Dreamland, Amusment park or not?

[Sarah]

Fact:
An offer was made on the site some time ago, at its independently assessed value (that's its value as a park, not as a potential building site). The offer was rejected of course.

'Bob' talks about there being no offers to buy the business - if by that he means Dreamland Leisure then he's right. Why would anyone want to buy Dreamland Leisure? It hardly comes with a glowing reputation.

Operators are interested in the park, not the business.

Sarah

[cliffc]

Fact:
An offer was made on the site some time ago, at its independently assessed value (that's its value as a park, not as a potential building site). The offer was rejected of course.

'Bob' talks about there being no offers to buy the business - if by that he means Dreamland Leisure then he's right. Why would anyone want to buy Dreamland Leisure? It hardly comes with a glowing reputation.

Operators are interested in the park, not the business.

Sarah

HI Sarah

This was the offer that i was reffering to in my post in reply to Bob i knew i had read somewher on the site that a firm offer had been made and rejected nice to know i am not going loopy.

Cliff C

[Nick]

Sarah is absolutely right. An offer has been made for the park, and it was refused. I can also confirm that more than one operator has had discussions with the owners about the possibility of acquisition. They were told that they would have to pay prime supermarket/residential real estate values. Unsurprisingly, they walked away at the time. I am sure you wouldn't pay up to four times as much for something than it is worth, would you, Bob? I expect you paid a reasonable price for your car and your house, didn't you?

Bob is just restating the same old points over and over again (you know: the entire park isn't viable, etc, etc, etc). These are exactly the same arguments that were tried in front of an independent government inspector. He wasn't convinced by them, neither am I. In fact, I haven't met anybody yet who is! That line of argument is history, Bob. It has been rejected. Move on!

I can, however, confirm that I have spoke to Philip Miller over the past couple of weeks (since the Inspector's Report was published) and he remains as interested as ever. But he (and others that have approached me about Dreamland) will not pay the prices that have to date been asked. It goes back to the point about your house and your car, Bob.

Until there is a firm line taken by the Council in accepting the recommendations in the Inspector's Report, there is no point in operators making further offers for the park as they are likely to be treated by the owners in the same way as previous offers.

Nick

[Bob]

Sarah is absolutely right. An offer has been made for the park, and it was refused. I can also confirm that more than one operator has had discussions with the owners about the possibility of acquisition. They were told that they would have to pay prime supermarket/residential real estate values. Unsurprisingly, they walked away at the time. I am sure you wouldn't pay up to four times as much for something than it is worth, would you, Bob? I expect you paid a reasonable price for your car and your house, didn't you?

Bob is just restating the same old points over and over again (you know: the entire park isn't viable, etc, etc, etc). These are exactly the same arguments that were tried in front of an independent government inspector. He wasn't convinced by them, neither am I. In fact, I haven't met anybody yet who is! That line of argument is history, Bob. It has been rejected. Move on!

I can, however, confirm that I have spoke to Philip Miller over the past couple of weeks (since the Inspector's Report was published) and he remains as interested as ever. But he (and others that have approached me about Dreamland) will not pay the prices that have to date been asked. It goes back to the point about your house and your car, Bob.

Until there is a firm line taken by the Council in accepting the recommendations in the Inspector's Report, there is no point in operators making further offers for the park as they are likely to be treated by the owners in the same way as previous offers.

Nick

The council will take into account the Inspectors report. The council though are firmly of the opinion that Dreamland is not viable as purely an Amusement Park. Independent reports that have been commisioned also confirmed that view. The likely outcome is that a part of Dreamland will remain as an importent leisure & amsument facility but some of the current site will be give over to other usage to improve the overall viability of the Dreamland site.

I would be interested to see any business plan that claims Dreamland can be run on a commercial basis.

[jmace9]

I would be interested to see any business plan that claims Dreamland can be run on a commercial basis.

WE WOULD BE INTRESTED TO KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFO FROM ???

[Sarah]

The council though are firmly of the opinion that Dreamland is not viable as purely an Amusement Park.

Aah, so Bob speaks for the Council now as well as Mr Godden. What a powerful fellow. Or perhaps he has a crystal ball and does a turn as Mystic Meg at dinner parties. The Councillors of Thanet - those people elected by you and I to represent our best interests - are the people who will vote on whether to accept the Inspector's recommendations or not. Then the good people of Thanet will get their say.

Unless he is on the Council, Bob doesn't know how the vote will go. In fact, even if Bob is the Chief Executive, he doesn't know how the vote will go, because Councillors are just as liable to change their views as the rest of us (even more so perhaps, given their reliance on public support).

Does anyone remember that way back when, Bob told he hadn't been to Margate for a number of years? (He's probably forgotten that - you have to be a bit clever to be a convincing liar.) So, with that in mind, I'm going to cross my fingers and assume he isn't my ward councillor in disguise.

Sarah

[Alan]

Bob have you spoken to Barry Moss, But you cant do that can you?.

Alan

[Bob]

The council though are firmly of the opinion that Dreamland is not viable as purely an Amusement Park.

Aah, so Bob speaks for the Council now as well as Mr Godden. What a powerful fellow. Or perhaps he has a crystal ball and does a turn as Mystic Meg at dinner parties. The Councillors of Thanet - those people elected by you and I to represent our best interests - are the people who will vote on whether to accept the Inspector's recommendations or not. Then the good people of Thanet will get their say.

Unless he is on the Council, Bob doesn't know how the vote will go. In fact, even if Bob is the Chief Executive, he doesn't know how the vote will go, because Councillors are just as liable to change their views as the rest of us (even more so perhaps, given their reliance on public support).

Does anyone remember that way back when, Bob told he hadn't been to Margate for a number of years? (He's probably forgotten that - you have to be a bit clever to be a convincing liar.) So, with that in mind, I'm going to cross my fingers and assume he isn't my ward councillor in disguise.

Sarah

I have not stated what way they will vote nor would I know how they will vote. I just stated that the councils view is that they do not believe that Dreamland can be run purely as an Amusement Park on a Commercial basis. In making their decision they would need to taken into account the impact on the local council tax payers.

Clearly people here would like it to remain a 100% Amusement park but the fact remain that would impose a large burden on the council & council tax payers. An Amusement park is also very seasonal and will take 90% of its revenues in just 2 month of the year. This is the reason the most likely outcome will be a compromise with a part of the current Dreamland Site given over to other uses. Many rides are portable & can be taken down which gives flexibility to alter the site usage depending on the time of year.

Garden centres wrestle with similar problems although there main season is longer and runs from about Easter to September. To Drum up business they move into selling Christmas Decorations etc. One of the possibilities for Dreamland in the winter is A Christmas Market. There are also other opportunities to broaden the appeal of the site.

It’s probably not what you want to hear but the harsh economic facts are the reality. The only way Dreamland can remain a 100% amusement park is if it heavily subsidised which is not very likely.

I think the Save Dreamland Campaign is now starting to do more damage to Dreamland then good. I am hopeful though that the council will make a sensible decision on this matter and that Dreamland will reopen next year and work can start on upgrading it leaving Margate with a smaller but much improved facility. The rest of the site will then be redeveloped for other usages. Initial site clearance work has already commenced. If they make the decision to permit redevelopment of part of the site then things can quickly move forward. If it’s a negative decision it is unlikely that Dreamland will open next year as it would be uneconomic to do so.

[David Ellis]

I have not stated what way they will vote nor would I know how they will vote. I just stated that the councils view is that they do not believe that Dreamland can be run purely as an Amusement Park on a Commercial basis. In making their decision they would need to taken into account the impact on the local council tax payers.

Clearly people here would like it to remain a 100% Amusement park but the fact remain that would impose a large burden on the council & council tax payers.

The only way Dreamland can remain a 100% amusement park is if it heavily subsidised which is not very likely.

A few interesting points here...

1. When you refer to "the Council", do you mean officers or members? "The Council" is made up of the totality of all members at Thanet, not just one or two, or the leader, or indeed the Chief Executive (who is an officer and cannot vote anyway). So how come you know that any majority vote will go the way you suggest, i.e. against Dreamland as an Amusement Park on a commercial basis?

2. Why should there be Council Tax implications? Unless the Council is subsidising the cost of running Dreamland (as you suggest would be required), the running of Dreamland will be as a private business, not revenue-funded by the Council Tax in any way. The Council Tax issue appears to be a complete red herring!

3. Why should the park run with a subsidy...can you give any other examples of UK theme parks that only survive on the strength of a subsidy by the local council...or indeed one that gets any subsidy at all?

Just to explain my comments, I work as a professional in Local Government Finance, although I have no local connection, so I would be very interested in your supporting evidence to the comments you have made.

David.

[Bob]

I have not stated what way they will vote nor would I know how they will vote. I just stated that the councils view is that they do not believe that Dreamland can be run purely as an Amusement Park on a Commercial basis. In making their decision they would need to taken into account the impact on the local council tax payers.

Clearly people here would like it to remain a 100% Amusement park but the fact remain that would impose a large burden on the council & council tax payers.

The only way Dreamland can remain a 100% amusement park is if it heavily subsidised which is not very likely.

A few interesting points here...

1. When you refer to "the Council", do you mean officers or members? "The Council" is made up of the totality of all members at Thanet, not just one or two, or the leader, or indeed the Chief Executive (who is an officer and cannot vote anyway). So how come you know that any majority vote will go the way you suggest, i.e. against Dreamland as an Amusement Park on a commercial basis?

The council have made their view on the viability of Dreamland as an Amusement park. I cannot speak for individual councillors and do not know how they will vote on the matter

2. Why should there be Council Tax implications? Unless the Council is subsidising the cost of running Dreamland (as you suggest would be required), the running of Dreamland will be as a private business, not revenue-funded by the Council Tax in any way. The Council Tax issue appears to be a complete red herring!

Dreamland would only be viable as an Amusement Park with a subsidy hence the potential impact on the Council Tax.

3. Why should the park run with a subsidy...can you give any other examples of UK theme parks that only survive on the strength of a subsidy by the local council...or indeed one that gets any subsidy at all?

I am not aware of any that do and my view is its highly unlikely they would subsidies it. The position of Dreamland is though probably unique in that one of the rides has listed building status. Its unlikely though that even that would make direct subsidies availble although it might potentially be able to obtain a grant towards its upkeep.

Just to explain my comments, I work as a professional in Local Government Finance, although I have no local connection, so I would be very interested in your supporting evidence to the comments you have made.

David.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

Dreamland would only be viable as an Amusement Park with a subsidy

Evidence?

[Chris H]

Reading the last few posts that bob has put forward i seem to getting the feeling that i am being brain washed.
We all know who is renouned for covering up the facts

Bob's mission is to simply try and run the website and its forum into the ground and that is what he is currantly attempting to do.
I have a bit of advice which i am sure you are all aware of and that is just blank out old fool.

He banters on chating aload of old b***ocks and making up facts which are simply untrue. For example dreamland is know longer a viable tourist attraction.

The post that p*s*ed me of the most is that apparently the Save Dreamland campain does more damage than good.
I think enough has been said!

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

Well, Bob is entitled to have his say- I would never like this to become one of those ghastly forums where anyone questioning the general ethos of the group becomes banned- but I would like to see him support just one of his claims with even the slightest evidence.

As it is, he is simply "handwaving", and so his comments are meaningless.

Bob, perhaps you could explain to us *why* Philip Miller is so foolish to be willing to run Dreamland? And *why* it would not be viable without subsidy?

And in what way you are qualified to know this?

[Bob]

Well, Bob is entitled to have his say- I would never like this to become one of those ghastly forums where anyone questioning the general ethos of the group becomes banned- but I would like to see him support just one of his claims with even the slightest evidence.

As it is, he is simply "handwaving", and so his comments are meaningless.

Bob, perhaps you could explain to us *why* Philip Miller is so foolish to be willing to run Dreamland? And *why* it would not be viable without subsidy?

And in what way you are qualified to know this?

Philip Miller has made no specific bid for Dreamland. He may have expressed a general interest but thats a million miles away from a firm detailed offer.

Only time will tell if anyone is prepared to buy the site at the full market rate and run it as a 100% Amusement park. I think I have made my views clear on the viability of that.

I am aware of several other UK amusement parks that will close or are very likely to close over the next few years. Even probably the most famous of all Blackpool is finding the going very tough with visitor numbers falling. Its in no danger of closing but it is scalling back the business. It is now in the Uk almost impossible to run an Amusement Business in the UK at a profit or at least a reasonable ROI.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

It is now in the Uk almost impossible to run an Amusement Business in the UK at a profit or at least a reasonable ROI.

So you would suggest that Alton Towers does not make a profit?