Jump to content

Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue


madcow
 Share

Recommended Posts

How dare you bring reasoning & logic into this Peat - that's not how things work here. It's armchair opinion based upon conjecture and rumour, certainly not facts or historical evidence.

 

:twisted:

 

The simple fact of the matter is, there's some people who are always going to complain about something they don't like or see as being particularly important, regardless of how well used it is, how successful, popular or beneficial, how much or how little has been spent on it, etc etc.

 

There's ongoing legal action. I would imagine that would prevent parties from speaking openly about the whys and wherefors of Mareel, SADA, the SIC & Do It Three Times.

 

Closures of things like Freefield being used as a stick to bash Mareel are a misnomer. There's no-where else where you'd find a service like Freefield, and the SIC were never under any obligation to provide it. It's not as if it was mobbed with pensioners or that they had no alternatives either. The closure of SYIS is nothing to do with the council - and therefore nothing to do with Mareel - that was provided by funding allocated from the CT and it was the CT that pulled it.

 

The schools are paid for out of revenue services - that's a totally seperate pot of money from Capital Spending, which is where the SIC's investment into Mareel comes from. Incidentally, Capital Spending had been underspent for the three years before consent for Mareel was given the go-ahead. The amount underspent was more than the SIC's initial investment in Mareel. Oh, and it sat waiting to get to the top of the Capital Spending programme for some years - its not like it came out of the blue.

 

However, as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Similarly, you can lay out the facts of who paid for what and how much and why Mareel has nothing to do with the closure of some facilities; but you can't persuade them to stop spouting rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freefield was more, far more than just a lunch club. For one, I have been to several parties there, it is one less room to rent now. Well, one that benefited the club. With the proposed closure of the Viking, and the move to other establishments, the folk who did lunch are off the main bus hub. They would come and do their shopping then have lunch,meet and yarn and leave with their messages, There was also the support from the staff.

I would think those who used Freefield will feel the loss.

As for the Mareel.

It is normally the same old faces that try to find some sort of fault with others good intentions, normally ignorant of the true impact of what they have as an asset to the wider community, yet they are not happy, never are, it seems ignorance is not bliss for them. Education is the key to this, though, the bile givers will not want to be educated as they feel they may loose something, you could equate them to some sort of drug addict, frightened of a few days away from their dissemination (with being educated), and perhaps actually seeing public views. That is when they may feel happier.

The Times comments are the same folk, they get the run of it because they are unbending and folk soon realise that they are twisted and set, so no real debate. Just a form of fascism.

There have been moments when things have gone off the predicted path, and yes these need to be scrutinised, which is a way of preventing such actions happening again, or at least putting in safeguards. The complainers and bile givers are rarely scrutinised so we just have to live with them for now, but not have to take them seriously. To be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the oly issue i have is cost. there was meant to be no need for support now there is. that indicates tht its business plan is faulty. ive no issues with the place itself.

 

Yup, that.

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the business plan on the basis of the latest deal. The new arrangement is there to sort out a capital shortfall, not to provide revenue support. I think the jury is still out on whether Mareel can cover its costs in the long term, but with cinema audiences in particular running at twice what the business plan assumed, I don't think it would be right to draw the conclusion you do.

 

There is another question, of course, about why - as a matter of principle - a facility like Mareel should be expected to be self-supporting. I hope it proves to be so, but there must be very few arts centres in Britain that don't receive some sort of ongoing subsidy.

 

To put it another way, it's not clear to me why (say) a group of young fiddlers, or their audience, is less deserving of subsidy than (say) young badminton players when it comes to providing facilities. I'd be interested to know the cost, at 2013 prices, of the Clickimin and its many satellites but I suspect that we've spent, in real terms, well over twice as much on sports facilities as on Mareel. And I believe I'm right in saying that whereas the Charitable Trust has funded virtually all of the capital costs and revenue deficit of all the sports facilities, very roughly 45% of the capital cost of Mareel has been funded externally.

 

Now of course this isn't a black and white argument. Clickimin in particular regularly hosts major arts events such as concerts, including major orchestras and the Folk Festival; and it does purely commercial things, too, like hosting Debenhams or B&Q. At Mareel, mainstream cinema is (or should be) commercial and, for all I know, Mareel may at some point host non-arts events.

 

All I'm saying is that, in principle, I'm not sure that we can draw such a clear line in terms of very generous subsidy for one set of facilities and zero subsidy for another set. Nor - I stress - am I trying to set up divisions here, because I make as much use of Clickimin as I do of Mareel. And I recognise, also, that we are where we are, and that the Recreational Trust was first in the queue and that the Council and Charitable Trust are in straitened circumstances these days. But that doesn't, I think, completely resolve the question of principle.

 

Only asking.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i see what your saying but the council promised that there would not be any extra money given. now if the charity trust wants to fund it thats down to them. but as they cut funding to the arts/rec trust then is it really up to the council to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another question, of course, about why - as a matter of principle - a facility like Mareel should be expected to be self-supporting. I hope it proves to be so, but there must be very few arts centres in Britain that don't receive some sort of ongoing subsidy.

 

To put it another way, it's not clear to me why (say) a group of young fiddlers, or their audience, is less deserving of subsidy than (say) young badminton players when it comes to providing facilities. I'd be interested to know the cost, at 2013 prices, of the Clickimin and its many satellites but I suspect that we've spent, in real terms, well over twice as much on sports facilities as on Mareel. And I believe I'm right in saying that whereas the Charitable Trust has funded virtually all of the capital costs and revenue deficit of all the sports facilities, very roughly 45% of the capital cost of Mareel has been funded externally.

 

Now of course this isn't a black and white argument. Clickimin in particular regularly hosts major arts events such as concerts, including major orchestras and the Folk Festival; and it does purely commercial things, too, like hosting Debenhams or B&Q. At Mareel, mainstream cinema is (or should be) commercial and, for all I know, Mareel may at some point host non-arts events.

 

All I'm saying is that, in principle, I'm not sure that we can draw such a clear line in terms of very generous subsidy for one set of facilities and zero subsidy for another set. Nor - I stress - am I trying to set up divisions here, because I make as much use of Clickimin as I do of Mareel. And I recognise, also, that we are where we are, and that the Recreational Trust was first in the queue and that the Council and Charitable Trust are in straitened circumstances these days. But that doesn't, I think, completely resolve the question of principle.

 

Only asking.....

 

I agree that this is an important point and a question worth asking in both a local and national context. It seems odd that Shetland is one of the most well-off local authorities in the UK with one of the richest musical heritages yet we don't provide revenue funding for our local 'arts centre'. We do however provide £millions of annual revenue support to a range of museums and leisure centres. I can't think of any other local authority which doesn't provide revenue funding for at least one arts centre.

 

I'll join Symbister in asking Shetlink users for their opinions on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is not going to happen. or in the real world it should not. however who can tell with the SIC.

 

When the council are struggling to fund the basic services were is this money going to come from.

 

were way over provided with cultural and sporting venues. we are 22000 people not a town of 1/2 a million.

 

reality needs to set in we are in a long deep depression there is no money for the i would like projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the point Symbister is making, it shouldnt be forgotten that the revenue funding for SADA (including Mareel) is supported through core funding from a combination of Creative Scotland and Shetland Charitable Trust. My understanding is that SIC have stated they will not fund any future shortfall in revenue funding over and above existing commitments from the various funding partners.

I agree that all SIC funding so far has related to the over-runs and unfinished business of the capital spend on the building - the problem being that inevitably those calls for additiomnal funds have had to be partaillty met from revenues raised since the facility opened, hence the need for bridging finance or some other help (paying wages and getting that back later once revenue allows i presume).

 

Like others have said, so far so good re income generated. The real analysis now should be on the operating model (and costs) of running SADA and whether that is sustainable. I would suggest it is not because it is not commercially focused enough - too many people with fancy titles doing jobs that are, as someone else said, nice to have if you can afford it but in current times highly questionable.

 

Re funding of sports groups - yes its great to have the infrastructure for them to use, but don't forget they are alll run entirely by volunteers and will seek support funding for thier activities from whatever source they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the point Symbister is making, it shouldnt be forgotten that the revenue funding for SADA (including Mareel) is supported through core funding from a combination of Creative Scotland and Shetland Charitable Trust. My understanding is that SIC have stated they will not fund any future shortfall in revenue funding over and above existing commitments from the various funding partners.

I was under the impression that the Charitable Trust fund Shetland Arts but were/are specific in not providing funding for Mareel's operation. I can't recall where I picked up on that. Does anyone know if that's the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/02/06/mareel-wants-help-from-friends/

 

Beginning of the end or, end of the beginning?

(sorry, it;s been said before)

 

I wonder how many of the vocal supporters of this edifice will put their hands in their pockets or, will they still expect everyone else to pay for it.?

Edited by Colin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...