Forum menu
Fair point Bikepawl. As mentioned above - spread the cash around a little bit although the danger is that spread too thin the benefits may become harder to see.
The problem with spending it all in one place is that everybody can see, but not everybody can access the resource. At least if you start to spread it around the local authorities can contribute as can local charities and interest groups.
Heather Bash - Member
>if you read the link you will also see it has been partly funded by Scottish Enterprise and Sports Scotland.<Your point being?
That it wasn't just the Forestry Commissions money being spent on the visitor centre. These quango's were likely seeing the positive effect on the Peebles local economy and decided it was a good investment, and maybe a spur to stimulate further projects in other parts of the country.
Wouldn't disagree with that - the 'authorities' seem to have accepted there is an absence of provision in certain key population areas. They just dont seem to have advanced beyond two or three years talking about it 😉
>That it wasn't just the Forestry Commissions money being spent on the visitor centre<
With respect - I think that much was obvious.
And my point was that it is all public money / that there is only so much of it to 'hand out' to mtb - again rather obvious. All the more reason therefore, for a.) taking a holistic / strategic view across the forest estate and b.) Apropos my previous point - FCS saying what it means and meaning what it says.
In my view, FCS has been found wanting re b.)
Also, none of these parties work in splendid isolation - the funding scene is populated by a small number of key civil servants all swimming in the same bowl. FCS are THE controlling influence in terms of where and how mtb is distributed on public land as they obviously control the vast bulk of the publicly available land for development (or at least public land on any scale) They are also very adept at influencing other public bodies both positively and negatively and they disburse 'their own' funding to other public and private projects via WIAT (Woodlands in and around Towns)and the Woodlands Grants Sceme (Golpsie being one beneficiary of this.)
They also have a controlling interest in Central Scotland Forest Trust.
So when people talk about the very small group of landowners disproportionally controlling vast swathes of Scotland - FCS is right up there amongst them 😉
As I said, if you're going to run public consultations they need to be open, honest and transparent. I don't begrudge GT a new building or buildings and the status quo was clearly not an option. But,if FCS really are as powerful as the above seems to suggest then I believe their actions & expenditure should be subjected to more public scrutiny.
Well that's quangos for you, talking shops earning some large dollars 😉
Sorry, I didn't think that some posting about more money being spent on trails realised there were other funding bodies, and that the development is all about MTBers.
Can't agree more with you on the rest.
Wonder how many jobs £9 million or whatever it is would have saved?
The Forestry Commission has announced plans to cut around 500 jobs in England and Scotland.Some 350 staff are set to go in England and 150 at the commission's headquarters in Edinburgh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12343835
Bet a fiver that it won't be those at the top that lose them either... 🙄
I'm not saying that the development is all about MTBers, I was suggesting that the most revenue would come from MTBers, hence the bike shop rather than, say an outdoors shop.
More trails = more MTBers = more revenue. Shirley.
I've had this discussion before but your are describing the principle, not the actual, tendering process.
I know first hand you can engineer a public procurement process to get whatever outcome you want. I imagine it can even be done in a way that would be legally defensible.
I am describing the actual tendering process I have been part of - weeks ago rather than longer. Utterly above board and transparent.
I love the '£9m - that could have bought a lot of trails' crowd. The FC are trying to diversify and broaden the appeal of their lot - not appease a load of cyclists. Also, any successful bidder will probably be paying a %-age of profits - as hinted in the quotes from the FC head honcho - that ensures future investment is generated. Spunking money now with no plan to generate more is bad spending - building in revenue for years to come is sustainable and sensible. Think long term, not the life of your current tyres.
Yeah because a new cafe is going to attract an 200,000 visitors a year 🙄
TooTall - Member
"I love the '£9m - that could have bought a lot of trails' crowd. The FC are trying to diversify and broaden the appeal of their lot - not appease a load of cyclists."
Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive- trails could include more walkers/horcylists trails after all, and a quality visitor's centre could probably have been delivered for less. Anyone know how much the CYB visitor's centre cost?
>I am describing the actual tendering process I have been part of - weeks ago rather than longer. Utterly above board and transparent.<
Where do we find this - is it on the FCS website?
i really want to see what 9m gets you on a cafe .Tbh the shower/toilets are a bit of a joke you really might catch something in there.
I am describing the actual tendering process I have been part of - weeks ago rather than longer. Utterly above board and transparent.
.. which, unless it was the the Hub procurement we're talking about, is fairly irrelevant.
My point was that procurement can be as straight as a die, and it can be as bent as a 9 bob note. I am not saying whether the Hub one is either, but then I am also not saying that just because it was procured through this process it must be beyond question and incontrovertible (which is what I believe you said in an earlier post).
Anyone who has put in a tender can challenge
the public authority’s decision on awarding
the contract, within the 10-day ‘standstill’
period, in the High Court (in Scotland the
Court of Session) if they think they have not
kept to the EU procurement directives
(because the directives have been included in
UK law as a number of regulations).
You saying 'crooked' proves nothing - other than your personal view. The above quote should help you next time you don't win a contract and have the hump.
1. All well and good, tootall, but when you introduce subjective analysis as well as pure and simple price, that is how you 'manouvre' the procurement process in your desired direction.
2. As for giving other areas the benefit of investment and trails - google CVDG - various local authorities in the central region were very keen to throw money at expansion of Carron Valley and FC scuppered it. FCS' behaviour in this instance was a disgrace.
P.S. I rarely go to GT and felt that in the last few years prices in the cafe went up and portions went down! But that's just my opinion.
Regardless of who should run the cafe - this smacks of what FCS did to CVDG - clash of personalities and a bit of 'we'll show you who' boss' mentality.
ooh ooh ooh...I have some gossip on the Peel centre, can't tell though as it might get some folk into trouble.
I hate having to keep secrets!
Regardless of who should run the cafe - this smacks of what FCS did to CVDG - clash of personalities and a bit of 'we'll show you who' boss' mentality.
Is there any evidence of that? I didn't get the impression that the concerns from the HUB people were about possible distortion of the tendering process?
In any situation like this, there are bound to be strong personalities involved, but letting them dominate the way you interact with any business negotiation is a very effective way of scuppering your efforts. Even if you get on well with the people you're dealing with at the time, you have to sort out terms on the basis that you need a level of protection if the players involved change. That's never more true than when you're dealing with public bodies - a change of ruling party or shift in policy emphasis can catch you out very quickly if you don't have contingency plans.
ooh oooh oohhh.. 🙄
Of course, there are two sides to every story, but it's just my opinion - having seen evidence how persons in the employ of FCS behaved in their dealings with CVDG (and hearing about the potential financial restrictions that are going to be placed on event organisers in future) - bottom line seems all about the dough.
I've always liked the hub cafe, never thought much of the shop, hope the new one is as good, cannot understand the need to spend the money on a centre which was already successful seems like a big waste, they would have been better investing in another forest to give some other area a lift, fed up reading about E&T losing "the hub" some hack in the Scotsman even had the audacity to suggest "the hub" is a co-operative, bet thats news to the employees!, whoever suggests their life is dissolving before their eyes wants to get a life, they've had a great kick at the ball over the past 10 years and made a bundle, sure there next venture wont' be a guaranteed cash cow but then lots of people are finding themselves in that position now.
ditch_jockey - Member
"I didn't get the impression that the concerns from the HUB people were about possible distortion of the tendering process?"
Quite the opposite as far as I can tell, it's the fairness of it that's upset people.
Evening!
Does anyone know how much of the funding comes from donations and local / national support and how much of the trail building and maintenance is done by the trail fairies and other volunteers?
The FCS is taking a lot of credit for Glentress, I would be very surprised if they are responsible for it's success.
I love the '£9m - that could have bought a lot of trails' crowd. The FC are trying to diversify and broaden the appeal of their lot - not appease a load of cyclists.
emmm, they cant market GT as their flagship centre for MTB in Scotland [url= http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/ACHS-5RNFVJ ]source[/url] and not expect people to grumble about 9 million spunked on a visitor centre.
kaesae - Member
"Does anyone know how much of the funding comes from donations and local / national support and how much of the trail building and maintenance is done by the trail fairies and other volunteers?
The FCS is taking a lot of credit for Glentress, I would be very surprised if they are responsible for it's success."
TBH you're having a laugh if you don't think the FCS is responsible for GT's success, everyone contributes and it wouldn't be as good as it is without all of that but without the FC it just wouldn't exist as we know it so most credit can only go to them.
The Fairies do a fair bit... Some repairs, some really nice builds and rebuilds. TBH I reckon most of the best stuff in the forest has Fairy sweat in it. But, though there'd be no Fairies without us lot there'd also be no Fairies without the FCS and the work of the Rangers so you can't really seperate the two- they provide the tools, the direction, the raw materials and most importantly the adult supervision... We supply the cakes and the sarcasm (some of the others supply muscle, I don't have any of that). I'm never sure whether the bike rangers do it as part of their working week or they're volunteering too but either way it's great to work with them. I'm fairly new to it so all Pie Run, Mushroom Pie, black secrets etc are before my time.
There's also "The Students" though I don't know so much about them, I think they did a lot of the clearing in the Wormhole too.
>All well and good, tootall, but when you introduce subjective analysis as well as pure and simple price, that is how you 'manouvre' the procurement process in your desired direction.<
Judge for yourselves - scoring matrix template's in here:
Didn't trawl through the whole document or any others for that matter but I would expect the "The (insert public body) is not bound to accept the lowest or any tender" clause to be in there somewhere. Lowest in this context being highest.
All rather an academic discussion anyway as FCS has no obligation to demonstrate transparency by filling in the blanks for us 😉
from the posts on here you can see why the current cafe operators struggled to get past the first stage assessment
the good news is that another local business won the the rather than a large chain
I'm kind of depressed by how much bitterness seems to have been directed towards the current cafe operators on this thread.
It is generally acknowledged that the current folks have built a local business and have contributed much of their own toil towards improving the venue and with the kids club, etc.
Ok, so you may not like the cafe but I can't believe how little sympathy they are getting from people on here????
Some of the biggest criticisms seem to be about sitting on dirty chairs? To me that was all part of the charm. It's not as though folks were wearing their Sunday best! Why does everything need to be sanitised?
Bigger ain't always better and i'm not sure I like the fact that cycling is the new golf 🙁
Like it or loath it - the hub cafe and shop have been integral to the success of GT as they offer something not available at the other stanes, except Mabie perhaps on a lesser scale.
except Mabie perhaps on a lesser scale.
Only because it is so far away from Edin and does not get the traffic to enable it to expand. Current operators would like to expand but the future of the buildings/steading is under review, like all FC/Government/Council operations.
People seem to think trailhead/centre cafes make a mint due to the perceived high prices but both Mabie and Ae have to close during the dark winter nights/days and have struggled to survive the recent winter with snow closing trails for weeks and months.
I suspect that has been part of the reason Alpine/GT Hotel have been awarded the Lease of the new ventures, they have the means to sustain the venture through the tough times like winter.
I think people should realise the Hub is a lease business and that anyone taking on a lease should realise that it may end. We, on here have no idea what false promises may have been made by local FC managers but E&T have had a few years notice of the possible outcome and should have been prepared.
There is no doubting that the cafe and extra parking that came with it enhanced the GT experience but it was FC who put it there and E&T ran it(remotely recently it would seem)
The man and his mates who should be attributed with the success of GT should be Pete Laing who did a lot of the early spade work and helped out with Dalbeattie and Mabie in the very early stages of the 7Stanes project. There are and will e lots of people who have contributed to the success of all trail centres, not just 1-2 high profile cafe owners.
E&T may not have the cafe any more but that should not prevent them from carrying on with the skills training side of things. Dirtschool, mb7 and even Jedi organise skills days there. Doubt the GO-Ride club is a money spinner and will be a separate entity from the Hub but if they live locally they should be able and willing to carry on coaching guiding with them. Most of us do that on a voluntary basis tho
Like it or loath it - the hub cafe and shop have been integral to the success of GT as they offer something not available at the other stanes, except Mabie perhaps on a lesser scale.
Kirroughtree has a good shop and a nice cafe
I can't speak for others, but for my own part, it's not a question of bitterness towards the current Hub so much as an uneasiness with the FCS being presented as the pantomime villains of the piece.
I wouldn't argue with the notion that Tracy and Emma have contributed a significant amount to the development of Glentress, but the place wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for the active involvement of the FC and the support of lots of its staff.
Unfortunately, the Scotsman article is a rather lazy piece which presents the whole scenario in very black and white terms, in a way that adds weight to the argument for the privatisation of FCS's land holdings. Am I the only one that found it strange that the Scotsman, which is traditionally very conservative in it's editorial policy, has this article espousing a very socialistic view of land ownership in a way that turns the screw on FCS?
But, though there'd be no Fairies without us lot there'd also be no Fairies without the FCS and the work of the Rangers so you can't really seperate the two- they provide the tools, the direction, the raw materials and most importantly the adult supervision...
I've met a number of the fairies and applaud the work they've done at Glentress etc. But to add some balance, you don't need Rangers, or for them to provide supervision, tools or materials to create a trail.
SingletrAction is the proof of that. Rangers etc can (and have) helped at times. FC has provided some materials at times. They have also "run" contractors when limited sections have been built by others. For all that we are grateful and credit where it is due. However, other than permission we have never *needed* FC to create a trail (other than to give us permission which is another matter).
For example, there hasn't been a Ranger at a volunteer trail building day (and digging) since I can remember gogin to Stainburn (and I've been digging there for nearly seven years).
Sorry, off on a tangent there 😎 Just wanted to point out trail building isn't rocket science and can be done by anyone.
>Unfortunately, the Scotsman article is a rather lazy piece which presents the whole scenario in very black and white terms, in a way that adds weight to the argument for the privatisation of FCS's land holdings<
Lazy? C'mon...Nor does it add weight to 'privatisation' at all - quite the reverse in fact. Unless of course you deem privatisation to mean handing more control back to the very people that own the land? If you take some time to research some of the points LR was making you might view the wider issues with a slightly different perspective.
Conversely you could argue that FCS has presented a very black and white scenario: we needed more cash, other parties offered more, everything was above board. Nothing more to see...
Heather - do you have anything other than a massive mistrust of 'the man' to back up your stance?
FCS seems a fair stance - as required they carried out a competitive tender process, scored it, some people were not selected. No proof from anyone as to the contrary.
I can't believe this is still going!
FCS ran public procurement. The Hub competed, and lost. They knew the evaluation criteria and know the business (arguably putting them at an advantage over other companies)
They lost. Other local or national business have won.
If they are that great (and I don't think they are) then they will set up another business elsewhere and still make money.
Good luck to them, but I'm now bored of the public way this is playing out
Oh dear, you had to ask. I feel a Carron Valley post coming on. Go for it HB 😉
Conversely TooTall, do you have any proof that it is above board? All you seem to have said is that your recent public procurement process was all above board and respectable. Most people's points otherwise were that the process can be applied in many ways (both good and bad).
Given several peoples experience with FC / FCS there's some grounds for thinking they might, at least, be manipulative within the procurement process.
Whether this is the case for GT / the Hub, personally (as I have said) I don't know but then (unless you're involved in that actual process) then I suspect neither do you.
As for the standstill period, so what? There's legal redress without that period which itself, I think, goes back to a case where the employer was seeking to protect their position, not the tenderer. I forget the details. The fact it exists doesn't prove the application of a process is above doubt and just because legal redress is possible doesn't mean people will go for it. There's more factors in play for the average business than that. But that goes back to my point about life not being monochrome, which I'm not sure you see/agree.
Hey ho 😎
I can't speak for others, but for my own part, it's not a question of bitterness towards the current Hub so much as an uneasiness with the FCS being presented as the pantomime villains of the piece.
Well put, I feel the same way. I do feel sorry for people who will be losing their jobs and I hope that I'll be seeing at least some of the cafe and shop staff in the new cafe and at Alpine Bikes. However I am inclined to believe that the FCS assessed the tenders with the intent of finding the best people to provide us lot with cafe and bike shop facilities unless there's real evidence to the contrary.
That would be an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of stance, I suppose. 🙂
Does anyone know how much of the funding comes from donations and local / national support and how much of the trail building and maintenance is done by the trail fairies and other volunteers?
The majority of the waymarked trails were not built by volunteers. On the main waymarked trails I think that the Ewok Village (now gone, but scheduled to be replaced this year) and the Wormhole are fully volunteer-built. The Pie Run and Mushroom Pie are volunteer productions too, but not offically on the main red route.
There are a few other optional or unmarked volunteer-built trails too and the Fairies have been taking a hand in trail maintenance, especially in the last 5 years or so. With the squeeze in funding for trail development and other restrictions on creating new trails the Fairies do seem to be an increasingly important resource at Glentress but it's fiction to think that the trails there magically sprung up in large part due to unpaid work with the FCS having little to do with it.
I'm never sure whether the bike rangers do it as part of their working week or they're volunteering too but either way it's great to work with them.
The rangers are "on duty" when they're out with the Fairies. They're on call during trailbuilding sessions which is why they sometimes have to take calls or disappear for a while to attend to incidents elsewhere in the forest.
CheekyMonkey, there have been discussions amongst the Trailfairies about other ways of organising the group. The current consensus is that the ranger-led organisation is best for us. Few Fairies have a wish to commit themselves to the work involved in turning us into something with greater independence from the FCS and the rangers and the fairly informal nature of the group seems to suit our demographic well.
Indeed, if it works then go for it 😎
My point was only that there are other viable alternatives than being led by Rangers (who by and large are lovely folks). I won't deny it's not hard work at times (I've been up to the woods twice this week after work to sort out for a delivery of aggregate) but it isn't complicated.
More power to the elbow of anyone who does trail building off their own back 😎
Thanks for asking TooTall however Cheeky Monkey appears to have answered your question for me. 😉
Cheeky Monkey - Member
"I've met a number of the fairies and applaud the work they've done at Glentress etc. But to add some balance, you don't need Rangers, or for them to provide supervision, tools or materials to create a trail."
Yup, with you there. But the Fairies as they are exist because of the FCS, not just with their tolerance but with their strong support... There'd certainly not be the capability or the skill within the group that we have without it, and it's perfectly possible there'd be no volunteer building at all. Not to mention that we don't need to worry about funding, permission, insurance, access, etc etc. So the FCS really deserve a lot of credit for that, despite Kaesae's attempts to talk them down.
Conversely TooTall, do you have any proof that it is above board? All you seem to have said is that your recent public procurement process was all above board and respectable. Most people's points otherwise were that the process can be applied in many ways (both good and bad).Given several peoples experience with FC / FCS there's some grounds for thinking they might, at least, be manipulative within the procurement process.
I don't need any. If there were real grounds for redress, then I'm sure someone woud have challenged the decision. The people involved appear to have fervent belief in what they do - I am sure that if they had anything they would have used it or chased it to (their) satisfactory conclusion. Instead, all we have seen is conjecture, whining, sour grapes and 'FC bad. Small business good' as some tortured logic.
If you, or anyone else, can bring something factualand / or relevant, I will make the most grovelling apology. Until then, I will stand by my views and watch the mud-slinging, wailing and gnashing of teeth of those with nothing more than 'a bad feeling in their waters'.
Cheeky Monkey..Sorry, off on a tangent there Just wanted to point out trail building isn't rocket science and can be done by anyone
mmmmm, you might want to rethink that imo.
"anyone" is a bit of a big statement imo.
What would "anyone" know about H.S.E. and the current hot tattie the construction regs that seem to be the topic of the moment.
What would "anyone" know about SSSIs?
What would "anyone" know about drainage of the different types of soil types?
What would "anyone" know about bench cuts and the best angles to achieve good trail drainage?
What would "anyone" know about different grades of gravels and compaction techniques?
And on, and on and on!!!!!!!
There are a lot of poorly designed and built trails around
He's a very modest man 😉
mmmmm, you might want to rethink that imo.
No ta, I've thought about it relatively thoroughly already. I've been building and organising this stuff for years, hence my opinion 😉
H&S is common sense, especially in volunteer builds where it's mostly hand tools. I'm not sure what your "hot tattie" is but CDM is not it. Read the ACoP, it's designed for the layman and the majority of underlying concepts are, again, common sense.
What does your average trail builder know about SSSIs? Not a lot, but then they don't need to, what they need to know is how to talk to whoever does (typically Natural England) and then follow that advice.
What would "anyone" know about drainage of the different types of soil types?
What would "anyone" know about bench cuts and the best angles to achieve good trail drainage?
What would "anyone" know about different grades of gravels and compaction techniques?
Honestly? We're not building high rise blocks or anything. It's just stone paths in the woods (or somewhere). Yes, there are bits and pieces of expertise and experience but there's plenty of easily accessible guidance (like the IMBA stuff). So long as you've read a little, got a modicum of common sense and physical ability then most stuff is within your grasp. Oh, and I'm assuming you've followed the golden rule of permission 😎
Sure there's some bad trails but they've been built by contractors, professionals, volunteers, all sorts. Volunteers tend to pick up on this fast because their rate of progress is slow and stuff, if it doesn't work, usually gets identified quickly. Besides, it's rarely so "bad" that you can't do another 25% of work to make something good out of it.
I admit there are things that can catch the unprepared / unexperienced out but honestly, and I've been doing this for years, there's no need for anyone to look at it and be scared off, particularly by some of the red herrings you've tossed out there 😎
Hey, I'm just trying to encourage anyone to have a go and not be put off 😎
Tootall: like I've said (a few times) I don't know or have much of an opinion on whether the process was flawed at GT. I just thought your utter blind faith in public procurement processes was misplaced. Mleh, I'm saying the same thing again and again.
There's some reading to be had here if you fancy it [url] http://www.carronvalley.org.uk/ [/url]
What gives? Theres still a 'sign petition' on the counter in the hub cafe. How come? I thought it was a done-deal? They lost the tender.
Plus, what are those lovely wooden building that have gone up across? The new cafe etc? 🙂