[Closed] 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 [b]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.[/b]

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 [i]mainly[/i] 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 [i]like[/i] 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

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 [url= http://www.forestry.gov.uk/glentress ]Link[/url]and 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

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

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 [b]have[/b] 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!

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.

we're in 100% agreement there mate! 😀

Even a decent bog there would cost buttons.

Ha! from an organisation spending 9m on a visitor centre? The toilets at Carron Valley cost upwards of £30k....

You think the peel centre is a waste of money but you want a chairlift?

As for new rails:

New Blue climb

Good Game blue descent? and some further bits below it
Two recent blues

I really think familiarity has led you to fail to see how much trailbuiding goes on and how good GT trails are.

A new cafe was well overdue IMO.

This is getting more and more out of control.

The money from the carpark goes back into the trails. Anyone who parks further away or doesn't pay just to avoid parking charges is out of order and taking the p!$$ using trails they are not prepared to pay for - all IMO.

Threatening to boycott a new business because you liked the old one is also a joke. As pointed out, the new owners are local small business owners. As nice as E&T are and as sorry as I feel for them, trying to put another small business out of business is not the right way forward. They won the tender process, various people who know the people behind the hotel have also said they are nice people too.

Likewise the bike shop comments and swearing not to use it, most of the time I end up in that shop it will be because something has broke and not replacing it means a trip home with limited riding.

The service I've received in the Hub has always been first class but so has the service in Alpine. I suspect that we'll see a lot of the Hub staff in the new Alpine as they'll be experienced bike mechanics looking for work when a new place opens.

As Alpine is a bigger chain the chance to ride different demo bikes will increase. Sure they'll have the standard fleet but some of the demo bikes they currently have are pretty awesome.

This nonsense about no development going into the trails is just plain daft too. Most sections on the red have been changed in some way in the last year - look at the difference in the red/black/blue climb in the past two years for example. Whether these have improved it or ticked health and saftey boxes is a different debate!

Most weekends cars are parked on the verges around GT which shows how many people currently use it. If the centre brings in more people FC will have to invest more in the trails.

The development also included the WigWam village, that must bring in extra cash and visitors for the FC.

Sorry about the rant, some of this is just winding me up more and more! Also, apologies to anyone who is of a different opinion, this wasn't meant to be too aggressive!!!

You think the peel centre is a waste of money but you want a chairlift?

i lol'd 🙂

Well said steve.

My point about organising a boycott was not that I think its right - i certainly don't - but that moaning on the internet will do nothing - if you feel that strongly then take action - direct action done properly could alter things. You will soon see how many folk actually feel that strongly tho - none I suggest.

The toilets at Carron Valley cost upwards of £30k....

😯

For a draughty hut with one crapper, two pissers and sink.

I'm in the wrong line of work...

A new cafe was well overdue IMO.

*I know it's not [i]just[/i] a cafe. It has a bike shop and "exhibition" centre too.

Officially, the last new trail at Glentress were Good Game and The Admiral.

Any 'new' trails since then have been replacements/safety improvements/maintenance, all due to the fact there is currently a FCS wide ban on new trail construction. As far as the reasoning behind the ban, it's largely down to the number of trails constructed all over scotland with no thoughts towards maintenance.
Even though the 7stanes do have a maintenance plan in place, they are still subject to the ban.

I take it that E&T will still be guiding and coaching at Glentress even after the lease of the Hub runs out. Running a boycott of the new cafe and Peel could have a knock on effect on that business. If the new cafe owners don't like the boycott they could exclude E&T from the cafe and the FCS could stop them hiring the training nnd business meeting space for running courses.

The development also included the WigWam village, that must bring in extra cash and visitors for the FC.

The WigWam's are privately owned.

stevemtb, I don't think the Wigwams are part of the redevelopment, I could be wrong but I think it's not FC land.

dazzlingboy - Member

"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."

But every single one will agree it could have been better spent I reckon.

But I think the results would have been the same- to go dangerously back on topic for a second a new, larger, fit for purpose cafe was inevitable sooner or later and that'd mean new operators whether it was in a £9m visitor's centre or a bargain basement prefab. I know not everyone agrees but I think the cafe was pretty much the crappest part of Glentress (after the toilets)

We're agreeing more than disagreeing here.

you want a chairlift

A new cafe was well overdue IMO.

doesn't pay just to avoid parking charges is out of order

Most sections on the red have been changed in some way in the last year

>if you read the link you will also see it has been partly funded by Scottish Enterprise and Sports Scotland.<

Your point being? FC, SE and SS were all directly funded by the taxpayer last time I checked & none of them are directly accountable to the electorate so they've got that in common at least. Scottish Enterprises Senior Management team were also a bloody disgrace but that's another story...

It's been discussed ad nauseum on here before but many years ago the FC ran a so called consultation exercise in order to inform a mtb strategy. AFAIK no strategy document was ever produced, there was no further consultation and the exercise morphed into the SMB framework or whatever it's now called. The lack of process or proper consultation upset many folk - across the board.

How did FCS take us from that to where we are now? Simple, they just carried on doing what they were going to do anyway. That's what winds me up re this whole saga.

Most sections on the red have been changed in some way in the last year
again - agreed! But I think this level of expenditure was a once in a blue moon chance to seriously upgrade trails and build new trails both at GT and Innerleithen. This level of money won't be spent on a Scottish Trail Centre for a long long time if ever.

A lot of local authorities would argue that the money would be better spent in their area giving them a trail centre rather than adding more trails to an existing popular centre.
Another argument is why spend money on remote locations that a large proportion of the people who would benefit most from mountainbiking cannot get to, why not spend the money on urban mountainbike trails, like the proposal for Craigmillar Castle Park and the Vat run at South Queensferry. An equally valid argument could be put up for Glasgow, Central belt, Stirling, Aberdeen, Dundee etc.

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?

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