NO MORE GEORGE WEBB

[mattchewmann]

So if there is no more George Webb who are we going to have for the 2007 seasons if they had a 3year lease will this still be continueing maybe gettin someone with alot of cash could bring some bigger rides and have an early season, im sure theres someone out there

[RowBot]

there is alot of people out there, but the problem is alot of people don't want to lease (or not a 3 year lease anyway!).

Ian

[Strongbow55]

there is alot of people out there, but the problem is alot of people don't want to lease (or not a 3 year lease anyway!).

Ian

No one could afford to invest in Big machines for the site unless it was a 10 year lease at least.
On its present 3 year lease agreement it is only viable to put travelling machines in dreamland
Whoever takes the plunge on a short term basis really needs another coaster and a water ride as a bare minimum

[Chris H]

More to the point, If a dedicated owner came along and was prepared to give Dreamland their best shot for the leasing period that has been put forward,
the MTRC would simply turn them down, seeing them as a threat.

All the owners want is a shoddy old showman who is going to install small
pathetic travelling rides that would be installed into that small hidden away area around the back of the Scenic that every one seems to call a fun park.

But as seen this season and the previous one, it will be made impossible for any one to run a successful season on the Dreamland site.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Actually, I thought we that heard Dreamland did OK this year.

...and everyone, a lot is 2 words.

[Killa]

believe it or not you lot there are some fantastic travelling machines out there (shock horror i know) but they would not want to spend the summer where they arent allowed to make any money, its a catch 22 situation...

[Neil]

Well now two operators have dropped out early, so I can't see any more operators wanting to take it on. I feel really sorry for the Webbs as they seemed to do their bit, but other forces appeared to act against them. Realistically though if another operator doesn't come forward no one will carry out essential structural maintanence to the Scenic so if Waterbridge have scarred away all the operators then that's good for them and bad for us. Either way though it doesn't look like the Scenic is in immediate danger and despite the state of the station roof and peeling paint I guess there are more pressing issues.

[Strongbow55]

Well now two operators have dropped out early, so I can't see any more operators wanting to take it on. I feel really sorry for the Webbs as they seemed to do their bit, but other forces appeared to act against them. Realistically though if another operator doesn't come forward no one will carry out essential structural maintanence to the Scenic so if Waterbridge have scarred away all the operators then that's good for them and bad for us. Either way though it doesn't look like the Scenic is in immediate danger and despite the state of the station roof and peeling paint I guess there are more pressing issues.

another operator has an agreement for next season

[EAS]

This sounds good news - let's hope no 'obstacles' are put in his way and a real effort is allowed to be made to show the site is viable...

It needs careful monitoring, as no doubt we will all be told at the end of the season that the owners have now made every effort and still it doesn't attract enough visitors...

Maybe a list can be made of all those things which people recognised this season as not encouraging visitors? Like ensuring the light works for example? And of course plenty of publicity!

[Strongbow55]

This sounds good news - let's hope no 'obstacles' are put in his way and a real effort is allowed to be made to show the site is viable...

It needs careful monitoring, as no doubt we will all be told at the end of the season that the owners have now made every effort and still it doesn't attract enough visitors...

Maybe a list can be made of all those things which people recognised this season as not encouraging visitors? Like ensuring the light works for example? And of course plenty of publicity!

I can honestly say the Webbs tried very hard with advertising
They did a tie in with KMFM and advertised in London
they were let down by the site owners who agreed on advertising
this of course never actually happened
Had waterbridge actually kept to their agreement then perhaps the Webbs would have had a fighting chance to at least break even
Deliberately keeping the tunnel arcade closed for the start of the season
and placing other obstacles in the path of potential visitors IE padlocked barriers and over enthusiastic clampers helped reduce visitor numbers

[Neil]

I guess this is good news, but it seems like quiet a risk to me. Clearly the park can be made at a decent profit, but not like it was this year (which as Strongbow says is due to Waterbridge). The problem with advertising around London is that if people want an amusement park Adventure Island will inevitably be better, however good luck to whoever takes it on. If they make sure there contract is tight then things could be more successful, as long as Waterbridge don't run rings around the operator.

[porf]

I can honestly say the Webbs tried very hard with advertising. They did a tie in with KMFM and advertised in London

I'll avoid the issue of who caused the lack of advertising as I've no inside knowledge of this years operations.

However I would point out that the first piece of London advertising in my local papers only appeared around 3 weeks before the end of season. I'm not even sure if it was repeated in the following weeks. Seemed to be too little/too late to build up any sort of increase in attendence.

Here's hoping next year's operator gets a bit more publicity for the park, there are too many people I've spoken to who believe the park closed years ago!