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 http://www.carronvalley.org.uk/

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? 🙂