Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[Muppet]

 

Mr Johnston works for JW Gray which supplies most of the pubs and clubs in Shetland with wholesale provisions and runs several bars, clubs and hotels itself. "We will most certainly close the North Star and Mooney's Wake, and that would probably affect 17 full and part time staff in the first instance," he said.

 

He claimed the Lerwick Boating Club would have to close because it would lose vital business from the folk festival and the fiddle and accordion festival which keeps it afloat.

 

 

I never attributed this to you dB, but was speaking about the 'anti' campaign if you read my post.

 

What I was saying was that the 'anti' campaign was doing itself more harm than good by using scaremongering tactics such as these which are what grabs peoples attention rather than any credible arguements which they may or may not have.

[JustMe]

I wrote

 

Those prank callers.....if indeed it is a prank and not something more sinister are calling on the wrong guy. The council made the decision to proceed with the new venue and if anyone does not like their decision the find out which ones voted for the venue and threaten them. Send the best threat of them. A campaign in favour of other candidates at the next SIC election. Power to the people!!!

 

Maybe waking up before posting would be a good plan. Meant to say that anyone unhappy with this, or any other, council decision has the chance to find out who voted for the decision they dont like and the campaign (or even stand against) one or more of those councillors at the next elections.

[DavieG]

[

 

As a ratepayer I would consider it extremely relevant. All I'm consistently asking for is to see some realistic figures. Thank you for confirming that you consider it ok to run over budget on council projects. Does your flippant approach to matters fiscal include running costs?

 

Oh Please. I see no need to answer this sort of thing or accusation. Not me that's be flippant I suspect.

 

 

So why did Councillor Stove say in writing that shortfalls in running costs would come from the education budget?

 

 

So what other incorrect pronouncements has he and other councillors come with on this subject. How about "income from tourists will easily pay the running costs". You keep asking me for hard evidence. Where's the hard evidence to back up unquantifiable statements like that?

 

I really dont know what you are looking for here to be honest. With any 'new' project there of course has to be an element of conjecture and best estimates, but also based on evidence from similar locations and facilities along with some level of existing local knowledge and potential. Until the facility is delivered you know as well as I do that we will not know 'hard' evidence - that would be the same with any new project, even setting up another corner shop or whatever. Should that stop us proceeding with any new facility to take existing provision ahead if the need and apparent demand is there.

 

On the tourist thing? Well you might laugh if you want, but say if we get 20,000 'ordinary' tourists here a year (a pretty conservative estimate by all accounts - then of course there are business related visitors, cruise liner visitors, yachtsmen etc) then each of those 'staying visitors' would only have to spend £4 each to meet the projected costs. Of course some will never visit I suppose, but some will inevitably spend more than £4 in total - conjecture again I know, but even if this kind of building was not an individual attraction for them as you no doubt will suggest, then many of them will visit the new museum and that in itself could be a draw to this facility as well.

 

Councillors are very much entitled to their individual thoughts and opinions as well as the rest of us. Its what can happen in reality and what the 'collective' decides that's relevant of course

 

 

I think that's a disgrace. But I am unsure how the new CMV is going to make such a difference.

 

And we agree, that's why education forms a big part of this plan. The college do not currently have the space etc to deliver such courses and this would necessitate a new build on their part. So why not incorporate this into the new facility and not only save money in this respect but give any students a 'real' and practical atmosphere to work in too? Much more effective and this will formally form a significant part of any course anyway. I'm afraid, given existing provision, (and this is assessed fact, like it or not) they would currently have to go outwith Shetland for the practical elements of any such studies. And there will also be additional education work that will not form part of the new AHS plan - e.g. again practical experience to back up the theory learned in schools.

 

As I've said before, you could start by reading the feasibility report which covers this extensively.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a music venue per se (I love Shetland music and can't wait for the Folk Festival) , what I am against is the thought of so much of our money being spent on an over-the-top project that we can ill afford to run.

 

Hmmmm!!!!

 

<

Explain please.

 

I have seen no 'evidence' to the contrary.

 

So that door is firmly closed then?

 

No just no need to cover it again in my opinion - just re-read the thread. I have nothing new to add.

 

 

And that one?

Same

 

Another door closed?

Oh please!!!!!

 

OK DG - say the Fiery Sessions had been a flop. What if absolutely no one bought a ticket? What would the cost have been to the public purse? Almost (relatively) nothing compared to the cost of building and running the CMV. The Fiery Sessions works because it's on UHA day, because it's only on once a year, because the town is packed and let's face it, because there's not really a helluva lot to do once you've seen the galley and the bill. And it's an excellent show may I add before I'm accused of negativity again.

My point is, with the Garrison already there, you and others can try different things and if they work, great. If they're a flop, learn from it and try something else. At least it won't cost you millions to learn.

The business plan proposes 237 musical events annually. I cannot see how anyone can say that these will all be busy, or at least busy enough to justify the costs.

Why don't you, over the next year, put on 237 events in venues that already exist in Lerwick, count the ticket sales and food/drink income and then do a realistic business plan?

 

Not my point. All I am saying for heavens sake is that some new things in the community do work in spite of all the apparent evidence to the contrary presented by others - much of which was based on 'gut feelling I have to say. We believed it would work and did some research into the potential. We were well advised that there was no need for it and thats the only point I am making. There is sometimes great (and hidden) potential where in general people dont initially see it, especially those not 'directly' involved in the sector.

 

And, sorry but you try getting appropriate venues, at appropriate times to do extra events or whatever when we actually need them. That is part of the existing problem. As you will know from your 'contacts' in the Garrison you can't just pick acts off the shelf as and when you want them - more often they tell you when they are avialable.

 

And you cant just throw any old thing on any old night in any available venues and and take that as 'hard' evidence. Things need to be a bit better managed than that I'm afraid - as I suspect you already well know.

 

And as you will have noted a number of times earlier in this thread, existing facilities and the perceived quality and the lack of additional 'services' they offer on occasions (see my observation on your comments re the Clickimin swimming pool at the end of this post for instance) do play their part in lower audiences at times.

 

I'm struggling to do the few we have at the moment. Clickimin is rarely if ever available when you need it (and not always cost effective), everyone agrees the North Star is not for 'everyone', the Garrison is extremely well utilised as you will know and many of the proposed events, including the very regular education related ones simply cannot happen in existing facilities in the way we have planned here. I'm sorry but its not that simple or like for like at all. If it were we would already be doing it rest assured.

 

 

What? Do another business plan? No problem but I'll be looking for a fee

Well openly offer your services to the council then backed by 'hard' evidence that the one that exists is wrong.

 

 

 

Any finally is there any figure you personally would consider an acceptable 'cost' to have a facility such as this?

 

Believe it or not the cost doesn't bother me nearly as much as the figures in the business plan.

 

Sorry I though they were one and the same?

 

If I thought for a moment that the business plan was anywhere near reality I would say go for it. I think an £80k running cost deficit would be just about acceptable. I worry that it's going to be many times that.

 

Well given your concerns as a obviously committed member of the public, and given your experience, why not do some limited work into this and present your evidence which could, if anyone agreed, possibly be looked at if it clearly shows evidence of flaws in the existing plan.

 

Well just as a matter of interest, I did see the figures from the Garrsion pictures this weekend and they were quite incredible. 4 days - only 5 films showing and 16 showings in total - 2442 attendances. Is 36,000 over a year REALLY unobtainable then - even if the cinema only opened at weekends for instance? I will let you do the maths. And sorry again but how many other films that are currently grossing well across the UK have NOT come here during that time. Some 'hardish' facts at least I would say.

 

And finally, just out of interest, you also admit, earlier in this thread, that your own children mainly use the Clickimin pool for the 'added' elements, not the main facilities. This is interesting given the crux of your argument. I wonder if they would be keen to go so regularly if it were merely a straightforward pool or, more so, if the same argument you make re the proposed new facility would have been applied to say the old pool at the Hillhead and we were still reliant on that facility.. Also, out of interest, do they use, or at least want to use, Horizons or any of the other "un-necessary" add-on's? And how many more are like them? I'm sure they are not unusual in that respect. Perhaps this could be the very reason the leisure centres across Shetland return the user figures they do.

 

I seem to recall many saying the old pool was "perfectly adequate" at the time - "make do and mend" if necessary again. "Use existing facilities better". "Where are the extra users coming from"? Equally many said that all the 'extras' the new pool would provide were "gold plating, un-necessary, unaffordable, and wont be used" etc.

 

I bet if their initial business plan had been delt with in the same way you require this one to be done it would never have happened - ever - or there would most certainly have been fewer attractive add on's. Would you, in that regard, have been making similar arguements that you are here - and yet you seem to admit that the 'gold plating' in this instance is in fact the main reason for your / their more regular attendance.

[DavieG]

In terms of transport Davey, things haven't improved that much. Skipping down to the toon and back for a night's diversions is still pretty much impossible without arranging late ferries etc.

 

I agree in terms of public related road transport, but the new system on the Yell ferry for instance is pretty impressive, it can be booked at very short notice and has, for instance, allowed us to bring a lot more to the north isles in recent times.

 

 

If that's your belief, good on you. I'd prefer something in the way of hard facts, but then, I'm just a bluff old empiricist. No room for that sort of thinking in determining public expenditure these days, it appears.

 

See user figures for the films at Islesburgh this weekend in my previous post. Imagine if all those attending say spent £2 on additional 'items' - surely not unlikely. Then of course there would have been those attending additional music events on too.

 

Yeah, you've said that before too. Personally I think it's an utterly meaningless statement designed to evade the issue.

 

Fair enough.

[NewMagnie]

Ah. You're back.

 

I take it you refer to the bookable late night ferries. These, I think, have to be booked through the community councils who have an allocation of about one a month.

 

I really wouldn't depend on hordes descending from the north isles to spend money in the CMV.

[DavieG]

Interesting article in The Shetland Times today.

 

http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetlandtimes/content_details.asp?ContentID=18877

 

Good to see Davie G isn't letting this sort of sinister, stupid nonsense get to him.

 

And whatever opinion you hold on this whole debate it casts the 'anti-brigade' as the bad guys. One bad apple and all that. Whoever was making these phonecalls really is a complete idiot who has shot themselves in the foot. Reading between the lines - rightly or wrongly - the finger is pointed in the direction of the pub lobby. Any credibility they had has taken a big blow.

 

Cynics might say Davie G is using the media astutely. Of course he is! But there's nothing wrong with that. The bottom line is that some people have decided to use bullying tactics to try and knobble him. That was never going to work.

 

Good publicity for this site as well!

 

Can I just clarify a few things here. Whatever the potential inference in the paper (and I suspect most of you will be reading between the lines - wrongly in my opinion I might add) I firmly and totally believe that the phone calls I received were most certainly not in any way connected to the SLTA or any other formal organisation or source for that matter.

 

The 'threats' were off a pretty limited nature, the person I would say was drunk, and when challenged nicely the caller immediately rang off. The additional calls - well nobody spoke - and although relatively close to the first, could be entirely unconnected or even easily explained i.e. somebody trying and not getting through correctly.

 

I personally believe that anyone who had already formally and publicly made their opposition to this project known, as the SLTA had already done of course, would not have been so stupid as to then fall back on tactics such as these, hence me saying in the paper I suspected it to be the work of an individual hot-head, misguidedly seeking to have his personal opinion considered.

 

I think anyone rationally thinking it through would of course know that such tactics would fail miserably under the circumstances and, as you rightly say, potentially backfire on him / them. And this is another reason why I believe that no 'formal opposition' would use or risk such tactics, especially so close after the public meeting on the issue.

 

As to "using" the press. Not entirely accurate to be honest. I actually elected to tell only a very few close friends about the calls, however the press got wind of the story a couple of weeks later and I thought it was best to tell the truth and even play down the issue.

 

As to the website stuff - which was also pretty tame to be honest. I suspect this may have inadvertantly led to the misconception that the two issues are linked. Iain from J W Grays / SLTA has already admitted through this thread that he left his e-mail open / avialable for staff members to "have a go" as he put it. Of course the ST had read these posts and included that in their article.

 

Whatever you think of this approach, and I personally have no real problem with it as I say, it did not suggest that they were to say either personal or threatening things to me, only to make their feelings as employees know. Hopefully this would have been their own personal thoughts and concerns.

 

Iain and I have spoken direct on this issue and he knows my thoughts. They also extend to all other members of the SLTA, many of whom I know in both a personal and professional capacity, and I totally believe they were not involved in any way whatsoever. Indeed they too utterly condemn the underhand tactics employed by, as I say, a few renegade individuals.

 

This will in no way disrupt meaningful talks due to take place with all those who still harbour a genuine and professional concern with regard to the new facility.

[DavieG]

Ah. You're back.

 

I take it you refer to the bookable late night ferries. These, I think, have to be booked through the community councils who have an allocation of about one a month.

 

Don't worry I had not run away or dropped under pressure. Just the fact that a close friend of mine died suddenly last week so....well there you have it.

 

I know you're from Unst , but am I wrong in thinking that the Yell ferry now has a 24 hour manning process and you can now book this to run late at nights, for standard fares only, as long as the booking is done before the ferry office closes at five?

 

I really wouldn't depend on hordes descending from the north isles to spend money in the CMV.

 

Well that's as may be, but we seem to see plenty now at many of the events we already promote in Lerwick. Also that's the very reason for the extensive outreach programme anyway - we had anticipated this.

[JustMe]

Just a thought but if we are in so much need of a new venue how come the Garrison theatre is not open every night?. Thoughts anyone?.

[littlemissbrightside]

The new venue will enable there to be events on most evenings. The Garrison (in my opinion) can't cater for as diverse a range of events that a new venue could.

Take the Absolute Swing concerts that were on at the end of March - they were great, I went along to one and had a really good night - but there was something missing.

I don't know, maybe it was that I struggled to clap along to the music as the elbows of the folk either side of me were touching and I couldn't move.

Maybe it was the lack of 'jazz and swing' type atmosphere of the place, again not helped by the rigid, cluastraphobic seating arrangement.

The Garrison was the most suitable place for these nights but it wasn't adequate for the type of event that it could and should have been.

There are plenty of events that the Garrison could be suitable for but, there are a whole lot more that a new CMV could cater for.

If there is nowhere suitable for an event to be held then this may be putting some folk off holding an event. (That is just a theory not a rock solid claim)

 

The venue, from what I can understand, is to enhance (some) existing events and to generate more by providing a multi-purpose culture base to give Shetland Culture space to progress...... How can this be a bad thing?

Shetland Culture is constantly growing and changing so why does it not deserve a place where it can do so on a scale that meets its needs?

[JustMe]

Thing is I am not against the venue but I have concerns about some of the shenanigians that are going on. The council has already received some outline plans and some councillors have gone off on a fact finding trip. All this since the full council approved the project some two weeks ago. Somehow I dont think so. And I seem to remember that the minor detail of obtaining planning permission still has to be gone through.

 

Just remember this is largely the same lot of councillors who spent a million pounds of our money to give us a worse library than we already had.

[philip]

Can anybody tell me if the councillors that are going to look at the cinemas are infavour of the new cinema-music-venue ? Or are there objectors going to? We would not want a bias opinion would we.

[DavieG]

Thing is I am not against the venue but I have concerns about some of the shenanigians that are going on. The council has already received some outline plans and some councillors have gone off on a fact finding trip. All this since the full council approved the project some two weeks ago. Somehow I dont think so. And I seem to remember that the minor detail of obtaining planning permission still has to be gone through.

 

Sorry Just Me but this is just not true at all. The council have received no outline plans at all apart from the ones prepared some time ago which were necessary to get us through the stage 1 lottery process - a basic design model of the potential vision. Heaven knows where you guys get some of this stuff from.

 

The lead 'consultants' for the project (architects etc) have yet to be appointed, that will only happen now the council process has been completed, so nothing is in place and you are quite correct the plannning permission has yet to be commenced.

 

The team that are away are not councillors - bar one. They are the project team (minus myself of course) and the SIC Capital Projects team (local architects etc) who are assessing practical issues (that cannot be done by e-mail or phone) to present to the lead consultants whe they are appointed (so hopefully we gets things reasonably right from the outset as you all seem so concerned about) This visit is also part of the ongoing lottery funding process.

 

And to keep all the business plan critics happy they are taking this opportunity to look further at the business plans of these other venues to see how they work out in reality - again answering local concerns in this respect.

 

So sorry you can forget the conspiracy theories on this one.

 

 

 

 

 

Just remember this is largely the same lot of councillors who spent a million pounds of our money to give us a worse library than we already had.

[DavieG]

Can anybody tell me if the councillors that are going to look at the cinemas are infavour of the new cinema-music-venue ? Or are there objectors going to? We would not want a bias opinion would we.

 

I find this an odd post to say the least. Why would objectors be taken away? To see if we could change their minds when presented with a shiny new facility, when they have made it clear that its not the design they are against but more the related costs? Or are these the objectors to the project as a whole from outside the council - surely again not relevant in this instance at least.

 

Its not a case of those that want it and those that don't anymore, as that case has been made and discussed and now, like it or not, it has gone through the council and a team is tasked to take the thing forward.

 

Not councillors as I said, but a cross section project team, including Eddie Knight who is the culture representative for the council and as such spoke on the radio tonight. The rest are members of the SIC project team tasked with looking at all the issues in a practical sense both positive and negatives in the hope of providing the most effective design and delivering an effective facility in all senses of the word - yes including costs.

[JustMe]

All right....I should listen to the radio with a bit more care....they said a team from SIC rather than a group of councillors. They also said the visit was to look at work done by architects who had submitted (outline?) plans in order to see what thier finished projects were like which is a sensible thing to do. I would have been happier to hear that they were able to look at projects in smaller places but maybe it is hard to find anywhere small with this sort of project when people can drive to the next big town.

 

I still think that the timescale from the full council go ahead is tight enough for me to wonder if it was planned before the council vote. Sort of OK if the people pushing for the venue were sure of enough votes in the town hall chamber but some councillors might find it a bit presumptious.

 

Planning consent?. I can think of grounds that some people might use to object to the new venue and I wonder how much money should be spent on detailed specifications and indeed trips south before at least outline planning permission is granted.

 

In conclusion I think it is time I "came out", as they say, about my views on the whole concept. Totally in favour and always have been. Just worried that we will end up with some sort of hugely expensive flight of fancy by some fashionable architect (as in the Scottish Parliament building) or a building that is not fit for its designed purpose. Was going to mention the library again but I think in all fairness once the decision to use the church had been made the conversion was done rather well.

 

Loss of income to the licenced trade?. I suspect they will lose a bit unless they start to find ways to attract the public......and if that means bingo in the Thule then so be it.

 

Deficit on running costs?......is that not why we have bodies like the Arts Trust so the interest from the Shetland investments is spent providing island residents with facilities that could not otherwise be afforded.

 

And if you want a last gripe about things being done wrong just look at the temporary classroom block right in front of the old school building as viewed from Twageos Road.

[philip]

Can anybody tell me if the councillors that are going to look at the cinemas are infavour of the new cinema-music-venue ? Or are there objectors going to? We would not want a bias opinion would we.

 

I find this an odd post to say the least. Why would objectors be taken away? To see if we could change their minds when presented with a shiny new facility, when they have made it clear that its not the design they are against but more the related costs? Or are these the objectors to the project as a whole from outside the council - surely again not relevant in this instance at least.

 

Its not a case of those that want it and those that don't anymore, as that case has been made and discussed and now, like it or not, it has gone through the council and a team is tasked to take the thing forward.

 

Not councillors as I said, but a cross section project team, including Eddie Knight who is the culture representative for the council and as such spoke on the radio tonight. The rest are members of the SIC project team tasked with looking at all the issues in a practical sense both positive and negatives in the hope of providing the most effective design and delivering an effective facility in all senses of the word - yes including costs.

The project team is that the same ones that were ment to get in touch with the SLRA last may? Ask Kathy Hubbard for the copys she got from the Scottish Arts Council before you reply.