[Closed] Is The Hub at Glentress history??

You're about a week behind everyone else...

i find the notion of tendering quite curious. so why should this be the case? councils or landlords don't put high street shop units to tender for a specific use, do they?

FC in being completely ****ing useless shocker.

MrK mkII - Member
i find the notion of tendering quite curious. so why should this be the case? councils or landlords don't put high street shop units to tender for a specific use, do they?

I don't think the FC have any choice but to put it out to tender when the current contract expires, they are a public authority and have to follow a closely prescribed process to award contracts. Something to do with European Regulations I believe.

They can't just hand contracts over to anybody, if that was the case we would have Tony Soprano selling us food at Glentress !

This is just conjecture not facts, but I imagine in the tender assessment the current contract holders would get points for successfully running a business there for many years.

May the best man/woman/person win. I don't think it stinks I think it is an open and fair way to do business.

If you are really that interested ask the FC for a copy of the Invite to Tender, quote the FOI(S)A and you should get it smartly. That should tell you on what criterium they will base the assessment.

"You're about a week behind everyone else... "

Sorry! did a search and found nothing. Repetition does no harm though does it?!

As for the "Let the best person win comment" that'd be fien if the big boys didn't have the clout to blow most of the independent operators out of the water! Tendering is often simply an excuse for a land grab by the chains. It's a crap excuse for pandering to the lowest common denominator and simply parroting that "we have to do it because the EU says so" is pretty shabby.

Hmm, search fail:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/new-glentress-visitor-centre

I in no way speak for the FC, just to make that clear. John - why do you think the tender process will be crooked ? They are open and fair, that is the entire point. You don't even know what it is based on...

I love the Hub Cafe as much as anybody, but this a reasonable and normal process.

(which cost £7million! Some mistake surely!)

yup, I think the current costs are running at 9 million...

story here, including a response from the hub girls.

[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/new-glentress-visitor-centre ]looky looky[/url]

and they couldn't find £2million for a chair-lift?

if thats a troll its good, well executed..

I sit corrected! However, I make no apologies for resurrecting the subject. I understand the principles of the tendering process, but I have a very suspicious nature! Look at what happened at C Y Brenin. it's got no atmosphere now and, as far as I'm concerned, mountain biking is about a community, a vibe not the usual decent into corporate bullshit. Check out Swinnerton's at Cannock. Cool shop, good folk running it who care about the trails. If Edinburgh un-Cooperative get hold of Glentress, it'll be full of underpaid staff who know chuff all. Sorry, it just doesn't add up for me and I refuse to be all British and just shrug my disapproval. Stuff the FC and all its works if the Hub doesn't win!

>but they're not too hot on listening to the MB community. What do you reckon? <

As a general rule? Yes, I couldnt agree more...

Slightly off-topic but its relevant so i'll proceed. If you want to see how the FC (mis)managed the tendering process for a catering application for CV, fill yer boots. 2008 april-july

[url= http://carronvalley.org.uk/timeline/2008.shtml ]How not to run a tendering exercise, a book by FCS lowlands[/url]

Stick a 1 in front of that 2 you have there Ahwiles and you'll be nearer the mark 😉

Yes well - to misquote the bible "let him who does not order kit from Wiggle cast the first stone" Bike shops are a business as are cafes.

"Yes well - to misquote the bible "let him who does not order kit from Wiggle cast the first stone" Bike shops are a business as are cafes."

Oy! Don't judge me by your own lowly standards... 😉

Heather Bash - Member

Stick a 1 in front of that 2 you have there Ahwiles and you'll be nearer the mark

nope, sorry, only a few years ago i was involved with a chairlift project: £2million, brand new, high speed, etc.

I am guessing one chairlift may not be the same as the next. Eg I understand there are issues with getting power to the IL venue.

nope, sorry, only a few years ago i was involved with a chairlift project: £2million, brand new, high speed, etc.

You weren't buying from this man by any chance?

[img] [/img]

I certainly hope your investors got a more in depth pitch that we just did.

>nope, sorry, only a few years ago i was involved with a chairlift project: £2million, brand new, high speed, etc. <

And your point is what exactly - that you could deliver the Innerleithen uplift / bike park / cafe facility - all as envisaged and costed by Scottish Enterprise etc for £2m?

1. Its very very very unlikley to ever see the light of day as a project
2. Scheme above will never be realised for £2m
3. As I've said numerous times before on these threads - put up or shut up

With respect 😉

Sorry, it just doesn't add up for me and I refuse to be all British and just shrug my disapproval. Stuff the FC and all its works if the Hub doesn't win!

Well said. I'm already drafting correspondence to the FC and it would be great if more people did the same. There is a tremendous support for The Hub carrying on at GT and it surely makes sense that the FC understand. We can't make them give Emma and Tracy the tender, but the least we can do is inform them of the support they have from the community, and why they have that support.

Why can't they hold a tender process for the CYB cafe?

Even Harold Shipman had better Customer service skills.

I also got the 7Stanes mail today and read the bit about looking for tenders for the cafe and bike shop. Something that stood out like a sore thumb was the closing date - this Friday. It would be nigh on impossible to pull together a credible business plan and a proposal in 2 days. Not sure how widely it's been advertised elsewhere, but they almost certainly have a legal obligation to put it out to tender as a publicly-funded body. The in-situ bike shop and cafe should surely have a sizable advantage over any would-be newcomers, so I'd normally have faith that common sense would prevail. But as it's the FC we're talking about, I can only hope that common sense even gets a look-in.

I spoke to the last "owners" of the cafe at cyb on their last weekend last yhear and they gave up the franchise because the FC where so difficult to deal with, so not forced out as such, but .....

Ah, its changed 'owners' then andyfla?

Thank ****.

Well FWIW FC regions do vary, I have always thought the Borders region were very good and have done a lot for MTB ing, why do you think Glentress, Inners, 7Stanes etc have been able to thrive ?

I am optimistic the Right Thing will be done.

I love an optimist I do...... 🙄

>Not sure how widely it's been advertised elsewhere<

Not long, but it's been out there:

http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2010/08/04/334573/caterer-needed-for-scotlands-glentress-peel-development.htm

Only expressions of interest at this stage, still pre qual then tender process itself

John - why do you think the tender process will be crooked ? They are open and fair, that is the entire point.

11 years of tendering across public sector = oh no they're not

They are meant to be open and fair.

....and, oink, oink, oink, a squadron of pink pigs wearing Elizabethan ruffs is currently circling over Sheffield....

We’ve been going to Glentress every year – we first went for our honeymoon, then for our anniversaries. I can’t imagine Glentress without Emma and Tracey, and for me it should be a foregone conclusion that they’ll be moving to the new facilities. If there ends up being a choice between The Hub and another café, The Hub (and it’s delicious flapjacks and carrot cakes the size of your head) will win every time for me.

don't forget the date and walnut cake.

sadly the idea that the local experts will get some sort of favourable treatment was clearly shown to not be the case by the FC in Kielder. They build a great big new building and, because 80 percent of the funds were from developmnent money, had to go through the tender process to find their tennant. Some "big boys" did not get it, neither did Ian at The Bike Place even though he'd been the main man in the area for years, built half the trails, worked closely with the whole visitor community and had great relations with FC and other key local businesses.

It's the "what happened next" that took FC in Kielder by surprise, I believe. Ian found a small but well located spot on the edge of Kielder village to rent, moved his operation there, and is thriving but not as an FC tennant. The only trouble is they recently refused access for him to run any kind of courses or coaching sessions on the trails because they wanted to protect their new tenant, who was also doing coaching. even though it wasn't part of the tender process...

FC in Scotland works differently to FC in England and they at least grant much wider and free access to trails for all users, including small businesses. So if The Hub in the Forest becomes The Hub just outside the forest then at least they will still be able to continue their school groups, guiding and coaching business.

If there ends up being a choice between The Hub and another café...

Thats really the Rub MrsT - the forestry commission went all location, location, location and bought up every property in the surrounding area for several hundred thousand pounds, specifically so there would be nowhere to compete from! I cannot remember the specifics, but those who haunt the FCS board meeting minutes will no doubt point out this cynical act of burning taxpayers cash protecting their £10 million white elephant.

David - you sure? really? That's impressive in terms of business focus and planning, even if the result is not to our liking.

But i think that's partly the problem. I believe that we the mountain biking "community" should not be believing that someone who builds trails for us is therefore someone who is there to care for us and help us to grow the sport in the way we want. Certainly there are a great many people within FC who are passionate about mountain biking and have made a huge contribution to the sport. BUT that is not part of their mandate - they lose money on wood so they need to find ways to make money elsewhere.

A mountain bike centre is a brilliant thing for FC because they can bring in a huge amount of funding to build it, but then put it out on a lease to the highest bidder and generate all the return themselves. They are not doing this out of charity or a love for the sport - it's a business that needs to diversify further and further into leisure because timber doesn't cut it any more.

i was speaking at the first CTC-IMBA conference in October two years ago and John Ireland, head of risk management or something like at FC, made the point very clearly that they are not a mountain biking organisation and that we should not think of them as being one. They have just stepped into a void because bodies like British Cycling and Scottish Cycling are not driving the development of recreational mountain biking.

A very sobering read cycleactive, (is that Chris??). I think your analysis is bang on and the sooner we get together and start campaigning the better! Less back slapping for the FC and more, well, just slapping!

Hey John, yes, it's me.
I'm having my own issues with FC right now. Their former Chairman, Lord Clarke of Windermere, wrote to me after i took it to him (when all else fails, go to the top, right) and promised me that by early 2010 I'd be able to apply for access to Whinlatter to run coaching sessions there. i've followed this up regularly (started trying to apply for permission over 2 years ago) but the relationship between the hill-top cycle shop owners and the local manager is so tight that he has not even gone as far as turning down our application for access - he just won't let us apply! Our nearest trail centre and we cannot coach there. None of the schools we work with, local clubs, scouts etc. can go there with us. Good job we have some amazing terrain here in the east side of The Lakes, and the guys from Lowther Estates let us use some brilliant private singletrack sections...but shouldn't a trail centre built with funds aimed at helping a local community and local business be open to small local businesses?
Yes, we need a strong, independent voice. I just don't know where we find it.
Cheers
Chris@CycleActive

That's absolutely shocking. :/

i'm checking my facts as we speak.

Regardless of John Irelands point FC did step into the void and got a shit load of money thrown at them for doing it. They made a huge fuss over the seven stanes during the "boom years" and plonked trails in all corners of the world, including some bizarrely obscure and off-beat places such as the balnain bike park. Now they have woken up to the reality of the situation and all the liability issues, maintenance and all that other stuff thatthey should have thought of at the start and they are reversing out of the situ as fast as they can. Johns comments at the conference you were at sum it up - it was their idea until they realised they were on their own, now they want to offload the responsibility onto others.

if you build a boat, you are known as a boat builder so its not hard to see why many people view the FC as a "provider"

Coupling that with the fact that they are still a government body and should be accountable and transparent with taxpayers money and you can see why spending £10m on a visitor centre thats built on land they bought for 1/2 million in 2008, when they have an entire forest next door, seems a bit fishy.

>But i think that's partly the problem. I believe that we the mountain biking "community" should not be believing that someone who builds trails for us is therefore someone who is there to care for us and help us to grow the sport in the way we want. Certainly there are a great many people within FC who are passionate about mountain biking and have made a huge contribution to the sport.<

Spot on.

>BUT that is not part of their mandate - they lose money on wood so they need to find ways to make money elsewhere.<

Not so sure about that - the lose money on VC'S too.

>Aa mountain bike centre is a brilliant thing for FC because they can bring in a huge amount of funding to build it, but then put it out on a lease to the highest bidder and generate all the return themselves. They are not doing this out of charity or a love for the sport - it's a business that needs to diversify further and further into leisure because timber doesn't cut it any more.<

The Peel is being largely funded by a one off sale of public assets (a forest) which required signing off by the Environment Minister. It's going to take a shitload of rental income to wipe out £9m of capital cost never mind the revenue costs to run these buildings. The FC will never see a return on investment from mtb in The Borders this is all about Tourism and the money which gets drawn into the area in general

> They have just stepped into a void because bodies like British Cycling and Scottish Cycling are not driving the development of recreational mountain biking. <

Spot on again though the void that has been identified is largely tourism so most of these centres are built not where they might be needed most but where folk with disposable cash will travel to use and pay for services whilst in the area. That's very different to the areas one might have expected Scottish Cycling & Co to be addressing. Kind of getting away from the OP though 😉

well, The property I was thinking of was falladale which went for 466k in January 2008, but I'd forgotten about this little gem, a snip at 850k with a further 1/2 mil to tear it down.

[url= http://www.peeblesshirenews.com/articles/1/38559 ]cheap at twice the price[/url]

Well, I didn't expect this thread to take this turn, but I welcome it. So, to summarise, the FC are a bunch of money-grabbing sods who are quick to jettison the mb fraternity as soon as the going gets a bit rocky. The MB community has no strong voice to fight its corner. There are numerous small groups such as Singletraction, Ride The Peak and Ride Sheffield, (to name only the ones I can remember) but they are too busy fighting local battles to devote any volunteer time to national issues. We need a group drawn from that pool to fight on a national level. MBing ticks all the right boxes, mass-participation, public health, great outdoors, so it should be ripe for Cameroon's Big Society policy. But I'm not holding my breath.....

I have to say I rather disagree with you John

In Scotland on the whole the FC have been very good and it is an example (on the whole) of joined up thinking.

Now I might be wrong on this but my understanding is that the 7 stanes were funded from a multitude of sources including Health promotion funding, regional development funding from the EU and tourist board money as well as a bit from the FC and I simply don't see the negativity people say happens around risk assessment and participation.

prhpas its about the people in post on a local level but IMO many other parts of the UK would loveto have a magnificent facility like Glentress in their area.

The HUB has rather outgrown its buildings and the new centre is aimed not just at muddy mtbers but at general tourists and walkers and birdwatchers as well.

I do really hope Emma and Tracey win the tender - I think there would be a lot of disquiet amongst the MTB fraternity if they didn't.

Yeah, fair cop jeremy, I was going over the top a bit. As you rightly point out the situation in England is generally patchier than Scotland where some really good work has been done. We have a situation in the Peak district and at Warncliffe where the local FC manager is very anti-bike and a major obstacle to any progress. My main bone of contention is the lack of a national voice for mountain biking. I think the ideal model would be something like the British Mountaineering Council whose major task is campaigning for access. A similar body for the MB communtiy wouldn't lack for work and I guess that might be the problem! Who'd want to take it on?

I like to think about all this from a different perspective. Ultimately, mountain biking doesn't rely on the FC, British Cycling, the UCI or any other ****ing 'governing' body. It's land access, not specific trail centres that I believe is the battleground for mountain biking. I'm in favour of the small scale, the local, the grass roots. All this talk of 'development' and 'growth' strikes me as a whole mindset we need to step away from very quickly in all areas of our society, not just mountain biking.

Now, I understand mountain biking is reliant on technology, on companies, and thus on profit and growth. But there is rather a difference between real mountain bikers starting their cottage industries like Trout, and Trek, who allegedly give a shit, but which I somewhat doubt.

Let's disregard the large and focus on community, grass roots events, local riders doing whatever they want, secret trails, scoping natural routes and sharing via forums, whatever. That to me is the best possible way mountain biking could develop, not a £2m chairlift or more facilities and a visitor centre with a bike shop.

TandemJeremy - Member
I have to say I rather disagree with you John

In Scotland on the whole the FC have been very good and it is an example (on the whole) of joined up thinking.

Now I might be wrong on this but my understanding is that the 7 stanes were funded from a multitude of sources including Health promotion funding, regional development funding from the EU and tourist board money as well as a bit from the FC and I simply don't see the negativity people say happens around risk assessment and participation.

[b]Correct TJ[/b]. D&G Enterprise and Borders Enterprise, SNH and a few others. Barony College, Dumfries were contracted to employ and train the D&G trailbuilders, Andy Hopkin being the only person left and now an FE employee

john horscroft
A similar body for the MB communtiy wouldn't lack for work and I guess that might be the problem! Who'd want to take it on?

Is CTC not the vehicle for this?
IMBA would appear to have become impotent. FE used IMBA as a vehicle to sell mtb trails to the powers that be at the top of the tree, and it worked. Would appear to have served its purpose and we(mtbers)need to move onto something new.
I had the chance to become a rep but do not have the educational background or the money at that time to take it on.

Against that background, there is no will amongst the mtb fraternity to join anything. That has been proven over the years on here and on other forums.
We need the likes of CTC, this mag and the others to get together and start something.

Start a thread and find out how many would take up the challenge?

Leases are a good thing for us and FE. It prevents them from and us being landed with a duffer as has happened early doors before they got a handle on how to do it(still learning maybe!!)

Hope E&T get it tho, have been going since they opened the doors 😆

I'm gonna (at some risk?) step out of line here and say that I'm really not that fussed who wins the tender. I have to laugh at these "MTB is a community" and "Emma and Tracey made the 7 Stanes" arguments. There's a shop, which folk on here are constantly criticising and which (by necessity) has prices which STWers blanche at and a small, busy cafe (and do a search for the "how can they possibly run out of rolls at 2pm threads).

The users of Glentress (and other centres) are mostly selfish, are after everything as cheap as possible and expect their sport/past-time to be funded by "someone else". Hence, FCS have to generate their RoI from a number of sources. Hang around the car parks for a wee while and see how many folk even bother to pay for a parking ticket.

If MTBers want a dedicated facility, free from other day-trippers, then they need to be prepared to dip their hands into their collective pockets and pay for it.

The 7Stanes model was borne out of a need to generate income in the Borders in the wake of Foot and Mouth (the thing that apparently devastated rural Scotland - never mind the fact unemployment was higher in the built-up areas) - so with that, funding suddenly became available as it ticked all the tourism boxes - Mountain Biking is seen by the landowners as a cash cow - built it and us MTBers will spend spend spend. So far we haven't proved them wrong.

Now funding is 'drying up' (well it is if you only target the tourism angle), FC are left holding a rather expensive can and they are keen to stop this haemorrhaging of money.

We seem happy to spend money but we also seem very much against paying to help with the upkeep/development of the trails...

The 7Stanes project was due to Foot and Mouth but I think there were small groups of 'bodies' working on projects and the 7Stanes allowed them all to be hung together...

The Peel is a fantastic example of what a government body will do to stifle development to allow them infinite control of it all...they have bought up all the property in the forest to prevent anyone buying something and developing a business that would compete - they need to make sure they can get as much cash back as possible. Let's be honest, everyone is sitting complaining about the tender process but irrespective of who or what gets it, there will be droves of bikers and other users of the forest willing to empty their wallets at the place. Saying that, it's going to take a serious amount of time to retrieve anywhere near the £9million spent on developing it - a good case of doing the 'right thing' long after it should have been done.

Sorry, turning into a rant...I'll stop there and hopefully not post again on this subject!

I would agree with you Druidh apart from I would like E&T to get it. I think that would be fair.

I think the food is OK and good value but the cafe is cramped and uncomfy. Try getting a table on a wet saturday afternoon. The loos are like something from decades ago. its time for grown up facilities at GT. I wouldn't be happy to take my mother there for example.

The new centre is long overdue. GT is supposed to be an international tourist magnet Raptor viewing and walking as well as the bikes. It needs modern world class facilities to go with the world class trails.

Its not just for the likes of us.

Like it druihd 😆 forgot to add that bit, wife had made me some tea 🙄

The 7Stanes project was due to Foot and Mouth but I think there were small groups of 'bodies' working on projects and the 7Stanes allowed them all to be hung together...

Maybe the new complex will become a hooters bar? 😀

The only trouble is they recently refused access for him to run any kind of courses or coaching sessions on the trails because they wanted to protect their new tenant, who was also doing coaching. even though it wasn't part of the tender process...

sounds like someone might fall foul of their funding criteria with such blantant protectionism.

FE / FC were batting about ideas of purpose built trails in 1993. What we've got now is just another phase in the evolution - mass market. It'll be a shame to see the hub go - would it be the same in a big building? I doubt T & E will get the new cafe - more than likely there will be a 'vision' for the centre and its probably more national trust cafe than cafe we trust. In the general comments about Kielder - you've got to feel sorry for Purple Mountain. If they get Glentress then McDonalds of mountain moniker biking beckons.

So the Hub goes - people move on something else starts up. For every CyB Cafe there's a Dales Mountain Biking Centre or Lee Quarry.

[i]In Scotland on the whole the FC have been very good and it is an example (on the whole) of joined up thinking[/i]
LOL! If only you knew what you were talking about...

proteus - look at what we have free to use provide on the FC land.

I know Carron valley did not work well - but look at the provision we have compared to England.

Turning the argument around slightly: MTB has been very good for the FC - non? Think about it....

It would be churlish not to acknowledge that some stuff has been very good but it's our money they are spending TJ - stop tugging the forelock and scratch BELOW the surface. CV = FAIL, Blairadam = FAIL, Numerous other local partnerships / initiatives = FAIL TRC recommendations = largely FAIL (apart from chucking god knows how much cash into the 7S marketing budget.)

GT might as well be on the planet Zog as far as 90% of the Scottish population are concerned.

The fact is FCS has been very good at non joined up thinking - the SMBDC or whatever they are called are a cabal of public bodies ( with the toothless and completely non representational IMBA and CTC at the table)who have been sitting scratching their arses for two years wondering how on earth they are going to deliver on their KPI's

Over and out.

[i]but look at the provision we have compared to England.[/i]
Yes, but it's not down to joined up thinking. Been there, read the consultant reports, wasted time at conferences, didn't get a t-shirt.

Has anyone checked the legal position for refusing the right to apply?

Suprised the human rights act does not cover 'entitled to freedom to work' as it seems to cover all other sorts of fairly obscure corners!