Date: 26th October 2017 at 11:08am
Written by:

Making money off the back of the death of a football fan has to be a new low. I’ve certainly never encountered anything quite like it before.

Spurs Odyssey – more commonly known as Spurs Odious聽– has a very strange way of cherishing the memory of a so called friend of the site.

Joe Osbourne was a young Spurs fan and contributor to Spurs Odyssey who passed way too soon in March of 2015. It’s not unusual for an online community to be effected by such an event and it’s aways nice to see people who don’t know each other in a conventional sense pull together.

The Joe Osbourne Pledges work on a straightforward basis, it’s a 拢10 to participate and then you make a pledge – say 拢5 for every goal a certain player scores or whatever.

But only 60% of the cash raised went to charity in Joe’s memory.

Is it really normal for the site owner to cream off 40% of monies raised for himself?

The Pledge Thread has since been re-badged, as is acknowledged in this post that wasn’t deleted.

拢2042 has been raised over the last 3 seasons alone and with the site’s self proclaimed ‘webmaster’ Paul Smith trousering 40% of the take.

That’s a whopping 拢816.18 of free money that’s gone straight in Mr Smith’s direction – for doing nothing more than providing a thread on his rather antiquated forum.

For such outdated site with so little traffic which is absolutely blitzed with advertising, it’s a stretch to believe that the operating costs are significant.

More to the point – if one is reduced to creaming money from a dead fan’s memorial fundraiser – maybe it’s time to just admit defeat and wind your website up?

I attempted to contact Mr Smith for a right of reply but he declined to comment.

 
Comments
  • Phoenix November 5, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    Once asked Paul Smith to provide details of his costs for the website. I was deleted from the forum a few weeks later..

  • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    My just giving page is Serge Aurier ‘Let’s Cure The Benders & Get Harry Hotspur Pissed This Weekend Into The Bargain’ page is currently under construction.

    Or investigation. I skim read the email.

  • is Gascoigne gonna have a crack? October 26, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Seems he’s doing what every charity does. An official charity is only liable to cough up a certain percentage of the proceeds. Can’t remember the exact percentage but its disgusting. Years ago I did that door to door charity work and that company owed a million odd quid administration costs. Team leaders were on 12 quid plus an hour which was a lot then. Toerags.

  • 61SpursNut馃尠 October 26, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    I’m starting a just giving page to fund my Star Trek habit. Please donate to odiousfuck@yahoo.cunt.

    • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 1:13 pm

      Good move Nut. I’ll start one to fund my drinking habit, but I can promise all of you that you will only be paying for the coke, lime and ice, the Bacardi is on me.

      • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 1:15 pm

        Sounds like you’ve sneakily included a snorting habit, misleading to say the least.

  • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    It’s pretty simple really. Would Mr Smith have made 拢800 odd quid over the same period if the thread wasn’t dedicated to this poor chap, and if he hadn’t promised to dedicate 60% to charity? No.
    Bear in mind Spooky has a similar “keep the blog going” thang which has earnt him 拢7.

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 12:43 pm

      Precisely. All these guys are scrambling because they are stupid.

      Can’t pay your bills? What the heck, dream up some way of getting your readers to send you cash. This is the mindset of a dummy.

  • GingerPele October 26, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    ronwol196061
    Then it is blurring the lines,lac of clarity not charity. The charity for the member should have been a side issue and then people donating would have understood what was what

    The users knew exactly what was what, it was never hidden. Selective screenshots are being used.

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 12:45 pm

      There’s nothing selective about the screenshots.

      Mr Smith is creaming 40% off the top – I’m not claiming he’s made3 any secret of the fact – I just believe doing so when something is badged as a ‘memorial’ for someone is fundamentally wrong.

      Who takes 40% off the top of charity cash? Nobody will answer this!

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 12:54 pm

      It doesn’t matter if the users knew. What took place was deeply unethical.

      Would it be illegal to donate 40% to Rose West’s canteen? No, but why would anyone want to? It doesn’t make it right by stating up front what you’re doing.

    • ronwol196061馃嚚馃嚘 October 26, 2017 at 1:02 pm

      They knew 40% was being creamed off???
      Or they knew there was a Charity aspect to a donation to save the site?

  • GingerPele October 26, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    The thread was named after Joe (years after being first established), with donations made to mental health charities, and donations for site costs. All people donating are completely aware of this. Users set up the thread and decided what happened with the money.

    • ronwol196061馃嚚馃嚘 October 26, 2017 at 1:04 pm

      Do you have a real certified statement

  • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Charities are generally non profit and what is taken into consideration if it is legit is their real expenses. In this case the site itself is not a charity its a business about a blog. So the expenses should be minimal.

    • Horndog 馃嚭馃嚫 October 26, 2017 at 12:16 pm

      By the way, based upon your tip, I am watching Sneaky Pete. Outstanding.

      • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 12:22 pm

        Watching a new one now Mindhunter…has a different vibe…from the middle of the 2nd episode really good

  • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Will
    The pledge thread on Spurs Odyssey existed long before Joe sadly passed away, it was originally set up with the purpose of raising money to help fund the site as well as donating to charity. Websites aren鈥檛 cheap to run as I hope you鈥檇 know. After Joe鈥檚 death, we dedicated the thread to his memory, and we raise funds in his memory, allowing the site to carry on and donate more and more to charity every year. I hope you鈥檒l have the sense to extend a formal apology to the site, because this piece is truly vitriolic.

    Will, if a 1 million pound donation was made to your site, would you lot still hang on to 40% ??

    • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 12:09 pm

      Its a non issue McG because the charity side is not a business. Its about expenses not overhead so the amount doesnt matter

      • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 12:15 pm

        Fair enough Ron, but it was originally set up to fund the site along with donating to charity. If the funding requirements for the site to exist were genuine, I can accept that. If the whole thing is bogus and just exploitation to pocket money, the guy’s scum.

        • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 12:20 pm

          Then it is blurring the lines,lac of clarity not charity. The charity for the member should have been a side issue and then people donating would have understood what was what

          • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 12:25 pm

            As someone mentioned below, they should be separate. The only right thing left to do is issue a statement of reader donations, declared expenses and proof of residual going to charity.

            • ronwol196061馃嚚馃嚘 October 26, 2017 at 1:02 pm

              Yep

    • Will October 26, 2017 at 12:15 pm

      The 60% is a minimum amount, not an absolute. I couldn’t see 40% being retained from such a high amount.

      • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 12:19 pm

        So you don’t know? He hasn’t made it clear exactly how much has gone to charity?

      • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 12:36 pm

        Then you should ask Mr Smith to show what he gave and what he kept.

        Nobody takes 40% or anywhere near it as a handling fee. Oh, apart from the Kray Twins.

  • StuSpur October 26, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    No cut should ever be taken from a charitable collection for a tragedy. If you need to collect for something else then keep it seperate. Simples

    • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 12:09 pm

      Yep, would certainly avoid any confusion.

      • StuSpur October 26, 2017 at 12:14 pm

        I think the the point H is making is that by creating the ‘confusion’ has directly assisted in raising donations and thereby the webmasters cut.

  • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    One Flew Over SPURTS Cuckoo Nest 馃拫
    First. What a barstard. Is that even legal?

    Born out of Winelock

  • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    OK hold my hands up, have no idea of what it costs to run a site, just though 拢800 didn’t sound unreasonable. If it was always dual purpose, site funding and charity donating, it was open knowledge for all. No, I wouldn’t be happy if 40% of sue Ryder funds were used for funding their site!

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 12:05 pm

      What have site overheads got to do with a dead reader of that site? You and Mr Smith haven’t thought this through.

      Why would someone bundle overheads in with a charity gig?

    • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 12:07 pm

      McG he isnt running the site as a charity,its a side issue. Therefore expenses at best are minimal

    • OrganicPaper October 26, 2017 at 2:37 pm

      The 800 is only sounding ‘reasonable’ because of the overall amount raised. If the site had raised 10 k, would a 4k trousering be acceptable?
      Not a chance.
      I agree it’s unethicle and frankly unnecessary to pocket a rather arbitory and rather large 40% for simply hosting. Surely thats not in the spirit of the memorial fund

  • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 11:54 am

    If it is a charity organization then even its a non profit it would have expenses. But if its a casual Charity,a side issue charity then the expenses should be almost non existent
    40% is totally ridiculous

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:57 am

      The cost of adding a thread to a website is nil.

      • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 11:58 am

        Harry you spent more on this one than they did

        • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:58 am

          Is that an invoice???!

    • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 11:57 am

      If you were talking 40% of ten mil, fair enough, we’re talking 拢800 here, which don’t sound too unreasonable to me. I dunno, but it was alr3ady in play before this chap passed.

      • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 11:59 am

        I can’t understand what the amount has to do with it.

        • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 12:00 pm

          Nor could anyone with any self respect.

  • Spiderneil October 26, 2017 at 11:51 am

    Wow, what a piece of shit. Charitable work should be exactly that. Most people do work for charities off their own back in cases like this, they don鈥檛 look to make other people pay for their mechanisms.

  • Danny Mackay October 26, 2017 at 11:49 am

    I don’t see what’s wrong here. People donate to help keep the site they like going. And a bunch of extra money left over goes to charity. Is that a bad thing? Seems like a good thing. And naming something in tribute to a lost friend isn’t that unusual. No one thinks the Northumberlsnd Arms renamed itself the Bill Nicholson out of greed. It was a tribute by a Spurs fans and a Spurs pub.

    • McG鈿解毥 October 26, 2017 at 11:53 am

      I was kinda thinking the same, if Wills explanation is to be taken at face value, better some money to charity than none. 拢800 ain’t exactly brinks mat…

      • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:56 am

        So you would have had no objection to me taking 40% of the Sue Ryder cash this blog made? Shit, I could have bought a better TV.

      • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 11:56 am

        This is not a charity organization and so this tickle down money is no applicable. They are making 40%?????????? On what???????? one stamp????????

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:54 am

      Why wouldn’t you just have two separate fundraisers?

      Would I want donate to help a pal out? Yes.

      Would I want donate to help a commercial enterprise that couldn’t pay its bills? No.

      • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 11:57 am

        This is it. I’ve no doubt the donations were higher after the new naming than before. Therefore Mr Smith has personally benefited from it.

  • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 11:37 am

    We at Ronglish Enterprises and Charity take all of the $19.95 we receive in receivables. Sorry that is Ronglish Enterprises and Clarity

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:49 am

      Ronglish, in future I’m going to need 27p for each post promoting your non-profit fantasy league.

      I haven’t got a calculator to hand but if you can wire me 拢19.95 a week (backdated for the last 3 seasons) that would be appreciated.

      • ronwol196061 October 26, 2017 at 11:51 am

        The cheque is in the mai…er shredder

  • Will October 26, 2017 at 11:25 am

    The pledge thread on Spurs Odyssey existed long before Joe sadly passed away, it was originally set up with the purpose of raising money to help fund the site as well as donating to charity. Websites aren’t cheap to run as I hope you’d know. After Joe’s death, we dedicated the thread to his memory, and we raise funds in his memory, allowing the site to carry on and donate more and more to charity every year. I hope you’ll have the sense to extend a formal apology to the site, because this piece is truly vitriolic.

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:28 am

      So you now acknowledge that the Pledge Thread was rebadged to give the webmaster’s take a boost.

      Perhaps now the money is on the wane he feels that Joe’s served his purpose and it can be unbadged?

      Thank you for sharing.

      • One Flew Over SPURTS Cuckoo Nest 馃拫 October 26, 2017 at 11:32 am

        *for sharing 60% (at least)

      • Will October 26, 2017 at 11:33 am

        It was named in his honour because he’d been a regular contributor to the pledge thread. Many on the forum knew Joe very well and we took the collective decision to dedicate the thread to his memory as a mark of respect.

        • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:40 am

          Explain to me how creaming 40% off for yourself is respectful.

          That’s the bit I’m struggling with.

        • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 11:44 am

          *dedicated 60% of the thread in his memory as a mark of respect.
          An honourable thing to do, no doubt. Do any of you know if Mr Smith donated too, and if so, did he take his cut off his own donation?
          Have to say, it would leave a sour taste in my mouth donating towards any charity whereby the charity don’t get all the money. I’m sure you guys want to keep the site going, but surely the two should have been kept separate? It does lead him open to criticism, correctly.

          • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 11:45 am

            *leave

            • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:47 am

              He’s not so much blurred the line as spilled a pint over it, whilst sniffing a fat line off a hooker’s ass…

              • Freund or Foe October 26, 2017 at 11:53 am

                Blurred lines for sure, and no Emily with her baps out to make up for it.

  • One Flew Over SPURTS Cuckoo Nest 馃拫 October 26, 2017 at 11:17 am

    First. What a barstard. Is that even legal?

    • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:31 am

      Probably not illegal but certainly psychopathically unethical.

      Either something is charitable or it’s for your own pocket. I don’t believe Mr Smith has sought to deceive anyone.

      He’s just a deeply unpleasant individual.

      • One Flew Over SPURTS Cuckoo Nest 馃拫 October 26, 2017 at 11:38 am

        I wasn’t suggesting that the fellow was deceiving anyone, just that if you facilitate the raising of money for charity and claim administration fees I’d be surprised if you didn’t have to justify those fees. 40% sounds like a lot for donations of ~ 2.5k.

        • Harry Hotspur October 26, 2017 at 11:41 am

          Agreed, I was just making the point that the poor bastards who have chipped into this have done so willingly which I find bizarre.

          As you say, as an Admin fee, 40% is eye-watering.