Overall I do feel for both parties. I sense the frustration with Dave which maybe led to him unwisely revealing the other manufacturers plans, but then faced with cancelled orders I think I'd be quite annoyed too.

 

Can I suggest to avoid this in the future, manufacturers look at producing something Scottish. There seems very little chance of any duplication there! I'll get my Caley 812 0-6-0 yet!

Edited October 2, 2016 by Legend

[Nile_Griffith]

Hornsby sell a 92 in OO and I didn't here of them posing any objections.

[Nile_Griffith]

Hornsby sell a 92 in OO and I didn't here of them posing any objections.

Sorry typo! Should have said Hornby. As far as I'm aware Bruce Hornsby doesn't make model railway loco's, well I've not seen them in his Range I should say!

 

 

[Andy Y]

Hornsby sell a 92 in OO and I didn't here of them posing any objections.

 

That's the way it is.

[njee20]

Dave has unveiled the as yet unannounced plans of A N Other manufacturer, their hand is somewhat forced, but they've stood by their commitment not to announce until they've delivered a tangible product. We accuse companies of 'land grabbing', so I think it's an admirable stance.

 

We don't know the details of the other product yet, so speculation about details such as liveries is a little pointless at the moment. To me it would at least seem to make sense to wait until the other manufacturer fully reveals their plans, in their own time, rather than someone else rather stealing their thunder.

 

If people feel Dave's is the best model and/or want to support him then carry on, pay deposits, nothing need change (until Dave instigates a change). Others may wish to hold fire and see what the options truly are before committing.

[Derekstuart]

Dave

 

Re: Market sharing; risks associated with.

 

have you explored the possibility of using a block exemption from the chapter 1 prohibition that worries you so by looking at Ch1. S.9 a. ii) "promoting technical or economic progress," of the Competition Act 1998?

 

If you could demonstrate that there is an overall benefit to the consumer by a working arrangement with "the other lot" then perhaps you might qualify for one or more block exemptions. My own company (service, not manufacturing) qualifies for a block exemption for what would otherwise be a chapter 1 prohibited offence (possibly a chapter 2 as well) as with several other competitors we provide an enhanced public service which we could not have done otherwise.

 

In short "If we did not arrange this with 'the other lot' then there is a very good chance that there would be no n gauge 92 and no 00 gauge 92 from either supplier and thus the consumer would be worse off."

 

Certainly you would need legal advice on it but it might be worth looking at.

[royaloak]

OK. Am I missing something here?

 

I thought that this was a crowd funded project. In that an agreed number of people agree to fund the specific production of an agreed number of model locomotives in a number of livery guises/formats. That what this isn't, is a pool of people supplying venture capital for a new product to market that may have any number of production runs over the coming years and those people making funds available doing so on the understanding of no ongoing financial reward on our investment other than the supply of an agreed number of model loco's produced.

 

If it's the first example, then as I see it we are effectively group commissioning a model loco that is not currently available to us or available to a required level of quality/standard. The fact that a other manufacturer are considering making their own version of the model for sale at some undecided point in the future, should not impede the group commissioning of a specified manufacturing run.

 

However if this is about subsequent manufacturing runs and releases of the model then that's something altogether different.

It is a crowd funded product, the problem is that a lot of people who stated an interest in the N gauge version are not going forward when they are receiving the invoice for the deposit/first instalment, so instead of having enough to make it viable Dave is finding there is quite a big shortfall.

 

Its all well and good saying 'go ahead, if you get yours to market first' etc, but what if Dave is second to market as he is with the 71 where Hornby have cornered the market, there is a fair chance the models will stick to the shelves and Dave will be well out of pocket.

 

Have RevolutioN 'done the dirty' on DJM, No I dont believe they have and Ben did state that they had contacted Dave as soon as Dave made his intentions known (a point I missed in my earlier post, sorry about that Ben).

 

  What actually took place in that conversation only the two people involved will know for sure but the outcome is we are where we are, if both go ahead in both scales will either make a profit? That is one of the questions!

Others are-

 

Is there still time for an agreement about who does what? I dont know!

 

Should people take sides? No, but they will!

 

Will anyone 'win'? Probably not because it isnt about who 'wins', its about the models and companies making a profit!

Edited October 2, 2016 by royaloak

[Wigan Wallgate OO Gauge]

What if the companies split the liveries? Or numbers?

[griffgriff]

I'm not sure this 'open debate' is appropriate, or indeed healthy, on this forum.

 

Griff

[GordonC]

I find it very surprising if people are cancelling orders when there is only one announcement actually on the table. Orders cancelled with DJM could put that option at risk where there is no guarantee when or if another option would surface. Crowd funding must be quite different to normally released competing models where the one to market first could fulfill demand leaving the second arrival unwanted and left on the shelves. Where money is being committed in advance those are firm orders and a duplicate splitting the market could make both unviable. I'd hope some co-operation could avoid too much being lost on either side. If lawyers become involved, they will be the only ones that win!

[Derekstuart]

Dave, firstly there is nothing in law to stop you discussing the issue. Nothing at all. Collusion only takes place if the discussion is then acted upon, without proper compliance.

 

I see this so often in my industry where companies are frightened to talk to others- there's no need to be. A discussion can go three ways i) We have nothing in common, discussion ends. ii) we have lots in common, but our specific example falls foul of the CA, iii) we have lots in common and we can find a way to do this legally.

 

If the law prohibited discussions then there would be absolutely no collaboration at all in this Country, which is nonsense. Certainly you are not going to go to prison for talking to 'the other lot' about it. The rule of thumb in such matters when looking at whether one of the block exemptions can be used (or even a specific exemption being applied for) is "will the general public be better off for this collaboration."

 

See my post above. (trust me on this, I've had more involvement with the CA98 than I would have liked).

 

Either way, I'm afraid 2 manufacturers getting together and agreeing a plan, is strictly forbidden and anyone found inciting could be on a very serious wicket indeed. Worse still, anyone found not reporting an approach to the relevant authorities, can be found just as guilty too. Albeit to a lesser financial / prison sentence degree.

[DJM Dave]

Dave, firstly there is nothing in law to stop you discussing the issue. Nothing at all. Collusion only takes place if the discussion is then acted upon, without proper compliance.

 

I see this so often in my industry where companies are frightened to talk to others- there's no need to be. A discussion can go three ways i) We have nothing in common, discussion ends. ii) we have lots in common, but our specific example falls foul of the CA, iii) we have lots in common and we can find a way to do this legally.

 

If the law prohibited discussions then there would be absolutely no collaboration at all in this Country, which is nonsense. Certainly you are not going to go to prison for talking to 'the other lot' about it. The rule of thumb in such matters when looking at whether one of the block exemptions can be used (or even a specific exemption being applied for) is "will the general public be better off for this collaboration."

 

See my post above. (trust me on this, I've had more involvement with the CA98 than I would have liked).

Excellent

Thank you

[mikeharvey22]

I find it very surprising if people are cancelling orders when there is only one announcement actually on the table. Orders cancelled with DJM could put that option at risk where there is no guarantee when or if another option would surface.

From what I read yesterday I think many of the N cancellations stemmed from the sudden arrival of Paypal invoices for £30 when the recipients said "I only expressed an interest" and did not expect to be invoiced so soon before a clear announcement that the project was going ahead. Sending out the invoices precipitated the cancellations not any Revolution/Rapido announcement, because that was only made on here, and by DJM not Rapido/Revolution.

[bigP]

Duplicated from the 'N' 92 thread as I felt it relevant to the OO 92 as well.

 

 

Can all those interested please take a minute out to look at the class 92 in N and OO thread i have made tonight?

cheers

Dave

 

 

Hi everyone from the Fareham show where the 92 seems to be going down a storm and it's nice to be able to tell to crowdfunders here, and potential new customers about this model and tell them the odd snippet of information regarding detail etc, that will come out on here the next few weeks as you all see the cad/cams, prior to metal cutting.

I've a slot booked for metal cutting which, if all went well will see a 1st ep arrive here the week before 2017 Chinese New Year.

So I'm hoping that with all the differences in the front and body taken into account between what is almost sub classes, I can show you all what your going to get, and I think you'll be suitably impressed.
Using the works drawings, which have proved inaccurate in many respects, I've had to alter, fettle and change quite a bit.
And it's proved, like the 71 in OO an experience that makes you appreciate the real thing even more.

I've also got DJM stockists asking for these models, but I won't under the crowdfunding initiative supply these models in the proposed formats to them. They are special and they are yours!

I will supply models to the trade after the crowdfunding ones have been supplied, and only in alternate names, liveries and weathered, but of course at a much higher price and lot in as limited runs.

A wise old sage from Bideford once said.....'the futures bright, the futures N', well with the DJM model of the 92 he has never been more correct.

Cheers
Dave

 

Good Afternoon Dave Jones,

 

 

In the now locked thread you said, "So what do i do? Over to you."

 

Well, we can't answer that one for you but it would appear that you have already made the decision.  In that post you state that you were contacted by another manufacturer after you initially announced the 92.  At the announcement point you were not taking any money from the public for either the N or OO model.  I recall this as I looked around your website when submitting an 'expression of interest'.

You have since begun to take monies from the public and so one can assume you have taken the decision to press on with the 92 already armed with the knowledge that another manufacturer was intending to produce it also.

 

You, Hornby, Bachmann or any other manufacturer are all quite entitled to produce whatever models you like (subject to the necessary licensing of course) and that fact remains so there is no reason why you shouldn't carry on.

 

 

Now, whilst I'm posting this I'll take the opportunity to mention that I will no longer be purchasing a DJM 'N' 92, and that my decision has nothing to do with another manufacturer's plans but simply down to what I personally take to be deplorable behaviour on your part.  Allow me to explain why I feel this way.

 

 

Yesterday you posted that you intend on producing 92s for sale to the trade once the 'crowdfunders' have received their 92s and that the trade 92s will sell at at higher price.  When you initially announced the 92 project there was no mention of this whatsoever in either the N or OO thread (screenshot attached).  This had given me the impression that the only way to acquire a DJM 92 was to pay upfront for one of a limited run, which I was happy to do.

 

However, you are now stating that you intend to produce another batch of 92s to the trade.  This is an issue for me because as I see it any monies I give to you for the crowdfunded 92s are simply to bankroll a production of 92s for the trade from which you will profit greatly.

 

Given the estimated crowdfunded prices of £130 and £150 per loco for N and OO respectively, and given the nature of crowdfunding being a wholly funded entity, the crowdfunding will; pay for the R&D, pay for the CAD work, pay for the tooling, pay for livery licences, pay for the materials and production, and finally supply the models to the 'crowdfunders'.  Undoubtably you will make a little profit for reinvesment as you or anyone else quite rightly should given the hard work you will put in to such a project!

 

You will then produce another batch of 92s to the trade after we, the public, will have bankrolled all the R&D, CAD work, the tooling and the livery licenses.  You have already stated the trade models will sell at higher prices, and to differentiate them from the crowdfunded models they will have different running numbers/names. But that it all.

 

This, therefore, is not a social crowdfunding (community/not-for-profit) project in the traditional sense, but is more a form of equity crowdfunding, though you are not offering the public any equity or return on investment.  You are merely offering to return investments in the form of a model locomotive, leaving you to benefit greatly from a much reduced production cost run of 92s to sell directly to trade with a high(er) RRP. 

 

This is great business for you but a lousy investment for me!

 

 

The alternative of course is that DJM is co-funding this project and investing in the R&D, CAD, tooling and licensing as well.  However, if that is the case then you have no grounds to claim that this is a 'crowdfunded' project nor advertise it as such.

If this is jointly funded then I am greatly concerned at the estimated costs of the models to funders, let alone what the price to trade and RRP will be and thus how that would affect trade sales.  High I can only assume.

 

 

I will assume that the 'trade selling' idea is something that has evolved naturally, but for me seeds of doubt now exist over the veracity of the claim 'crowdfunded model' in the DJM context.   I'm left with the impression that you have used the spirit and goodwill of a 'social enterprise' concept as the basis to fund a commerical enterprise, with no intention of returning any of the profit to the investers that made it happen.  This is something that does not sit well with me. 

Your comments on this forum over the past 24 hours or so only agitate my concerns further, as you have given the appearance that as the 'crowd funds' are removed the possibility of a trade run of 92s and their associated profits for you slips away.  The notion 'We fund it, you profit from it', I find quite distasteful, as do I find using a modelling forum to air dirty laundry in an attempt to manipulate the public into 'chosing sides'.

 

Where I am to invest in a business/entity then I need to trust the individuals running it, and now quite simply, I don't trust you.  Could I please suggest that in future any products intended for trade sale are funded through private equity, business loans etc, and not this way.

 

I see no reason why a manufacturer should not make a profit for their work on a crowdfunded 'social enterprise' project, but using public crowdfunding to bankroll a trade run is simply inexcuseable and risks the reputation and future progress of genuine 'crowd funded' social enterprises.

 

 

These reasons, therefore, are why I am not prepared to get involved in any initiatives that DJM claim to be 'crowdfunded'.  And to clarify, it is your actions and words that have led me to making this decision, not those of another party.  As 'Dragons' do say, "I'm out!".

 

Sincerely,

Paul (bigP)

.attached

Edited October 2, 2016 by bigP

[DJM Dave]

Duplicated from the 'N' 92 thread as I felt it relevant to the OO 92 as well.

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for the mail and I fully understand your point.

 

However........crowdfunding works pretty much the way you have explained it.

For example, a model is crowfunded by altruistic participants that want to see a 71 or an N gauge pendolino etc.

 

Both these models are funded by the crowd pretty much, with the model coming to market later and at a higher price and in my case with running number and livery combo's that won't be repeated.

 

The manufacturer, in the case of the 71 is me, and what do I get for doing the model? Well I don't get 2 years of research, wages, out of pocket expenses linked to the model etc.

I would think this is the same with others who do this.

 

On a kickstarter site a 3D printer was backed and on the back of it the 3D printer will be sold to the public, with the company gaining sales and hence profit and, I think, a new factory to develop in.

 

So, what's in it for myself and others? Well a wage would be good. But doing a crowdfunding exercise is not just to be temporarily altruistic, it is to bring a much needed or wanted model in this case, to market expediently, accurately and at minimal cost to the pledgers, which after that is sated, leaves you to try and scratch some recompense for your own personal outlay and loss.

 

I don't think it's fooling anyone, and crowd funded models by others will be reaching the shops soon. That way they may have covered the shortfall in funding and started to make money themselves. Is that wrong? Is it deceitful?

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Afternoon Dave Jones,

 

 

In the now locked thread you said, "So what do i do? Over to you."

 

Well, we can't answer that one for you but it would appear that you have already made the decision.  In that post you state that you were contacted by another manufacturer after you initially announced the 92.  At the announcement point you were not taking any money from the public for either the N or OO model.  I recall this as I looked around your website when submitting an 'expression of interest'.

You have since begun to take monies from the public and so one can assume you have taken the decision to press on with the 92 already armed with the knowledge that another manufacturer was intending to produce it also.

 

You, Hornby, Bachmann or any other manufacturer are all quite entitled to produce whatever models you like (subject to the necessary licensing of course) and that fact remains so there is no reason why you shouldn't carry on.

 

 

Now, whilst I'm posting this I'll take the opportunity to mention that I will no longer be giving you any of my money, and that my decision has nothing to do with another manufacturer's plans but simply down to what I personally take to be deplorable behaviour on your part.  Allow me to explain why I feel this way.

 

 

Yesterday you posted that you intend on producing 92s for sale to the trade once the 'crowdfunders' have received their 92s and that the trade 92s will sell at at higher price.  When you initially announced the 92 project there was no mention of this whatsoever in either the N or OO thread (screenshot attached).  This had given me the impression that the only way to acquire a DJM 92 was to pay upfront for one of a limited run, which I was happy to do.

 

However, you are now stating that you intend to produce another batch of 92s to the trade.  This is an issue for me because as I see it any monies I give to you for the crowdfunded 92s are simply to bankroll a production of 92s for the trade from which you will profit greatly.

 

Given the estimated crowdfunded prices of £130 and £150 per loco for N and OO respectively, and given the nature of crowdfunding being a wholly funded entity, the crowdfunding will; pay for the R&D, pay for the CAD work, pay for the tooling, pay for livery licences, pay for the materials and production, and finally supply the models to the 'crowdfunders'.  Undoubtably you will make a little profit for reinvesment as you or anyone else quite rightly should given the hard work you will put in to such a project!

 

You will then produce another batch of 92s to the trade after we, the public, will have bankrolled all the R&D, CAD work, the tooling and the livery licenses.  You have already stated the trade models will sell at higher prices, and to differentiate them from the crowdfunded models they will have different running numbers/names. But that it all.

 

This, therefore, is not a social crowdfunding (community/not-for-profit) project in the traditional sense, but is more a form of equity crowdfunding, though you are not offering the public any equity or return on investment.  You are merely offering to return investments in the form of a model locomotive, leaving you to benefit greatly from a much reduced production cost run of 92s to sell directly to trade with a high(er) RRP. 

 

This is great business for you but a lousy investment for me!

 

 

The alternative of course is that DJM is co-funding this project and investing in the R&D, CAD, tooling and licensing as well.  However, if that is the case then you have no grounds to claim that this is a 'crowdfunded' project nor advertise it as such.

If this is jointly funded then I am greatly concerned at the estimated costs of the models to funders, let alone what the price to trade and RRP will be and thus how that would affect trade sales.  High I can only assume.

 

 

I will assume that the 'trade selling' idea is something that has evolved naturally, but for me seeds of doubt now exist over the veracity of the claim 'crowdfunded model' in the DJM context.   I'm left with the impression that you have used the spirit and goodwill of a 'social enterprise' concept as the basis to fund a commerical enterprise, with no intention of returning any of the profit to the investers that made it happen.  This is something that does not sit well with me. 

Your comments on this forum over the past 24 hours or so only agitate my concerns further, as you have given the appearance that as the 'crowd funds' are removed the possibility of a trade run of 92s and their associated profits for you slips away.  The notion 'We fund it, you profit from it', I find quite distasteful, as do I find using a modelling forum to air dirty laundry in an attempt to manipulate the public into 'chosing sides'.

 

Where I am to invest in a business/entity then I need to trust the individuals running it, and now quite simply, I don't trust you.  Could I please suggest that in future any products intended for trade sale are funded through private equity, business loans etc, and not this way.

 

I see no reason why a manufacturer should not make a profit for their work on a crowdfunded 'social enterprise' project, but using public crowdfunding to bankroll a trade run is simply inexcuseable and risks the reputation and future progress of genuine 'crowd funded' social enterprises.

 

 

These reasons, therefore, are why I am not prepared to get involved in any initiatives that DJM claim to be 'crowdfunded'.  And to clarify, it is your actions and words that have led me to making this decision, not those of another party.  As 'Dragons' do say, "I'm out!".

 

Sincerely,

Paul (bigP)

.attached

[Wigan Wallgate OO Gauge]

I interpreted this as a form of equity crowdfunding too but in a way where you are paying for a service (one off) ,to receive the promised end product as your return investment. As are many new products that are now available on the market, that have been equity crowdfunded through websites such as GoFundMe, GiveALittle and JustGiving etc, you pay the amount of money to aquire the service that you want from that company. In this case we - the people - are paying Dave a fee to produce the crowdfunded models and in return receive them back (as our equity/gains). On the websites, stated above, you receive the good or service - from the company - that you have donated/allocated your own money towards. Once you receive that good or service the company has nothing to do with you anymore. They have fulfilled their obligatory rights by produced the good or service for you within the price bracket that you allocated your money for. They can provide the good or service to only crowdfunders or the greater market without returning anything else to the initial funders, as long as they have fulfilled your "order" (yes I am using the word order lightly). If you wanted to see frequent returns and equity from investing then maybe shares in a company would be a better option, with crowdfunding the producer is only obliged to fulfil the "order" to the amount that you have donated. In this case, if I were to pay the £150 to Dave then he would be obliged to provide a product that falls within the £150 price bracket (including his production price to profit margin). But this is merely coming from the mind of a 15 year old (at 03:01 in the morning in New Zealand)so please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm training to become a lawyer).

 

In short - Dave is fully within his rights ,as the manufacturer, to reuse the tooling without the initial crowdfunders gaining equity because they have already received their 'share' (the model itself) for what they funded towards the model.

 

By the way Paul, this is not an attack on your comment, this is just a general statement for all. We all have freedom of opinion on the managers of the firms, personally I'm still loyal to Dave as he gets us - the clientele - involved in decisions and production. But as I said, everyone is welcome to an opinion and some people may feel more related to this scenario or know more about the situation. So I am not going to tell anyone they are wrong. Dave you still have my backing though for my OO gauge 92.

 

Tom Wyatt

Edited October 2, 2016 by Wigan Wallgate OO Gauge

[maq1988]

In a way the customer is always going to be paying for the CAD/CAM work, research and tooling - generally after release as manufacturers get that cost back as profit on the units they sell after their own upfront costs before hand. The difference here is the money is being asked for up front to help speed the process along.

 

In return I see no reason why Dave couldn't re-use the tooling for future Class 92 releases, be that in 1 year or 5.

 

May I dare think that future releases may again be based on 'expressions of interest' for certain liveries etc, and those that prove popular get produced in say batches of 500~1000 rather than a scattergun approach of producing something that is hoped will sell. That saves the manufacturer hopefully time / money and not get caught up with unsold stock sitting in warehouses.

 

On that note - Dave, I would now consider the same 'crowdfunding' approach for your previously announced models (J94 in N, 17 and 23 in both scales) to look at getting them to market quicker. If enough people signed for the upfront cost then great. If they don't meet their target then they can go into the 'when I've made more money' queue.

Edited October 2, 2016 by maq1988

[Legend]

I appreciate that crowd funding means you have the right to get a locomotive, but what happens beyond that really isn't of concern to you. As had been stated the contract you had has been fulfilled on delivery of your model. Actually to stop someone from making later releases (at a higher price , so therefore not at crowd founders advantageous terms) is more selfish as you are depriving other modellers of the model. Suppose you have no need for a 92 now , but in three years time you do.Have you got to wait for another crowd funding initiative?

 

I look at crowd funding as simply being a way of funding new models, not restricting models to those who initially funded it.

[YesTor]

The alternative of course is that DJM is co-funding this project and investing in the R&D, CAD, tooling and licensing as well.  However, if that is the case then you have no grounds to claim that this is a 'crowdfunded' project nor advertise it as such.

 

If this is jointly funded then I am greatly concerned at the estimated costs of the models to funders...

 

 

The cost/retail price of the models has been predicted to be around the £150 mark.  I can understand your logic however, just a thought, but have you considered that if research, development and production of the model were to be funded via the 'traditional' way that the final retail price for such a high-specification model produced in what must be relatively small quantities (in relation to perhaps any model from the larger manufacturers, ie. Hornby, Bachmann etc) might well prove to be far higher than the anticipated £150?

 

Another alternative, of course, is that we don't get a model of the 92 at all...

[bigP]

Tom,

 

Your interpretation of equity crowdfunding is totally inaccurate.  

 

"Equity crowdfunding is the online offering of private company securities to a group of people for investment. Because equity crowdfunding involves investment into a commercial enterprise, it is often subject to securities and financial regulation. Equity crowdfunding is also referred to as crowdinvesting, investment crowdfunding, or crowd equity."

 

https://www.syndicateroom.com/investors/what-is-equity-crowdfunding

 

What you have described is simply someone buying something.  Someone has a product, I pay for it (in advance or upon delivery is irrelevant), they supply it.  Contract fulfilled.

 

 

You're quite right, DJM can do what they like here, and I fully expect and support them in making a profit; it's a business and it needs to succeed. 

But, as my post above clearly states, in my opinion that isn't what is happening here and I feel that the original ethic of social enterprise/crowd funding is/was inaccurately used to attract capital to support a private commercial deal.

 

Using your shares analagoy I would expect that following to be happening here:

We invest cash and get a share (a loco model).  DJM make subsequent runs on the model to the trade which generates profit.  DJM and crowdfunders share in that profit - the dividend.  The crowdfunders share is returned (as a loco) but the profits are split.  That would be equity crowdfunding.  In essence the equity crowd funding replaces traditional bank start up loans/investments, which would not only see their investment returned (our loco model) but also receive a return on their investment as a share in the profit of all other sales on that item.

 

As you quite rightly point out this is only my opinion, but do please remember that DJM asked for people's opinions.  If you don't want to hear public opinions, good or bad, one shouldn't ask on a public forum. 

I have clearly explained why I can not support this venture and it is for me alone to do so, but there really is no need to try and pick fault with my position whilst you kiss the proverbial now is there.

 

Regards,

Paul

Edited October 2, 2016 by bigP