You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Looks like MBR are employing journos from the Sun.......
That's not going to do CYB trails, bike shop or any of the surrounding businesses any good at all.
If anything shouldn't the mountain bike press be encouraging more people to go??
Shocking piece of clickbait journalism at it's finest.
Crap article. CyB isn't closing to mountain biking, the VC is. CyB is more than it's VC. The outcomes of these budget cuts are nuanced, and some uncertain, but they don't add up to what the headline says.
Anyway, MBR now seems to be mainly articles with titles like 'I've reviewed 1000s of socks in the past 20 years, but these are the best." so i'm not surprised this kind of headline came about.
Who still reads MBR?
I'm willing to bet money that the person who wrote the article didn't write the headline. And given that you've clicked on the headline kinda proves the point about why articles like that, on sites like that, use headlines like that. Blame the algorithm rather than the people
As an aside; I know a fella who runs a military history channel on YouTube, on purpose he always includes an incorrect 'fact' in every video he makes. He does this as it generates comments, and comments below the video are partly what promotes his videos and drives traffic to his channel.
Did you e-mail the MBR editor to get them to correct it?
For once, yes.
@tthew
Did you e-mail the MBR editor to get them to correct it?
Yes I did, and for anyone else who fancies doing the same details are below:
mbr@futurenet.com - FAO Danny Milner (Editor)
Looks like MBR are employing journos from the Sun…….
To be fair, The Sun would have a headline that read more like
Taffs Terminate Trail Riders!
Trails doomed as Welsh forestry bureaucrats declare war on woke beardy mountain bikers with much-loved cycling centre to be turned into timber.
I don't honestly think the MBR headline is particularly dire. Mostly their subs come up with inspired stuff like: 'I've been riding mountain bikes in all weathers for over 150 years and these are the best socks I've ever used!' so I reckon we've got off lightly.
There's probably an alternative with Taffs and Caffs figuring in it, but I can't really be bothered to think through that as well.
Headline has been changed now it seems:
The revised version is one from the Daily Mail "tell the whole story in the headline" school of journalism, eh?
Do we think MBR have subs anyway? Possibly an online editor, but the contributor probably wrote the headline and clicked publish without it going past any more eyes.
I know I used to do the same on much bigger and better resourced mainstream media websites.
Do we think MBR have subs anyway? Possibly an online editor,
They probably have an SEO person who is focussed entirely on traffic and doesn't really care whether the headline is an accurate reflection of the story or not. They do clearly have, at least, some sort of house style when it comes to headlines, which usually revolves around the whole 'I have tested a zillion widgets, but this may be the absolute greatest widget ever' formula or something about how their 'favourite ever widget is now reduced by 50% on Black Amazon Prime Friday Day'.
I still think we were lucky do to dodge 'I've ridden millions of trail centres over the years, but Coed y Brenin was the best sock I have ever used and now you can buy it for 50% less with this amazing Black Friday offer'.
Anyway...
Still not a great headline - makes it sound like the visitors centre is only closed to Mountain Bikers......
Do any media outlets employ people with a basic grasp of the English language anymore? The spelling, punctuation and basic grammar in the local paper are shocking....
...is shocking
basic grasp of English and all that.
Had this back from MBR today:
Nice to see they've actually spoken to the folks at CyB before publishing their article.......
Classic annoying apology:
assume that the complainant is confused or misunderstood
qualified apology using "if" or "any"
apologising for what happened rather than what they did
not admitting to doing anything wrong
claiming have "changed" or "revised" something rather than fixing it
The term "visitor's centre" doesn't help here. Saying "the visitor's centre is closing" is completely accurate but inevitably people will think that means the whole thing.
I wouldn't expect anything better from mbr. An ex magazine that gives bikes bad reviews because they gave it to a tester that doesn't like the sort of riding appropriate for the bike. Also a magazine who's writers were digging jump lines in the Surrey Hills that wouldn't look out of place in a Brandon Semenuk video.
Had this back from MBR today:
It loses points for using the phrase "reach out".
They can't just 'contact' the bike shop. Maybe 'phone' the bike shop. Oh no..
/rolls eyes
Classic annoying apology:
assume that the complainant is confused or misunderstood
qualified apology using “if” or “any”
apologising for what happened rather than what they did
not admitting to doing anything wrong
claiming have “changed” or “revised” something rather than fixing it
It seems like a fair response to be honest. It acknowledges that the headline was misleading, apologises for it and says they're going to dig deeper into the story. People presumably want something along the lines of: 'What we published was entirely unacceptable, we've sacked the writer/sub concerned, here's a cheque to compensate you for the indescribable suffering you've gone through...' You seem keen on being offended.
I think, arguably, the more interesting story here is whether visitor centres are really huge loss-makers, if so, why? And what could be done to change that situation. I'm not a regular trail centre visitor - once every few years I guess - but I'm always struck by the way people on here seem hacked off by car parking charges and seem to think that buying a slice of cake and a coffee post-ride is going to pay for all the infrastructure and boost the local economy, the one they mostly drive past.
Bike Parks seem culturally distinct as places people will pay to ride - is that because they're uplifted - but maybe if we expect decent facilities at places like CyB, we need to ask ourselves how they can be financed?
It loses points for using the phrase “reach out”.
Yes, that's the one totally unacceptable aspect of the apology, but then Surrey is pretty much a suburb of New Hampshire, no? 🙂
. It acknowledges that the headline was misleading, apologises for it
As I said, it does neither.
You seem keen on being offended.
Not really just a bugbear thing that's becoming more and more common, and we're already taking a critical view of them here.
I’m always struck by the way people on here seem hacked off by car parking charges and seem to think that buying a slice of cake and a coffee post-ride is going to pay for all the infrastructure and boost the local economy, the one they mostly drive past.
The flipside of that argument is:
I'm always struck by the way a trail centre thinks that offering a bit of parking and some average coffee and cake is going to pay for all the infrastructure.
I note the article doesn't mention anything about *when* this visitor centre is supposed to be closing... ?
If I go there this weekend, will I be able to get coffee and cake?! They're almost creating the reason to close it by announcing it'll close and everyone goes "oh OK, we'll go to Llandegla instead" at which point CyB can say "see, no-one is coming here, we're closing the cafe".
Well, if we're sticking the boot into MBR, then I'll add my tuppence worth.
Over the years of reading it (a print subscription that I just didn't get around to cancelling until I finally did) I built up an impression that you could pretty much guess how many of the enormous number of adverts were for each brand by the ratings their bikes got in reviews. I may be wrong, but there you are. There were certain brands where I saw one of their bikes being reviewed and I thought "No more than 7/10" - flick to the review... 7/10 every time.
Let's just say that when Martin Maes started winning EWS rounds on a GT, I imagine there was some dismay amongst the editorial team.
As I said, it does neither.
I'm sorry you were offended by MBR's apology 🙂
I’m always struck by the way a trail centre thinks that offering a bit of parking and some average coffee and cake is going to pay for all the infrastructure.
I don't know if trail centres 'think' let alone think that. Wasn't the historical argument always that the influx of mountain bikers visiting the trail centre meant that spending cascaded outwards into the local economy via accommodation, hospitality, people buying pasties from the local bakery etc rather than the trail centre itself being self-sustaining as a unit?
I have no idea if that still holds good - or if it ever did. Has the pattern of trail centre use changed? Are there fewer visitors? Do they drive in, ride, drink a coffee and go with little benefit to the local economy beyond that? Have the sort of mountain bike tourists who used to come for the weekend and spend time and money in the local town decamped to BPW or Dyfi instead?
I don't know the answer to any of that, but there's a central question there about funding the ongoing maintenance and facilities at trail centres and whether, if you close visitor centres / cafes - are they the same thing? - shops there, it creates a downward spiral in visitor numbers as a result or will people still ride, but use cafes in the local area post-ride instead?
Well done dirkpitt, I think it reads much better now, within the limitations of a headline.
Amd bikesandboots, I don't agree with you. If it was one of those non-apologies it would say '...we are sorry you were confused...' For the confusion is a common phase interpret as we confused a group of people. If they were being passive aggressive the headline wouldn't have changed.
I'd say that's quite reasonable from MBR.
I've just checked and STW's story still has the headline: "Funding Cuts To Welsh Trails Confirmed"
Dunno if it's sensationalist, but it's certainly misleading IMO.
And why oh why are they still using title case for headlines? It's ****ing awful.
Not too worried about grading the apology, but it kinda shows the whole article was rushed and poorly done. They didn't even contact Beics Brenin, which is run by someone who's been in the industry a long time and should be well known to MBR and STW (same guy who runs Summit Cycles in Aber, previously organised Dyfi Enduro). I know someone who works there and it's a pretty nervy time and a risk for the business.
On the discussion about it being self-sustaining and car park costs, buying coffee etc., I think that's missing the point entirely. Let's not forget that this crisis is down to government funding cuts over the past decade and more. NRW probably hate being in this position, but they are unable to meet some of their statuary functions of providing leisure and access to the countryside. That's where my beef lies. I'm more than happy for a small amount of tax £s to be spent on providing these facilities for all to use, for free. Economic benefits stem from that, but it shouldn't be for NRW to make it economically self-sustaining, otherwise they'd just charge entry like a private bike park; and more to the point, the notion that services should pay for themselves is some of the worst of neoliberal thinking. I'm most annoyed at this aspect of the problem, that what should be provided to us is being eroded, and that the poverty of argument surrounding this is down to how inoculated we have become to the destruction of public services and public benefit that should be afforded to us.
Let’s not forget that this crisis is down to government funding cuts over the past decade and more. NRW probably hate being in this position
I don't doubt that both of those things are true. I think what's confusing most folks is that there is a group of local businesses and volunteers who've asked to help and are willing to step in almost straight away, and come up with a plan, but have been ignored (it looks like on purpose) so that NRW can basically say "There's nothing to be done, and no-one who can help, we'll just have to close the lot" for probably internal reasons that we're not aware of.
there is a group of local businesses and volunteers who’ve asked to help and are willing to step in almost straight away, and come up with a plan, but have been ignored (it looks like on purpose) so that NRW can basically say “There’s nothing to be done, and no-one who can help, we’ll just have to close the lot” for probably internal reasons that we’re not aware of.
TBF to NRW, they are dealing with people's jobs here so they have a defined process to follow - and after that the community group may be able to get involved.
But no media seem to have followed up with the group to get their take on this and to find out if they've had any luck with NRW in the mean time.
And so the group wander away to help elsewhere and so aren't available when it is discovered that they are required here...
I wouldn't be surprised if they simply just didn't have the bandwidth to deal with the volunteer group side of things, with all of the job losses and reorganisation (or the motivation, given what is happening). I understand some frustration that there are people willing to help but they are not being engaged with, it's probably part of the vicious cycle of the above, and this is one issue among many they probably don't have capacity for. A crappy situation all round.
There's an interview with the UK Trail Alliance on this subject on the bikeradar podcast for those interested.
NRW can't just 'let' volunteers maintain trails etc - training, time, resources, H&S, regulations are all blocking people turning up and 'just helping out' - it's not that simple
They've been trying, but it takes a long time (like years in some cases...). And, the people they deal with at NRW are/have lost their jobs... Doesn't exactly help matters.
NRW can’t just ‘let’ volunteers maintain trails etc – training, time, resources, H&S, regulations are all blocking people turning up and ‘just helping out’ – it’s not that simple
Yep, had a feeling there'd be something of that nature in the background. Not surprising (and actually entirely correct for it to be "a thing").
It'd be a nightmare of liability if some volunteers turned up, picked up some of the NRW-owned trail maintenance equipment and had an accident - or built a feature which caused an accident for a member of the public. It's difficult to "employ" volunteers too cos it starts impacting on all sorts of tax and minimum wage legislation.
The revised version is one from the Daily Mail “tell the whole story in the headline” school of journalism, eh?
Seems to be the only way to get eyeballs now. Used to be headline and intro par, now it's just headline.
MTB Wales posted this on FB:
Re: volunteer maintenance.
While they're are overheads and commitments to coordinate from the organisations side. Lots of charities carry out significant works using volunteer workforce. National trust, canal and river trust being 2 major national ones, but all the local canals rail preservation societies undertake some quite significant civil engineering works using volunteers.
I've often thought that government departments could use these kinds of models for the delivery of services that aren't the core statutory stuff. Maybe even by setting up dedicated charitable bodies to do it on their behalf.
But I guess that goes against the approach of many govt depts instinct to simply cut services when money is reduced, rather than plan for alternative delivery methods. No time for planning or creative thinking when your back is against the wall
I think what’s confusing most folks is that there is a group of local businesses and volunteers who’ve asked to help and are willing to step in almost straight away, and come up with a plan, but have been ignored (it looks like on purpose) so that NRW can basically say “There’s nothing to be done, and no-one who can help, we’ll just have to close the lot” for probably internal reasons that we’re not aware of.
If NRW had engaged with them on the basis that the staff were going to be made redundant before that had been announced then they would have opened themselves up to a lawsuit on the basis of not following correct procedures and predetermining the outcome of the consultation process. Now that the process has reached it's conclusion it is possible for them to do something but that will then be bound by public procurement regulations, they can't just hand an asset across to someone willy nilly.
the notion that services should pay for themselves is some of the worst of neoliberal thinking. I’m most annoyed at this aspect of the problem, that what should be provided to us is being eroded,
I think that's true in a broad sense, but I'm not overly convinced that subsidising facilities for a niche sport like mountain biking is the best use of public funds.You can think it's a shame that visitor centres may cease to be supported, but at the same time I find it hard to argue that public money should be invested in making sure mountain bikers have easy access to coffee, cake and bike-washing facilities.
The 'self-financing' bit, fwiw, stems from the birth of trail centres - and particularly CyB - when the argument was regularly used that they would bring money into the local economy.
Eg: somewhat ironically, this article about Dafydd Davies from MBR:
'Coed-y-Brenin wasn’t given the green light because it would get more people into riding or because it would give more great trails to the UK, but because it would draw money into an area starved of investment. It would regenerate businesses and provide employment for local people and rebuild the social scene. On the back of the success here, it’s a model that’s been taken up by local politicians, land management organisations and councils across the country to boost tourism. '
https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/feature-coed-y-brenin-with-dafydd-davis-314243
Is that still the case? What's the coherent argument otherwise for spending public money on supporting a niche sport, based on people driving across the country to ride expensive bicycles in a forest, when you could arguably do far more good spending that money elsewhere.
NRW can’t just ‘let’ volunteers maintain trails etc – training, time, resources, H&S, regulations are all blocking people turning up and ‘just helping out’ – it’s not that simple
Sure, I get that, Then engage with the local businesses on that basis, If NRW is starved of cash and is reluctant to fund training, then all they need do is set the standard and force people to meet it.
If NRW had engaged with them on the basis that the staff were going to be made redundant
This is what TUPE is for, and TBH if NRW haven't made every possible attempt to ensure that folks are re-employed, then they could face accusations of ignoring the groups of charities and local businesses trying to step in, and going ahead with a plan to make redundancies all along.
What’s the coherent argument otherwise for spending public money on supporting a niche sport, based on people driving across the country to ride expensive bicycles in a forest, when you could arguably do far more good spending that money elsewhere.
Back when it all started it was a fairly minimal outlay? Essentially, some basic trails scraped into the ground which washed away fairly quickly when CyB got popular, and a portacabin with some basic food and inner tubes. Afan, when it opened shortly after, already had a visitor centre and cafe - beans on toast were about the culinary limit there in the late 90s. But. because it was novel, we'd charge up to north Wales a few weekends a year, spend some money on camping or a bunkhouse, a takeaway or two and some pub time with friends. We didn't spend a fortune, but we still spent money in a place that otherwise wouldn't have got it, even if that was just Mars bars and pop from a shonky local store, and the numbers riding there weren't massive but it all added up and outweighed that minimal outlay.
The problem possibly came a little later when people started thinking that they needed barista coffee and 'proper' meals, and the numbers got too big for the muddy trails, and the price of camping and accommodation ramped up to cost the same as a weekend in Benidorm. Also, supply and demand - in 1999 the only TCs in Wales iirc were CyB and Afan. Now we have miles of unofficial trails, loads of TCs and Bike Parks. I don't need to go to CyB with my mates 4 times a year any more, we have more local riding than we can cope with anyway.
What’s the coherent argument otherwise for spending public money on supporting a niche sport, based on people driving across the country to ride expensive bicycles in a forest, when you could arguably do far more good spending that money elsewhere.
We're going to drive to some forest, moor, or mountain to ride our expensive bikes anyway. Various factors contribute to deciding where.
The problem possibly came a little later when people started thinking that they needed barista coffee and ‘proper’ meals...
I don't doubt there's an element of that but there's also the fact that a cramped portacabin with ingrained mud and sweat over all the furniture is not exactly the welcome mat to many people. When you're queuing out the door in the rain for a jacket potato, there's nowhere to sit, and there's a layer of mud over everything, it needs something more. Something like a proper building with some vague nod towards health and safety, food hygiene standards and general customer comfort.
MBR have run another story, and they've actually spoken to 'real people' this time.....
Coed y Brenin visitor centre closure: "We need people to get angry about this"
Probably like a lot of people here, I started visiting that part of North Wales to ride CyB, and realised how lovely the wider area was as well.
I still visit the area every year and ride various at spots, including CyB - which is still brilliant fun on a short-travel bike and one of the best wet weather trails in the UK, IMO.
Good to see MBR do a proper follow-up on the story there. Really hope NRW show some flexibility and let the community take the reins.
Well that's a better article! I also chatted with someone who works there, and clearly there's a lot of NRW mismanagement going on (and over a longer period). Key point again, is the misunderstanding around the commercial side, with the commercial arm of NRW having a blinkered bean-counters attitude. Sounds like they don't account from direct income, let alone consider wider economic benefits to the community. But the main point that we should all be more angry is true. All of this should have been handled a lot better, and these trails shouldn't be lost. The continuation of public benefits, recreation and access is the priority that has been forgotten by NRW in its cold focus on commercial ends.
Also, there's been a lot of focus on CyB, but Nant Yr Arian is also a great place that needs saving too.
Who decides how NRW spends their (our!) money? It is a political choice after all, what to cut and what to save.
I believe it's the Welsh Assembly via business plans signed off ultimately by a minister or the Senedd? Don't know if annual or longer.
In a further update on the strange approach taken by NRW, it seems like a closure date for the cafes and VC has been announced, 31st March 2025. But the ridiculous thing, is they will not start a tender process until after it has shut!? Just, why? 4 months is a good period of time to get a new provider in place so that they could almost have continuity of service. But no, they seem to be insisting on a period of closure and further uncertainty...
(mbr have upped their game on this issue, thankfully)
But the ridiculous thing, is they will not start a tender process until after it has shut!? Just, why?
IANAL but is that to do with public sector procurement and tendering law?
NRW are essentially a part of Welsh Government, even if it's an arm's length organisation. They're certainly public sector so they must be bound by requirements to go through an open tender process which doesn't allow much leeway.
That'd be my guess anyway.
What really needs to happen now is for that closure date to be widely published with a note to MTBers, families etc to make the most of it while it's there. Now that I know it'll be open, I'll visit between now and March.
In a further update on the strange approach taken by NRW, it seems like a closure date for the cafes and VC has been announced, 31st March 2025. But the ridiculous thing, is they will not start a tender process until after it has shut!? Just, why?
A combination of the time it takes to get procurement documents ready and budgets I would imagine. I doubt they have the money to go through a tender process for this at this time so they can't throw money at developing docs. It's not particularly quick, easy or cheap to do a procurement like this, made more complicated by the bidders not being experienced at it either in most cases.
4 months is a good period of time to get a new provider in place so that they could almost have continuity of service.
It is not for a government organisation bound by public procurement regulations that will need to provide an asset, the evidence based to demonstrate value will mean it's a non standard tender that involves them making SLAs to bidders for the buildings, etc. They will also need to develop the specifications for the service they expect back in return. Government department will then require approvals of all bid documents which also takes time.
Once you launch the procurement then it will then be a 2 stage process, minimum (SQ and bid submission) as this won't be something that can be done through an existing framework. Then there is the issue of each stage having both practical and statutory guidance over durations, and in those 4 months you've got Christmas period.