IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> SLI parking money to West Berks Council
Dodgys smarter b...
post Oct 27 2011, 08:15 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



QUOTE (Strafin @ Oct 27 2011, 08:44 PM) *
So - any news on this? I couldn't find anything in the paper.



Page 6. Column 1, 2, and 3.

It appears that Garvie R. is correct. Shoppers coming into Newbury, and not parking or shopping in Parkway, are still likely to have 50% of their parking charge given to SLI. Since WBC apparently make £2m from parking, (according to their own website) that'll be the best part of a tidy £1m going to SLI per annum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 27 2011, 08:45 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Oct 27 2011, 09:15 PM) *
Page 6. Column 1, 2, and 3.

It appears that Garvie R. is correct. Shoppers coming into Newbury, and not parking or shopping in Parkway, are still likely to have 50% of their parking charge given to SLI. Since WBC apparently make £2m from parking, (according to their own website) that'll be a tidy £1m going to SLI per annum.


Pamela Bale has made it clear that any revenue in the council owned car parks over £300k is to be split 50-50 between the council and SLI. I heard a rumour that SLI would be paying nothing to the council, and that was denied. But when you take into account what Pangbourne Pam has said in the paper, the money due to SLI would no doubt be greater than what is due to WBC.

WBC is in lockdown today, no doubt trying to come up with a explanation. Nick Carter has forwarded my request for an investigation to the FOI team instead of answering directly and he appears to have dodged requests for a comment from local media too. I emailed Keith Ullyat to ask him what the official council line on this was and he didn't bother replying. Whenever things go this quiet, you know something is up. No User on here either, guess waiting to hear his instructions from above??

This was all rumour, I asked the question and Pamela Bale has all but confirmed it in the NWN today. I wonder if this will be like the CCTV fiasco, elected members, officers etc. all saying different things so nobody knows what the truth is?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 28 2011, 12:35 AM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,863
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Oct 27 2011, 09:15 PM) *
It appears that Garvie R. is correct. Shoppers coming into Newbury, and not parking or shopping in Parkway, are still likely to have 50% of their parking charge given to SLI. Since WBC apparently make £2m from parking, (according to their own website) that'll be the best part of a tidy £1m going to SLI per annum.

Not quite, and regrettably, our diligent news hounds haven't done as good a job as they might.

If the NWN is to be believed, these are the facts.
  • SLI will pay WBC £300,000.00 p/a (pro rata-ish)
  • 50% of money beyond £300,000.00 received from all other town centre council carparks (excluding Kennet Shopping and Parkway) will be paid to SLI.
  • Last year, WBC collected £2,386,330.00* from all parking income (projected). Costs: £1,335,330.00, profit: £1,051,000.00. This amount obviously doesn't include Parkway (being built).
*PCNs/ECHG: £263,235.00
Residents' Permits: £33,904.00
Season Tickets: £112,666.00
Car Park Income: £1,976,525.00


The questions I have are:
  • How much money was earned from the applicable carparks?
  • Is the £300,000.00 'divvy threshold' applied to net or gross receipts?

It is possible, depending on the answers to the above, that SLI get Parkway for 'free'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 28 2011, 06:54 AM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



The way I read it was that Pamela Bale said parking revenue above £300,000, that would suggest gross income (based on the tickets sold rather than minus costs).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 28 2011, 08:19 AM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,863
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 28 2011, 07:54 AM) *
The way I read it was that Pamela Bale said parking revenue above £300,000, that would suggest gross income (based on the tickets sold rather than minus costs).

Unfortunately the article is ambiguous. In paragraph 2, it clearly states 'all profits' will be split 50/50. Mrs Bale went on to say that SLI would only get money if the council made money above £300,000.00 (no mention of revenue). To me, 'made money' could mean either net or gross, but I would interpret that as net. Perhaps Mark Taylor would clarify?

I will repeat Richard: please do your home work, otherwise you simply look like a vexatious complainant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 28 2011, 08:23 AM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Re Andy's post (which may be removed) - this was the subject of another thread which was removed by the moderators while NWN staff try to get to the true facts.

Edit: Admin beat me to it - unless you subtly edited Post #25 while I was typing. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 28 2011, 08:24 AM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,863
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 28 2011, 09:23 AM) *
Re Andy's post (which may be removed) - this was the subject of another thread which was removed by the moderators while NWN staff try to get to the true facts.

Edit: Admin beat me to it smile.gif

I don't know why as everything I have written is in the public domain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 28 2011, 08:30 AM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,863
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 28 2011, 09:23 AM) *
Re Andy's post (which may be removed) - this was the subject of another thread which was removed by the moderators while NWN staff try to get to the true facts.

Edit: Admin beat me to it - unless you subtly edited Post #25 while I was typing. smile.gif

I don't know what you mean.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
admin
post Oct 28 2011, 09:30 AM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Administrators
Posts: 59
Joined: 3-March 09
Member No.: 2



In the interests of accuracy, can I ask you to 'watch this space' regarding this thread and post no more comments for the time being. We are in discussion with WBC about some of the facts surrounding this story and we will let know when this has been resolved.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 28 2011, 03:47 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Ever felt you've been used?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 29 2011, 12:11 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,863
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (admin @ Oct 28 2011, 10:30 AM) *
In the interests of accuracy, can I ask you to 'watch this space' regarding this thread and post no more comments for the time being. We are in discussion with WBC about some of the facts surrounding this story and we will let know when this has been resolved.
Thanks for your co-operation.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Oct 29 2011, 01:34 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Please don't even discuss this until WBC tell us we can?
Clearly they, (WBC) need at least a weekend to get their story straight, and, apparently, the Newbury Weakly is going to let them have it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Oct 29 2011, 01:44 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Oct 29 2011, 02:34 PM) *
Please don't even discuss this until WBC tell us we can?
Clearly they, (WBC) need at least a weekend to get their story straight, and, apparently, the Newbury Weakly is going to let them have it.


Too late the cats so far out of the bag now I think it has just gone on holiday to Australia.
Perhaps the NWN are unable to handle a scoop as they say? Perhaps they don't want the profit from an exclusive? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 29 2011, 01:46 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,863
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Yes admin, how long does it take to read a paragraph in a contract? The pause stokes the conspiracy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Oct 29 2011, 02:03 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



Admin, if you really didn't want any more comments, why didn't you lock the thread?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weavers Walk
post Oct 29 2011, 03:42 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-November 10
Member No.: 1,234



Seems to me that these comments aren't about SLI and WBC, but more to do with the craven way the NWN has folded to pressure. Back-handers? Old School Tie? Funny Handshakes? take your pick.

Or, to read between the lines, maybe admin hasn't locked it because he/she is also unhappy with the situation and is still giving space for people to air views.

Still, it's an interesting precedent, nothing should be discussed on this forum until WBC have given their side of the story first. And if that is delayed by years (anyone remember the report on the de-watering - still not here) then so be it.

I have so far resisted the temptation to join the 'other place' but this is so shameful they can't be surprised if there's a mass exodus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 29 2011, 04:00 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



Just a thought, but perhaps they'd like to make sure everything published is factually correct?

A strange concept for some of our national newspapers I know, but not for the NWN; good on them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Oct 29 2011, 04:29 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Oct 29 2011, 04:42 PM) *
Still, it's an interesting precedent, nothing should be discussed on this forum until WBC have given their side of the story first. And if that is delayed by years (anyone remember the report on the de-watering - still not here) then so be it.

Er, um. The de-watering report is nothing to do with WBC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Oct 29 2011, 04:36 PM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 29 2011, 05:00 PM) *
Just a thought, but perhaps they'd like to make sure everything published is factually correct?

A strange concept for some of our national newspapers I know, but not for the NWN; good on them.

It's pretty clear that the entire thread is based on a rumour based on one Councillor's statement and that the facts are being witheld - so I'm not sure why the NWN want to stop harmless speculation. If WBC are upset then they should state the facts and be done with it.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Weavers Walk
post Oct 29 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 171
Joined: 7-November 10
Member No.: 1,234



You're quite right. It was the way I expressed it, I was trying to show the foolhardiness of waiting. The de-watering report was supposed to take, what was it? 4 weeks, 6 weeks? The suggestion here that nobody should point out the bowling green is / was unusable 'before the facts were in' i.e. assembled in a way that blamed no-one is ludicrous.
I wasn't suggesting WBC were to blame, merely that Newburytoday seems to have double standards.

The full and final costs of the Pavilion along with it's final design, and the full and final costs of the Museum along with it's final design haven't been released, yet we are allowed to comment on them.

A simple question to WBC, "is it true that SLI have got themselves a deal whereby they get a percentage of the take from the other car-parks in Newbury that are nothing to do with them"? does not need several days to answer correctly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th May 2019 - 07:07 PM