Ghostrider Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 When it comes to talking about precedents, consistency etc, perhaps our Councillors should be mindful of the attitudes and decisions taken by their, ahem, "colleagues" in the SCT, when SA last made an approach to have variations made to the original Mareel funding package. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/06/trustees-turn-down-shetland-arts-request-for-early-release-of-mareel-cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoogler 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? Like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent 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. On the balance of probabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 i live in lerwick and i too vote no, the white elephant should never have been built in the first place. good money after bad i am sorry to say 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. On the balance of probabilities. You are probably wrong. O_o When it comes to talking about precedents, consistency etc, http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/06/trustees-turn-down-shetland-arts-request-for-early-release-of-mareel-cash Ah yes, the precedents that trust members have not got a grasp of how public funding works... Yesterday’s snub to Shetland’s flagship arts centre was greeted with disappointment by Shetland Arts director Gwilym Gibbons who was surprised that trustees did not know that any savings from capital spending could not be used towards running costs. Why should we then use incorrect facts and suggestions as a basis of a refusal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 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? This is actually a damned good idea. I would go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 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? This is actually a damned good idea. I would go for it. And it would mean forming a private company, wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 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? This is actually a damned good idea. I would go for it. And it would mean forming a private company, wouldn't it? It sounds like a good idea. However floating a limited company to allow the public to invest in shares would involve a whole level of bureaucracy that would stall the process for month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ll Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 How about a new series of David Dickinson's (Ma)real Deal at Lerwick to raise funds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 When it comes to talking about precedents, consistency etc, http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/11/06/trustees-turn-down-shetland-arts-request-for-early-release-of-mareel-cash Ah yes, the precedents that trust members have not got a grasp of how public funding works... Yesterday’s snub to Shetland’s flagship arts centre was greeted with disappointment by Shetland Arts director Gwilym Gibbons who was surprised that trustees did not know that any savings from capital spending could not be used towards running costs. Why should we then use incorrect facts and suggestions as a basis of a refusal. Cherrypick much, Peat?!? Completely missing the point (intentionally?!?) is so much easier than actually acknowledging it, isn't it. That the entire SIC membership who had approved Mareel and its funding package, plus the token few to keep the OSCR sweet (back then), had neither stomach nor interest to even vary the terms of pre-existing agreed funding, let alone meaningfully seek a way to be of assistance. Gibbons' grasping at straws and creating a little spin, for that is all it is, was just an attempt at a face saving exercise, while failing to realise (or choosing to ignore) that they were subtley taking the mick out of him for even asking in the first palce, with their responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 The point was, you cannot use capital funding for revenue. No argument. The trust members failed to even learn the basics. If there had been a valid "other" suggestion, the rest would not be a problem, alas, not the case, floored argument. What has the SIC got to do with it, it was the Charitable Trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 ^ No Peat, you still don't get the point. Gibbons wanted to turn part of an offer to underwrite first year trading losses up to a given ceiling, in to an upfront grant. They said "no", anything and everything they said after that was taking the piss for being asked to consider it. THEY WERE NOT SERIOUS SUGGESTIONS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 The trust ill advised, they were wrong in their suggestions. You cannot use capital money for revenue, to suggest that is the answer shows that there is a lack of understanding about finance. I do like they way you now defend the SCT where in other threads you lambaste them, talk about picking finer points from a sea of dull objects.Anything after that, the snorting and so on means nothing. It is how you want to see it to prove a pointless example of a justification of what you think. The fact is the same, you cannot use capital for revenue. Not serious, they are supposed to be the bastions of the community, now you tell us they do not make serious suggestions. And you defend that, just here in this thread. Piffle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMagnie Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 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? Maybe I'm being a bit dim here, but is it not already community owned? What you're suggesting is effectively double dipping. Even worse, it would then belong to a corporate entity belonging to a minority of the community rather than the community as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgonzola Butt-cheese Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I was not suggesting floating da picter hoose on da london stock exchange. Just introducing a co-operative set up tae da dammed place. The cooncil can fill the gap in the meantime and then roll out the shares later. (payback) Still run and managed but we an elected board of directors from the share holding community. It might be communtiy owned but the only folk that are actually paying for it so far are those that are having there schools shut and ferry timetable reduced. And there are plenty o other things that should become co-operative owned and profit shared accordingly...... Roll on the revolution!! 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.