Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[BigMouth]

The pubs could have made more money ages ago if they didn't force their patrons to breathe fag smoke, but that's another thread entirely.

 

I don't see any of the publicans starving though and if they care so much about their staff why don't they pay them more and protect their health?

[bannock]

Why not make a new venue for arts and music up stairs at Sumburgh airport loads of space, toilets and there's even a bar. Well no body else is using it 8O

[Guest Anonymous]

Why not make a new venue for arts and music up stairs at Sumburgh airport loads of space, toilets and there's even a bar. Well no body else is using it 8O

 

ot in the fort- bags of room in there, and a bar for the arty alcolholics that cant go anywhare for withough a drink.

 

it also has a great hall that if a stage and propper seating was installed it would be a good venue

 

all posible ideas

[petergear]

I know this is pedantic but the 9.1million in your poll question above is considerably higher than the total estimate of costs. Besides, the SIC wouldn't be paying the total cost anyway, as some funding would come from elsewhere - 2.2million external funding has been offered by the Scottish Arts Council.

 

I'm not decided either way whether it's a good idea or not to go ahead with this project. I can see it from both sides.

 

There were a few "pro-venue" letters on the Shetland News website, dated 15 March (I'm not sure how long this link will work):

 

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/Letters/letter_page.htm

[Guest Anonymous]

I hear what you're saying about the capital costs Peter but I think the concern here is about the running costs. I'm no expert on Council spending but my understanding is that capital expenditure (i.e. the costs of constructing or building something) generally isn't a huge problem for the SIC given the large reserves they have built up over the years. What is a problem is its revenue expenditure (i.e. the day to day running costs of Council services) and the fact that the Council is facing a huge dilemma in trying to find the money to run the services it already has without having to fork out for any new ones.

 

If guarantees can be made that the running costs of this won't cost the public purse a penny in the long run then I'm all for it. But if its going to have to be baled out like all of the other expensive amenities the Council has which seems likely to me then absolutely not - sure go for a venue but not on such a grand scale.

[McFly]

Some interesting points in those letters. Thanks for the link Peter.

 

Davie Gardner had a lot to say for himself! It was good to see him address some of the "scaremongering" coming from the Licensed Trade Association.

 

Like a couple of the writers on there said, I'm a little baffled as to why the pub owners see it as such a threat.

[Guest Anonymous]

Do you know anything about my business? I employ several full and part time staff. I can assure you all that I am not scaremongering anyone. I financed this business myself I have never had any council handouts and making a living and employing my staff is becoming harder and harder. I pay rates which in turn helps finance the council and if I see that the council is setting up a venue which on occassion will run in direct competition to me of course I am going to have to complain. I can assure you the way things are going there will be staff cuts.Whats the difference if the council set up a cookery centre and had a bakery in it. Would all the bakers not be up in arms.But looking at the hard facts Shetland cannot afford to fund this project

We are facing very bleak times with drastic cuts in public spending already. So think about it?

[Marvin]

This is the way I see it......

 

The “pro†lobby have shot themselves in the foot because from the outset they have claimed that the venue will be financially viable........there is a limited amount of people in Shetland and the only way they can make the new venue financially viable it to put on commercial attractions which will effectively close the existing private businesses. The alternative is to put on special interest or 'arty' (for want of a better word) acts/attractions, which by their very nature are uneconomic, which of course is going to end up making revenue losses.

 

The letters in the Shetland News claim that the uses of the venue include educational and far reach community inclusion . This inevitably will mean non-financially viable uses i.e non profitable. This is going to put strain on the bank balance.

 

The pro lobby used, at the outset, the amount of people out on a Friday and Saturday night to justify the business case. They can't then claim that the venue will not have a detrimental effect on the existing licensed premises. You can't use the same stats to prove both arguments. The "pro" argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

...however.....

 

The 'against' lobby has also made a mistake in my opinion. Mass emotive demonstrations with slogans like "last chance to stop this nonsense" is playground politics. All they should be doing is asking the council to go back and review the business case. This should result in a projected annual revenue cost to Shetland Islands Council. Once this is established and considered in line with other revenue costs I think Shetland will be in a much better position to make a decision.

 

At the moment all I hear on the venue issue is nonsensical arguments based on emotions, preconceptions and personal finances......

 

{steps off soapbox and goes back to sleep}

 

Marvin

[Guest Anonymous]

This is the way I see it......

 

The “pro†lobby have shot themselves in the foot because from the outset they have claimed that the venue will be financially viable........there is a limited amount of people in Shetland and the only way they can make the new venue financially viable it to put on commercial attractions which will effectively close the existing private businesses. The alternative is to put on special interest or 'arty' (for want of a better word) acts/attractions, which by their very nature are uneconomic, which of course is going to end up making revenue losses.

 

The letters in the Shetland News claim that the uses of the venue include educational and far reach community inclusion . This inevitably will mean non-financially viable uses i.e non profitable. This is going to put strain on the bank balance.

 

The pro lobby used, at the outset, the amount of people out on a Friday and Saturday night to justify the business case. They can't then claim that the venue will not have a detrimental effect on the existing licensed premises. You can't use the same stats to prove both arguments. The "pro" argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

...however.....

 

The 'against' lobby has also made a mistake in my opinion. Mass emotive demonstrations with slogans like "last chance to stop this nonsense" is playground politics. All they should be doing is asking the council to go back and review the business case. This should result in a projected annual revenue cost to Shetland Islands Council. Once this is established and considered in line with other revenue costs I think Shetland will be in a much better position to make a decision.

 

At the moment all I hear on the venue issue is nonsensical arguments based on emotions, preconceptions and personal finances......

 

{steps off soapbox and goes back to sleep}

 

Marvin

 

Someone give that man a cigar. Most sensible post on the subject I have seen.

[BigMouth]

Here is another sensible post then!

 

The performance at the Garrison was cancelled last night because the cast couldn't make it.

 

Apparently, hardly any tickets had been sold anyway.

 

Good job that we are not subsidising it then!

[Muppet]

Here is another sensible post then!

 

The performance at the Garrison was cancelled last night because the cast couldn't make it.

 

Apparently, hardly any tickets had been sold anyway.

 

Good job that we are not subsidising it then!

 

Does the Garrison operate at a profit??

[BigMouth]

Not unless they are funded by the number of empty seats

[Muppet]

I do think the 'against' lobby have shot themselves in the foot by stating that the Boating club, North Star and Mooneys will close if this place opens.

 

The Boating Club bit is patently not true according to Davie Gardners letter.

 

Regarding the North Star and Mooneys, although I am not in the habit of going to the North Star, I do hear that many nights there is hardly anyone there. Mooneys also seems to be a pretty quiet pub. In the past week, I have driven past it during the day a couple of times and it has been closed.

 

It could just be that a busy venue closeby might just be what is needed to kick start some life back into them. Otherwise I wouldn't be surprised if they had to close soon anyhow.

 

Blatant scaremongering by this tactic, leaves me wondering if I can believe any of their so called facts.

[BigMouth]

I didn't manage to make the Garrison for the no meeting. i was instead invited to take part as the token homeless person on Speakeasy on Radio Shetland this evening.

 

One of the questions that I was asked was did I feel that money should be spent on a cinema venue when the homeless were going unhoused. It was wonderful to reply that if we needed a cinema than the North Star would still be open (as a cinema).

[trout]

*Waiting for the reaction of the meeting to hit the boards*

 

anyone else on edge