It’s interesting how the tone and balance of opinion in this thread differs to that of the other thread about this.

What is the FC actually for nowadays?

I believe they have 3 main goals:

1) Use their forests to produce wood.
2) Use their forests as an environmental resource.
3) Use their forests to improve public health. This is the one that MTBing gets in under.

As (1) has become less profitable, (2) and (3) have become more important.

Yes, don’t forget that it is a managed timber plantation, and the whole thing could be raped for it’s wood, destroying the trails and the ‘vibe’, if timber prices rise or the wood becomes harvestable.

More specifically:

“Scottish Ministers set out their vision for forestry in Scotland in the Scottish Forestry Strategy,published in 2006. The vision is that by the second half of this century, people are benefiting widely from Scotland’s trees, woodlands and forests, actively engaging with and looking after them for the use and enjoyment of generations to come. The forestry resource has become a central part of our culture, economy and environment. The Strategy is seeking to achieve three
outcomes from forestry:

• improved health and well-being of people and their communities
• competitive and innovative businesses contributing to the growth of the Scottish economy
• high quality, robust and adaptable environment and identified seven themes to deliver these:
• Climate Change
• Timber
• Business Development
• Community Development
• Access and Health
• Environmental Quality
• Biodiversity”

This thread gets more hilarious each time I read it.

Kenny Wallace, the ‘former Para’, has my vote for thread contributor of the week. The great big wussy aerobics instructor that he is.

Tootall, someone should also tell him that myers briggs is absolute *swearword*

Quote from Kenny Wallace –

I think what has upset most people is that Emma & Tracey are fundamentally responsible for Mountain biking in Scotland as its is known today.

I could not stop laughing, +1 for thread contributor of the week or idiot of the week… 😀

Hah, I missed the Kenny Wallace comment first time round, thanks guys!

1) Use their forests to produce wood.
2) Use their forests as an environmental resource.
3) Use their forests to improve public health. This is the one that MTBing gets in under.

As (1) has become less profitable, (2) and (3) have become more important.

The reality is that FC are very inefficient at 1. They get approximately 50% less than the private sector achieves. They have been very chameleon like in pinning their hat to whatever political peg is available at the time to justify their existance. It is very easy to show the cost to the taxpayer of every tonne of timber that leaves the forest, but contributing to the wider public health agenda is something more open to smoke & mirrors accounting.

Going back to the original thread:
For a private company dealing with FC tendering is a very unsatisfactory process. There is no loyalty and they have no understanding of either the costs or hassle of running a business. They put out framework tenders, time consuming to complete, for which no work materialises for the majority of “successful” tenderers. Importantly for the Hub, it is much harder for a new organisation to win the tender than the encumbent one, as they can promise the earth in the tender.
We are very selective about what FC work we would consider now – we have the scars to show for it!

I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that much as the old cafe at CYB was great, I think that may well be looking through rose tinted specs.

The old cafe had that great bohemian atmosphere, but lets face it at busy times I’d imagine it struggled to cope. The new facility, sadly, seems to be much more ‘neutral’ and appealing to a wider diversity of users. In my limited experience the service wasn’t bad too.

The facilities at CYB are better from an objective POV than they were before. Last time I went to Gentress the Cafe was looking rather dillapidated and the toilets were pretty grim, calling them changing facilities is excessive.

Looking at the number of flash vans, estate cars and bikes at these trail centre car parks there’s certainly plenty of money to be made. Not that making money makes it right, but sadly in these times of austrerity ther big subsidies aren’t around any more, maybe they need to turn a bigger profit to help trail maintenance? Also if they need to run a 200 seat cafe what’s their relevant experience?

kitebikeski – Member
> 1) Use their forests to produce wood.
> 2) Use their forests as an environmental resource.
> 3) Use their forests to improve public health. This is the one that MTBing gets in under.
> As (1) has become less profitable, (2) and (3) have become more important.

The reality is that FC are very inefficient at 1. They get approximately 50% less than the private sector achieves.

You’d opt for privatisation then? That normally has the STW hordes tearing their hair out.

We are very selective about what FC work we would consider now – we have the scars to show for it!

Think that could be said about any “business” atm
My work are on about their 3rd haulier in the past yr or so and are about to bin them if they can find another with better more reliable equpiment. Wifes work is on their 2nd security firm and 2nd water supplier since she started.

If you are in the “contract” or “tendering” business there does not seem to be the “loyalty” everyone on here would appear to think should be applied. Those days are long gone ❗

I have been riding at/in/around the GT area since way before the Hub pitched up. When it opened it was good. We were on 1st name terms with T&E. I do think however they have taken their eye off the ball/trail and allowed thing to deteriorate.
I have only been at GT once this year. The young staff seemed more interested in the music(loud)than serving people, rarely lifting their nodding heads to acknowledge an order.

Not that making money makes it right, but sadly in these times of austrerity ther big subsidies aren’t around any more, maybe they need to turn a bigger profit to help trail maintenance?

If my workplace was not making money we would not be able to attract the £20m being spent on asset upgrades over the next 2yrs.
Profit is what keeps business and US/ME in jobs.

There is no loyalty and they have no understanding of either the costs or hassle of running a business.

They are not allowed loyalty – they must tender on a level playing field – that is a legal requirement and they can’t get around that – tell me you are just being provocative on that point. They don’t have to understand your costs or your hassle – they contract for a requirement. What do you think they have to do – subsidise your overheads? I do feel for smaller businesses tendering with government departments, but don’t complain because the rules force them to deal with an even hand.

Privatisation? Operating in a similar way to a commercial business would be a step in the right direction. We do not have the luxury of being able to tell our clients that they get less per tonne of timber but it’s OK because they provide public benefit. You can have both.

Loyalty – probably not in reality – but with short term tendering it is difficult for a business to justify investment for the long term.

Understand the hassle? They should have an understanding when they want another rabbit pulled out of the hat, at no additional cost.

Subsidise overheads? – Yes they should pay for them- the rate for the job needs to include the overheads. FC seem to think that overheads = profit, when in reality the margin is very tight. Low/no margin – thats why we don’t do much work with them now!

They are not allowed loyalty – they must tender on a level playing field – that is a legal requirement and they can’t get around that – tell me you are just being provocative on that point. They don’t have to understand your costs or your hassle – they contract for a requirement. What do you think they have to do – subsidise your overheads? I do feel for smaller businesses tendering with government departments, but don’t complain because the rules force them to deal with an even hand.

I think this is key to why they didnt win the tender process – from comments elsewhere it appears their bid was based on their experience and what they believe is possible.

Other bidders are going on the FC forecast numbers of 500,000 visitors a year by 2014 or something. If T&E have worked on a lower forecast as they dont believe it to be possible then its very likely other parties will have looked much better on paper.

The FC have to work on best value – had they accepted a bid that offered less or cost more there would likely be an upheld appeal and it wouldnt go through anyway.

Cant blame the FC for following the rules they are forced to live by.

It makes me chuckle a little bit some of the absolute faith, black and white, cut straight and dry type comments about procurement and tendering. Having been involved on both sides (procurer and contractor) for both private and public sector I feel confident to say that it can be as honest or as bent as the people involved want to make it.

I know contractors who employ people (several often, though not quite departments) who go through tenders and contracts identifying where the gaps and claims are going to be. They make a bid based on the final outturn price they expect from those gaps being realised (i.e. increasing the price they will charge the client). They’ll follow tenders and contracts to the letter such that if it doesn’t state the blindingly obvious then the client doesn’t get it for the tender price. I’ve known claims go in on as soon as the appointment letter has been recieved before anyone has even mobilised to site.

Then again I’ve received utterly crap tender invitations with unrealistic timescales, scopes of work, refusal to divulge information etc etc from plenty of clients. Neither is better than the other. I’ve also come across instances when the tender has been a necessary process for appearances sake but the contractor was pre-determined. On multi-million pound schemes as well.

It’s all a big game (with some high stakes). As for the Hub, mleh, it’s a kick in the ass for T&E but it is the sort of thing that happens, I suspect they’ve seent he writing on the wall for some time. Having seen Tracey at the IMBA conference and sat in her workshop it seemed clear she didn’t have much love for FC and I’ve heard many people that do work for or are involved with them say the same. She particularly picked up on the point I’ve heard others make about £9M spend on a centre when what is really needed (in some people’s opinions and that I agree) is a fair chunk of that scale of cash going into trails.

Hey ho, life’s rich tapestry and all that.

It’s called an Edifice Complex.

Head of a big company, public authority etc when he/she retires can sit back and point at the building and say “I made that”.

Can’t do that with improvements to infrastructure and services. The bigger the ego the bigger the edifice.

I would have thought that the changes are mostly to do with the FC getting some European money based on a new visitor centre / cafe / whatever. Much like happened at CyB which has a vaguely sustainable (hah!) vistor centre, a cafe with staff who quite obviously couldn’t care less about customers or service or food or work (or being there to be honest) and a bike shop.
Certainly if as numerous people seem to suggest T&E have been publicly wandering around bad mouthing FC and letting their standards drop then obviously the writing’s going to be on the wall.
cheeky monkey – procurement? yes been there done that.

xraymtb – Member

I think this is key to why they didnt win the tender process – from comments elsewhere it appears their bid was based on their experience and what they believe is possible.

Other bidders are going on the FC forecast numbers of 500,000 visitors a year by 2014 or something. If T&E have worked on a lower forecast as they dont believe it to be possible then its very likely other parties will have looked much better on paper.

I do wonder if this is what has happened

druidh – Member

G – Member

I think you will find that running at a loss has the same ultimate outcome whereever it happens, especially when Sugar Daddy is out of candy.

In English for the hard of thinking?

Sorry Druid, I missed it…you must have been at your wits end wondering what I meant. 😉

The forests in the UK have been subsidised by the state either in the shape of the FC or the EU for a long time: Sugar Daddy
Public money : Candy

i.e. the money has run out, so unless they now run at break even or better they will be in schtum and for that reason regardless of who runs them they will be looking to maximise revenues and minimise costs. In short take you and me for as much as they can whilst providing as little as they can get away with.

both private and public sector I feel confident to say that it can be as honest or as bent as the people involved want to make it.

Correct. Given the current drive towards transparency and the FC knowing this would get a lot of publicity, do you think those involved wanted to get this one right? Or do you think they gaffed it off and rode the ragged edge?

Given the current drive towards transparency and the FC knowing this would get a lot of publicity, do you think those involved wanted to get this one right?

Frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if it has been gaffed. I think your faith in “transparency” as a driver for their performance is optimistic / misplaced.

IMO, it’s the people operating the process and their insight into what’s required that is the key thing. Good people do a good job whether they’ve got a spotlight on them or not. Average / bad / not experienced in what they’re trying to procure people will do an average job irrespective of the potential level of scrutiny. From my involvement with FC over the years I would say that, often not maliciously, that they fall into the latter group, especially when they have a go at something commercial / real world / not their core business.

Heck, as others have said, I don’t think they make that much cash at their core business of growing trees.

Never seen so many people attend meetings, in all their corporate gear and with umpteen branded vehicles.

Saying all that I’m not all that anti-FC, just troubled by some aspects.

And in case anybody doesn’t get it; FC manage the nations forests (i.e. our land), they do so with money out of the public purse which they then try and offset through revenue (but usually end up being subsidised by central Govt (one reason why their sale is likely by the Con-Dems). All the money to build trails has almost exclusively been from European or public grant schemes. Effectively it’s ours and we’ve already paid for it all, including some £9m (£9-chuffing-m???) glorified tea-shop / cafe.

Hey ho 😎

Well said Cheeky Monkey!

I currently work in a government department that is fastidious in all transactions and goes to the far end of a fart to jump through all legislative hoops. If the FC is applying 50% of what I see, then the naysayers are just throwing stones.
A tender was bid for, to run a new 200 cover restaurant with a forecast increasing footfall. 2 girls who run a caf in a bus didn’t win it. Some people complain. Some people aren’t surprised.

I couldn’t be less arsed about who runs the cafe, as long as the food and drink served is edible. If it’s not, then I won’t bother using it.

Then again, I go to GT for the riding, not the eating…

The food is excellent but very over priced and the lack of smiles and unwillingness to help means I won’t miss it. For example; asked for a bit of fruit flapjack and got a piece that was at least 1/3 smaller than the rest (not being picky here if you have been you’ll know what I mean by size difference)asked if I could have another piece pointing to another batch on a plate but was told I couldn’t as they are not allowed to take the clingfilm off one plate til other plate is clear! Totally unwilling to oblige a very simple and easy request.
As for the bike shop – I have personal an second hand experiences that mean I won’t be crying when they leave.
Also it may be childish or just my imagination but I just don’t like the way the workers look at me when talking to me, not a hint of humility.

+1 for Kenny Wallace roaster of the thread award 🙂

So some Alpine Bike employees should really learn to keep their mouths shut- the tender is not awarded until mid January (supposedly) but somehow they’ve been told by FCS that they’ll have the keys in February. Is that the frosted kind of transparency then? Time will tell…

I couldn’t be less arsed about who runs the cafe, as long as the food and drink served is edible. If it’s not, then I won’t bother using it.

Then again, I go to GT for the riding, not the eating…

What a selfish thing to say. This is about the fact Emma and Tracey (and other folk too) have spent 10 years of their lives, and put a lot of hard work, into building up Glentress. Not only do they deserve the chance to run the new place, they also have the most experience. If it wasn’t for the hard work of a lot of folk you wouldn’t be able to come and “just ride the trails”.

Not sure where you work, but I presume with an attitude along those lines you wouldn’t object if your boss were to tell you in January “Sorry, you’re sacked and we’ve brought someone else in to do your job. Now sling your hook”?

kennyp – Member

Not sure where you work, but I presume with an attitude along those lines you wouldn’t object if your boss were to tell you in January “Sorry, you’re sacked and we’ve brought someone else in to do your job.

That’s not at all the same though is it? It’s more like being a contractor and your fixed-term contract coming to an end.

Is it right that Alpine Bikes have won the tender for the new Hub? If so, that cant be such a bad thing. The cafes that they run within the Tiso shops serve some very good food.

their shops are also pretty good too

If it is them – and i always thought it ‘made sense’ then i am not suprised.

They are not allowed loyalty – they must tender on a level playing field – that is a legal requirement and they can’t get around that – tell me you are just being provocative on that point. They don’t have to understand your costs or your hassle – they contract for a requirement. What do you think they have to do – subsidise your overheads? I do feel for smaller businesses tendering with government departments, but don’t complain because the rules force them to deal with an even hand.

Which is usually why big firms win public sector contracts, as they have the staff/expertise to win (the contract…).

So some Alpine Bike employees should really learn to keep their mouths shut- the tender is not awarded until mid January (supposedly) but somehow they’ve been told by FCS that they’ll have the keys in February. Is that the frosted kind of transparency then? Time will tell…

is that not a bit dodgy then have the fcs breached their own rules or somethin?

Or someone with “interest” stoking up a bit of controversy?

not uncommon for successful Tenderer to vet a verbal nod in Public Procurement

Last local rumor I heard was that 3 companies are still in it, might be a different company that runs the bike shop and the cafe ?

From http://www.forestry.gov.uk/glentress

In line with our tender timetable we intend to inform the preferred bidders by 12 January 2011

That’s “by”, not “until”.

Not only do they deserve the chance to run the new place, they also have the most experience.

They did get the chance to run the new place, they were not successful in the tender application.

If it wasn’t for the hard work of a lot of folk you wouldn’t be able to come and “just ride the trails”.

Kennyp

Can you explain that bit. I dont doubt that the hub wouldnt be there in its current form if it wasnt for them but im sure something pretty similar would be.

I think that the hub and bike shop are ok, they used to be better run when Emma and Tracy used to have more to do with the day to day running of the place, but no doubt they had to spend time not being as hands on to enable them to grow their business.