Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 11:14am Mon 4 Feb 08
Calamitous Cooncil interference. Why oh why do we put up with this rubbish?
What the article doesn't mention is the [bold]millions[/bold] of pounds which the owners of Adventure Forest Ltd - trading as "Go Ape" - are likely to receive when they sell their business on in a few years. They have numerous sites and last year's turnover was approx 6million pounds. There is an article in another newspaper in which they say that they plan to let someone else take over the business and go sailing in a few years..
Why on earth is this development even being considered? Disgraceful.
Calamitous Cooncil interference. Why oh why do we put up with this rubbish?
What the article doesn't mention is the
millions of pounds which the owners of Adventure Forest Ltd - trading as "Go Ape" - are likely to receive when they sell their business on in a few years. They have numerous sites and last year's turnover was approx 6million pounds. There is an article in another newspaper in which they say that they plan to let someone else take over the business and go sailing in a few years..
Why on earth is this development even being considered? Disgraceful.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 11:19am Mon 4 Feb 08
The council spokesperson says that it is "not about making money, but about providing enhanced facilities in our parks"
Enhanced facilities for WHOM - those who can afford to pay the high prices, which rules out the majority of Glasgow teenagers, the group at which the Council have previously said that this is aimed?
I can virtually guarantee that the Glaswegians who responded to the 2004 "consultation, and said that they would like to see "enhanced facilities" had absolutely no concept of being charged these kind of prices.
And why does Pollok Park require "enhanced facilities" when it has already won Best Park of the Year for the whole of Britain as it stands?
The council spokesperson says that it is "not about making money, but about providing enhanced facilities in our parks"
Enhanced facilities for WHOM - those who can afford to pay the high prices, which rules out the majority of Glasgow teenagers, the group at which the Council have previously said that this is aimed?
I can virtually guarantee that the Glaswegians who responded to the 2004 "consultation, and said that they would like to see "enhanced facilities" had absolutely no concept of being charged these kind of prices.
And why does Pollok Park require "enhanced facilities" when it has already won Best Park of the Year for the whole of Britain as it stands?
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 12:01pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote]Council bosses today stressed the Go Ape plan was not about about making cash and insisted it was about providing enhanced facilities in parks.[/quote]
I feel even the laudable campaigners are missing the bigger picture here: Go Ape (ostensibly aimed at kids) is just a Trojan Horse the council will use to 'corporatise' Pollok Park. Steven Purcell has decided that Pollok Park will become a 'conference and corporate training haven'... good luck to anyone who tries to stop this!
Looks like a PR company has set up an 'independent survey' to counter the bad press for Purcell:
[bold]www.pollokpark.org[/bold]
Council bosses today stressed the Go Ape plan was not about about making cash and insisted it was about providing enhanced facilities in parks.
I feel even the laudable campaigners are missing the bigger picture here: Go Ape (ostensibly aimed at kids) is just a Trojan Horse the council will use to 'corporatise' Pollok Park. Steven Purcell has decided that Pollok Park will become a 'conference and corporate training haven'... good luck to anyone who tries to stop this!
Looks like a PR company has set up an 'independent survey' to counter the bad press for Purcell:
www.pollokpark.org Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 12:28pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Dodgy consultation led to this, planning application now in make your views known to planning department by emailling your views to
sean.mccollam@drs.gl
asgow.gov.uk
Stop this desecration of this most loved glasgow park
meeting tomorrow (Tuesady)7.30 Pollokshaws Burgh halls to assist Save Pollok Park to plan further opposition to this development.
Dodgy consultation led to this, planning application now in make your views known to planning department by emailling your views to
sean.mccollam@drs.gl
asgow.gov.uk
Stop this desecration of this most loved glasgow park
meeting tomorrow (Tuesady)7.30 Pollokshaws Burgh halls to assist Save Pollok Park to plan further opposition to this development.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 12:29pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Mr Chick Young may have some knowledge of football but he clearly is not in any way qualified to comment on business decisions.
As was fully explained at the recent public meeting, the Council's proposed agreement is very much in line with those entered into with Go Ape by, for example, the forestry commission. Other similar companies were also approached by the Council to see what they could offer. Indeed the Council has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 free places for Glasgow shoolchildren each year, worth £9000 per annum.
Fag packet calulations of turnover are not what I expect from the Evening Times.
Mr Chick Young may have some knowledge of football but he clearly is not in any way qualified to comment on business decisions.
As was fully explained at the recent public meeting, the Council's proposed agreement is very much in line with those entered into with Go Ape by, for example, the forestry commission. Other similar companies were also approached by the Council to see what they could offer. Indeed the Council has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 free places for Glasgow shoolchildren each year, worth £9000 per annum.
Fag packet calulations of turnover are not what I expect from the Evening Times.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 12:41pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Hi Forbes
have not heard from you for a while.
The "fag packet " calculations " are based on a projection of high usage of facility therefore they show the best result for GCC income, if the project is not as successful then the income for the council becomes even less.
According to Mr Mayhew from Go Ape they were approached by GCC, there was no tendering process for this development.
Go ape has 16 development across the UK, 14 of them are in Forestry Commision "Forests" all of these are in remote locations ie over 5 miles to the nearest village, it is not reasonable to compare these developements with Pollok Park.
Hi Forbes
have not heard from you for a while.
The "fag packet " calculations " are based on a projection of high usage of facility therefore they show the best result for GCC income, if the project is not as successful then the income for the council becomes even less.
According to Mr Mayhew from Go Ape they were approached by GCC, there was no tendering process for this development.
Go ape has 16 development across the UK, 14 of them are in Forestry Commision "Forests" all of these are in remote locations ie over 5 miles to the nearest village, it is not reasonable to compare these developements with Pollok Park.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 12:53pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote]Indeed the Council has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 free places for Glasgow shoolchildren each year, worth £9000 per annum.[/quote]
Yes well, indeed, that would be a bit like Celtic selling Artur Boruc to ManU for £100,000, then saying:
[quote]Celtic has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 ManU teatowels for Celtic supporters each year, worth £90 per annum.[/[/quote]
Indeed the Council has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 free places for Glasgow shoolchildren each year, worth £9000 per annum.
Yes well, indeed, that would be a bit like Celtic selling Artur Boruc to ManU for £100,000, then saying:
Celtic has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 ManU teatowels for Celtic supporters each year, worth £90 per annum.[/
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 12:59pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Gavin48, as pointed out by the Ciuncil, this is not an income generation scheme; it is about providing a facility for the citizens of Glasgow which the Council itself has neither the resources or the expertise to provide directly. The idea of a partnership agreement is one that brings benefit to all.
My complaint regarding fag packet accountancy is that it is used to suggest that we are being ripped off or exploited by rampant profiteers. Further, it suggests that Council officers are too stupid to negotiate a fair and equitable commercial agreement. That is both inaccurate and insulting.
Gavin48, as pointed out by the Ciuncil, this is not an income generation scheme; it is about providing a facility for the citizens of Glasgow which the Council itself has neither the resources or the expertise to provide directly. The idea of a partnership agreement is one that brings benefit to all.
My complaint regarding fag packet accountancy is that it is used to suggest that we are being ripped off or exploited by rampant profiteers. Further, it suggests that Council officers are too stupid to negotiate a fair and equitable commercial agreement. That is both inaccurate and insulting.
Posted by: Seymour Hope, Glasgow on 1:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
The electred representatives are not listening to the electorate.
The income generated from go ape cannot be offset against the loss of enjoymen to the majority of park users.
Forbes... £9000 per annum for free places is not actual revenue. It is PR fro go Ape which it can claim tax relief and other benefits from
The electred representatives are not listening to the electorate.
The income generated from go ape cannot be offset against the loss of enjoymen to the majority of park users.
Forbes... £9000 per annum for free places is not actual revenue. It is PR fro go Ape which it can claim tax relief and other benefits from
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:08pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Forbes
The point of the calculations is to show that even if the business ran really well then the return to the council is still very poor.
Go APe have 16 developements across the UK 14 of them are in Forestry Commsion Forests all of which are at least 5 miles from the nearest village, there fore it is not reasonable to compare these developments with that in the North Woods of Pollok Park.
I am not sure that any other company was approached, however I am sure that this did not go out to tender
Forbes
The point of the calculations is to show that even if the business ran really well then the return to the council is still very poor.
Go APe have 16 developements across the UK 14 of them are in Forestry Commsion Forests all of which are at least 5 miles from the nearest village, there fore it is not reasonable to compare these developments with that in the North Woods of Pollok Park.
I am not sure that any other company was approached, however I am sure that this did not go out to tender
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 1:10pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Totally risible post from Forbes as usual.
In terms of negotiations, there is nothing the Council has done which can be called "successful".
Totally risible post from Forbes as usual.
In terms of negotiations, there is nothing the Council has done which can be called "successful".
Posted by: milton on 1:14pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Forbes - I agree wholeheartedly that this should not be about opposing development for the sake of it..
However, Pollok Park is a genuinely unique asset. How many other cities can boast a park the size of Pollok within their boundaries - much less a park in which so much space is given over to near-natural habitat.
It's already a minor tragedy that the tranquility of the park has been so affected by the M77 passing by, and a development of this nature would impinge detramentally on what peace still exists.
Pollok Park would be this unique asset even without the Burrell Collection and Pollok house.. with them it is absolutely NO need of an further "diversification", much less a project that will benefit so few. A less inclusionary project I find it hard to conceive of.
Forbes - I agree wholeheartedly that this should not be about opposing development for the sake of it..
However, Pollok Park is a genuinely unique asset. How many other cities can boast a park the size of Pollok within their boundaries - much less a park in which so much space is given over to near-natural habitat.
It's already a minor tragedy that the tranquility of the park has been so affected by the M77 passing by, and a development of this nature would impinge detramentally on what peace still exists.
Pollok Park would be this unique asset even without the Burrell Collection and Pollok house.. with them it is absolutely NO need of an further "diversification", much less a project that will benefit so few. A less inclusionary project I find it hard to conceive of.
Posted by: Bob Downie, Glasgow on 1:39pm Mon 4 Feb 08
As well as the incredibly cheap rental, what about rates? Go Ape intend to leech off the park toilets and car-parking without paying a penny for these services. Just to put this in perspective, I have friend who leased a small shop unit in Shawlands High Street. As well as £14,000 year rent he had £16,000 rates. He had to turn over £30,000 before paying himself a penny.
Go Ape must be laughing at the council for giving them these pepper corn terms for their multi-million pound business. I despair.
As well as the incredibly cheap rental, what about rates? Go Ape intend to leech off the park toilets and car-parking without paying a penny for these services. Just to put this in perspective, I have friend who leased a small shop unit in Shawlands High Street. As well as £14,000 year rent he had £16,000 rates. He had to turn over £30,000 before paying himself a penny.
Go Ape must be laughing at the council for giving them these pepper corn terms for their multi-million pound business. I despair.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 1:44pm Mon 4 Feb 08
450 free places a yeat out of a capacity of 60,000 per year? So that means that 99.25% of places will go to people paying the full fee of £25 per adult and £20 per child. And you think that is a good deal for Glasgow's children? That is a unique perspective!
450 free places a yeat out of a capacity of 60,000 per year? So that means that 99.25% of places will go to people paying the full fee of £25 per adult and £20 per child. And you think that is a good deal for Glasgow's children? That is a unique perspective!
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 3:07pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Here is a wee message for Mr Tristram Mayhew if indeed he reads this rag..There is no way that this development will ever get built..The protests over the motorway thru the park will seem like a carnival compared to the protest that he faces over this..Think on Mr Mayhew
Here is a wee message for Mr Tristram Mayhew if indeed he reads this rag..There is no way that this development will ever get built..The protests over the motorway thru the park will seem like a carnival compared to the protest that he faces over this..Think on Mr Mayhew
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 3:26pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]HGlasgwegian[/bold] wrote:
450 free places a yeat out of a capacity of 60,000 per year? So that means that 99.25% of places will go to people paying the full fee of £25 per adult and £20 per child. And you think that is a good deal for Glasgow's children? That is a unique perspective![/quote] And that's assuming that the 450 "free places" will give each child the full 2 - 3 hours that paying customers are given. Somehow I doubt that very much. So Forbes Aiken's assertion that " the Council has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 free places for Glasgow shoolchildren each year, worth £9000 per annum." is totally misleading, unless he knows for certain that the school children will be given the exact same access a paying customers.
It can also be argued that these "free places" are merely to provide a taster session for the schoolkids who will then go home and pester their parents to take them at weekends or evenings at full prices.
HGlasgwegian wrote:
450 free places a yeat out of a capacity of 60,000 per year? So that means that 99.25% of places will go to people paying the full fee of £25 per adult and £20 per child. And you think that is a good deal for Glasgow's children? That is a unique perspective!
And that's assuming that the 450 "free places" will give each child the full 2 - 3 hours that paying customers are given. Somehow I doubt that very much. So Forbes Aiken's assertion that " the Council has successfully negotiated the additional provision of 450 free places for Glasgow shoolchildren each year, worth £9000 per annum." is totally misleading, unless he knows for certain that the school children will be given the exact same access a paying customers.
It can also be argued that these "free places" are merely to provide a taster session for the schoolkids who will then go home and pester their parents to take them at weekends or evenings at full prices.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 3:33pm Mon 4 Feb 08
People should also be aware that the figure of 450 is a [bold]maximum[/bold] only.
People should also be aware that the figure of 450 is a
maximum only.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 3:43pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote]I feel even the laudable campaigners are missing the bigger picture here: Go Ape (ostensibly aimed at kids) is just a Trojan Horse the council will use to 'corporatise' Pollok Park. Steven Purcell has decided that Pollok Park will become a 'conference and corporate training haven'... good luck to anyone who tries to stop this![/quote]
Totally agree that it's not aimed at kids - check out Go Ape's website and the whole section devoted to corporate bookings (and the prices!) Bet they've already earmarked Pollok House & the Burrell for the conference facilities that are on offer at all of their sites.
I feel even the laudable campaigners are missing the bigger picture here: Go Ape (ostensibly aimed at kids) is just a Trojan Horse the council will use to 'corporatise' Pollok Park. Steven Purcell has decided that Pollok Park will become a 'conference and corporate training haven'... good luck to anyone who tries to stop this!
Totally agree that it's not aimed at kids - check out Go Ape's website and the whole section devoted to corporate bookings (and the prices!) Bet they've already earmarked Pollok House & the Burrell for the conference facilities that are on offer at all of their sites.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 3:50pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Yup. [bold]£170-a-head corporate events?[/bold] Doubt local people are Go Ape's target market somehow..
Have no objection to this proposal in general, but a very serious objection to those who want to use property gifted for the enjoyment of the people of Glasgow, with such inadequate consultation, for this intrusive and exclusive development.
Why can't Go Ape just lease part of a commercial forest near Loch Lomond, for example? The answer - [bold]MONEY![/bold] Our admired Cooncil are trying to give this away on the [bold]CHEAP![/bold] Shame on them.
Yup.
£170-a-head corporate events? Doubt local people are Go Ape's target market somehow..
Have no objection to this proposal in general, but a very serious objection to those who want to use property gifted for the enjoyment of the people of Glasgow, with such inadequate consultation, for this intrusive and exclusive development.
Why can't Go Ape just lease part of a commercial forest near Loch Lomond, for example? The answer -
MONEY! Our admired Cooncil are trying to give this away on the
CHEAP! Shame on them.
Posted by: dtb, Glesga on 3:52pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Bob Downie[/bold] wrote:
As well as the incredibly cheap rental, what about rates? Go Ape intend to leech off the park toilets and car-parking without paying a penny for these services. Just to put this in perspective, I have friend who leased a small shop unit in Shawlands High Street. As well as £14,000 year rent he had £16,000 rates. He had to turn over £30,000 before paying himself a penny. Go Ape must be laughing at the council for giving them these pepper corn terms for their multi-million pound business. I despair. [/quote] Spot on there Bob. Its an absolute joke the 'rates' they are paying.
Who owns Go Ape ? they must have friends in high places (so to speak) Thats just £50 a week for the first year, not too bad eh ? And they're charging £25 a go for adults.
Bob Downie wrote:
As well as the incredibly cheap rental, what about rates? Go Ape intend to leech off the park toilets and car-parking without paying a penny for these services. Just to put this in perspective, I have friend who leased a small shop unit in Shawlands High Street. As well as £14,000 year rent he had £16,000 rates. He had to turn over £30,000 before paying himself a penny. Go Ape must be laughing at the council for giving them these pepper corn terms for their multi-million pound business. I despair.
Spot on there Bob. Its an absolute joke the 'rates' they are paying.
Who owns Go Ape ? they must have friends in high places (so to speak) Thats just £50 a week for the first year, not too bad eh ? And they're charging £25 a go for adults.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 4:02pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I hate to be a voice of reason especially as so many people have rightly critisized the local council in glasgow which lets face it is as crooked as they come. But lets look at facts somebody mentioned the vast profits that would be made selling the business but did not mention the tax revenue that would accrue from somebody having to pay 20% in tax on his profits. Nor the fact folk would be employed for years in an outdoor pursuit something only gardeners get to do or park wardens. But unlike the park wardens who just kick children playing off the grasss these jobs would be paing all the same taxes we all have to pay. The idea that go ape is turning into a conference centre is laughable im still chortling away merrily at how a 3 acre sit is going to be developed to rival the SECC. As for pollock park being so unique that is total bull I have seen nothing unique in the park other than what is on show in the burrel. It may well be a huge park but so what it holds so little of interest it could do with being jazzed up a bit just do not leave it to the council to do it.
I hate to be a voice of reason especially as so many people have rightly critisized the local council in glasgow which lets face it is as crooked as they come. But lets look at facts somebody mentioned the vast profits that would be made selling the business but did not mention the tax revenue that would accrue from somebody having to pay 20% in tax on his profits. Nor the fact folk would be employed for years in an outdoor pursuit something only gardeners get to do or park wardens. But unlike the park wardens who just kick children playing off the grasss these jobs would be paing all the same taxes we all have to pay. The idea that go ape is turning into a conference centre is laughable im still chortling away merrily at how a 3 acre sit is going to be developed to rival the SECC. As for pollock park being so unique that is total bull I have seen nothing unique in the park other than what is on show in the burrel. It may well be a huge park but so what it holds so little of interest it could do with being jazzed up a bit just do not leave it to the council to do it.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:03pm Mon 4 Feb 08
1) The lease agreement is fully in line with other commercially negotiated agreements between Go Ape and the likes of the Forestry Commission.
2) Any commercial rate payable by Go Ape would, as with all other such payments, go to a central Scottish pot. Not all of the monies raised in Glasgow are returned to Glasgow.
3) As I have said before, the usage and turnover figures used by Save Pollok Park are, at best, the product of creative accounting and have little or no connection with reality.
4) The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick.
5) Threats of violent protest do the good folk of Save Pollok Park and their central case, great facility - wrong place, no good whatsoever.
1) The lease agreement is fully in line with other commercially negotiated agreements between Go Ape and the likes of the Forestry Commission.
2) Any commercial rate payable by Go Ape would, as with all other such payments, go to a central Scottish pot. Not all of the monies raised in Glasgow are returned to Glasgow.
3) As I have said before, the usage and turnover figures used by Save Pollok Park are, at best, the product of creative accounting and have little or no connection with reality.
4) The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick.
5) Threats of violent protest do the good folk of Save Pollok Park and their central case, great facility - wrong place, no good whatsoever.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 4:04pm Mon 4 Feb 08
For the sake of accuracy, and before one of the pro-Cooncil trolls chimes in and accuses us of misinformation, Go Ape are actually technically responsible for "rates" on the subjects of the lease. See the lease:
[quote]AFL shall be responsible for the payment of rates, water and sewerage charges and all
other taxes whether local or national which are or may become payable now or in the
future insofar as they directly relate to Go Ape High Ropes Adventure Course,
reception cabin and forest shelter.[/quote]
This definitely won't include the cost of water or sewerage re the Burrell toilets though - or the Courtyard, Robert! : )
Regardless of this technical point, the cost-benefit ratio is still heavily in Go Ape's favour.
For the sake of accuracy, and before one of the pro-Cooncil trolls chimes in and accuses us of misinformation, Go Ape are actually technically responsible for "rates" on the subjects of the lease. See the lease:
AFL shall be responsible for the payment of rates, water and sewerage charges and all
other taxes whether local or national which are or may become payable now or in the
future insofar as they directly relate to Go Ape High Ropes Adventure Course,
reception cabin and forest shelter.
This definitely won't include the cost of water or sewerage re the Burrell toilets though - or the Courtyard, Robert! : )
Regardless of this technical point, the cost-benefit ratio is still heavily in Go Ape's favour.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 4:06pm Mon 4 Feb 08
The only point I agree with is its given away on the cheap but its better than the government having to put up a similar kids playground and staff it in every park in Britain.
The only point I agree with is its given away on the cheap but its better than the government having to put up a similar kids playground and staff it in every park in Britain.
Posted by: Gary, Parkhead on 4:07pm Mon 4 Feb 08
The people of Glasgow will go ape ok. Go ape at the shambles that's in the council. Giving away £ 4.5 million of our money for empty ground over in Dalmarnock and now this plan to disrupt a great park and not even contemplate a 5 figure rental sum for a 6 figure return to a company who need the area.
The scent of corruption grows stronger each day with labour. If it's good enough for Wendy then her fellow incompetent Purcell may very well be receiving undeclared donations also.
Get this bunch out at the next election folks.
The people of Glasgow will go ape ok. Go ape at the shambles that's in the council. Giving away £ 4.5 million of our money for empty ground over in Dalmarnock and now this plan to disrupt a great park and not even contemplate a 5 figure rental sum for a 6 figure return to a company who need the area.
The scent of corruption grows stronger each day with labour. If it's good enough for Wendy then her fellow incompetent Purcell may very well be receiving undeclared donations also.
Get this bunch out at the next election folks.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 4:10pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Forbes, with the absolute maximum of respect, it really is time for you to clear off and do something constructive. I have seen you trolling this board, and that of The Herald, on many issues.
In the sense that you play "Devil's Advocate", I respect and admire that - to a point. But these are real issues which concern real people - not abstract debate club items for you to exercise your clearly under-used brain over.
And by the way, accusing Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest is a desperately low tactic, and one which could quite happily get you sued for defamation. [bold]And I'll remind you that the main violent protagonist in the motorway protests was MP Allan Stewart, who had to resign for waving a pickaxe at protesters![/bold]
Your posts are pathetic.
Forbes, with the absolute maximum of respect, it really is time for you to clear off and do something constructive. I have seen you trolling this board, and that of The Herald, on many issues.
In the sense that you play "Devil's Advocate", I respect and admire that - to a point. But these are real issues which concern real people - not abstract debate club items for you to exercise your clearly under-used brain over.
And by the way, accusing Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest is a desperately low tactic, and one which could quite happily get you sued for defamation.
And I'll remind you that the main violent protagonist in the motorway protests was MP Allan Stewart, who had to resign for waving a pickaxe at protesters!
Your posts are pathetic.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:12pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Forbes @4.03
Just the same as you have said before.
The point is this is a bad deal for the City for The park and for the park users.
The figures in this article are for demonstration purposes only, they demonstrate that even, [italic]even[/italic] if this venture is used 100% then the return for GCC is pitiful. [bold]Thats The Point of the Article[/bold] Its not creative accountancy if anything it is painting the best possible scenario for GCC, try to understand if the usage is less than 100% then there is a corresponding drop in the income for GCC.
Putting aside the issue of location,Its a bad deal because to sell off a top attraction like Pollok Park for such a small amount is just bad business. Mr Mayhew although a personable enough fellow, is first and foremost a business man, he sees an opportunity to grow his business in a prime location. He does not give a fig about Glasgow or Pollok Park, he is only interested in a return for his business.
Forbes @4.03
Just the same as you have said before.
The point is this is a bad deal for the City for The park and for the park users.
The figures in this article are for demonstration purposes only, they demonstrate that even,
even if this venture is used 100% then the return for GCC is pitiful.
Thats The Point of the Article Its not creative accountancy if anything it is painting the best possible scenario for GCC, try to understand if the usage is less than 100% then there is a corresponding drop in the income for GCC.
Putting aside the issue of location,Its a bad deal because to sell off a top attraction like Pollok Park for such a small amount is just bad business. Mr Mayhew although a personable enough fellow, is first and foremost a business man, he sees an opportunity to grow his business in a prime location. He does not give a fig about Glasgow or Pollok Park, he is only interested in a return for his business.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:17pm Mon 4 Feb 08
TICL, I most certainly never accused the organisers of Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest. Quite the contrary, it is comments of those like Biffo the Bear, above, which I was suggesting did a dis-service to an entirely legitimate, if misguided, campaign.
TICL, I most certainly never accused the organisers of Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest. Quite the contrary, it is comments of those like Biffo the Bear, above, which I was suggesting did a dis-service to an entirely legitimate, if misguided, campaign.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 4:23pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Here is the post by "Biffo the Bear"(!)
[quote]Here is a wee message for Mr Tristram Mayhew if indeed he reads this rag..There is no way that this development will ever get built..The protests over the motorway thru the park will seem like a carnival compared to the protest that he faces over this..Think on Mr Mayhew[/quote]
There is no mention of violence in this - is it just what you want to see (to discredit the Save Pollok Park campaign)?
Good on Biffo for being serious about protesting this dreadful proposal. This is one of the last substantial areas of forest in Glasgow - let's keep it free, unspoilt, the way it was intended.
Here is the post by "Biffo the Bear"(!)
Here is a wee message for Mr Tristram Mayhew if indeed he reads this rag..There is no way that this development will ever get built..The protests over the motorway thru the park will seem like a carnival compared to the protest that he faces over this..Think on Mr Mayhew
There is no mention of violence in this - is it just what you want to see (to discredit the Save Pollok Park campaign)?
Good on Biffo for being serious about protesting this dreadful proposal. This is one of the last substantial areas of forest in Glasgow - let's keep it free, unspoilt, the way it was intended.
Posted by: mick, Glasgow on 4:25pm Mon 4 Feb 08
There was more newly cut trees in the park on Saturday just along from the Police Recreation building.
Thinning has been taking place the past year.
There was more newly cut trees in the park on Saturday just along from the Police Recreation building.
Thinning has been taking place the past year.
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 4:26pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Forbes don't go anywhere. Seems to me you are the voice of reason!
The rest of you just don't like it when someone posts something you disagree with.
Forbes don't go anywhere. Seems to me you are the voice of reason!
The rest of you just don't like it when someone posts something you disagree with.
Posted by: food lover, west coast on 4:30pm Mon 4 Feb 08
As a non Glaswegian, I just can't see what all the fuss is about.
Pollok Park is a grimly depressing place at the best of times compared with many other parks outwith the city.
And you can already hire virtually any Glasgow public building for coporate work so no big deal there...
As a non Glaswegian, I just can't see what all the fuss is about.
Pollok Park is a grimly depressing place at the best of times compared with many other parks outwith the city.
And you can already hire virtually any Glasgow public building for coporate work so no big deal there...
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 4:32pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
1) The lease agreement is fully in line with other commercially negotiated agreements between Go Ape and the likes of the Forestry Commission.
2) Any commercial rate payable by Go Ape would, as with all other such payments, go to a central Scottish pot. Not all of the monies raised in Glasgow are returned to Glasgow.
3) As I have said before, the usage and turnover figures used by Save Pollok Park are, at best, the product of creative accounting and have little or no connection with reality.
4) The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick.
5) Threats of violent protest do the good folk of Save Pollok Park and their central case, great facility - wrong place, no good whatsoever.[/quote] [quote] AFL shall provide [bold]up to a maximum of 450 spaces during 5 half hour sessions on 6
school term time days per annum;[/bold] free of charge to Glasgow City Council in pursuit of
its objectives in terms of Social Inclusion, subject to agreement with AFL.
[/quote]
From the deocument that the Director of Land Services submitted to the Executive Committee last year. Do you have an updated version Forbes?
Forbes Aiken wrote:
1) The lease agreement is fully in line with other commercially negotiated agreements between Go Ape and the likes of the Forestry Commission.
2) Any commercial rate payable by Go Ape would, as with all other such payments, go to a central Scottish pot. Not all of the monies raised in Glasgow are returned to Glasgow.
3) As I have said before, the usage and turnover figures used by Save Pollok Park are, at best, the product of creative accounting and have little or no connection with reality.
4) The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick.
5) Threats of violent protest do the good folk of Save Pollok Park and their central case, great facility - wrong place, no good whatsoever.
AFL shall provide up to a maximum of 450 spaces during 5 half hour sessions on 6
school term time days per annum; free of charge to Glasgow City Council in pursuit of
its objectives in terms of Social Inclusion, subject to agreement with AFL.
From the deocument that the Director of Land Services submitted to the Executive Committee last year. Do you have an updated version Forbes?
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:32pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]food lover[/bold] wrote:
As a non Glaswegian, I just can't see what all the fuss is about.
Pollok Park is a grimly depressing place at the best of times compared with many other parks outwith the city.
And you can already hire virtually any Glasgow public building for coporate work so no big deal there...[/quote] ****
food lover wrote:
As a non Glaswegian, I just can't see what all the fuss is about.
Pollok Park is a grimly depressing place at the best of times compared with many other parks outwith the city.
And you can already hire virtually any Glasgow public building for coporate work so no big deal there...
****
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:34pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Would that be thinning carried out on the advice of experts from the Forrestry Commisiion Mick? (Work which is essential to encourage new growth and maintain biodiversity.)
As to TICL, I am afraid that my reading of Biffo's comments hardly suggests the maintenance of anything resembling peace and tranquility. The motorway demonstrations did involve both illegal and violent elements, whoever was responsible, and Biffo promises to make that look like a carnival.
I take that as an implicit threat which, thankfully, I suspect is in no way supported by the vast majority of those decent people who would rather Go Ape went elsewhere.
Would that be thinning carried out on the advice of experts from the Forrestry Commisiion Mick? (Work which is essential to encourage new growth and maintain biodiversity.)
As to TICL, I am afraid that my reading of Biffo's comments hardly suggests the maintenance of anything resembling peace and tranquility. The motorway demonstrations did involve both illegal and violent elements, whoever was responsible, and Biffo promises to make that look like a carnival.
I take that as an implicit threat which, thankfully, I suspect is in no way supported by the vast majority of those decent people who would rather Go Ape went elsewhere.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 4:44pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote]Nor the fact folk would be employed for [italic]years in an outdoor pursuit ..........
The idea that go ape is turning into a conference centre is laughable im still chortling away merrily at how a 3 acre sit is going to be developed to rival the SECC. [/quote]
1)The jobs are seasonal as Go Ape does not operate over the winter months.
2)If you care to look at the Go Ape's own website, you will see that they do offer conference facilities for their corporate bookings. Nobody suggested that it would be on their "3 acre site" or that it would be on a par with the SECC. However, it is written in to the agreement that
[italic]AFL shall not be allowed to make any alterations or additions to the subjects of
letlicence without previously having sought written consent from the Council, [bold]which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed[/bold] .[/italic]
Nor the fact folk would be employed for years in an outdoor pursuit ..........
The idea that go ape is turning into a conference centre is laughable im still chortling away merrily at how a 3 acre sit is going to be developed to rival the SECC.
1)The jobs are seasonal as Go Ape does not operate over the winter months.
2)If you care to look at the Go Ape's own website, you will see that they do offer conference facilities for their corporate bookings. Nobody suggested that it would be on their "3 acre site" or that it would be on a par with the SECC. However, it is written in to the agreement that
AFL shall not be allowed to make any alterations or additions to the subjects of
letlicence without previously having sought written consent from the Council,
which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed .
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 4:52pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
TICL, I most certainly never accused the organisers of Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest. Quite the contrary, it is comments of those like Biffo the Bear, above, which I was suggesting did a dis-service to an entirely legitimate, if misguided, campaign.[/quote] Your support of this project is shamefull,And the less we hear of your pathetic blabbering the better...
Forbes Aiken wrote:
TICL, I most certainly never accused the organisers of Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest. Quite the contrary, it is comments of those like Biffo the Bear, above, which I was suggesting did a dis-service to an entirely legitimate, if misguided, campaign.
Your support of this project is shamefull,And the less we hear of your pathetic blabbering the better...
Posted by: catherinea, glasgow on 4:53pm Mon 4 Feb 08
The cost of 1 experience of GO APE at £25 a time will exclude many people in Glasgow and beyond and so this is not an inclusive model in fact the opposite for many citizens.If this is an opportunity for other non Glaswegian citizens to experience then why not have it in a more extensive and centralised location like a large country park of which there are many in Scotland?. Leave the relatively small Pollok estate to be enjoyed without the whirr of high speed metal /rope friction action and by those who come to it in their thousands at present on foot and by various other transport means.To promote this as an excercise and anti obesity promotion is very false. How many times will anyone person use it at £25 a time plus transport costs? I wonder how many pensioners who are living on the state pension only would be able to afford such a luxury? A small family will have to bear considerable costs to enable them all to take part?To set some reduced fee on the grounds of discrimination because of a type of means test is not a socially desirable model for those or anyone wanting to have freedom to enjoy themselves.The serenity of being in the burrel gallery and admiring/studying the exhibits will be somewhat challenged by the sound of 'screaming enjoyment' outside and the constant whirr of mechanical actions. This does nothing to encourage a cultural interset in art for which Glasgow aims to become well known. Other forms of activity could be better used to encourage a warm up for 2014. I think GO Ape is exclusive and for the higher social classes of this country. The advertisng materials all seem to promote the enjoyment of well fed and well dressed young people. Glasgow needs a more inclusive and focussed approach to tackle inactivity. What will happen when the park becomes gridlock state? Who then takes responsibility? The fumes of more cars coming and going as it seems they will need to do in order to enable parking facility does nothing for the health of those in the park and to add buses to this in a greater number than at present seems to be a decision which indicates there is a lack of awareness about the effects by fuel fumes on climate change to say nothing of the effect on those trying to enjoy a country park in a large city.
The cost of 1 experience of GO APE at £25 a time will exclude many people in Glasgow and beyond and so this is not an inclusive model in fact the opposite for many citizens.If this is an opportunity for other non Glaswegian citizens to experience then why not have it in a more extensive and centralised location like a large country park of which there are many in Scotland?. Leave the relatively small Pollok estate to be enjoyed without the whirr of high speed metal /rope friction action and by those who come to it in their thousands at present on foot and by various other transport means.To promote this as an excercise and anti obesity promotion is very false. How many times will anyone person use it at £25 a time plus transport costs? I wonder how many pensioners who are living on the state pension only would be able to afford such a luxury? A small family will have to bear considerable costs to enable them all to take part?To set some reduced fee on the grounds of discrimination because of a type of means test is not a socially desirable model for those or anyone wanting to have freedom to enjoy themselves.The serenity of being in the burrel gallery and admiring/studying the exhibits will be somewhat challenged by the sound of 'screaming enjoyment' outside and the constant whirr of mechanical actions. This does nothing to encourage a cultural interset in art for which Glasgow aims to become well known. Other forms of activity could be better used to encourage a warm up for 2014. I think GO Ape is exclusive and for the higher social classes of this country. The advertisng materials all seem to promote the enjoyment of well fed and well dressed young people. Glasgow needs a more inclusive and focussed approach to tackle inactivity. What will happen when the park becomes gridlock state? Who then takes responsibility? The fumes of more cars coming and going as it seems they will need to do in order to enable parking facility does nothing for the health of those in the park and to add buses to this in a greater number than at present seems to be a decision which indicates there is a lack of awareness about the effects by fuel fumes on climate change to say nothing of the effect on those trying to enjoy a country park in a large city.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 5:36pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I feel some of us are lossing the point here. Like most people who support the Save Pollok Park campaign I am not against having a Go Ape anywhere in Pollok Estate, I am against having it in the North Wood and particularly the Glade.
There are other areas I would be quite happy to see it in, over the river. But the issue there is that they would have to provide an access road and toilet facilities and Go Ape are quite open about the fact that they don't want to pay for that - they want to piggyback onto the Burrell's facilities which means using the North Wood.
That is the crux of the problem really.
I feel some of us are lossing the point here. Like most people who support the Save Pollok Park campaign I am not against having a Go Ape anywhere in Pollok Estate, I am against having it in the North Wood and particularly the Glade.
There are other areas I would be quite happy to see it in, over the river. But the issue there is that they would have to provide an access road and toilet facilities and Go Ape are quite open about the fact that they don't want to pay for that - they want to piggyback onto the Burrell's facilities which means using the North Wood.
That is the crux of the problem really.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 7:06pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
TICL, I most certainly never accused the organisers of Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest. Quite the contrary, it is comments of those like Biffo the Bear, above, which I was suggesting did a dis-service to an entirely legitimate, if misguided, campaign.[/quote] Forbes Aitken, at no time have i mentioned the use of violence & nor do I CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS..
I am prepared to protest in a non-violent, non destructive manner but i will protest as is my right..
So go-ahead & interpret my words as you please because it strikes me that you are the one that is talking about violence or would that be semantics..
Forbes Aiken wrote:
TICL, I most certainly never accused the organisers of Save Pollok Park of threatening violent protest. Quite the contrary, it is comments of those like Biffo the Bear, above, which I was suggesting did a dis-service to an entirely legitimate, if misguided, campaign.
Forbes Aitken, at no time have i mentioned the use of violence & nor do I CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS..
I am prepared to protest in a non-violent, non destructive manner but i will protest as is my right..
So go-ahead & interpret my words as you please because it strikes me that you are the one that is talking about violence or would that be semantics..
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 7:10pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Glasgow people deserve this and very much more. A stupid population who would vote for a donkey in a red rosette deserve all they get. The only remedy is stop voting Labour just because their fathers and grandfathers did. This is no longer the party of the people, it ids the party of corruption and big business. The wishes of the people no longer matter a d@mn to them, and this case just proves that.
Glasgow people deserve this and very much more. A stupid population who would vote for a donkey in a red rosette deserve all they get. The only remedy is stop voting Labour just because their fathers and grandfathers did. This is no longer the party of the people, it ids the party of corruption and big business. The wishes of the people no longer matter a d@mn to them, and this case just proves that.
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 7:33pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Isn't there plans in the pipe line for these sorts of sites to have a large increase in the yearly fees required for operation. No doubt after a few wanes bump their heids, the Health & Safety officers shall be making rumbles to have these sites banned. Twenty five quid to watch your wane in a tree, why not plant more of them, let them climb for free. Throw in tree house or two for the homeless, give them jobs as supervisors.
Isn't there plans in the pipe line for these sorts of sites to have a large increase in the yearly fees required for operation. No doubt after a few wanes bump their heids, the Health & Safety officers shall be making rumbles to have these sites banned. Twenty five quid to watch your wane in a tree, why not plant more of them, let them climb for free. Throw in tree house or two for the homeless, give them jobs as supervisors.
Posted by: Raven, Saigon on 8:01pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I cant believe this drivel, it is not Pollok Park which is to be leased, the majority of the proposal involves airspace above the Park. I have not seen anything in the papers or correspondence which states that Pollok Park or part thereof will be leased to Go Ape at the total exclusion of the Public. Contrary to the ET headline the Park will not go for peanuts.
I cant believe this drivel, it is not Pollok Park which is to be leased, the majority of the proposal involves airspace above the Park. I have not seen anything in the papers or correspondence which states that Pollok Park or part thereof will be leased to Go Ape at the total exclusion of the Public. Contrary to the ET headline the Park will not go for peanuts.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 8:33pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Spot on Raven. If we believed the collective predictions of the doomsayers above, Pollok Park would be clear felled and ring fenced for the exclusive use of corporate days out with the occassional member of the indigent poor allowed in from the local ragged school. Meanwhile, Go Ape would be making profits of Rachmanite proportions and councillors would be sunning themselves on a sun-kissed beach courtesy of the brown envelopes.
DRIVEL!
Spot on Raven. If we believed the collective predictions of the doomsayers above, Pollok Park would be clear felled and ring fenced for the exclusive use of corporate days out with the occassional member of the indigent poor allowed in from the local ragged school. Meanwhile, Go Ape would be making profits of Rachmanite proportions and councillors would be sunning themselves on a sun-kissed beach courtesy of the brown envelopes.
DRIVEL!
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 8:47pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
Spot on Raven. If we believed the collective predictions of the doomsayers above, Pollok Park would be clear felled and ring fenced for the exclusive use of corporate days out with the occassional member of the indigent poor allowed in from the local ragged school. Meanwhile, Go Ape would be making profits of Rachmanite proportions and councillors would be sunning themselves on a sun-kissed beach courtesy of the brown envelopes.
DRIVEL![/quote] Exactly - that IS complete drivel and bears no resemblance to the valid points that are being made by those who believe that North Wood is not a suitable palce for this development.
Still waiting for your response eitherr admitting that you were wrong in claiming that
[quote]The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick. [/quote]
....or that you have access to information that is not available on the council website?
Forbes Aiken wrote:
Spot on Raven. If we believed the collective predictions of the doomsayers above, Pollok Park would be clear felled and ring fenced for the exclusive use of corporate days out with the occassional member of the indigent poor allowed in from the local ragged school. Meanwhile, Go Ape would be making profits of Rachmanite proportions and councillors would be sunning themselves on a sun-kissed beach courtesy of the brown envelopes.
DRIVEL!
Exactly - that IS complete drivel and bears no resemblance to the valid points that are being made by those who believe that North Wood is not a suitable palce for this development.
Still waiting for your response eitherr admitting that you were wrong in claiming that
The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick.
....or that you have access to information that is not available on the council website?
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 9:32pm Mon 4 Feb 08
We are getting away off the point.
The article raised the issue that even if this proposal goes ahead then it is not a substantial money earner for GCC. This has to be compared with the loss of facility that this intrusive and noisy development will have on the North Wood for the existing park users.
In essence is it worth the shilling? in my opinion it is not. We are selling a very rare and precious commodity for a pittance
We are getting away off the point.
The article raised the issue that even if this proposal goes ahead then it is not a substantial money earner for GCC. This has to be compared with the loss of facility that this intrusive and noisy development will have on the North Wood for the existing park users.
In essence is it worth the shilling? in my opinion it is not. We are selling a very rare and precious commodity for a pittance
Posted by: musemonkey, uk on 9:33pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]mulross[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote: 1) The lease agreement is fully in line with other commercially negotiated agreements between Go Ape and the likes of the Forestry Commission. 2) Any commercial rate payable by Go Ape would, as with all other such payments, go to a central Scottish pot. Not all of the monies raised in Glasgow are returned to Glasgow. 3) As I have said before, the usage and turnover figures used by Save Pollok Park are, at best, the product of creative accounting and have little or no connection with reality. 4) The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick. 5) Threats of violent protest do the good folk of Save Pollok Park and their central case, great facility - wrong place, no good whatsoever.[/quote] [quote] AFL shall provide [bold]up to a maximum of 450 spaces during 5 half hour sessions on 6 school term time days per annum;[/bold] free of charge to Glasgow City Council in pursuit of its objectives in terms of Social Inclusion, subject to agreement with AFL. [/quote] From the deocument that the Director of Land Services submitted to the Executive Committee last year. Do you have an updated version Forbes?[/quote] Just thought i'd deliver a bit of a maths lesson, I have more faith in my maths than those in the standard report.
Go Ape! run half hourly sessions with 14/15 max in each session (Not the 28 that the standard quote, yes I know even less money blar blar blar).
That is where the half hour wording comes from.
[bold]So 450 free (full 3 hour) places divided by the 6 term time days is 75. That will be 75
sessions. 75 divided by the 5 sessions given over on each of the 6 days gives 15, the number of people in each session.[/bold]
Forbes you are totally correct.
Having been on go ape half an hour wouldn't even be long enough to get through the safety brief.
I see the financial point that the article is making however money is one thing, a facility to push people beyond their normal comfort zones is another. You can't assign monetry value to enjoyment, confidence building, obesity fighting and personal development.
Ok so it may seem expensive, well all the times I've been on a go ape course i've never paid full price, there are always offers.
If the people objecting on grounds of price are as committed to getting a deal as they are opposed to the use of Pollok park, they will find a deal.
I understand and respect the surge of democracy demonstrated in the SPP campaign but please find facts before structuring your arguments. You may accuse Forbes Aiken of Trollling, I feel he is moderating the bandwagon jumpers and making valid counter points.
mulross wrote:
Forbes Aiken wrote: 1) The lease agreement is fully in line with other commercially negotiated agreements between Go Ape and the likes of the Forestry Commission. 2) Any commercial rate payable by Go Ape would, as with all other such payments, go to a central Scottish pot. Not all of the monies raised in Glasgow are returned to Glasgow. 3) As I have said before, the usage and turnover figures used by Save Pollok Park are, at best, the product of creative accounting and have little or no connection with reality. 4) The free place are FULL USE free places and not wee tasters or an advertising gimmick. 5) Threats of violent protest do the good folk of Save Pollok Park and their central case, great facility - wrong place, no good whatsoever.
AFL shall provide up to a maximum of 450 spaces during 5 half hour sessions on 6 school term time days per annum; free of charge to Glasgow City Council in pursuit of its objectives in terms of Social Inclusion, subject to agreement with AFL.
From the deocument that the Director of Land Services submitted to the Executive Committee last year. Do you have an updated version Forbes?
Just thought i'd deliver a bit of a maths lesson, I have more faith in my maths than those in the standard report.
Go Ape! run half hourly sessions with 14/15 max in each session (Not the 28 that the standard quote, yes I know even less money blar blar blar).
That is where the half hour wording comes from.
So 450 free (full 3 hour) places divided by the 6 term time days is 75. That will be 75
sessions. 75 divided by the 5 sessions given over on each of the 6 days gives 15, the number of people in each session.
Forbes you are totally correct.
Having been on go ape half an hour wouldn't even be long enough to get through the safety brief.
I see the financial point that the article is making however money is one thing, a facility to push people beyond their normal comfort zones is another. You can't assign monetry value to enjoyment, confidence building, obesity fighting and personal development.
Ok so it may seem expensive, well all the times I've been on a go ape course i've never paid full price, there are always offers.
If the people objecting on grounds of price are as committed to getting a deal as they are opposed to the use of Pollok park, they will find a deal.
I understand and respect the surge of democracy demonstrated in the SPP campaign but please find facts before structuring your arguments. You may accuse Forbes Aiken of Trollling, I feel he is moderating the bandwagon jumpers and making valid counter points.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 9:47pm Mon 4 Feb 08
We are getting away off the point.
The article raised the issue that even if this proposal goes ahead then it is not a substantial money earner for GCC. This has to be compared with the loss of facility that this intrusive and noisy development will have on the North Wood for the existing park users.
In essence is it worth the shilling? in my opinion it is not. We are selling a very rare and precious commodity for a pittance
We are getting away off the point.
The article raised the issue that even if this proposal goes ahead then it is not a substantial money earner for GCC. This has to be compared with the loss of facility that this intrusive and noisy development will have on the North Wood for the existing park users.
In essence is it worth the shilling? in my opinion it is not. We are selling a very rare and precious commodity for a pittance
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 10:45pm Mon 4 Feb 08
it looks very scary, and then we have the problem of security in case the inevitable accidents happen, but then again it has never been known for greedy corporations to worry about things like that.....just "gimme your money"is the attitude.(somebody is getting a backhander, i will bet on that!)
it looks very scary, and then we have the problem of security in case the inevitable accidents happen, but then again it has never been known for greedy corporations to worry about things like that.....just "gimme your money"is the attitude.(somebody is getting a backhander, i will bet on that!)
Posted by: Raven, Saigon on 10:47pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I seem to remember a famous quote, there are statistics;statistic
s and **** lies,I rest my case.
I seem to remember a famous quote, there are statistics;statistic
s and **** lies,I rest my case.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 11:19pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Raven[/bold] wrote:
I seem to remember a famous quote, there are statistics;statistic
s and **** lies,I rest my case. [/quote] I think you will find the quote is " there are Lies, damned lies and statistics" This saga certainly has them all, mostly emanating from GCC disguised as Consultations, City plans and park development plans
Raven wrote:
I seem to remember a famous quote, there are statistics;statistic
s and **** lies,I rest my case.
I think you will find the quote is " there are Lies, damned lies and statistics" This saga certainly has them all, mostly emanating from GCC disguised as Consultations, City plans and park development plans
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 10:32am Tue 5 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
Spot on Raven. If we believed the collective predictions of the doomsayers above, Pollok Park would be clear felled and ring fenced for the exclusive use of corporate days out with the occassional member of the indigent poor allowed in from the local ragged school. Meanwhile, Go Ape would be making profits of Rachmanite proportions and councillors would be sunning themselves on a sun-kissed beach courtesy of the brown envelopes.
DRIVEL![/quote] Regardless of the revenue this plan would generate, it remains true that we the people of Glasgow are against this in the majority..
This is not a case of nimbyism but rather one of conservation of a habitat that is threatened by the pursuit of money at any expense.
Forbes Aiken wrote:
Spot on Raven. If we believed the collective predictions of the doomsayers above, Pollok Park would be clear felled and ring fenced for the exclusive use of corporate days out with the occassional member of the indigent poor allowed in from the local ragged school. Meanwhile, Go Ape would be making profits of Rachmanite proportions and councillors would be sunning themselves on a sun-kissed beach courtesy of the brown envelopes.
DRIVEL!
Regardless of the revenue this plan would generate, it remains true that we the people of Glasgow are against this in the majority..
This is not a case of nimbyism but rather one of conservation of a habitat that is threatened by the pursuit of money at any expense.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 10:52am Tue 5 Feb 08
Ha, Ha, Ha... I wiz wrong!!!!!!!!
[bold]www.pollokpark.org[/bold]
Ha, Ha, Ha... I wiz wrong!!!!!!!!
www.pollokpark.org Posted by: Bob Millar, Shawlands on 7:55pm Sun 10 Feb 08
[quote][bold]food lover[/bold] wrote:
As a non Glaswegian, I just can't see what all the fuss is about.
Pollok Park is a grimly depressing place at the best of times compared with many other parks outwith the city.
And you can already hire virtually any Glasgow public building for coporate work so no big deal there...[/quote] Grim?
What exactly is grim about it?
A beautiful tranquil woodland in the heart of a city teaming with wildlife.
It's immaculately clean and well looked after.
It doesn't suffer the problems that blight nearby parks like Queens Park which overflows with crowds of people getting drunk at the first sign of sunshine, not to mention the late night antics that carry on there.
I fail to see the "grim" side of the park you refer to. Please enlighten us.
food lover wrote:
As a non Glaswegian, I just can't see what all the fuss is about.
Pollok Park is a grimly depressing place at the best of times compared with many other parks outwith the city.
And you can already hire virtually any Glasgow public building for coporate work so no big deal there...
Grim?
What exactly is grim about it?
A beautiful tranquil woodland in the heart of a city teaming with wildlife.
It's immaculately clean and well looked after.
It doesn't suffer the problems that blight nearby parks like Queens Park which overflows with crowds of people getting drunk at the first sign of sunshine, not to mention the late night antics that carry on there.
I fail to see the "grim" side of the park you refer to. Please enlighten us.
Comment | Read Comments (54)
