Beer Tent

[Roger Mexico 7,933]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

6 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Disagree. There's a percentage of take lost. Ratepayer loses overall IMO.

Are you sure? That would mean  the Corpy gave a five year lease based on rent plus percentage take to a firm without a track record of running the tent over the firm that had been running it for the previous twenty years. 

At the time Bushy's put up a copy of the Minutes of the meeting that awarded the deal to the Hooded Ram (All actual minutes from 2017 have already vanished from the DBC website).  This says that the Committee was reminded that "the Council are not obliged to accept the highest tender" and also adds  "Members noted that the Bushy's tender was qualified in that it specifically excluded the supplemental fee". 

Which suggests the Corpy did exactly as you say, even though Bushy's offered more money, some official at DBC got greedy and decided to add in a percentage as well.  And no doubt got a pay rise for their wonderful business skills. 

[english zloty 625]

The basic assumption was initially all car parking spaces 24/7 for the duration, then it became that plus a fee for the entire site, including dead spots. Then it became a blind bid. Basically each had to make their own assessment of the 'value' of the site. Bushys went in higher I believe but the Corpy were into the prawn sandwich TT brigade using their site.

Albert is correct 

[Declan 6,807]

12 minutes ago, english zloty said:

Albert is correct 

Had to happen one day. 

[PmJ 203]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

Had to happen one day. 

Just glad I am alive to witness it.

[Albert Tatlock 10,886]

6 hours ago, Declan said:

Had to happen one day. 

That you realised it you mean?

[Gizo 1,878]

Bushy’s just updated their TT website. Lots of stuff and things. Go browse 

[PmJ 203]

16 minutes ago, MrPB said:

I think it’s clear from the corporation minutes that Bushy’s bid was actually higher which now makes them look even more stupid sitting with an empty carpark after one year. Another example of salaried pen pushers being trying to be commercial  

Fixed

[english zloty 625]

3 hours ago, MrPB said:

I think it’s clear from the corporation minutes that Bushy’s bid was actually higher which now makes them look even more stupid sitting with an empty carpark after one year. Another example of salaried pen pushers being commercial  

Fairly certain it was the council leader himself who was trumpeting 'ha ha fuck you Martin'. Not the pen pushers. 

[hissingsid 3,464]

Well he is not laughing now.

[english zloty 625]

http://douglas.im/index.php/news/council-news/item/1702-council-sets-record-straight-over-end-of-bushys-tt-tent#.XNyYYt_TW2c 

this is June 2017

http://douglas.im/index.php/news/council-news/item/1735-council-confirms-bottleneck-car-park-tt-festival-operator-for-2018-2022#.XNyb5N_TW2c

This is just over a month later. Not too much time to prepare and then consider such detailed bids, unless there was already a favourite - which we know there was.

[Non-Believer 11,486]

10 hours ago, MrPB said:

Well whoever it was looks a total dick now. They deserve all they get. 

Which will be nothing. Anyway, these people have the thickness of skin that comes from a bottomless fund of public money and total unaccountability born of the electorate's gullibility and lack of interest.

The ratepayers simply lose out again.

Edited May 16, 2019 by Non-Believer
Typo

[LightBulb 265]

If they are not taking the bottleneck carpark this year due to issues beyond thier control, are they not breaking thier contract, and if so, how can they resume a broken contract next year, would it not be better for the corpy to just put it out to tender again, or are they bound by the 5 year lease and can`t ?

Edited May 17, 2019 by LightBulb

[Bobbie Bobster 3,419]

Yes

[chris4652009 2]

On 5/15/2019 at 8:25 PM, Gizo said:

Bushy’s just updated their TT website. Lots of stuff and things. Go browse 

It looks like it’ll be excellent again. Last year was a massive success in the villa garden. 

[Roger Mexico 7,933]

20 hours ago, LightBulb said:

If they are not taking the bottleneck carpark this year due to issues beyond thier control, are they not breaking thier contract, and if so, how can they resume a broken contract next year, would it not be better for the corpy to just put it out to tender again, or are they bound by the 5 year lease and can`t ?

It depends what the contract says.  I suspect the way they went to get the licence this year, although they must have known they would get turned down with no security etc, may well have been to get round any contractual obligations.  They can at least say that they tried to run it this year, but were unable to because of not getting the licence, and that might be enough for them to not break the contract formally.

In any case, I linked earlier to a DBC press release that stated:

Quote

Council Leader David Christian MBE JP said: ‘The Council is in no way responsible for the cancellation of Hooded Ram’s festival in the Bottleneck car park; it is solely due to the company’s unresolved licensing issues.

‘The Council has always been fully supportive of Hooded Ram’s plans to stage the festival again this year after the company demonstrated its competence in putting on a successful attraction in the Bottleneck over TT fortnight in 2018.

‘While regrettable, the event’s cancellation is totally out of our control and the Council will continue to work closely with the Hooded Ram with a view to the company securing all the appropriate licences and returning to the Bottleneck car park for TT 2020.’

So they seem determined to try again - if only so as not to look stupid.