UKC

Today's Financial Times has an advert for Ratho Quarry Company Limited, from Deloitte & Touche, the receivers.

Anyone fancy chipping in?

In reply to helix:

Do we have to buy the debt, too?

In reply to helix:
"chipping in" .....like it

no details of the debt. budgeted turnover of £3.5m for 2004 - more than last wednesday's back-of-the-fag-packet calculation, rob.

In reply to helix:

Yeah, I've seen "budgetted turnover" before! My company was liquidated on the back of a "budgetted turnover".

That's an *average* of 500 people a day spending at least £20 each. They'll be lucky.

It ain't turnover 'til it's turned over!

In reply to Rob Naylor:

think turnover here probably includes rental income, from office space, Tiso's, cafe company, etc.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Rob, you're making the rather blinkered assumption that all the revenue comes from climbers coming for a day's climbing. In addition to the climbing, there are many other activities based at Ratho. The Skyride, at £7.50 a pop brings in more than a few pennies. There's overnight accomodation, conferences and courses, a gym and health facility type thingy, physiotherapy suite, scuba and judo, a branch of Tisos. This is no ordinary climbing wall.

Mind you, £3.5M does look a bit optimistic.

In reply to helix:
is there a link to the ad? (Don't read the FT myself...)

In reply to tony:
A conference centre in Ratho. lots of accommodation in that village! A stupid idea and a waste of money from day one! What were they thinking off? A conference centre competing with the huge one in Edinburgh, a city with bed space...Fools.
1000+ climbers each day is all Ratho needs to be a viable business, just as long as they each spend a further £20 in the restuarant on each visit!
Knock it down and forget it.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Not sure if this is a serious question, but no - the creditors will hope to be repaid from the sale of the business. First in line is the taxman, then the banks, then in the unlikely event anything is left, the other creditors.

In reply to tony:

I know that. I didn't say there'd need to be 500 *climbers* spending £20 each on average, just 500 punters all in spending that amount. That's a lot to *average* day in, day out, weekdays as well as weekends, even allowing for the judo, gym, etc.

OK, I hadn't allowed for rental income for Tisos etc,and running conferences can generate a fair bit of income. But it still looks optimistic.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

Not really a serious question, I've been through it from the other side, so I know how it works. Bought the assets of a company in voluntary liquidation, too.

In reply to Anonymous:
The accommodation and office space is ideally located re motorway network and airport, and could certainly be sold as a going concern. The climbing wall could make lots of money too- the problem is servicing the debt incurred in the start-up costs.
The vast majority of climbers in Central Scotland- even the initial doubters- think Ratho is a fantastic resource, and most definitely do not want it "knocked down and forgotten"

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I've been company secretary of a company which was owed a load of money by a company in liquidation, so I also know how it works! Needless to say, we never saw a penny.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

Well, I bust a gut to make sure my creditors were paid off and the staff paid up to date...to the extent of crippling myself with a double mortgage. The only reason we went tits up was a large client in the USA being unable to pay *us*.

Looking at how everyone else operates I was extremely stupid.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd: The taxman is no longer preferential, only the employees for wages owed and outstanding holiday pay. The banks will get first dibs on most of the money raised and as they seem to be owed £20 million that does not leave much for anyone else.

The £3.5 million turnover figure is just a guide. Anyone thinking of buying the place will be expected to do there own sums and bid accordingly. The buyer SHOULD get a viable business IF he/she is well advised. If the price goes too high step back and wait for Ratho2 to become insolvent, then buy!

In reply to Rob Naylor:

It happens every day. Not nice watching people lose there shirts.

The Llanberis Snowdome company were looking at ratho as a case study to see how these things can work so well! I just hope that they notice that the thing just didn't work and it will save the hillside around Llanberis being transformed into a white elephant

In reply to helix:

Check out:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=306742004

In reply to helix:
I found £1.24p in my car door packet. I'll chip in with that, if you like.

Sxx

In reply to Anonymous: It's obvious that you've never been to Ratho or indeed know much about it, or you'd know that the conference facilities are NOT competing with the EICC on size. Even if they were, I think you'll find that the EICC is already pretty fully booked, so there's obviously still demand.

You've already made you feelings about the growth of climbing as an activity abundantly clear, so it's not surprising that you'd like it knocked down. However, judging my the last few visits I've made, the publicity sems to have actually generated ADDITIONAL custom!!

In reply to IanMcC:
http://www.businessesforsale.com/ft/advert199911.aspx

In reply to Anonymous: Piss off back to the other thread with your completley inaccurate and un-informed opinions you loser.

In reply to helix:Is this not all just a con too get a green belt development company in?

Surely for £20 Million it would have been possible to buy almost the entire Cuillin Mountain range, along with many buildings... or Knoydart, or something else with rock and mountains you could see from the moon.... Ah, but none of them have vending machines, or a personal parking spaces for your big new Mercs – that must be why they stuck a roof on a wee quarry near Edinburgh airport – now I understand. Perhaps to make it more like being in Scotland, given there is a roof on it, they could run courses with the fire sprinklers on. That way when the poor sods have been ‘trained’ they might actually survive being benighted in Scotland because of our biggest natural challenge – the weather.

Let's get the business plan straight:

1. Run it, with 70 staff and associated expenses at a profit... which means you need at least £180,000 per month to break even. Charge everyone a fiver (seems fair) to come in, and you need 36,000 people a month or over 1,100 per day. That can't be too hard (yeah, wake up!)

2. Oh, and apart from 1., you have to repay the £20,000,000 - which on a commercial basis would mean you need another £100,000 a month to just cover the interest.

What idiot signed that lot off? is his name 'Back-hander Joe'

Here's a fool-proof plan: Maybe they could build an indoor weather centre too. How about an indoor Munro Centre.... for £20M you could build a moving ramp with heather growing on it, fling in a couple of sheep, the odd shower from the fire sprinklers... and state of the art web cams with real views from the outside world. Then if you get tired, slip off to the the vending machine, quick cuppa plastic coffee, and back to M pointing. Jeezo - almost a Holodeck from Star Trek. I do hope that someone is going to be accountable for the tax money that was duped out of us all... hope the guy that runs the show has his house keys taken away at the very least. Also strikes me that more was spent in tax payers cash on the construction of Ratho than is being done on the reconstruction of Iraq... now there's a thought! £4 per man woman and child in Scotland.... Howz the Scottish Parliament coming along?

In reply to Sir Douglas Haston:
Sorry to disappoint you, but good facilities just don't come cheap - that's why you don't see many. Plans are afoot to redevelop / replace the Commonwealth Pool in Edinburgh with Rugby/cycling facilities etc. at a cost of around £110M. Another Scottish folly? How about Wembley then? a mere £757M, £120M of which is coming from the tax-payer!

In reply to Dr U Idh:

True, good facilities don't come cheap. But why pretent they're commercially viable if they're not? If a non-commercial facility is desirable, then surely it's better to fund it publicly than fund it privately and then see a load of little (operational) creditors lose money when it goes tits up, in order that someone else can jump in and buy it for a song from the receiver?

I know that the same firm who's non-payment led to my company going bust caused or contributed to at least 5 other companies folding.

In reply to Sir Douglas Haston: Most people here seem to think this is a climbing centre with a few additional facilities. I have not been to Ratho, but if you look at the receiver's advert:

Worlds largest indoor climbing area.
State of the art gymnasium
20,000 square feet of office, retail and franchised accommodation
Short stay residential accommodation – 41 rooms/86 guests
3 function rooms/auditoriums capable of accommodating 180-450 guests
Restaurant, licensed bar and two cafes
Car parking for 300 cars and 16 coaches
Highly trained and experienced workforce – 78 employees
Budgeted turnover of £3.5 million for 2004-03-12

then it looks more like a hotel/conference/leisure centre with an extra climbing wall tacked on. It should be perfectly feasible to generate the projected turnover from a 41 room hotel & associated conference facilities. I doubt if income from the climbing wall would play that big a part.

What I don't see is how they planned to generate enough profit from that turnover to pay off the debt.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

Generating the turnover to cover the debt was my initial query on this when the news first broke.

However, it certainly doesn't look like a hotel/conference centre with a climbing wall tacked on. A 41 room hotel would barely qualify as a serious hotel on many calculations...at least as far as hosting major conferences goes. A 50% occupancy at £50 per day would generate around £360,000 from the hotel (excluding bar/ restaurant facilities.

A good standard 350 seater conference hall with facilities can be had in central London for £1000 per day. Let's say another £350,000 from the conference centre, plus whatever they'd turn over on refreshments.

I don't know where you get the idea that it should be feasible to generate the projected £3.5 million turnover from conference and hotel facilities, but IMHO, generating £1 million total from these facilities would be optimistic. You'd need 100% occupancy at top rates to come even to £2 million.

Tiso's rental, and rental on the bars and refreshment facilities is hardly likely to tip the balance. I'd be stunned if Tiso's turnover would be enough to allow them to pay even as much as £50k a year in rent, for example.

So the bulk of the projected turnover *has* to come from use of the climbing and other sports facilities.

My own take is that, servicing the debt apart, generating a turnover of £3.5 million from this facility is unfeasibly optimistic.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

I would normally have expected that Ratho would simply get refinanced. The banks (or VC's) could put more cash in but take a larger equity stake (replacing borrowing with equity)in the venture to give them a far bigger pay-back in the long-term ie. out of equity rather than interest on debt. This would reduce the annual running costs ie. less borrowing to service. The original owners would lose control of the venture as they'll need to pass equity to the banks. You might even find the banks put in new management (or additional financial controls). However, if the receiver is in and putting it up for sale, this might mean that a refinancing option is not viable - which might suggest that the bank(s) think the long-term future is not good. Or it might mean they haven't spoken to the right VC yet.

In reply to helix: Another thing that Ratho has in it's advantage is the total lack of cheap hotel accomadation at Edinburgh Airport. At present there really is only the Hilton; there is surely some scope for higher residency in their hotel facilities. RBS are building their new HQ down the road as well. There may be a future for the rooms part at least to generate some much needed income.

I know a great deal about the place mostly through here; how many of us in Central Scotland have seen anything like a concerted advertising campaign?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Really - where? That is around £3-50 a delegate. We book conference rooms in hotels and pay vastly more than that. I admit the rooms we rent are much smaller.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

King's College Conference Bureau did an excellent tiered theatre for 350 for about £1000 for a company I was working with last year.

You *can* pay as much as £5,000 in central London (eg at the QE2 Conference Centre) for the absolute top of the range facilities, but £1000 to £1500 is quite achievable for a more-than-acceptable venue.

A lot of the hotels with conference centres don't rent the rooms only, but make you buy a "per delegate" package, which works out much more expensive. It all depends on how Ratho has it set up, but I'd imagine that with the limited accomodation they have, they'd do the room rental option.

In reply to Rob Naylor: I assume that would be without any refreshments. I don't think £2.85 per delegate would even get you tea and coffee

In reply to Dr U Idh:
Been four times!
So why isn't Ratho full then?
Wrong, I love to see the groth of climbing, inside or out! Kinlochleven, Ibrox etc... all great and a fraction of the price!
It's still good money after bad!

In reply to petey:
Ooooo!

In reply to helix:

I wonder how much Tiso are paying for the rental of their shop and what the sense of it is?

The only potential customers that they will have are those visiting the climbing wall. Taking a charitable view that will give them 200 potential customers per day. Doesn't sound like a great revenue earner to me.

There are plenty other conference facilities in Edinburgh surrounded by all the facilities and attractions that the city has to offer and accessible by public transport. I do wonder how much business it will get.

The gym also. There are many gyms in Edinburgh and I imagine also in Stirling, Glasgow, Perth etc. What particular attraction will Ratho have that will make people get in their cars and drive past a number of similar facilities to work out there?

Re the comment about good facilities not being cheap. Alien Rock cost a small fraction of what Ratho has and is not at all bad.

One income stream that no one has mentioned is the Skyride. I was at Ratho on Fri/Sat/Sun and the Skyride never stopped, must have been at least 150-200 people per day on that.

Someone needs to get a new calculator if they think that 1,000 climbers (or other visitors) spending £20 each on food etc (let alone entrance costs) = £3.5 million

20 x 1000 x 365 = £7.3 million.

Be interesting to know what the average spend per head is. On Saturday I must have had about 4 coffees through out the day (£6), had breakfast there (£5.50), had dinner there (£10.95), had 4 pints there (£10) and then kipped there (£20). Total spend was therefore over £50.

In reply to Party Boy:

Yes that's the room only, as per my original 2back of a fag pack" revenue estimate post, where I specifically excluded refreshments. I have no idea whether Ratho would cater these themselves, and show it all as revenue, or subcontract to a catering co and only show the sub-contracting income as revenue.

In reply to helix:



Ratho's main problem is it does not know what it is and it has not been built as a commercial venture.

Is it a hotel and conference centre. Well, Edinburgh is pretty well served for such establishements, most of which have strong branding and better economies of scale and 41 beds is pretty modest.

Is it a sporting facility - again yes but it has been designed on a "civic /ego" basis and not as a commercial undertaking. I suggest interested readers look at Clissold Leisure centre in Hackney, whereby demand for a public leisure centre was fulfilled by a state of the art development which went over budget, cost more than it ever should anyway and was designed with form not function in mind. what should have been provided was a more modest affiar.

If Whitbread can build a David Lloyd centre for £10m then no leisure development should come in higher.(and bear in mind the land costs is greater for such a use)

So tracking back, Ratho was always going to be an expensive animal to maintain. That leaves less cash to maintain the debt.

It is highly likely that the bank (though most of the funding was put in by the architect) who had the principle, floating charge over the business knew they were on a hiding to nothing about 3/4 through the development period. It is better to sell a going conern than a hole in the ground.

I'll wager that the delay in appointing the Recevier has been due to the failure of the business to secure VC or mezzanine finance.

You can produce mock P&Ls to your hearts content, the thing just cannot afford to generate a return and pay the bank back.

In reply to graeme alderson:

gross or net of vat?

In reply to graeme alderson: On Saturday night it was interesting (or maybe gobsmacking) to see that people were arriving at 8.30pm just to go to the restaurant!

In reply to graeme alderson:

Grame, you've mixed up 2 posts. My post suggested 500 *punters* (all types, not just climbers) each averaging £20 spend per day. Someone else suggested 1100 punters averaging £10 each per day. They both come to around the £3.5 million.

The Sky Ride costs £7.50. Your sky-rider would need to spend another £12.5 in the bar or restaurant to bring his/her spend up to £20.

You were also there on a weekend, when it'll be by far the busiest ( contrast my Friday visit to the Ice Factor, where there were 4 paying punters in the whole place, with my sunday visit, when there were dozens, even though it was a nice day outside). 200 skyriders on a wednesday probably won't happen that often.

What percentage of visitors there will spend £50 in a day? I earn well above average income and couldn't possibly support that level of spending. I suggest most visitors, certainly the regular locals that they'll be relying on for a significant chunk of income, will spend much less.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

(As more than a very infrequent one-off, I mean).

And what's the wage bill for 78 staff? At least £1.5 million I'd guess, probably nearer £2 million including employer's NI and social benefits. Once you've added in lighting, heating, maintenance, wholesale cost of food etc etc, as Rubbishy says, it's ludicrous to think that the revenue generated could ever support the normal fixed/ variable outgoings *and* pay interest on the debt.

*If* ( and I still think it's a big if) a revenue of £3.5 million could be generated, then it might just be enough to cover non-debt outgoings and leave a small profit.

Why cn't I get away from the feeling that in quoting the budgetted revenue, they've simply worked out the costs and added a bit? Hmmm...cynical or what?

In reply to Rob Naylor: "1000+ climbers each day is all Ratho needs to be a viable business, just as long as they each spend a further £20 in the restuarant on each visit!"

was actually what I was replying to.

In reply to Rob Naylor:


Indeed. I'm told by someone who regularly books venues that £30-£50 per delegate per day is typical, to include a buffet lunch and morning/afternoon coffee. It is that kind of market a hotel/conference centre should be in. Last time I looked at getting a hotel conference room for an evening for 10 people with no catering, we were asked for upwards of £100 - and that wasn't central London. We met in the bar instead.

In reply to helix:

Aren't you asssuming that you have to service the debt in all these calculations. From my own experience that passes back to the banks etc involved with the liquidated companies. They may have to write down the value of their assets to one where is business viable( 1/2 loaf is better than none). The net conclusion is you may get it for nothing. But at what price, alot of the creditors will also include suppliers like the climbing wall company. Who will probably tell the new owners to piss off until some deal is done on the old debt ( that is what i would do).

The one advantage to the business is that it generates cash, and as most business people know it's cash that counts.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

Even so(and this was implicit in my first post, where I'd discounted refreshment revenue):

Let's assume an average (or aggregate use-day) conference size of 300, a charge of £30 per head (London mught get £50, Ratho'll be nearer £30).

Let's assume 100 conference use days per year (unlikely to be a lot more than that...that's 2 days per working week) with that average (ok, you'll have some days with 50, some days with 400, spread out more over the full week).

That's still less that £1 million revenue (note in my first post on this, I'd said something like "even with the catering they'd struggle to reach £1 million) from the conference facilities.

You originally implied that it should be quite easy to generate the entire £3.5 million from conference and hotel facilities, with the climbing and other sports as insignificant contributors.

At £30 a delegate, you'd need an *average* number of conference-goers of 300 per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, to generate just over £3 million. Ain't gonna happen.

You could generate another half million or so from a 75% room occupancy rate, 52 weeks a year, 7 nights a week for the hotel rooms. You're not going to come anywhere near than in reality.

If it's got yellow, waxy skin, pips and tastes bitter, the chances are it's a lemon.

In reply to neilh:

No, I'm saying that even *without* servicing the debt, the proposition is dodgy commercially (read my last-post-but-about-3).

To repeat: with a wage bill probably approaching £ 2 million, plus services, maintenance, wholesale costs of food and raw materials, etc, the running costs of the place are going to be over £3 million.

The budgetted revenue of £3.5 million looks optimistic, and at a cynical guess arrived at by taking the running costs and adding a 12-15% "profit, rather than by any meaningful calculation.

I'm not averse to taking a risk, but I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole if I had the cash, even with a total debt write-off.

In reply to neilh:

It's not cash that counts, it's profit.

I'd rather work for a company turning over £1 million with a £250,000 annual profit than a company turning over £1 billion making a £100 million loss.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

It depends which one generates cash.Every business mantra says "cash is king", and that from personal experience is 100% true. It is no good having a £250,000 profit in theory, if you have not been paid!

In reply to neilh:

OK, *Cash Profit* is king!

Doesn't matter how good the cashflow....every invoice to a client can be paid on it's due date, but if at the end of the financial year all that cash income doesn't cover your outgoings, you're buggered.

Of course, the bank's likely to be a lot more "understanding" if you owe them a hundred million £ than if you owe them £20k!

Quote: Scotsman Newspaper Sat 21st Feb 2004
EICC outperforms rivals as it hits black for first time
EDINBURGH International Conference Centre broke into profit for the first time last year, and was the only major player in its industry to turn a profit in 2003, the company claimed yesterday.
Revenues rose 7.5 per cent to £4.2 million and it expects to log an operating profit of about £153,000, up from a loss of £228,000 a year earlier. Its sole shareholder, Edinburgh City Council, will therefore not be asked to provide the subsidies that are usually required to cover its red ink.
Loads o' money to be made in conferencing then!!

In reply to John345:

Absolutely.

This is a centre with around 20 theatres and rooms with capacities varying from 1200 to 30, and a total capacity of almost 5000 delegates if all rooms are fully booked. It turns over just over £4 million a year.

How Stefan could think that a centre with only 3 rooms and a small fraction of the capacity could "easily" turnover £3.5 million from conferenceing and hotel alone is beyond me.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

And I thought that this was a climbing forum. This thread is getting to sound more like an accounting school case study.

The facts are that the original project started off years ago as a development of the quarry into a climbing centre.

Then it was realised that there was potential for Ratho to be more ambitious than that. So why not...
- add other sports (Judo, scuba, mountain, gym)
- add the conference facilities (Edinburgh is undergoing a commercial boom - see the property price rise in the past couple of years)
- add a hotel for delegates and climbers to stay in
- add the bar and restaurant (make it different from Alien Rock and Ibrox)
- market the place as a world class facility, not a scabby quarry covered with a tarp.

The bank would have reviewed and approved the business plan at every step, and given the size of funding required for the project, would have been closely invloved.

None of us who have commented in the thread will have seen the business plan, so any calculations we make about spend per head, required visitor numbers etc etc are just pure speculation.

The project got derailed during construction, and here the developers could be criticised for their choice of materials. Roofing the place was difficult and took a lot longer than planned. Some of the fixtures are too good for a climbing centre. Much of the place is still to be completed - the car park, the pool for starters

However no-one seems to have praised the vision of the original idea or the fact that the developers tried to do something different, something that would raise the profile of climbing and maybe attract more money into the sport.

Its clear that most climbers (at least the ones on the thread) are miserable sods who would rather smuggly see something fail than praise the place for trying something new, and enjoying using a facility that is good for the delveopment of the sport.

Can we change the topic now?

In reply to arabs:

>>None of us who have commented in the thread will have seen the business plan, so any calculations we make about spend per head, required visitor numbers etc etc are just pure speculation.

The fact that the thing went bust in a month is kinda a giveaway though. Proof of the pudding and all that....

>>The project got derailed during construction, and here the developers could be criticised for their choice of materials. Roofing the place was difficult and took a lot longer than planned. Some of the fixtures are too good for a climbing centre. Much of the place is still to be completed - the car park, the pool for starters

A regular risk with any large construction contract. Entirely forseeable.

>>However no-one seems to have praised the vision of the original idea

You say 'vision' I say 'hubris'. Lets call the whole thing off...

>>or the fact that the developers tried to do something different

Building over an existing climbing venue? Different , yes I'll grant you that. The 'Roaches- Drome' next?

>>something that would raise the profile of climbing and maybe attract more money into the sport.

I don't reckon its a sport, and being a thankfully anti-materialist game in a commercialised world, could do without more cash or 'profile' imho

In reply to GFoz:

I guess that you solo climb in the nude, and only on rock . You don't wear any branded clothing, use any branded gear, never read any climbing magazines, even look at any adverts or ever visit an indoor climbing facility. You engage in pure climbing as it was meant to be. Just you, nature and gravity.

Unfortunately climbing is part of the commercial world - how do you think all the manufacturers get the money to develop their products and sell them to us. They do it for fun and the good of their health? I don't think so. Large numbers of climbers find direct employment through outdoor sports commercial activities. It is a commercial world. Ratho is part of that world. Its big business whether you pretend to be part of it or not.

In reply to arabs:

Excuse me! On the other thread I noted this as a possibility. Far from praising this motivation indeed climbers should run a mile.

Why does climbing need a raised profile.
Why does it need more money?

These things can only do damage.

Sadly the North West is set to go the same way with the Manchester mega wall.
To add insult to injury the BMC, supposidly the body that represents the interests of climbers is backing the Manchester bid. Shame.

Like Ratho the Manchester site will only prosper if the profile of climbing is raise and more cash is attracted. This is inseperably bound to the parrallel requirement to raise the number of participants.
A goal which the BMC itself has a policy against in order to protect the interests of climbers.

Arabs what climbers need is not a raised profile, more climbers, more money, but moderate self sustaining training facilities. Ratho and Manchester are niether of these.

So why is the Manchester facility to get the nod from the BMC for a Sports Council grant then?

Greame?

In reply to arabs:


I suggest you read 'Feeding the rat' for a treaty on equipment manufacturing without mass media appeal. There are pleny of brands who manufacture and market without seeking to broaden the appeal of the sport directly.



Pity them who have to distort their beloved game inorder to make a living from it.
There are plenty of people who make a living from climbing without distorting it for selfish gain.

Arabs the degree to which you get on the commercial bus is up to you. I can see that you have fallen for it hook line a sinker. I hope you don't lose site of the intrisic values that attracted you to the sport in the first place... If indeed that was ever the case.

In reply to GFoz:


You haven't seen the business plan, so that part of arabs' posting was correct. That time has shown the previous owner's business plan to have been unachievable does not alter that. I am told that there are in excess of twenty potential buyers involved in negotiations to buy the place, one of whom is apparently a long way down the "due diligence" road. You haven't seen their business plan either - and neither have I - so, again as arabs says, anything we might say about it at the moment is pure speculation.

I do hope that whoever does buy the place will retain free-of-charge access to the outdoor part of the quarry, where the majority of the pre-existing routes are still climbable. Would you really refuse to go there to climb the remaining 80-90% of the old routes (at no charge) simply because the remaining few have been included within the indoor arena space?

Heck, if the new purchasers decide to keep the shops/restaurant/gym complex but pull the arena down then even Godzilla could be "released" back to the wild again!

But overall I agree with arabs: whatever your feelings pro or con the place, anything we can say at the moment is simply speculation which gets none of us any further forward. It's in the hands of the money men right now so all we can do is wait and see, and hope that the outcome isn't a lot worse than just a few of the nice trad routes going under cover.

In reply to arabs:

Bollocks, I said on one of my earliest posts on the topic that if it had been decided to buid it as a publicly-funded facility, fine. It was the pretence (or ludicrous over-optimism) that it was a good commercial proposition that got me.

My later posts have almost all been in countering the over-optimistic ideas of how much revenue could "easily" be generated from which activity there.

My estimations are to an extent "speculation", true, but they're "informed speculation": quickly sizing up all aspects of the costs of a project, often in a strange area, and deciding whether it would be profitable to tender on it, and at what price, is one of the things I've been doing for years. I've been doing it for myself, not for a council or bank that'll absorb the cost of any loss my misjudgement may incur, so I have to be reasonably good at it to keep a roof over my head.

As for "this is a climbing forum"...yes, it is. We're discussing some of the financial aspects of something bad that's happened in the world of climbing. If you don't like it, don't read the thread.

In reply to Martin W:

But what's wrong with informed speculation? If someone says "wow, the centre should easily be able to generate a £3.5 million revenue from the conferencing and hotel alone", is it wrong to point out why I think that's over optimisitc, with (speculative but conservatively reasonable) figures to back it up.

Is it then wrong, having estimated a max £1 million from conference facilities, to indulge in a little "told you so" when someone else posts a report showing the EICC, with 6 times the number of rooms and 6 times the delegate capacity "only" managed to turnover £4.2 million in the first year it's made an operating (note the *operating*) profit?

I think it's healthy to discuss these things openly, To say "let's all just shut up and leave it to the money men" is like saying "let's not question the government and what they're doing about X or Y, they know what they're doing, we should just all shut up and wait to see what happens". It's just paving the way for some kind of supine acceptance that "they" (in any particlaur field of expertise) always know best.

In reply to Anonymous:


That - and the rest - put more eloquently than I could. Thank you.

In reply to Anonymous: My name is Graeme Alderson (note spelling). What is your's and/or what is your membership number?

I am a climber who lives in Manchester. What gives you the right to make assumptions on what I want or need?

And get your facts right.

In reply to graeme alderson:

Dear Graeme

I believe Anonymous posters have something to hide. My belief as I have said before, is the they are groommers of children and have got into the habit of not using their real names.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Yes, their names!

In reply to arabs:


Not a very good bank then! Must have been an English one!

In reply to Rob Naylor:


Did I say there was anything wrong with it? I just think it's pointless.


I'm not quite sure how health comes in to it. I'm sure it doesn't make any difference one way or the other to the decisions that are being made elsewhere.


I didn't say "let's", I said that's all we can do - unless you know some way of influencing their decision-making on the basis of some peripherally-informed speculation? I suppose it's just about possible that someone with an interest in the sale of Ratho might take a look at the opinions expressed on the subject on Rocktalk. If they do, what will they find? From this thread and the "Ratho RIP" thread they'd probably conclude that there are some people who like the place more or less as it is now, some people who don't like it on principle, and some people who think they can do the receiver's/prospective purchaser's job better than they can themselves. In their position, how would that infuence your decision?

IMHO the biggest risk at the moment is that climbing will be lost altogether at Ratho. The thing that is almost certainly not going to happen is that the buildings will be pulled down and the quarry will be left to go back to nature and the trad climbers. I don't see how "told you so"-ism is going to prevent the worst-case outcome, or get us any kind of solution closer to the utopian ideal.

If Ratho falls in to ruins and we're all free to climb Godzilla as the original quarrymen intended(!) then I'll gladly second you up the route of your choice* and buy you a pint afterwards, how's that?

* With due allowance for my irredeemable punterism, balanced against how much you want to remind me that you were right all along!

In reply to Martin W:

>>I don't see how "told you so"-ism

Myself - I have never hidden the fact that I am no friend of the Ratho Pachydermodrome - purely on the merits building on an existing climbing venue - personally I never predicted its economic down-fall.

But the 'its there now - you have to support it' argument doesn't wash because we (the anti-Ratho minded) never created this mess in the first place and, hey if it does go down, maybe others will think again before making the same reckless mistakes in future.

In reply to GFoz:

if it does go down, maybe others will think again before making the same reckless mistakes in future.


I doubt it, I have worked on too many of these things to ever believe we have exhausted all our people with vision, a dream and the commercial acumen of a marmoset.

so long as some civil servant is happy to put our money in just becasue he gets the access road named after him there will always be a place for these developments.

Simple really, if Ratho and similar was a viable commercial undertaking don't you think the private sector would be building them?


>>comments addresed to all not just Foz<<

In reply to John Rushby:


How do these people get funding for hare brained schemes. I need a gravy train to hitch my waggon to (see I can mix metaphors with the best of them, I'm born to be a fat cat!)

In reply to John Rushby:

>>Simple really, if Ratho and similar was a viable commercial undertaking don't you think the private sector would be building them?


To be (uncharacteristically) fair - only about 1.2m of funding was from Sport Scotland, SS distributes primarily lottery funds (though there is some govt grant) and is an Agency, which I think means it is not under direct ministerial/civil service control.

In reply to John Rushby: Ratho was primarily (95%) private money as far as I know.

In reply to graeme alderson:

i was making a broad commnet, not just Ratho which did indeed use gap funding.

my point was that too many spurious keynote developments have been undertaken. I just happensthat private equity made up ost of the funding here, but it could quite conceivably been public / lottery cash..

In reply to Tyler:


Well for a start off the NGB has to give the Sport Council the nod.

Which is why I am asking questions of the BMC about the proposed Manchester mega wall, in the light of what is going on at Ratho.

Greame conveniently doesn't answer my simples queries. Why I do not know. It is not as if it matters who I am.

1)Greame do you agree with the BMC policy of not seeking to increase the numbers of people climbing?

I ask that question because on the other thread you seemed to be saying that the published policies of the BMC contradicted each other. You also admitted that the BMC has directly advertised climbing events to the general non climbing public, presumably using membership fees to pay for that advertising.

2) Greame do you believe that ventures such as Ratho and the proposed Manchester Mega site are sustainable without attracting new participants to climbing? That is without prejudiciously affecting the other local facilities?

In reply to graeme alderson:

Sorry Graeme. I will spell your name right in future.

I've registered! The last two anonymous posts about English banks were not me.

In reply to graeme alderson:

5% isstill over £1 million of public funding.

How much is the Manchester proposal asking for from the sports council?

It is true that the BMC must give the Nod to such grants isn't it Greame? Can you explain the process by which the BMC decides who gets approval for funding and why?

In reply to Original Anonymous: If you read my replies you will see why I will not answer. That and the fact that I have to go and put some ads on the back of buses.

In reply to graeme alderson:

What because you don't have my membership number? I thought the BMC represents all climbers? What if I'm asking these questions to clarify if joining the BMC is in my interest? i.e. enquireing as a prospective member?

I think you are joking about the adverts on buses because that certainly would constitute 'push' advertising.

In reply to Original Anonymous: But you are not a prospective member, you have already claimed to be a member.

6pm Friday = pub. Bye

In reply to graeme alderson:

Well I don't blame you leaving at 6pm. I must be on my way home myself.

If you don't answer my questions it will begin to look like you are deliberatly evadeing them though.

The Ratho locals will tell you that the quarry was due to be used for landfill until the climbing centre was proposed. As they've used it for years as a barbecue and picnic spot, I can assure you that they're very happy with the current development.

How long would Godzilla have been when the crap started filling the quarry? What access would have been available? Better to have the remaining outdoor routes than the alternative??

In reply to Dr U Idh:

Nope,

The quarry company wanted to fill it in with spoil from the quarry across the canal but there was a vociferous reaction to this from the locals.

Nothing had been decided when the quarry was sold.