owre-weel Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 He did not intend to look for additional funding. He was right at that time. However, things change. I remember being told by my MP that the Gov had no plans to close Coastguard Stations, at the time she was right. They didn't. Then things changed. As they have in this case... I agree that things can change, but he was, according to the previous post, making these statements just a year ago. I would have thought that the warning signs should have been on the table by then! I just feel the project team has not managed this one very well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 A lesson there then. If anyone went to any meetings, they should know. Are Shetland Arts a "public body"? Questions can be asked that have to be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I just feel the project team has not managed this one very well Precisely, and I don't see why we, the public should happily bale out poor management to the tune of already over £1/2 Million, and possibly more yet to be decided between management and contractor. Its public money, and to convince the pubic to give more than they already have done, the public needs to be convinced how and why the overspend arose and that it was unavoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 If anyone went to any meetings, they should know. Are Shetland Arts a "public body"? Shetland Arts is a trust and meetings are not open to the public. The minutes of the meetings are available here. http://www.shetlandarts.org/about/shetland-arts/board-meetings/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 No, it was not so long ago. In September 2011 they were still adamant the project would come in within budget: Wasn't 100% sure but did seem to remember there being rumblings about the amount of contingency spent as much as two year ago. Since he was saying all that as recently as a year ago I can only think a lot of these additional costs weren't claimed by DITT at the time. I just feel the project team has not managed this one very well Precisely, and I don't see why we, the public should happily bale out poor management to the tune of already over £1/2 Million, and possibly more yet to be decided between management and contractor. Its public money, and to convince the pubic to give more than they already have done, the public needs to be convinced how and why the overspend arose and that it was unavoidable. It's maybe not an issue of mismanagement though. However, on reading EM's post I find it surprising that Mr Gibbons was saying as recently as he was that it would come in on budget. As I said above I can only think a claim has been made by DITT towards the end of the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owre-weel Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 It's maybe not an issue of mismanagement though. However, on reading EM's post I find it surprising that Mr Gibbons was saying as recently as he was that it would come in on budget. As I said above I can only think a claim has been made by DITT towards the end of the job. You could be right, but 1.2 million, whether in late claims, overspend, needed to finish the job or a mixture of all three, suggests to me that something somewhere hasn't been properly managed. In saying that, contracts of this size are very complicated and difficult to manage, that's why they hire and pay specialist consultants lots of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (** mod edit - this a post is the first of a new thread started re: MAreel entitled 'mareel bail out' as per Shetlink Guidelines: **)Avoid starting a new discussion thread if there's already a relevant one - the forums become confused and discussions difficult to follow when there are multiple threads dealing with similar or identical subject matter, so we encourage users to post in existing threads whenever possible. This gives new posts a chronological order, provides background information to new posts, keeps popular topics active and acts as a running archive of subjects. New topics which are deemed as dealing with the same subject matter as existing threads will be locked and/or merged with the existing thread The new thread contained a poll asking 'should the SIC bail out mareel?' with responses:Yes - 33% [ 35 ]No - 66% [ 69 ] i see that mareel is out with the begging bowl already, should the SIC ( we the council tax payers) bail out mareel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 No they should not. we were promised that there would be no more money spent on it. they need to keep to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 according to the shetland times, the bail out is due to the overspend on the building of mareel. why does that not surprise me. and before anyone asks YES i have used mareel I went to see skyfall. the cinema seats are more comfirtable that the garrison, however given the cost of mareel i would expect nothing less than comfy seats. i have not used the cafeteria, but have been told it is really expensive to use. personally i prefer to use the museum cafeteria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavi Ugl Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 As serious as it is, the answer is no. I read The Shetland Times this morning and saw the word "bailout" used and this is exactly what it is. It would be scandelous if they bailed it out while closing schools and cutting every concievable front-line service to beyond the pale. How many warned this would happen......?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 As I've said elsewhere on here, knee-jerk answer, no. "Big Picture" answer don't know. Definitely "no" or the basis of the information currently in the public domain. The public has no idea whether this overspend was enitrely unavoidable, inevitable, so someplace in between. No doubt the official line taken by SA is that it was unavoidable, and that they did everything in their power to minimise it. That may or may not be the truth, and/or the opinion of everyone, and after the track record laid down by SA to get the project this far, it isn't a claim I'm prepared to accept without supporting evidence to back it up. If SA can provide satisfactory evidence that they are victims of circumstances that could not have reasonably been forseen and/or avoided, then fine, let the request be considered against that backdrop and stand or fall on actual merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 if mareel is not bailed out, what will become of it, seems a total waste to spend all that money for nothing, however having said that, Shetland council / trusts have a good track record for wasting our money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavi Ugl Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 It's not a knee-jerk reaction from me - I was against it from the beginning and I'm against everything Shetland Arts stands for. Like others, I have also said for years that the number of sport centres/swimming pools was utter madness. Even if this £500,000 is sanctioned and the other funding comes in will Mareel survive the financial test of time?. Methinks not..... And what about any future legal settlements...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgonzola Butt-cheese Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Are all the isles leisure centres run in a permanent state of bailout in that they are subsidised? I would think that it has done well to start, but the novelty factor will wear off. When you add into the mix the council laying off a significant number of employees over the next few years, well a lot more people wont have the surplus cash by then...... The white elephant theorists will be proved correct, I give it 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now