dreamland will reopens at Easter

[RowBot]

I tell ya what will bring in more people is the fact it's a free entrance fee, unlike last season. Like last year I will post another Photo album of this season's pictures what will be taken hopefully soon as possible (not soon as it opens mainly because all rides might not be there). Hope to see you all there enjoying the scenic.

Ps if anyone takes some pictures and wouldn't mind me adding them to the website please contact me.

Ian

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

James wrote:
For example it is thought that the dragons on the Scenic scare small children, is why Waterbridge are thinking about going to the effort to get them chopped off. They can then auction them to the campaign to raise money for charity.

Maybe we could cut off James' head.
We wouldn't get much for it at auction, but it would end one of our problems.

You have to wonder if he and Bob have ever stood up and actually done something constructive for anything, or are just the bitter whine and moan types.

[lutonlad]

Im glad that dreamland will be open for easter and throughout the season, but i cant say that the idea of a "travelling fair" is the direct answer. Aslong as a travelling fair is in situ it would be so easy for it to be removed if planning permission was approved. If a buyer was to develop the site with permanant rides such as a roller coaster water chute etc, then it would be less likely for planning permission to be approved.
If it is anything like last years fair then i was put off by the lack of health and safety, i.e ride operators jumping on rides whilst in motion, some rides not properly fenced off, and in the case of the top buzz, it being operated by a 8 year old who was constantly bellowing down a microphone repetatively.

The evidence of the caravans at the back of the park was also less apealing.

What this park needs is a long term investor which will develop the park to its potential and bring in jobs for the local community. A travelling fair isn't going to help with thanets high unemployment rate.

I personally think that not enough has been done to promote/advertise the site for sale/lease on the grounds that waterbridge and co don't want a buyer/tenant, otherwise people would have snapped up the site by now.

If i won the lottery i would personally develop the site myself, i couldn't care if i lost money i would gain pleasure from just actually restoring dreamland back to its former glory.

Re advertising in London etc, good idea, but as other members have commented, i too wouldnt't travel to go to a fair which i could get at my local park. Good were the days when you could buy a combined rail and ride travel ticket at a bargain price which gave you your rail fare from london and a free wristband on presentation of your inward ticket at dreamland.

Gary

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Ditto on the lottery thing.
You have to wonder if there IS some wealthy person out there who'd be interested in saving Dreamland.
It's just 16 acres.

[Neil]

Ditto on the lottery thing.
You have to wonder if there IS some wealthy person out there who'd be interested in saving Dreamland.
It's just 16 acres.

There are several wealthy people out there interessted including Philip Miller, owner of Adventure Island. I'm not sure what is exact financial plan is, but I think I heard somewhere that it would involve around £5 million to buy it and another £10 million of initial investment, so sounds pretty wealthy and committed to me. The problem is people don't get wealthy by being ripped off. No one is going to be wealthy enough to match a development company who have plans for residential and retail use.

Again you have raised several idea about millionaires paying the money Waterbridge want and the govenerment giving money to help. These are very radical ideas as they involving people (either the millionaire or tax payer) writing of a lot of money (the tax payer as this could not be an isolated case but a precent). If the Council refuse to allow other development it will drive the price down to something more reasonable. That way the tax payers gives nothing, an operator gets a park at a reasonable price that will eventually allow them to make money, and Jimmy Godden will still have made a decent ammount of money through the time he has run it for.

The only people who loose any money is Waterbridge, yet surely if someone is going to have to loose money it might as well be the richest millionaires who make money from milking towns of money, than the common tax payer who needs the money more or Philip Millerwho has done wonders for a town toruism and is planning the same for Margate.

I know it sounds like I'm poo pooing all your ideas, and clearly your support is fantastic and proves how significant Dreamland is. All I'm saying is that I feel you're being too generous to Waterbridge, why should we allow them to make a mint after all they've done? They don't deserve the money and don't have to get it.

[Sarah]

The only people who loose any money is Waterbridge

But how do we know they would be losing any significant amounts of money? We only have Toby Hunter's word for it that they have invested £9.whatever million in the park. As with any big business dealing, I would only actually believe that if someone showed me the signed contract and the cheque stub. A bit of site clearing and a fence - even a bloody big one - will only have cost them loose change.

Waterbridge are obviously a successful company, so it puzzles me hugely that they would invest large sums of money in such an uncertain site, with no returns guaranteed. The usual thing to do would be to take an option on the site. Maybe that's what they've done, maybe not, but I'm not so certain that they will make massive losses if things don't go their way.

Sarah

[Neil]

What I meant Sahra is that if they have spent £25 million on aquiring a 60% steak in the site and then Philip Miller bought the entire site for the princely sum of £5 million they would loose money. Ofcourse they might be able to run an amusment park themselves, but I'm rather scepticle about that. If they run an amusement park themselves it would probably end up being the beginning of appeasement, although ofcourse this is just my personal opinion.

Nevertheless whether or not they would loose money is besides the point. If they would it is their fault for paying so much for it. As you say Sarah they are a successful business and wouldn't buy the site unless they fancied their chances, then again complaceny is not always the best strategy (and I think the fence episode allows me to accuse them of being complacent).

As always this a bity and rambling post, but here's one last 'thought for the day' (although no doubt a change my mind and tack on a few more!). According to Bob the park has lost money for the last twenty years, but wouldn't this bring you back to before Jimmy Godden bought it? I find this all rather suspect.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

It's a numbers game and it sounds like we don't have all the facts. Numbers yes, but are we sure about them.

2 hopes remain for Dreamland:
1. A waiting game. Eventually Waterbridge will be forced to sell because they won't be allowed to build there. (Watch for current or future council members to be suddenly driving better cars, etc.)
2. Council reverses the land use decision, Waterbridge sells at a loss just to be rid of it. Gets government write-off.

3. Things remain the same and Dreamland operates as an unattractive and fading relic.

[Neil]

I suppose the point remains the same, they stand a lot to loose now if they can't redeveleop the park and will wait quite along time and go down all avaliable appeals etc before giving up. I guess this is why initially they said the park would carry on operating for two years, whereas it has now operated for three extra years and they have agreed to another 3. It seems to me that Waterbridge were a bit like the ones who said that the war would be over by Christmas. The problem is the longer it takes before the Council gives them a definate no, the more they will hang on hoping they will change their minds if and when they do. It does seem that the consultation is crucial, but it remains to be seen whether they will change their minds. There seems to be three things that have happened since the original decission that can make a differecne
1) The fence shows that they are incompetant/untrustworthy
2) The results of the save Dreamland campaing's on the street survey suggests that Councillors who continue to ignore the campaign could be more unpopular locally than has been previously expected.
3) If lots of people object this may have some impact.
Fingers crossed aye.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

<tearing my hair out wishing I could do more>