The ArgusWest Pier columns to be removed from the beach (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

West Pier columns to be removed from the beach

The Argus: West Pier columns planned to be removed from the beach West Pier columns planned to be removed from the beach

The columns which stand on Brighton Beach opposite the West Pier will be removed.

The West Pier Trust revealed today contractors will be moving in on Monday to start dismantling the columns and root end of the pier's structure by the promenade on King's Road.

The columns which used to hold up the pier's structure will then be removed, stored and reused as part of a landscaping project in conjunction with the area's redevelopment alongside the i360.

Rachel Clark, Chief Executive of the West Pier Trust, said: "On 19 May contractors began clearing debris and artefacts from under the root end of the West Pier, which has been inaccessible to the public for several years and on Monday 2 June will start to dismantle the columns and root end structure by the promenade on Kings Road, in line with listed building consent.

"Some of the original structure will re-appear in the i360 scheme including the two toll booths which stood at the entrance of the pier. These will be restored and reinstated close to their original positions.

"We are delighted that the toll booths will be restored and that the area is now being made properly safe and accessible in preparation for i360 construction later this summer.

"The columns on the beach will also be removed and stored for future use in the new landscaping scheme adjacent to the attraction, but the West Pier structure in the sea will remain as it is and there is no plan to change it.

She added said "One of the ideas was that the columns will be used as part of an archaeological garden.

"They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier."

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:23pm Fri 30 May 14

HappyCat says...

"They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier." says the West Pier Trust. They were already just that! So what are we going to get? A sanatised Disneyland version? The West Pier Trust have overseen the neglect of the old pier and now its final destruction. They should hang their heads in shame.
"They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier." says the West Pier Trust. They were already just that! So what are we going to get? A sanatised Disneyland version? The West Pier Trust have overseen the neglect of the old pier and now its final destruction. They should hang their heads in shame. HappyCat
  • Score: 112

7:32pm Fri 30 May 14

season says...

Rachel Clark & co....where has all the money gone that was in the trust???
and where is it still going???
Rachel Clark & co....where has all the money gone that was in the trust??? and where is it still going??? season
  • Score: 91

7:39pm Fri 30 May 14

Mr chock says...

season wrote:
Rachel Clark & co....where has all the money gone that was in the trust???
and where is it still going???
why are you worried about it ?
The columns which used to hold up the pier's structure will then be removed, stored and reused as part of a landscaping project in conjunction with the area's redevelopment alongside the i360.
maybe they could have sold them off as some antiquities of the brightons heritage and donated the money to the save the rusting pier fund :))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FINALLY the functionless rusting columns are going .. hooray ..! will they do the other part soon please
[quote][p][bold]season[/bold] wrote: Rachel Clark & co....where has all the money gone that was in the trust??? and where is it still going???[/p][/quote]why are you worried about it ? The columns which used to hold up the pier's structure will then be removed, stored and reused as part of a landscaping project in conjunction with the area's redevelopment alongside the i360. maybe they could have sold them off as some antiquities of the brightons heritage and donated the money to the save the rusting pier fund :)) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FINALLY the functionless rusting columns are going .. hooray ..! will they do the other part soon please Mr chock
  • Score: -63

8:06pm Fri 30 May 14

Hove Actually says...

Too little....too late
Calling them the West Pier Trust must be a pjss take as they have
done nothing except be paid to watch over it's slow lingering demise
which they continue to do so expensively
Too little....too late Calling them the West Pier Trust must be a pjss take as they have done nothing except be paid to watch over it's slow lingering demise which they continue to do so expensively Hove Actually
  • Score: 85

8:52pm Fri 30 May 14

den2il says...

"Breaking news"!?!
"Breaking news"!?! den2il
  • Score: -8

10:56pm Fri 30 May 14

Eugenius says...

I was upset when I read the headline but it actually sounds like a decent plan.
I was upset when I read the headline but it actually sounds like a decent plan. Eugenius
  • Score: -20

11:00pm Fri 30 May 14

We love Red Billy says...

A little like the listed theatre from the Palace pier that was meant to be rebuilt as part of the lease agreement but mysteriously vanished.
A little like the listed theatre from the Palace pier that was meant to be rebuilt as part of the lease agreement but mysteriously vanished. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 30

7:03am Sat 31 May 14

MikeyA says...

HappyCat wrote:
"They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier." says the West Pier Trust. They were already just that! So what are we going to get? A sanatised Disneyland version? The West Pier Trust have overseen the neglect of the old pier and now its final destruction. They should hang their heads in shame.
Quite agree! Compare their inactivity to what has happened in Hastings!
[quote][p][bold]HappyCat[/bold] wrote: "They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier." says the West Pier Trust. They were already just that! So what are we going to get? A sanatised Disneyland version? The West Pier Trust have overseen the neglect of the old pier and now its final destruction. They should hang their heads in shame.[/p][/quote]Quite agree! Compare their inactivity to what has happened in Hastings! MikeyA
  • Score: 27

7:05am Sat 31 May 14

MikeyA says...

HappyCat wrote:
"They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier." says the West Pier Trust. They were already just that! So what are we going to get? A sanatised Disneyland version? The West Pier Trust have overseen the neglect of the old pier and now its final destruction. They should hang their heads in shame.
I agree totally. Compare this to the terrific work that has been done in Hastings.
[quote][p][bold]HappyCat[/bold] wrote: "They will be an interesting visual feature commemorating the pier." says the West Pier Trust. They were already just that! So what are we going to get? A sanatised Disneyland version? The West Pier Trust have overseen the neglect of the old pier and now its final destruction. They should hang their heads in shame.[/p][/quote]I agree totally. Compare this to the terrific work that has been done in Hastings. MikeyA
  • Score: 17

7:12am Sat 31 May 14

We love Red Billy says...

Where has all the West Pier Trust money gone? Spent on biscuits?
Where has all the West Pier Trust money gone? Spent on biscuits? We love Red Billy
  • Score: 25

8:46am Sat 31 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Desperately sad. Further millions to be spent on biscuits and mutual appreciation groups?
Kitcat (Greens) and Theobold (Tories) would gain much by reading the i360 business case and explaining why they are obliging the public to hand over a £36 million loan (repayment optional?) for an enterprise that could not raise the money through private investors?
If it's going to be such a success then the private investors would surely be throwing money at it? Private investors are very shrewd like that...which seems very telling?
Desperately sad. Further millions to be spent on biscuits and mutual appreciation groups? Kitcat (Greens) and Theobold (Tories) would gain much by reading the i360 business case and explaining why they are obliging the public to hand over a £36 million loan (repayment optional?) for an enterprise that could not raise the money through private investors? If it's going to be such a success then the private investors would surely be throwing money at it? Private investors are very shrewd like that...which seems very telling? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 26

9:09am Sat 31 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The words trust and West Pier should never be seen together. No one has trust in this lot.
The words trust and West Pier should never be seen together. No one has trust in this lot. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 30

9:17am Sat 31 May 14

J Hill says...

I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes. J Hill
  • Score: 40

9:25am Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
[quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget. Eugenius
  • Score: -25

9:50am Sat 31 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 21

9:56am Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term. Eugenius
  • Score: -19

10:03am Sat 31 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 18

10:06am Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.[/p][/quote]The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry. Eugenius
  • Score: -27

10:17am Sat 31 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.
You can't answer the question can you?

If the financial modelling were believable then private investors would be happily carrying the risk and collecting the profit. The council is gambling public money on a private business venture?

WHY RISK PUBLIC MONEY IF IT'S SUCH A GREAT PLAN?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.[/p][/quote]The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.[/p][/quote]You can't answer the question can you? If the financial modelling were believable then private investors would be happily carrying the risk and collecting the profit. The council is gambling public money on a private business venture? WHY RISK PUBLIC MONEY IF IT'S SUCH A GREAT PLAN? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 20

10:24am Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.
You can't answer the question can you?

If the financial modelling were believable then private investors would be happily carrying the risk and collecting the profit. The council is gambling public money on a private business venture?

WHY RISK PUBLIC MONEY IF IT'S SUCH A GREAT PLAN?
I'm sure we've covered this many times but one reason that i360 didn't secure private investment (or not in time anyway) is that there are easier opportunities for private investors in the city - they can make more money buying up residential property.

The council stands to gain more than a private investor would - as well as the interest on the loan, administration fees and the share of the ticket sales as part of the deal, they get business rates direct from the i360 and also increased business rates from the new businesses that will spring up in the renovated arches and around currently dilapidated Preston Street.
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.[/p][/quote]The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.[/p][/quote]You can't answer the question can you? If the financial modelling were believable then private investors would be happily carrying the risk and collecting the profit. The council is gambling public money on a private business venture? WHY RISK PUBLIC MONEY IF IT'S SUCH A GREAT PLAN?[/p][/quote]I'm sure we've covered this many times but one reason that i360 didn't secure private investment (or not in time anyway) is that there are easier opportunities for private investors in the city - they can make more money buying up residential property. The council stands to gain more than a private investor would - as well as the interest on the loan, administration fees and the share of the ticket sales as part of the deal, they get business rates direct from the i360 and also increased business rates from the new businesses that will spring up in the renovated arches and around currently dilapidated Preston Street. Eugenius
  • Score: -20

11:03am Sat 31 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Eugenius, I find your twisted logic strangely amusing but also quite unsettling.

Are you personally supporting the supposed average usage as 2000 people riding it each and every day of the year?
Eugenius, I find your twisted logic strangely amusing but also quite unsettling. Are you personally supporting the supposed average usage as 2000 people riding it each and every day of the year? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 15

11:18am Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius, I find your twisted logic strangely amusing but also quite unsettling.

Are you personally supporting the supposed average usage as 2000 people riding it each and every day of the year?
Short answer is I don't know, but it's achievable - the i360 is designed to carry up to 200 people 28 times a day so has a daily capacity of 5,600. London Eye carries around 10,000 people a day. i360 doesn't need 2000 daily visitors to turn a profit but that's the visitor flow that AECOM economics predicted based on our (growing) tourist numbers and the number of people living within a 50 mile radius of the city. They did the original projections for the London Eye visitor numbers and were accurate in that instance.
[quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: Eugenius, I find your twisted logic strangely amusing but also quite unsettling. Are you personally supporting the supposed average usage as 2000 people riding it each and every day of the year?[/p][/quote]Short answer is I don't know, but it's achievable - the i360 is designed to carry up to 200 people 28 times a day so has a daily capacity of 5,600. London Eye carries around 10,000 people a day. i360 doesn't need 2000 daily visitors to turn a profit but that's the visitor flow that AECOM economics predicted based on our (growing) tourist numbers and the number of people living within a 50 mile radius of the city. They did the original projections for the London Eye visitor numbers and were accurate in that instance. Eugenius
  • Score: -14

11:56am Sat 31 May 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Thanks Eugenius. However, the additional information has made me even more alarmed. Drawing comparisons with London (and a wheel) clearly demonstrates an underlying conceptual problem. Helps me understand the groupthink that must have gone on though.
Perhaps you should visit Brighton's 'wheel of excellence' or various other UK observation towers to get an initial taste of the long-term 'success' story that seems soon to be lumped upon long-suffering council tax payers?
Thanks Eugenius. However, the additional information has made me even more alarmed. Drawing comparisons with London (and a wheel) clearly demonstrates an underlying conceptual problem. Helps me understand the groupthink that must have gone on though. Perhaps you should visit Brighton's 'wheel of excellence' or various other UK observation towers to get an initial taste of the long-term 'success' story that seems soon to be lumped upon long-suffering council tax payers? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 19

11:59am Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

I think an observation tower in Brighton is much more likely to be a success than one in Weymouth. We get millions more visitors annually and our proximity to London means that international tourists will be that little bit more likely to include a night or two in Brighton as part of their trip to take in the spectacle of the UK's tallest observation tower.
I think an observation tower in Brighton is much more likely to be a success than one in Weymouth. We get millions more visitors annually and our proximity to London means that international tourists will be that little bit more likely to include a night or two in Brighton as part of their trip to take in the spectacle of the UK's tallest observation tower. Eugenius
  • Score: -15

1:41pm Sat 31 May 14

John Steed says...

I have since the early 1980's spoken out against these fiddling nero's. there is no valid reason why the piles and deck structure of the west pier had to be removed. The pier after all these years could of and should of been restored as far as the theatre, at very reasonable cost, this lots of ne'er do wells have just waited for money to arrive from heaven, and of late spent all there efforts getting a white elephant steel tower erected to provide an expensive but short veiw of brighton than cam be had for free from numerous places in the city. They did manage 75 foot of restoration but packed that toy up years ago. Now having recently sold off little bits and pieces they are going to over see the removal of more piles. Hang your heads in shame. and wind up the trust, you have nothing left to save.
I have since the early 1980's spoken out against these fiddling nero's. there is no valid reason why the piles and deck structure of the west pier had to be removed. The pier after all these years could of and should of been restored as far as the theatre, at very reasonable cost, this lots of ne'er do wells have just waited for money to arrive from heaven, and of late spent all there efforts getting a white elephant steel tower erected to provide an expensive but short veiw of brighton than cam be had for free from numerous places in the city. They did manage 75 foot of restoration but packed that toy up years ago. Now having recently sold off little bits and pieces they are going to over see the removal of more piles. Hang your heads in shame. and wind up the trust, you have nothing left to save. John Steed
  • Score: 16

6:20pm Sat 31 May 14

Hove Actually says...

How is the Spinnaker Tower doing in Portsmouth?
and that has a thriving port as well as a shopping centre with all the infrastructure already in place to support it and make it a destination when planning a day out.
The idea of travelling up and down with a Stag do or 199 other people f@rting
in unison will not be something I will want to pay hard earned money for
How is the Spinnaker Tower doing in Portsmouth? and that has a thriving port as well as a shopping centre with all the infrastructure already in place to support it and make it a destination when planning a day out. The idea of travelling up and down with a Stag do or 199 other people f@rting in unison will not be something I will want to pay hard earned money for Hove Actually
  • Score: 11

6:42pm Sat 31 May 14

Eugenius says...

Hove Actually wrote:
How is the Spinnaker Tower doing in Portsmouth?
and that has a thriving port as well as a shopping centre with all the infrastructure already in place to support it and make it a destination when planning a day out.
The idea of travelling up and down with a Stag do or 199 other people f@rting
in unison will not be something I will want to pay hard earned money for
Spinnaker Tower is doing alright - 600,000 visitors in its first year (avg 1643 per day so comparable to the forecast for i360, and the i360 will be able to transport 600 people per hour compared to Spinnaker's 350 per hour).

The built-in air conditioning powered by the wind turbine on the top should be capable of handling the f@rts.

Shouldn't be too hard to avoid stag dos - all rides will be on timed tickets.
[quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: How is the Spinnaker Tower doing in Portsmouth? and that has a thriving port as well as a shopping centre with all the infrastructure already in place to support it and make it a destination when planning a day out. The idea of travelling up and down with a Stag do or 199 other people f@rting in unison will not be something I will want to pay hard earned money for[/p][/quote]Spinnaker Tower is doing alright - 600,000 visitors in its first year (avg 1643 per day so comparable to the forecast for i360, and the i360 will be able to transport 600 people per hour compared to Spinnaker's 350 per hour). The built-in air conditioning powered by the wind turbine on the top should be capable of handling the f@rts. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid stag dos - all rides will be on timed tickets. Eugenius
  • Score: -7

10:40am Sun 1 Jun 14

Man of steel says...

I, and my family, have visited the Spinnaker Tower, they were certainly not timed tickets, we could spend as long as we liked on any of the three floors, even having tea, coffee and cake on the middle level, and the prices are far, far better than those proposed for the Isore, adult £8.95, child £6.95 and concession £7.95.
The views of the sea and Regency Square cannot compare with the views over the town, the dockland, where you can see the Victory or the Warrior, and modern battleships, watch the huge cruise ships coming and going, etc. etc.
All in all, a briliant day out.
I, and my family, have visited the Spinnaker Tower, they were certainly not timed tickets, we could spend as long as we liked on any of the three floors, even having tea, coffee and cake on the middle level, and the prices are far, far better than those proposed for the Isore, adult £8.95, child £6.95 and concession £7.95. The views of the sea and Regency Square cannot compare with the views over the town, the dockland, where you can see the Victory or the Warrior, and modern battleships, watch the huge cruise ships coming and going, etc. etc. All in all, a briliant day out. Man of steel
  • Score: 9

11:29am Sun 1 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.
As the captain of the Titanic said.....

Such utter complacency should disqualify you from holding public office. I suggest that you might like to focus on how Hastings has managed to save their pier with public support, not risking public money. It's a good model, that shows what can be achieved with proper leadership and vision.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.[/p][/quote]The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.[/p][/quote]As the captain of the Titanic said..... Such utter complacency should disqualify you from holding public office. I suggest that you might like to focus on how Hastings has managed to save their pier with public support, not risking public money. It's a good model, that shows what can be achieved with proper leadership and vision. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 6

11:42am Sun 1 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

The technical term for accessing funding via the Public Works Loan Board is "prudential borrowing" http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Prudential_
borrowing

It's not high risk.

Around the country PWLB loans have been used to finance Bristol Arena, Leeds Arena, Liverpool Exhibition Centre extension, leisure centres in Elmbridge, Sidcup and St Albans and many more projects.
The technical term for accessing funding via the Public Works Loan Board is "prudential borrowing" http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Prudential_ borrowing It's not high risk. Around the country PWLB loans have been used to finance Bristol Arena, Leeds Arena, Liverpool Exhibition Centre extension, leisure centres in Elmbridge, Sidcup and St Albans and many more projects. Eugenius
  • Score: -3

12:48pm Sun 1 Jun 14

J Hill says...

To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.
To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building. J Hill
  • Score: 7

1:14pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

J Hill wrote:
To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.
Listed building consent was granted by the council along with the original planning application in 2006.

English Heritage withdrew their support for the restoration of the West Pier in July 2004, saying that following storm damage, demolition of the pier was "inevitable".
[quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.[/p][/quote]Listed building consent was granted by the council along with the original planning application in 2006. English Heritage withdrew their support for the restoration of the West Pier in July 2004, saying that following storm damage, demolition of the pier was "inevitable". Eugenius
  • Score: 5

1:24pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Wide Bertha says...

I hope there is some provision made for the many slackliners who enjoyed idyllic sunsets while traversing the columns..... I have enjoyed watching this for some time
I hope there is some provision made for the many slackliners who enjoyed idyllic sunsets while traversing the columns..... I have enjoyed watching this for some time Wide Bertha
  • Score: 5

8:35pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Hove Actually says...

Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.
Listed building consent was granted by the council along with the original planning application in 2006.

English Heritage withdrew their support for the restoration of the West Pier in July 2004, saying that following storm damage, demolition of the pier was "inevitable".
You really are two faced and can spin any old shjt... if as per your earlier post

"West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed"

Who will pay for the removal when in a few years it is even more dangerous to shipping and the environment?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.[/p][/quote]Listed building consent was granted by the council along with the original planning application in 2006. English Heritage withdrew their support for the restoration of the West Pier in July 2004, saying that following storm damage, demolition of the pier was "inevitable".[/p][/quote]You really are two faced and can spin any old shjt... if as per your earlier post "West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed" Who will pay for the removal when in a few years it is even more dangerous to shipping and the environment? Hove Actually
  • Score: -3

8:36pm Sun 1 Jun 14

PorkyChopper says...

Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
But it won't. Because the figures are fraudulent.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]But it won't. Because the figures are fraudulent. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 2

8:40pm Sun 1 Jun 14

PorkyChopper says...

Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.
If that's the case, a private company would have already invested the money. When it comes down to selling it off, because it isn't paying it's way, a private company will not pay 36 million for it. The financial modelling is a load of ****.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.[/p][/quote]The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.[/p][/quote]If that's the case, a private company would have already invested the money. When it comes down to selling it off, because it isn't paying it's way, a private company will not pay 36 million for it. The financial modelling is a load of ****. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 3

8:42pm Sun 1 Jun 14

PorkyChopper says...

Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
From beer to uncertainty wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.
West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed.

The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity.

Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.
You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon.

Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.
I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.
It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds.
Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays?
I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.
The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.
You can't answer the question can you?

If the financial modelling were believable then private investors would be happily carrying the risk and collecting the profit. The council is gambling public money on a private business venture?

WHY RISK PUBLIC MONEY IF IT'S SUCH A GREAT PLAN?
I'm sure we've covered this many times but one reason that i360 didn't secure private investment (or not in time anyway) is that there are easier opportunities for private investors in the city - they can make more money buying up residential property.

The council stands to gain more than a private investor would - as well as the interest on the loan, administration fees and the share of the ticket sales as part of the deal, they get business rates direct from the i360 and also increased business rates from the new businesses that will spring up in the renovated arches and around currently dilapidated Preston Street.
Utter, utter horse ****. The reason it didn't get any private investment is because IT WILL NOT MAKE A PROFIT, either in the long term or short term. Whoever is responsible for this should be up in court on fraud charges.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From beer to uncertainty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: I haven't met a single Brightonian yet who wants to see the i360 built. The only one's hell bent on the destruction of the West Pier and the construction of the iSore are Marks Barfield Architects and our current local council. The only things green about our council are their experience and the dollar signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed. The council and the city need dollars (british pounds actually) since so much is being cut from our funding grant in the name of austerity. Public may be sceptical about the i360 because of false propaganda that it is being financed from council funds, which it isn't. Once it is built I think it will become quite popular, especially when the balance sheet shows a net profit for the city budget.[/p][/quote]You seem an accomplished liar. Who pays back the loan when the extra 800,000 magic pixies don't, presumably, arrive by bike and leave by submarine? Will central government just write off the debt? Buffoon. Answer the question: why, if the figures are to be believed, does this utter nonsense require so many millions of public money? Why not wait for wealthy investors to rake in all that profit? It is an utter disgrace and an appalling example of non-accountability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about. It isn't going to consume many millions of public money - the loan from central government via the council will be repaid by the developer to the public purse with interest over the 25 year term.[/p][/quote]It's public money...unless your suggesting the loan is from private funds. Sorry to spell it out: if the projected profits actually turn out to be huge loses and the developer walks away then who pays? I can wait while you use log in as HJarrs if you like.[/p][/quote]The financial modelling indicates that it is going to be very profitable. Worst case is the council could sell the attraction to another company or run the i360 itself until the loan was repaid. But that's not going to happen, it will all be fine, don't worry.[/p][/quote]You can't answer the question can you? If the financial modelling were believable then private investors would be happily carrying the risk and collecting the profit. The council is gambling public money on a private business venture? WHY RISK PUBLIC MONEY IF IT'S SUCH A GREAT PLAN?[/p][/quote]I'm sure we've covered this many times but one reason that i360 didn't secure private investment (or not in time anyway) is that there are easier opportunities for private investors in the city - they can make more money buying up residential property. The council stands to gain more than a private investor would - as well as the interest on the loan, administration fees and the share of the ticket sales as part of the deal, they get business rates direct from the i360 and also increased business rates from the new businesses that will spring up in the renovated arches and around currently dilapidated Preston Street.[/p][/quote]Utter, utter horse ****. The reason it didn't get any private investment is because IT WILL NOT MAKE A PROFIT, either in the long term or short term. Whoever is responsible for this should be up in court on fraud charges. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

10:45pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

Hove Actually wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
J Hill wrote:
To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.
Listed building consent was granted by the council along with the original planning application in 2006.

English Heritage withdrew their support for the restoration of the West Pier in July 2004, saying that following storm damage, demolition of the pier was "inevitable".
You really are two faced and can spin any old shjt... if as per your earlier post

"West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed"

Who will pay for the removal when in a few years it is even more dangerous to shipping and the environment?
Is there much shipping around the West Pier? At a certain distance from the shoreline it becomes her Majesty's responsibility rather than the council's. Since the West Pier Trust still own the wreck I would expect they would be liable to pay for the removal when it finally collapses. I hope it lasts for another ten years but it's unlikely.
[quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J Hill[/bold] wrote: To be honest I am surprised that they are allowed to remove any section of the West pier or anything connected in some shape or form to it as it's still technically a Grade 1 listed building.[/p][/quote]Listed building consent was granted by the council along with the original planning application in 2006. English Heritage withdrew their support for the restoration of the West Pier in July 2004, saying that following storm damage, demolition of the pier was "inevitable".[/p][/quote]You really are two faced and can spin any old shjt... if as per your earlier post "West Pier is already pretty much destroyed isn't it? Thankfully the main structure out at sea (known as "the island") is not going to be removed" Who will pay for the removal when in a few years it is even more dangerous to shipping and the environment?[/p][/quote]Is there much shipping around the West Pier? At a certain distance from the shoreline it becomes her Majesty's responsibility rather than the council's. Since the West Pier Trust still own the wreck I would expect they would be liable to pay for the removal when it finally collapses. I hope it lasts for another ten years but it's unlikely. Eugenius
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Mon 2 Jun 14

spa301 says...

Eugenius wrote:
The technical term for accessing funding via the Public Works Loan Board is "prudential borrowing" http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Prudential_

borrowing

It's not high risk.

Around the country PWLB loans have been used to finance Bristol Arena, Leeds Arena, Liverpool Exhibition Centre extension, leisure centres in Elmbridge, Sidcup and St Albans and many more projects.
In that case I for one would certainly prefer a new leisure centre for all residents to use frequently rather than a huge white elephant that some residents may use once. If they're curious to know what the Channel looks like from higher up that is. I for one am not curious about the view as there's cheaper and better vantage points that the i360.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: The technical term for accessing funding via the Public Works Loan Board is "prudential borrowing" http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Prudential_ borrowing It's not high risk. Around the country PWLB loans have been used to finance Bristol Arena, Leeds Arena, Liverpool Exhibition Centre extension, leisure centres in Elmbridge, Sidcup and St Albans and many more projects.[/p][/quote]In that case I for one would certainly prefer a new leisure centre for all residents to use frequently rather than a huge white elephant that some residents may use once. If they're curious to know what the Channel looks like from higher up that is. I for one am not curious about the view as there's cheaper and better vantage points that the i360. spa301
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

spa301 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
The technical term for accessing funding via the Public Works Loan Board is "prudential borrowing" http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Prudential_


borrowing

It's not high risk.

Around the country PWLB loans have been used to finance Bristol Arena, Leeds Arena, Liverpool Exhibition Centre extension, leisure centres in Elmbridge, Sidcup and St Albans and many more projects.
In that case I for one would certainly prefer a new leisure centre for all residents to use frequently rather than a huge white elephant that some residents may use once. If they're curious to know what the Channel looks like from higher up that is. I for one am not curious about the view as there's cheaper and better vantage points that the i360.
They're not mutually exclusive, the council can take out another PWLB loan if needed and if it makes financial sense. It's quite likely that once construction is underway on the i360 private developers will start to have more confidence to invest in major projects. King Alfred site should be going out to tender quite soon. Personally I would be inclined to build a new leisure centre somewhere else in Hove with better access and do something more interesting with the KA site, such as a concert hall and winter garden. Not sure what plans the cross-party working group currently have in mind.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: The technical term for accessing funding via the Public Works Loan Board is "prudential borrowing" http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Prudential_ borrowing It's not high risk. Around the country PWLB loans have been used to finance Bristol Arena, Leeds Arena, Liverpool Exhibition Centre extension, leisure centres in Elmbridge, Sidcup and St Albans and many more projects.[/p][/quote]In that case I for one would certainly prefer a new leisure centre for all residents to use frequently rather than a huge white elephant that some residents may use once. If they're curious to know what the Channel looks like from higher up that is. I for one am not curious about the view as there's cheaper and better vantage points that the i360.[/p][/quote]They're not mutually exclusive, the council can take out another PWLB loan if needed and if it makes financial sense. It's quite likely that once construction is underway on the i360 private developers will start to have more confidence to invest in major projects. King Alfred site should be going out to tender quite soon. Personally I would be inclined to build a new leisure centre somewhere else in Hove with better access and do something more interesting with the KA site, such as a concert hall and winter garden. Not sure what plans the cross-party working group currently have in mind. Eugenius
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Mon 2 Jun 14

dreamchaser says...

I cant wait for the i360 to be built, I am getting kind of bored of looking in peoples windows from the wheel. It will make a nice change to peer through someone elses window.

I hope they build rollercoasters like they have in Blackpool too, bring some more trash to the place
I cant wait for the i360 to be built, I am getting kind of bored of looking in peoples windows from the wheel. It will make a nice change to peer through someone elses window. I hope they build rollercoasters like they have in Blackpool too, bring some more trash to the place dreamchaser
  • Score: 2

12:34am Tue 3 Jun 14

clubrob6 says...

I hope the Victorian arches that are fenced off on Medina drive don't just get left to rot,nature is quickly taking over as not even a basic maintenance is been done.
I hope the Victorian arches that are fenced off on Medina drive don't just get left to rot,nature is quickly taking over as not even a basic maintenance is been done. clubrob6
  • Score: 1

1:17pm Tue 3 Jun 14

High Wire says...

Eugenius wrote:
Hove Actually wrote: How is the Spinnaker Tower doing in Portsmouth? and that has a thriving port as well as a shopping centre with all the infrastructure already in place to support it and make it a destination when planning a day out. The idea of travelling up and down with a Stag do or 199 other people f@rting in unison will not be something I will want to pay hard earned money for
Spinnaker Tower is doing alright - 600,000 visitors in its first year (avg 1643 per day so comparable to the forecast for i360, and the i360 will be able to transport 600 people per hour compared to Spinnaker's 350 per hour). The built-in air conditioning powered by the wind turbine on the top should be capable of handling the f@rts. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid stag dos - all rides will be on timed tickets.
Are you aware that visitor numbers to the Spinnaker dropped dramatically after the first year. Stats are not readily available but the Tower claims to have had 2 million+ visitors since opening in 2005. So 600,000 in year one and 1.4 'and a bit' million in the 8 years following. That's somewhere around the 200k mark per year.

You seem to be close to the financial modelling - what sensitivities were used ? What happens when year one numbers are followed by 200k visitors per year ? Will it generate enough money to pay for itself and for the entire re-generation of the entire seafront ??

How will you find a new 'owner' to take on a white elephant when the current one fails ?

Why has Brighton (the so-called 'most popular' seaside destination) had to fall back on staking everything on a "me-too" tower that has been trawling for financial backing for years and years ? Is our Council so impoverished in ideas that they really were unable to come up with something new ?
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: How is the Spinnaker Tower doing in Portsmouth? and that has a thriving port as well as a shopping centre with all the infrastructure already in place to support it and make it a destination when planning a day out. The idea of travelling up and down with a Stag do or 199 other people f@rting in unison will not be something I will want to pay hard earned money for[/p][/quote]Spinnaker Tower is doing alright - 600,000 visitors in its first year (avg 1643 per day so comparable to the forecast for i360, and the i360 will be able to transport 600 people per hour compared to Spinnaker's 350 per hour). The built-in air conditioning powered by the wind turbine on the top should be capable of handling the f@rts. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid stag dos - all rides will be on timed tickets.[/p][/quote]Are you aware that visitor numbers to the Spinnaker dropped dramatically after the first year. Stats are not readily available but the Tower claims to have had 2 million+ visitors since opening in 2005. So 600,000 in year one and 1.4 'and a bit' million in the 8 years following. That's somewhere around the 200k mark per year. You seem to be close to the financial modelling - what sensitivities were used ? What happens when year one numbers are followed by 200k visitors per year ? Will it generate enough money to pay for itself and for the entire re-generation of the entire seafront ?? How will you find a new 'owner' to take on a white elephant when the current one fails ? Why has Brighton (the so-called 'most popular' seaside destination) had to fall back on staking everything on a "me-too" tower that has been trawling for financial backing for years and years ? Is our Council so impoverished in ideas that they really were unable to come up with something new ? High Wire
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree