unlinkedstudent Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 living on Fetlar its irelevant to us. being disabled as well the trip to lerwick is hard. There is no chance of us getting there and back in a day. also i'm told there is no way to sit with hubby as wheelchair users are segregated away from careers. told don't know so don't shout at me. I think the wheelchair/carer issue was mentioned on their Facebook page and in fairness to Mareel, I think they are looking into this but such segregation should never have occurred in the first place. Re those living outside of town getting to the cinema, etc. SP mentioned dosh from the lottery, by which I presume he means the National Lottery. It used to be the case that if you applied for money from the National Lottery that it could only be for new projects and not existing ones. Well, if that's the case, why not look into the possibility of a "Mareel Bus Special" and say reserve one night a month for those outside of Lerwick only for a certain cinema showing? If there's available tickets afterwards then those could go onto normal public sale. That doesn't, however, address the lack of ferry services as I doubt if many could afford to stay in a B&B overnight and not everyone has friends on Shetland Mainland they could stay with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Although funding does not come directly from the National Lottery, it is put through the Big Lottery Fund. There are different areas that are targeted as well as general requests.One that could fit here is the Investing in Communities. Supporting Scottish communities. http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/prog_investing-in-communities.htm?regioncode=-uk Take a look around. I know it can be a little time consuming, obtaining funding can be an arduous process but if successful, can bring sustainability to your project. If you do not feel up to applying, bring it up to the community councils, push for it, get your councillor on board. It is well looking into EU funding for projects. The money is there, bid for it. If you fail, you can ask for feed back and advice on any future applications and make better bids in the future. Sadly, we are beginning to rely on such pools of cash. As for the "Bus", I am sure pricing is easy to do, you ask the bus companies. It would be knitting it all together and involving other communities to make it worth while. The outcomes would have to be clearly described as well as sustainability. I would guess that block booking discounts could apply in some of Lerwicks hotels and guest houses, even the self catering units in the low season may be reduced by perhaps a thoughtful owner...I may ask someone now..ideas already.How many would come from Fetlar madmandy? Do you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 The money is there, bid for it. If you fail, you can ask for feed back and advice on any future applications and bake better bids in the future. Half-baked?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 While I'm here, things we need to know No. 1: If Mareel needs extra income to balance the books, why are the cinema(s) lying idle for a number of hours daily. All night porn works well elsewhere (or so I'm told), surely worth a try, no?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatal Paper Cut Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Given the SIC is a principal contributor to the capital cost and the other funding bodies are allocating extra funds to help meet the capital cost, yes, the SIC should as well. The SIC commissioned the report that led to Mareel in the 1st place, but it was also originally an SIC project before they handed it over to SADA and then effectively commissioned SADA to have it built with Sandy Cluness' casting vote. If they don't contribute extra funds to cover the building overrun, they look like indecisive investors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Given the SIC is a principal contributor to the capital cost and the other funding bodies are allocating extra funds to help meet the capital cost, yes, the SIC should as well. The SIC commissioned the report that led to Mareel in the 1st place, but it was also originally an SIC project before they handed it over to SADA and then effectively commissioned SADA to have it built with Sandy Cluness' casting vote. If they don't contribute extra funds to cover the building overrun, they look like indecisive investors. I can sort of see where you are coming from, however, it was up to SA to bring it in on budget and for whatever reason, they haven't. By the same token, the SIC Councillors are there to represent the views of their constituents and is it not the case that whilst the SIC Councillors have changed, the SA Trustees haven't changed to the same degree? Just because you have invested in an idea and done the groundwork doesn't mean to say that you will continue to invest in a project forever more. You go to the bank with an idea to get a loan of a million to get something up and running. In creating that it costs them £1.25 million. The bank is under no obligation whatsoever to provide the extra quarter. That doesn't make the bank look like an indecisive investor, but a shrewd investor who is protecting their interests. If it means Mareel goes into administration then so be it - at least then we'll see in reality whether or not it can stand on its own two feet because administrators usually keep going concerns running and don't just close them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humptygrumpty Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 No , they shouldnt bale it out , if its the rip roaring success they claim it is then the shetland arts should borrow the money commercially to pay for it. They have no none to blame but themselves , it was always going to be way too extravagant and like all things SIC based way OTT. It would be ridiculous in the extreme to bale it out when schools are going to be shut / ferry services reduced etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 They would need to protect the public money already spent. I wonder how the auditors would look at that. SIC loses £6,000,000 investment for the sake of a returnable grant, it just sounds like folk are just after blood and do not think too far ahead. It will be fantastic, the money will be paid back and everything will be OK. Or, let someone else take it over and let it fall into private hands, you will still not see any of the money, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbister Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 They would need to protect the public money already spent. I wonder how the auditors would look at that. SIC loses £6,000,000 investment for the sake of a returnable grant, it just sounds like folk are just after blood and do not think too far ahead. It will be fantastic, the money will be paid back and everything will be OK. Or, let someone else take it over and let it fall into private hands, you will still not see any of the money, I agree. And apart from losing that external funding, the overspend is going to have to be dealt with somehow. It's far from clear that the hoped-for small cinema surplus would be a secure enough foundation for a mortgage. It may be that the Council could offer part grant and part loan, but they really can't just walk away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 They would need to protect the public money already spent. I wonder how the auditors would look at that. SIC loses £6,000,000 investment for the sake of a returnable grant, it just sounds like folk are just after blood and do not think too far ahead. It will be fantastic, the money will be paid back and everything will be OK. Or, let someone else take it over and let it fall into private hands, you will still not see any of the money, So are you saying that if Mareel went bust that none of SA/Mareel's assets could be transferred? I haven't seen the original paperwork/contracts, have you? Perhaps someone can enlighten us? Who owns the building? Is it SIC or SA or Mareel? Edit: According to SA's website, they own and operate Mareel. Well, as others mentioned, the SA own other properties too, don't they? Whilst foyer/cafe sales are doing well, what's the split? I wonder how much leasing out the cafe would bring in, for example, rent it out to Starbucks/a local company/a local pub/whomever. That would generate income, wouldn't it? There's still the threat of further legal action so by no means is what is being discussed in December by the SIC the end of the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Assets would be property of the creditors. Once the bones have been picked out, the administrators paid, there may be a need to return some of the grant money. When EU funding was obtained for the radio station here, none of the equipment bought with that money could be sold unless all the money was returned that was given. It was to stop anything like this happening, the selling off what is public assets to make profit for private companies involved. I would think that the money will be handed over to pay off the final debts.I assume though, as an interested party, a stake holder, you would have all the relevant information. Is there a part in the contract that said this could happen? Is there a get out? Does the money have to be returned if it fails? You tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Assets would be property of the creditors. Once the bones have been picked out, the administrators paid, there may be a need to return some of the grant money. When EU funding was obtained for the radio station, none of the equipment bought with that money could be sold unless all the money was returned that was given. I assume though, as an interested party, a stake holder, you would have all the relevant information. You tell me. I'd be delighted to advise you, SP, as an interested party, but as you well know much of the information required to give this matter full and due consideration ISN'T in the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 i dont even give it 3 years, once the novelty factor wears off, it will be the white elephant i always said it would be Same here greenman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgonzola Butt-cheese Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 How about they make ready 50,000 shares available to shetland residents at £20.00 per share, that way it can be a community owned cinema. The more you want mareel to succeed, the more shares you try to snap up. Then in the future when it's raking in a fortune....., 25% of the profits are returned to the shareholders as a dividend, the remaining 75% would be split with 25% going straight to the council as a return on their investment and 50% held by mareel for maintenance and future upgrades. More people would go knowing that it would mean they get a bigger cheque at the end of the year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I'd be delighted to advise you, SP, as an interested party, but as you well know much of the information required to give this matter full and due consideration ISN'T in the public domain. Ah, we know little of what we speak, how then has the conclusion be reached that they should not get ANY money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.