Petition to save The Hub Glentress

The Hub was a pretty lousy cafe so I can’t say I’ll miss it.

Although, I do miss the original cafe at CyB, which served excellent home made food, and the Little Chef clone they replaced it with is pretty poor food wise – although the hot showers after an NPS race are a Godsend.

Although, I do miss the original cafe at CyB

I hope you mean some earlier incarnation and not the shithole that was there before the current owners. The staff needed slapping into some sort of action.

Legally, they cannot ‘help nice people out’ – all tenders have to be open competition, transparent and fair – because the taxpayer insists upon that sort of thing. What is good, legal and proper cannot be bent when it suits – it is even handed if nothing else.

LOL

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.

Systems are great but people are people. Outright faith in the absolute correctness of things is usally (IMO) misplaced. Life operates in shades, not monochrome 😉

As for the Hub, after listening to Tracey’s (IIRC) IMBA workshop and the strong anti-FC opinions she held I am not surprised at the current outcome. Time and again they have shown you can rarely win by going toe-to-toe with them. It’s a real shame because they’re a far from perfect (you could argue even “good”) organisation. Ironic now that we’re all (ish) fighting for the “devil we know” in the face of the ConDem’s crappy proposals.

That’s not to deny that we haven’t got quite a few formal trails on “our” land that FC manage. However, I think it could have been so many more, so much better and ironically that might well have made the current Gvernment propossals even less likely to succeed.

Hey ho 😎

Am I missing something here?

Its not likely the tender was won by some massive global corporation. Its not McDonalds or Starbucks taking over its the guys that run the hotel down the road.

Good points cheekymonkey.

Relationship issues with FC, short term existing lease, competing with Scotlands largest outdoor retailer (who can well afford to take a ££+ commercial view on the added prestige this facility will bring them) and experienced caterers who are all but on site already.

Good luck to both Alpine and the GT Hotel but as I said earlier, FCS embarked on a grand ‘corporate scheme’ – some might say the antithesis of partnership working and in my view, very much with the outcome we now have in mind. Two ways to have avoided this would have been a.) for The Hub and FCS to have gone forward together or b.) for E&T to have formed a consortium with other local people and businesses to make a bid to buy or lease the land under the National Forest Land Scheme.

The problem is, it simply isn’t in FCS DNA to facilitate this kind of arrangement – they are deeply entrenched in the business of protecting what they see as ‘their role.’ They clearly feel that schemes like The Peel underscore their importance / relevance. Going slightly off at a tangent but this does come round to the whole land debate and the proposed sell offs in England – it’s not actually the people who own the land (common good) it’s the Ministers! It’s notionally our land but if communities and local busineeses want to have more control over what happens on it, the Forestry Commission will need to be reformed.

More here for those interested:

http://www.andywightman.com/wordpress/

It would be interesting to know the ins and outs of the respective tender responses but knowing how these tender situations work and the FC aims for GT, I imagine the tender would have stated something along the lines of

“The FC has a plan of X for GT, please tell us how you will contribute to this”

and I imagine the current hub owners were probably quite honest in stating that they didn’t believe the targets set by the FC were achievable and they stated their own estimates for visitors, revenue, bums on seats etc whereas the succesful bidders proposal was more in line with the FC expectations.

I do suspect here may be some truth in that BoardinBob.

My thoughts exactly boardinbob, all above board and legal, but realistically utter bullshit.

How are we to ensure that the two new businesses are keeping to their end of the deal, when we don’t know what the deal is?

Is there any way to learn what the conditions are and to also monitor if they are adhered too ❓

I hope the new place has better quality cheese than the hub.

Ways to lose a tender process, lesson 1: Tell those in charge that they’re talking s**t.

Personally I couldn’t care less if the terms & conditions aren’t adhered to. I won’t using the shop and as long as the cafe has good cake that’s all I’m interested in!

Why should we care if they adhere to a deal? They will either succeed or fail…

Done – although to be honest I couldn’t care about the cafe – don’t use the old one much other than for a pee and will use the new one even less.

I DO care though about the bike shop – they have given me nowt but top class service – the kind of which I have not found in ANY bike shop in Edinburgh (I feel a rant coming on but that’s another story) and I know I won’t get that from Alpine Bikes unfortunately.

That said, a £9,000,000 visitors centre? How many of us who actually use glentress or inners, where asked what we think, the money should be spent on?

I for one, can think of a lot better ways to spend that money, like developing the forest. How much is being spent on that?

+1 – forest desperately needs new trails, not a visitor centre. And all this chat about “other forest users” is bollox. 95% + of the visitors will be bikers IMO, and I bet the next move is going to be £5+ parking – you name it – anything to squeeze us till we squeak and/or go elsewhere.

It does sound like it was pretty much as BoardinBob says and thats from the man in charge!

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Forestry-chief-joins-row-over.6671618.jp

The chief executive of Forestry Commission body Forest Enterprise Scotland has defended a decision that will effectively close a popular cafe and mountain bike business in the Borders.

Simon Hodge said the successful tender for a new business on Forestry Commission Scotland’s Glentress site – to be announced in January – had been chosen because of the need to raise money to maintain mountain bike trails.

Now, in an open letter to protesters, Hodge says: “I understand your disappointment that The Hub was not successful in the recent tender.

“However, I hope you can recognise that it would not be acceptable for a public body like Forestry Commission Scotland to reject other stronger bids for provision of services in the new facilities.”

Hodge said the choice of bidder had been influenced by the need to make a greater financial contribution to the £250,000 cost of maintaining the trails at Glentress and the 7stanes network in the borders.

He said Glentress had grown massively in popularity, with visitor numbers approaching 300,000 a year, compared with 90,000 ten years ago.

“The new Glentress Peel has been designed to cope with this massive growth in popularity,” he said. “All the new facilities are state of the art and geared for managing a large number of visitors to the forest.”

Dazzlingboy – thats the aim – for a much larger market than just the mountainbikers and I believe that aspect will work.

Don’t forget just how good GT trails are? Is there any other centre in the UK with so many miles of trails and such variety?

TJ – your point about trails is fair – the trails are great – but seriously, to spend £9-11 million (I’ve seen different figures quoted) to create a facility mainly for bikers and not a penny on new trails (which is the driving force behind the whole setup – that’s why people go) is I think both bizarre and scandalous. Surely keeping GT up there as a world class biking facility relies on having world class trails more than having a great cafe? I accept a new facility is needed, but the trails are the heart and are being neglected.

I disagree with your view that other users are going to flock to the new centre. I just don’t think that coach parties want to share a cafe with muddy bikers, or that walkers want to go here either especially given the multitude of better, quieter tracks and paths within a few km of GT. I think the FC would like to broaden the user base, but I don’t think it will.

Have just read the Scotsman article.

What they seem to be saying is – “we have to generate more income so we can spend money on the trails. “

Which sounds fair enough and at least their is some recognition that the trails need improving/adding to/maintaining, but they could’ve spent some of their huge pot of cash on the trails in the first place!

A shiny new visitor centre probably will bring in more non-bikers than some of you expect. It certainly seems to have done so at Dalby and Cwmcarn – two examples off the top of my head.

But nine million quid.

*sucks air through teeth*

Better hope it doesn’t go as far over budget as your wretched parliament building.

>Is there any way to learn what the conditions are and to also monitor if they are adhered too <

As mentioned earlier you could go down the Freedom of Information route – but you’ll have a very long wait and quite probably an extensive appeal process to wade through. And to what end? FCS will have learned lessons since their err ‘mishandling’ of CVDG members requests so this one will be watertight. Besides, they’ll just hide beind ‘commercial confidentiality’ and as the current Government has caved in to lobbying by CBI et al for extending FOI to businesses dealing with Govt Dept dont look for any change on that one soon.

V’ numbers are another touchy point – the last thing FCS want to be reminded of (by people that should know) is that GT may indeed sit further down the attractions list than they would have otherwise wish

So S’ Hodge has waded in with a figure of £250k for the trails. Would like to see the breakdown of that one – and the building running costs 😉

Err IIRC none of FC visitor centres generate a £surplus.

Unless there is someone on here from FCS with facts and figues that prove otherwise?

I bet the next move is going to be £5+ parking – you name it –

A five to ride is hardly a scandal! 2 in a car, possibly not given the cafe any money, getting to ride someone else’s trails for £2.50??

Doubler

Agreed Legend – if that is all we get charged then that’s great – but I suspect that will be the thin end of the wedge!

someone else’s trails

– sorry – who’s trails??!! Think you’ll find they belong to the taxpayer – for now!

I do feel sorry for Emma and tracy – however the deal is done – thats it

The only way things might change is if those of you that are moaning run a serious disruptive / boycott campaign on the new cafe and put it out of business. Emma and Tracy have another year on the lease of the old cafe so the two can run in parallel for another year. A picket on the new cafe?

Moaning on the internet will achieve nothing. Put up or shut up

Very interesting thread. I think dazzlingboy has a point.
How many trails would £9M have got?
Even if the FC could have spent say £7-8M on high quality trails, £1-2M on a 4 or 3* visitor centre instead of an all singing and dancing 5*, I’d be heading up there as soon as the trails were complete.
As it stands, I’m not likely to head up as readily just because of a posh cafe. I’ll still go but will be more inclined to give more time to the other riding spots up there. All said and done, we go to these places to ride our bicycles. We can eat cake anywhere.
Feel for E&T but sometimes life gives us a s**t sandwich and we all have to take a bite.

The peel centre is more than just a cafe and shop.

Yes its a lot of money and perhaps not the wisest of investments but this is intended to be a flagship project and to be the base for further expansion and to attract more than MTBers. EWven for the MTBers facilities will be far better.

A five to ride is hardly a scandal! 2 in a car, possibly not given the cafe any money, getting to ride someone else’s trails for £2.50??

On land owned by the state and financed by tax dollars?

In Scotland at least they cannot charge for access to the land unless it was charged for before the LRA

The charge at Glentress is for the use of the carpark. Its Scotland. we have the right to roam.

Al, damn right. You don’t get to go swimming for free just because your tax dollars built the pool do you?

The Glentress Peel is about more than just Mountainbiking, it also covers osprey viewing, and a new forestry commision building. See Linkand other visitor attractions if you read the link you will also see it has been partly funded by Scottish Enterprise and Sports Scotland.

cynic-al – Member

A five to ride is hardly a scandal! 2 in a car, possibly not given the cafe any money, getting to ride someone else’s trails for £2.50??

On land owned by

Just like Hospitals
I feel sorry for E&T they’ve put a lot of hard work in to the area, I wonder what will happen with their guiding and coaching business, especially if they fight the new cafe.

al – you could always park in Peebles for nowt and ride in. no charge then

The peel centre is more than just a cafe and shop

Fair enough, but who do we think will provide the majority of the income from the building?
I’d dare to say MTBers as the trails are so good. How many will use the “exhibition” space?
Interesting to see that the FC have built themselves a spangly new office building.

run a serious disruptive / boycott campaign on the new cafe

To be clear TJ – and I know this is slightly off the original topic – my point is not about the new cafe – it can sink or swim for all I care as I don’t go to GT for tea and buns – I go to ride my bike on great trails.

My point is about the disproportionate spend – if even a tenth of the dosh was spent on trails then GT would be the most exciting thing ever for newbs and old hands alike. As it is it is just getting a bit tired IMO and the biggest fanciest cafe/visitor centre/shop/conference centre/office in the world isn’t going to keep GT at the top of the biking tree. Great trails on the other hand will.

Are they not constantly upgrading/repairing the trails and building new trails? Has Spooky wood not just been resurfaced? New bit of trail above the Skills loop dropping west to the green run, plans to redo ewok village.

Where does this idea that there’s “not a penny on new trails” come from Dazzlingboy? GT is still growing and changing. This year has the Ewok Village replacement scheduled and the reroute/rebuild of Lombard Street and I doubt that’s all. Last year had the Admiral added to the blue, the new Tourist Trap (OK, it does suck), and Zoom or Bust open, as well as the big reroute of Magic Mushroom and that lovely new bit on Falla Brae. Not to mention a couple of major rebuilds.

I agree that the priorities are wrong but you can’t say there’s nothing being down with the trails. I wish there was more, but then, I always will.

On the parking- so you think others should fund trail build/maintenance/salaries etc so that you can ride for free?

I wager there will be a few visitors who spend a weekend in the area who bring money in to offset them riding down to the trailhead in the morning however there will be a fair few miserable Edinburgh-based whingers who arrive, ride and sod off again.

I agree that the priorities are wrong but you can’t say there’s nothing being down with the trails. I wish there was more, but then, I always will.

I think that’s what he’s getting at nw. Imagine having another 2, 3 or 4 great trails there. More people would travel from all over and provide more income for the FC. GT would cement itself as the premier MTB centre, there’s going to be a lot of competition from the welsh ones what with all the moneys they have for trails now. Not looking to argue, just a different angle to look at.

On the parking- so you think others should fund trail build/maintenance/salaries etc so that you can ride for free?

I always use the car park and pay – quite happy to ‘put something back’. I was simply making the point that it is an ‘option’, not a ‘requirement’. We do not have to pay to ride our bikes in a Scottish Forest but if we chose to do so and ‘reinvest’ that is fine too 😆

TBH I think there’s a better case for spreading the money out- Laggan did more for its area per penny spent than GT does I think. Big honeypots are fine but throwing money to the biggest centres seems a bit off.

OK – not a penny – I exaggerate. But what you mention are repairs and tinkering around the edges of the established trails.

What I’m talking about is another red to ease the congestion. Add additional loops to the blue so less experienced riders can add a bit at a time. I mean major new routes.

Or why not spread the dosh about? Certainly “not a penny” being spent at Innerleithen AFAIK. Even a decent bog there would cost buttons. Huge forest there – what about another trail there? Or chairlift (another whole debate I know). We have this shiny new gear at GT but Inners is like some poor relation despite having the downhill trails and big crowds at the weekends.

I just think the dosh could’ve been much better spent, but if you ask 10 people you’ll get 10 difference suggestions on how to distribute it.

^^^^^ backhander put it well!