UKC

Ratho - something's happened

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 S Andrew 24 Jun 2005
At least it looked like it from the cover of the Evening News. Didn't buy a copy but I think the council has perhaps acquired a large leaky roof.
 IainMunro 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr:

> I think the council has perhaps acquired a large leaky roof.

I was there last Thursday when it was pissing it down and there was a few puddles on the floor so it could be.

Iain
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to IainMunro: The roof was already leaking. I think Rid was suggesting that the council has bought the place from Halifax Bank of Scotland. I can't see anything on the Scotsman web site about it.

I suspect that the bank has a value in mind for the place based on its use as a conference facility, whereas most of the interested parties are looking to take it on mainly as a leisure complex. If a business plan based around leisure has a significantly lower revenue forecast than that for a conference facility, leisure-based bidders aren't going to be able to offer what the bank think they can get.

In the mean time, of course, the bank is getting nothing, and nor are they providing the money requested by the new management team to fix the problems. How long ago were we promised a resurfaced car park? As far as I can see the potholes just get deeper and deeper. Admittedly they did get rid of the stupid eye-level lighting but I suspect that could easily have been justified on safety grounds. And, as previously pointed out, the roof still leaks.

The bank is unlikely simply to walk away and leave the place to rot. The least worst outcome at the moment would probably be for a buyer to come forward with the money to fix/finish the place and the commercial nouse to run the climbing arena and the other leisure facilities at a profit. The worst outcome would be that it gets bought as a conference centre, and the climbing arena and the rest of the quarry are closed to climbers or built on.

Although I do wish the bank would make their minds up what they do actually want to do with the place, I think Edinburgh Council are just about the last body I would want to see owning it. The words "Edinburgh Council" and "commercial nouse" are rarely seen in such close conjunction as here, and for good reason IMO.
Craig_M 24 Jun 2005
In reply to bhorisk:

Top piece of reporting. In one sentence they say "However, it has been dogged by problems after running more than £8m over budget."

Then a couple of paragraphs lower they say "When the scheme was unveiled in 1996 the cost of building the centre was estimated at £4.5m, but it cost almost £30m."

One of those statements must be innacurate, surely?

 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to bhorisk: Thank you - it wasn't there when I looked before, honest! Still not sure this is entirely good news, though I'm sure the money will be helpful (so long as it is actually forthcoming).
Kipper 24 Jun 2005
In reply to bhorisk:

'Nick Bolton', quoted in the article, will be pleased
OP S Andrew 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Craig_M:

I suspect there were several budgets. It was probably £8m over the biggest one and 25-odd over the original.
OP S Andrew 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Kipper:

MC of S were maybe too busy dodging to comment on this.
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Craig_M: I think they fall within the accuracy guidelines normally observed within the Scotsman.
Removed User 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr:

I'm not sure that Council wouldn't be bad owners of the centre.

After all, they already own a host of other sports and leisure facilities including Meadowbank Stadium and The Commonwealth Pool. There may be economies of scale here and they should have a realistic idea of how much income they can generate from the sports facilities. They've also got the financial resources to absorb temporary losses, something a private developer may have lacked.
 Norrie Muir 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr:
> (In reply to Kipper)
> MC of S were maybe too busy dodging to comment on this.

Dear Rid

If, there was a seagull in the quarry years ago, the MCofS would not allow to climb there. Afterall it is mainly climbers that use it, so the MCofS are not interested.

Norrie
In reply to Rid Skwerr:

Maybe prices will coem down.

I will never forgive Ratho for giving me food poisoning and ensuring I will never eat another sundried tomato in my life.
OP S Andrew 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Norrie Muir:

Unless it becomes a potential 'sport mixed' venue. Then stuff the gulls.
OP S Andrew 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Humphrey Jungle:
> (In reply to Rid Skwerr)
>
> Maybe prices will coem down.
>

Almost certainly not.
I've not eaten there but others have said they liked it.
Removed User 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr:
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
>
> Unless it becomes a potential 'sport mixed' venue. Then stuff the gulls.

Actually, not such a bad idea. Turn some of the minging natural rock inside the centre into dry tooling routes. Lets face it, on some evenings in the winter it would be a relief to have an excuse to put on a pair of gloves and some big boots.

OP S Andrew 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Removed User:

I'm sure it'd be policy to only use real rock to avoid damaging the plastic.
Policy? What am I talking about? Why bother with policy?
DAB 24 Jun 2005
In reply to all: This has to be good news - surely the alternative would have been losing Ratho to climbing.
With the debts all but removed and new cash and ideas from a private/public partnership things could really start moving in a positive direction from the current state of stagnation! Here's hoping!
moondawg 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:

> The words "Edinburgh Council" and "commercial nouse" are rarely seen in such close conjunction as here, and for good reason IMO.

<pedant>

Yes, because the word is "nous".

</pedant>
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to moondawg: So it is, well I never, Thank you for pointing out my error.

However, spelling aside, I stand by my statement. Google would appear to back me up, reporting only two occurrences of the conjunction. (How sad is that??)
 tony 24 Jun 2005
In reply to DAB:

It's sort-of good news that the Council is buying it, but considering the size of debts being written off I can't help thinking that it's a bit of a last-ditch sale, and that no commercial buyers have been found, which may say something about its operating viability. Still, the Council do seem to do leisure centres reasonably well, and it's certainly better than the whole thing fizzling out in a hole in the ground. Oh no, that's what it is....
 Norrie Muir 24 Jun 2005
In reply to tony:
> It's sort-of good news that the Council is buying it, but considering the size of debts being written off I can't help thinking that it's a bit of a last-ditch sale, and that no commercial buyers have been found, which may say something about its operating viability.

Dear tony

Will the existing management team be retained or does the council want to keep running it as a White Elephant?

Norrie
Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Norrie Muir:

I don't think it's the EXISTING managment team which has been the problem. The Scotsman does say that the transfer of ownership will save 60 jobs.
 tony 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Norrie Muir:

Your use of the word 'management' suggests some degree of operational organisation, rather than stumbling from day to day.

I shouldn't poke fun - I haven't been for over a year, so I don't really know what it's like now, although I did have a look at the routes list the other day to see that there are still quite a few routes unchanged from the day the place opened. And I did hear that they've introduced a 'no topless climbing' rule, which is a bit of bollocks.
 PeterM 24 Jun 2005
In reply to tony:
Out of curiosity, why is a "no topless climbing" rule, in your opinion, bollocks?

PeterM
 tony 24 Jun 2005
In reply to PeterM:

Because I don't see what it is supposed to achieve. Presumably the idea is to protect the young and innocent from the sight of bare male flesh. So these young and innocent people never go to the swimming pool, never get changed in communal changing rooms, have all their reading matter censored for the sight of a male nipple?

And why a topless ban, when there is restriction on women wearing strappy tops and skimpy shorts which are far more alluring than a bloke's bare chest?
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
>
> Your use of the word 'management' suggests some degree of operational organisation, rather than stumbling from day to day.

I have it from a reliable source that the bank repeatedly delayed the investment in infrastructure requested by the management team that they put in to place turn the operation around. The management team therefore had little option but to "stumble from day to day" - a situation that must have given them very little satisfaction.
 Norrie Muir 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:
I have it from a reliable source

Dear Martin

I also heard from a reliable source, that Ratho was not viable from the start.

Norrie
 Mike Highbury 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Norrie Muir: Dunno nothing about Ratho coz its too far north for me but help me here. Was it built on or include a green field site
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Norrie Muir: That's a different issue, though, isn't it? I doubt the original directors plan was to go bust and get taken over by the council. To the best of my knowledge none of them benefitted financially out of the failure, and one suffered a substantial personal loss. Perhaps it was the bank's fault for agreeing to finance them in the first place?

If you're suggesting that it's still not viable ie the council are going to end up subsidising the place, then I can imagine at least one commercial wall nearby which could justifiably feel aggrieved at having to face unfair competition.

Out of interest, did you ever climb there before the quarry was developed?
 tony 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Mike Highbury:

It's built in a quarry which was previously used for climbing. It was massively over-specified, years late, and a long way over budget. And it went into receivership within months of opening.
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Mike Highbury: It was a disused quarry which had a number of established routes, some of which are no longer accessible. Why the interest?
DAB 24 Jun 2005
In reply to tony: I can't imagine Ratho possibly being comercially viable when loaded with that level of debt.
Hopefully, now that has "dissappeared" (unfortunately for the creditors involved) and new cash is available to finish, further develop and promote the place - its viabilty should be considerably improved.
 Mike Highbury 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W: The story that I heard when it was first in trouble was that it was a device for building on a green field site. This always struck me as an expensive way of circumventing planning regulations or the UDPlan since an appeal to the Office of the Deputy PM is usually sufficient.

However, since the topic came up and I'm mucking about on SPSS, I thought that I'd ask
 Norrie Muir 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:

Dear Martin

I climbed there in the early 70's, but not recently.

I'm not saying it was built for personal financial gain in the first place.

If, it was built on a commercial basis, like other climbing centres, then minds would have been focused on not making losses. The one making a personal loss is like thousands of other business people, you win some and you lose some, this is what capitalism is about, not everyone is winners.

Norrie

Norrie
Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:
> If you're suggesting that it's still not viable ie the council are going to end up subsidising the place, then I can imagine at least one commercial wall nearby which could justifiably feel aggrieved at having to face unfair competition.
>

No more unfair competition than other sports/leisure/entertainment facilities which also have to "compete" with the council.




 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Norrie Muir:

> I climbed there in the early 70's, but not recently.

Ever felt like coming back for another look? Most of the outdoor routes are still there and freely accessible.

> If, it was built on a commercial basis, like other climbing centres, then minds would have been focused on not making losses.

This is what puzzles me. The biggest creditor was the bank. I thought banks tended to take quite a close interest in what people did with the money they borrowed.

> The one making a personal loss is like thousands of other business people, you win some and you lose some, this is what capitalism is about, not everyone is winners.

Agree 100%.
Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005

> I thought banks tended to take quite a close interest in what people did with the money they borrowed.
>

Yes, but margins are higher with higher risk loans. The trick here is for the Bank to acheive some sort of balance. In the main, they do - hence their profits. If they never loaned unless everything was zero risk, the economy would stop in it's tracks.
 Martin W 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Dr U Idh: Well yes, but in this case there seem to be a fair number of people prepared to say that the place was never commercially viable ie the risk was much nearer to 100% than 0%. Although I suppose it is easy to say such things in hindsight.

The roof blowing off probably didn't help.

The way it's working out, it looks like the bank will be about £7M out of pocket. That's roughly 87% of the overrun cost, most of which I imagine will have been funded by them. I still think whoever approved the extended funding should have a few questions to answer.
Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:

Lots of figures have been banded about. I though the total cost was about £20M of which £12M was from one of the partners. Given other funding (SportsScotland?) I guess the Bank might have been into it for about £8m or so of which they now stand to get around £5M back.

HBOS's pre-tax profits this year were £4,592M. I guess they can afford the occasional miscalculation. My thoughts do go out to the many smaller companies who'll get nothing back for the work they put in. However, most of these will have been carrying insurance for this sort of loss.
firestarter 24 Jun 2005
An interesting comment in the Editorial(?) comment on page 12 of the Evening News

"The council should not be overly concerned over the centres previous financial history, as a major contributory factor leading to its early demise was the focus on promoting it solely as a climbing centre."

Make your own assumptions as to the future....
Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005
In reply to firestarter:

Surely the point is that is is not, and was never intended to be, solely a climbing centre. As far as I can see, there's been very little done to promote/advertise any of the facilities. That should be one of the first objectives. However, it has to be said that some efforts have been stymied by the lack of finance (like the overnight gig that was planned and cancelled due to the state of the building).
firestarter 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:

"If you're suggesting that it's still not viable ie the council are going to end up subsidising the place, then I can imagine at least one commercial wall nearby which could justifiably feel aggrieved at having to face unfair competition. "


in reply to Dr U Idh

"No more unfair competition than other sports/leisure/entertainment facilities which also have to "compete" with the council. "

----------------------------------------

I would agree that many businesses attempt to "compete" with the Council, however the Council do not compete on equal terms with businesses. To quote from (page 12 again of the Editorial comment in) tonights Evening News...

"...the council can minimise its risks to SOME degree, although even if the centre were to operate at a MANAGEABLE LOSS it would not be a great disaster..."

This is not competition since the Council is using OUR collective monies to finance an already shakey business and is prepared to run it at less than cost in order to "save around 60 jobs" (page 5) and to provide a facility that will be of value to the "public, sports and business communities".


In the event of there being no other competition this could be considered beneficial however there is "at least one commercial wall nearby". Alien Rock is directly affected by the subsidising of Ratho - it already employs up to 20 staff and has survived for the past 11 years without ever over-spending and being bailed out by the banks or public purse, as opposed to the 4 months the Ratho Quarry Company lasted. For many years Alien Rocks desire to expand into more suitable premises has been frustrated by the unpredictable whims of Rathos managment team which saw fit to rashly throw money at their project, with no apparent financial reality in sight.( I'm sure there was even talk of 350,000 visits per year - from climbers !)

This volatile climate does not give value to anyone since it stifles sustainable growth for the benefit of the short term, "lets have the worlds biggest" mentality. This comes at a cost: whether it be to the worlds largest bank (HBoS); the ill informed investors (David Taylor ?);the bankrupt sub-contactors(many); the sustainability of the competitors wall(Alien Rock);the taxpayers (of Edinburgh)who would rather the money was spent on something else; the visitor(Joe Public) driving miles to a wall in the middle of nowhere and the climber( YOU !)wondering why the non-climbing owners havent changed some of the routes for 12 months.

The Editorial finishes with ... "With sound management ,and with a viable buisness plan a fully operational facility of this type SHOULD generate not only revenue for itself but for the city as well".

Aye right !

Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005
In reply to firestarter:

>
> Aye right !

Nice of you to finish on a double positive.




firestarter 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Dr U Idh:

is that better than a double negative ? The other option was "Bollocks, away to shite !"
Dr U Idh 24 Jun 2005
In reply to firestarter:

Just remembering a story about Scots being the only language where a double positive means a negative.
Ian Hill 24 Jun 2005
In reply to Dr U Idh:
> (In reply to firestarter)
>
> Just remembering a story about Scots being the only language where a double positive means a negative.

yeah right
Jevy 25 Jun 2005
In reply to Dr U Idh:
> (In reply to firestarter)
>
> However, it has to be said that some efforts have been stymied by the lack of finance (like the overnight gig that was planned and cancelled due to the state of the building).

I think the overnight gig was cancelled because Radio One had a very similar gig in the centre of Edinburgh on the same night. The Ratho gig didn't sell enough tickets because of this, and so it was cancelled last minute. They always knew the state of the building.
Jevy 25 Jun 2005
In reply to firestarter:

We shouldn't get too excited about the council buying Ratho yet. The evening news story makes it sound like it's all finalised but it isn't, nothing has been signed. Apparently the story has been leaked to the press in order to gain public support and put pressure on those decision makers at the council who are still reluctant to go ahead with the purchase.
 Dave Stelmach 25 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr: I'm not sure I'd like to swim in gravy!
 Dave Stelmach 25 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr: Perish the thought that climbers should get wet!
 whispering nic 25 Jun 2005
In reply to firestarter:

Hi roobn ; )
 Martin W 25 Jun 2005
In reply to Dr U Idh:

> Lots of figures have been banded about.

According to various Scotsman and Evening News articles:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=262202004
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=855462004
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=920192004

the cost at the time it was put in to receivership was £20M, with @12M being owed to HBoS. This was £8M over the original budget of £12M. SportScotland put in £1.2M.

So if HBoS get £5M from the council, they're still £7M out of pocket. Yes it's not much compared to their overall numbers, but someone let it happen...

> My thoughts do go out to the many smaller companies who'll get nothing back for the work they put in. However, most of these will have been carrying insurance for this sort of loss.

Some of them were distinctly unhappy: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=684302004

In reply to Jevy:

> The evening news story makes it sound like it's all finalised but it isn't, nothing has been signed. Apparently the story has been leaked to the press in order to gain public support and put pressure on those decision makers at the council who are still reluctant to go ahead with the purchase.

So who put the pressure on the Evening News to come up with that effusive editorial piece about it?

In reply to firestarter:

Hello Reuben! Yes it was Alien Rock I had in mind when I raised the competition issue.
routesetter 29 Jun 2005
In reply to firestarter:

BTW maybe a dozen routes exist that have beeen there more than 12 months out of over 200.They are either access routes (ie lines of large jugs that provide an easy way for novices to get up the biggest walls), or are in very underused sections of the wall.

The rate of setting per hold probably matches most walls but there is a slight discrepancy in scale! There has certainly been more prolific routesetting since the current operators came in than happened previously when only the comp wall saw any change.

Dr U Idh 30 Jun 2005
In reply to Rid Skwerr:

This is fom the Edinburgh Council web. Looks like they've plans for the Climbing Centre to be integrated into a larger outdoor facility. The whole deal is very much still up in the air though, with the council still to decide on the viability of the project. However, gicne the statements to date, it would seem that there is now a cetain inevitability about it.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/servlet/QsProtected?IDC=CEC/Corporate_Services/...
 tony 30 Jun 2005
In reply to Dr U Idh:

Interesting stuff. It looks like the council has a slightly different vision for Ratho, making it more family-friendly and aiming for a wider cross-section of the general public, whereas the original plan all seemed quite specialised. More punters = more money coming in, which would help with the business plan. Not quite so sure about the bistro to catch the passing trade - it's not exactly a busy road, is it...
 Martin W 30 Jun 2005
In reply to tony: I think they mean trade passing in and out of the centre itself! Not an unreasonable idea because AFAIK the cafe is not accessible without going down to arena level, and the restaurant is on the top floor. Another facility at reception level could attract folks going to and from the gym, Tisos etc. Maybe.

I'm not sure why they think they need a pedestrian bridge over the canal to give access to Ratho: the centre is on the towpath side anyway. Perhaps they mean a bridge in Ratho itself, so pedestrians don't have to use the road bridge (which IIRC is one-way-at-a-time, controlled by traffic lights).

Cycling and diving were part of the plan before the centre opened, but talking of sailing hints that they may be looking at making use of the bigger, water-filled quarry on the other side of the canal - which could also explain why a pedestrian bridge would be needed.

Interesting to get the council's official point of view - it makes it sound much less of a done deal than the story in the Evening News (which I would assume was based on the same basic press information).
Dr U Idh 30 Jun 2005
In reply to Martin W:

If the Millemium Link (i.e.canal) is as busy as it seems, then improving access from there would provide some additional customers for a "Bistro".

As for the footbridge, I suspect that this is to link up with the Westernmost part of Ratho (i.e. the closest approach by bus).

Some swimming classes had already taken place in the quarry opposite. I can see the potential for canoeing, but I'd have though the steep quarry walls would limit the potential for sailing - not that it stopped Truman
In reply to Rid Skwerr:

I was one of the climbers in Scotland who were amazed that someone/anyone would take on such a large, ramshackle quarry and turn it into an 'indoor national climbing centre'.
Was it mushroom season?
Why did we need it?
Scotland has some good rock climbing but it's far from being our strong point...
I wish those who sail in her all the best.
jackfrostnotloggedin 01 Jul 2005
In reply to Martin W:

There has been a planning application submitted to build 117 houses in the quarry over the other side of the canal. This could provide the reason for the pedestrian bridge.
 Sean Bell 10 Jul 2005
In reply to tony: I climb at ratho fairly regularly when the weather is bad and they have recently put up a load of new routes and problems, also, every time ive been there in the past 3-4 weeks ive noticed a lot of toplessness on the walls and on the boulders and nobody seemed to bother.I never knew there was a rule.Not that it would affect me, i rarely get my bod out due to embarrasment of ale induced flabosity.Nothing like watching quivering man tats on a 6b.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...