Three youth centres saved from axe

Daily Echo: Anger over how cash-strapped council has spent £5.8m windfall Anger over how cash-strapped council has spent £5.8m windfall

CITY bosses have been criticised over how they plan to spend a £5.8m Government cash windfall.

Among the complaints is a controversial decision to spend £40,000 to keep the mayor’s chauffeured car – while the equivalent of 150 full-time posts are at risk as the city bids to save nearly £20m.

Angry unions and youth service campaigners last night joined forces to attack Southampton’s ruling Labour group after it revealed where the extra money would go.

Part of the one-off cash boost will reduce the cuts to the controversial library opening hours, while funding will also be put back into some youth services to tide them over until they can run independently of the council.

Those handed a reprieve are the Zoe Braithwaite Play Centre, Newtown Youth C e n t r e , Woolston Youth Club, Thornhill Adventure Playground and Mill-brook Youth Club.

Civic chiefs are also banking £600,000 into council reserves to help ease the pain of further cuts next year, while another £500,000 is set aside in case its annual Government handout is worse next year.

Another half million was swallowed filling a new black hole that opened up after the budget was calculated.

A “transition fund” of £1m has been set aside for major changes to children’s social services and reducing the number of Southampton youngsters ending up in care.

About £900,000 is a l s o being earmarked to ease the pain of losing council tax benefit, which is part of national benefit reforms. Residents living on the breadline will keep their benefits for another year.

As reported, plans to introduce a 50p/hour rate in district car parks has been halted amid fears it would kill businesses.

Labour leaders say their revised plans show they have listened to feedback on their plans to save nearly £20m – the city’s deepest ever cuts.

City finance boss Cllr Simon Letts said: “We’re trying to be prudentwhere we can and are trying to respond to the public consultation that’s taken place.”

But campaigners battling cuts to youth services last night dismissed the extra money “as crumbs on the table” and pleaded with city bosses to think again.

Addressing a meeting of the ruling Cabinet last night, Lucia Warren, 16, from Sholing, said: “There are young people who need this service, there is no argument against that, they will suffer massively.”

More than 60 young people staged a protest outside the Civic Centre before last night’s meeting.

In a separate move trade unions, which campaigned to help Labour back into power, split ranks to attack the decision to spend some of the extra on keeping the major’s chauffeured car instead of safeguarding jobs and improving redundancy payouts.

The union also rejected the decision to put money into reserves while 150 full-time posts are at risk.

Branch secretary Mike Tucker said: “By the choices they have made, Labour councillors have demonstrated that they are at risk of losing touch with the people of Southampton who put them in office in May 2012.”

But Cllr Letts said the move is only a temporary measure while a panel of the mayor, Cllr Derek Burke, and former mayors – Cllr Carol Cunio and Cllr Stephen Barnes-Andrews – find ways of making saving on the car service.

Cllr Letts said: “The mayor plays a big part in selling the city to the outside world and especially the cruise industry, and we don’t want to lose that for the sake of a few pounds now.”

How the council plans to spend the cash - click here

For full details of the council cuts click here

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:38am Wed 30 Jan 13

Taskforce 141 says...

"A “transition fund” of £1m has been set aside for major changes to children’s social services"

This refers to the massive waste of money being spent on consultants for a 3 month period whilst 150 full and part time workers are shown the door - what a disgrace, but then again we are getting used to this from Southampton City Council.

Council chiefs couldn't organise an **** in a brothel!
"A “transition fund” of £1m has been set aside for major changes to children’s social services" This refers to the massive waste of money being spent on consultants for a 3 month period whilst 150 full and part time workers are shown the door - what a disgrace, but then again we are getting used to this from Southampton City Council. Council chiefs couldn't organise an **** in a brothel! Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

8:43am Wed 30 Jan 13

Cerdicjute says...

Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around.

Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.
Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around. Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear. Cerdicjute
  • Score: 0

9:24am Wed 30 Jan 13

Big Mac says...

More clowns than a travelling circus, though sadly not as funny.
So who's laughing now?
More clowns than a travelling circus, though sadly not as funny. So who's laughing now? Big Mac
  • Score: 0

9:26am Wed 30 Jan 13

murfmeister says...

Cerdicjute wrote:
Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around.

Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.
are you the independent candidate by any chance?

I dont know what people who voted for labour expected?

Of course they were going to screw it up and leave the mess for another party to come in and say 'it's was like this when we found it'
[quote][p][bold]Cerdicjute[/bold] wrote: Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around. Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.[/p][/quote]are you the independent candidate by any chance? I dont know what people who voted for labour expected? Of course they were going to screw it up and leave the mess for another party to come in and say 'it's was like this when we found it' murfmeister
  • Score: 0

9:33am Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

I'm so glad this council has put some aside to ease the changes to council tax benefit removal,,,,,the welfare reform changes due in April will force a lot of people into more hardship.

Also glad a contingency fund put aside,,,just in case fatty boy Pickles changes his mind (again)

Don't agree with the amount of contingency for business rate appeals, if he business rate was worked correctly in the 1st place there would be no need to appeals, also the Leader Economy Fund seems more of slush fund fro Cllr Williams

Newtown Youth Centre must have received millions of pounds worth of funding over the years, although other area's of the city are getting something I have no doubt Newtown will get the most, they always have and probably always will.
I'm so glad this council has put some aside to ease the changes to council tax benefit removal,,,,,the welfare reform changes due in April will force a lot of people into more hardship. Also glad a contingency fund put aside,,,just in case fatty boy Pickles changes his mind (again) Don't agree with the amount of contingency for business rate appeals, if he business rate was worked correctly in the 1st place there would be no need to appeals, also the Leader Economy Fund seems more of slush fund fro Cllr Williams Newtown Youth Centre must have received millions of pounds worth of funding over the years, although other area's of the city are getting something I have no doubt Newtown will get the most, they always have and probably always will. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

9:36am Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

Money to council reserves – £663,400,,,,that seems an awful lot of money sat in the bank,,,reserves are needed annually,,,however when you're strapped for cash reserves need to be used....
Money to council reserves – £663,400,,,,that seems an awful lot of money sat in the bank,,,reserves are needed annually,,,however when you're strapped for cash reserves need to be used.... Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

9:42am Wed 30 Jan 13

Might SS says...

....evryone is critical....the council needs to save money....and the Unions have come up with what suggestions as alternatives....staf
f do not want to lose jobs....need to be realistic ....money needs to be saved....how....come on Unions tell us how....
....evryone is critical....the council needs to save money....and the Unions have come up with what suggestions as alternatives....staf f do not want to lose jobs....need to be realistic ....money needs to be saved....how....come on Unions tell us how.... Might SS
  • Score: 0

9:45am Wed 30 Jan 13

Linesman says...

murfmeister wrote:
Cerdicjute wrote:
Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around.

Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.
are you the independent candidate by any chance?

I dont know what people who voted for labour expected?

Of course they were going to screw it up and leave the mess for another party to come in and say 'it's was like this when we found it'
Had it not crossed your mind that Labour have to deal with the mess left by Royston Smith?

Have you forgotten that he claimed the new White Elephant that he had built, would not cost the city's tax payers, but they have got lumbered with a big debt that the current administration has to deal with?

Dealing with the other problems his administration left also costs to put right.
[quote][p][bold]murfmeister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cerdicjute[/bold] wrote: Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around. Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.[/p][/quote]are you the independent candidate by any chance? I dont know what people who voted for labour expected? Of course they were going to screw it up and leave the mess for another party to come in and say 'it's was like this when we found it'[/p][/quote]Had it not crossed your mind that Labour have to deal with the mess left by Royston Smith? Have you forgotten that he claimed the new White Elephant that he had built, would not cost the city's tax payers, but they have got lumbered with a big debt that the current administration has to deal with? Dealing with the other problems his administration left also costs to put right. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:01am Wed 30 Jan 13

WOOLSTONCHAP says...

I know Elect a Mayor that can drive or better still lets not have a Mayor at all, see if i can save Southampton £40,000 with that think what a person with a bit of common sence installed could save us tax payers, dont matter what flag they fly they know how to waste our money !!
I know Elect a Mayor that can drive or better still lets not have a Mayor at all, see if i can save Southampton £40,000 with that think what a person with a bit of common sence installed could save us tax payers, dont matter what flag they fly they know how to waste our money !! WOOLSTONCHAP
  • Score: 0

10:01am Wed 30 Jan 13

WOOLSTONCHAP says...

I know Elect a Mayor that can drive or better still lets not have a Mayor at all, see if i can save Southampton £40,000 with that think what a person with a bit of common sence installed could save us tax payers, dont matter what flag they fly they know how to waste our money !!
I know Elect a Mayor that can drive or better still lets not have a Mayor at all, see if i can save Southampton £40,000 with that think what a person with a bit of common sence installed could save us tax payers, dont matter what flag they fly they know how to waste our money !! WOOLSTONCHAP
  • Score: 0

11:01am Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

Linesman wrote:
murfmeister wrote:
Cerdicjute wrote:
Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around.

Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.
are you the independent candidate by any chance?

I dont know what people who voted for labour expected?

Of course they were going to screw it up and leave the mess for another party to come in and say 'it's was like this when we found it'
Had it not crossed your mind that Labour have to deal with the mess left by Royston Smith?

Have you forgotten that he claimed the new White Elephant that he had built, would not cost the city's tax payers, but they have got lumbered with a big debt that the current administration has to deal with?

Dealing with the other problems his administration left also costs to put right.
So true, it's so funny how Tory supporters are quick to blame the ill's of the country on the last Labour Government, yet locally those same Tory forget the £5 million borrowed for Sea City and the deal with Capita for GS1 which cost the ruling Tories of the day tens of millions, of course that is all forgotten about nowadays.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]murfmeister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cerdicjute[/bold] wrote: Although it doesn't help in the present, the ultimate solution to the same old, same old is not to vote for the established parties representing the status quo next time around. Vote for Independents and for people who want to do the job to make a difference not due to the colour of rosette they happen to wear.[/p][/quote]are you the independent candidate by any chance? I dont know what people who voted for labour expected? Of course they were going to screw it up and leave the mess for another party to come in and say 'it's was like this when we found it'[/p][/quote]Had it not crossed your mind that Labour have to deal with the mess left by Royston Smith? Have you forgotten that he claimed the new White Elephant that he had built, would not cost the city's tax payers, but they have got lumbered with a big debt that the current administration has to deal with? Dealing with the other problems his administration left also costs to put right.[/p][/quote]So true, it's so funny how Tory supporters are quick to blame the ill's of the country on the last Labour Government, yet locally those same Tory forget the £5 million borrowed for Sea City and the deal with Capita for GS1 which cost the ruling Tories of the day tens of millions, of course that is all forgotten about nowadays. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:04am Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

WOOLSTONCHAP wrote:
I know Elect a Mayor that can drive or better still lets not have a Mayor at all, see if i can save Southampton £40,000 with that think what a person with a bit of common sence installed could save us tax payers, dont matter what flag they fly they know how to waste our money !!
The money set aside for the Mayors car is salary for the chauffeur who also doubles up as a town sergeant when not chauffeuring the Mayor to official functions plus running costs.

Maybe you'd have the Mayor take a bus to official ceremonies or better ride a push bike?
[quote][p][bold]WOOLSTONCHAP[/bold] wrote: I know Elect a Mayor that can drive or better still lets not have a Mayor at all, see if i can save Southampton £40,000 with that think what a person with a bit of common sence installed could save us tax payers, dont matter what flag they fly they know how to waste our money !![/p][/quote]The money set aside for the Mayors car is salary for the chauffeur who also doubles up as a town sergeant when not chauffeuring the Mayor to official functions plus running costs. Maybe you'd have the Mayor take a bus to official ceremonies or better ride a push bike? Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:10am Wed 30 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

About £900,000 is a l s o being earmarked to ease the pain of losing council tax benefit, which is part of national benefit reforms. Residents living on the breadline will keep their benefits for another year.

Cllr Letts should be commended for this, he obviously listened to the the third sector organisations who spoke with the councillors from all parties regarding the affects Welfare Reform bill and how the council could tackle the impact on Southampton citizens.

Congratulation Simon
About £900,000 is a l s o being earmarked to ease the pain of losing council tax benefit, which is part of national benefit reforms. Residents living on the breadline will keep their benefits for another year. Cllr Letts should be commended for this, he obviously listened to the the third sector organisations who spoke with the councillors from all parties regarding the affects Welfare Reform bill and how the council could tackle the impact on Southampton citizens. Congratulation Simon Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

11:11am Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Might SS wrote:
....evryone is critical....the council needs to save money....and the Unions have come up with what suggestions as alternatives....staf

f do not want to lose jobs....need to be realistic ....money needs to be saved....how....come on Unions tell us how....
How you saving money when you make people unemployed or lower there wage and needing make claims like in housing Benefit and Council tax reduction, And then the effect it will have on the local economy with less money being spent, so more people jobs are at risk with firms having to cut back on staff.
Its a cycle once in can not get out of till some one says enough is enough and refuses to make any cuts.
[quote][p][bold]Might SS[/bold] wrote: ....evryone is critical....the council needs to save money....and the Unions have come up with what suggestions as alternatives....staf f do not want to lose jobs....need to be realistic ....money needs to be saved....how....come on Unions tell us how....[/p][/quote]How you saving money when you make people unemployed or lower there wage and needing make claims like in housing Benefit and Council tax reduction, And then the effect it will have on the local economy with less money being spent, so more people jobs are at risk with firms having to cut back on staff. Its a cycle once in can not get out of till some one says enough is enough and refuses to make any cuts. southy
  • Score: 0

11:11am Wed 30 Jan 13

The Music Man says...

Thornhill Adventure Playground? They must mean the zip-wire running through the woods.....hardly an "adventure playground".
Thornhill Adventure Playground? They must mean the zip-wire running through the woods.....hardly an "adventure playground". The Music Man
  • Score: 0

11:55am Wed 30 Jan 13

aldermoorboy says...

Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting? Linesman
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?[/p][/quote]Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths southy
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths
Let's have some figures then chaps?

No? Didn't think so
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?[/p][/quote]Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths[/p][/quote]Let's have some figures then chaps? No? Didn't think so Shoong
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths
Let's have some figures then chaps?

No? Didn't think so
You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?[/p][/quote]Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths[/p][/quote]Let's have some figures then chaps? No? Didn't think so[/p][/quote]You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said. southy
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Wed 30 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths
Let's have some figures then chaps?

No? Didn't think so
You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.
.. and all these various numbers are?

Come on, let's have some precision.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?[/p][/quote]Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths[/p][/quote]Let's have some figures then chaps? No? Didn't think so[/p][/quote]You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.[/p][/quote].. and all these various numbers are? Come on, let's have some precision. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Wed 30 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths
Let's have some figures then chaps?

No? Didn't think so
You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.
.. and all these various numbers are?

Come on, let's have some precision.
not another one that did not read
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?[/p][/quote]Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths[/p][/quote]Let's have some figures then chaps? No? Didn't think so[/p][/quote]You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.[/p][/quote].. and all these various numbers are? Come on, let's have some precision.[/p][/quote]not another one that did not read southy
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Wed 30 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing.
No mess left just good progress under the Tories.
Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making?

At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?
Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths
Let's have some figures then chaps?

No? Didn't think so
You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.
.. and all these various numbers are?

Come on, let's have some precision.
not another one that did not read
.. oh, not another one you will not answer.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]So, once the interest payments on the loan that was taken out to inflict this White Elephant on us has been paid, and after the lighting and heating has been paid, and the 'friendly staff' have been paid, and a when a percentage has been put aside for insurance and maintenance, just how much profit is it making? At the rate that this profit is being made, when do you think that the loan will have been paid off and the City Council Taxpayers will be benefitting?[/p][/quote]Its running out a lost, The visting numbers are below for what is need to break even each mths[/p][/quote]Let's have some figures then chaps? No? Didn't think so[/p][/quote]You don't read Shoong what as all ready happened, a revision on the numbers in a year was lowered because it had no hope of reaching that figure and the new set figure is not going to reach also, and thinking about revising the to a lower number again, making now 10 years to pay for it self and not the 5 years that the Tory council said.[/p][/quote].. and all these various numbers are? Come on, let's have some precision.[/p][/quote]not another one that did not read[/p][/quote].. oh, not another one you will not answer. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Wed 30 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
The example I can quote is sharing Director Environment. Previous cost of full time Director circa £144k per annum. Cost to get rid of full time Director £340k. Cost of part time shared director circa £72k per annum. So, invest £340k to save £72k per annum equals 5 years to break even but only having half the resource in that time. Well it will take some convincing to make me appreciate the brilliance of that idea!
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]The example I can quote is sharing Director Environment. Previous cost of full time Director circa £144k per annum. Cost to get rid of full time Director £340k. Cost of part time shared director circa £72k per annum. So, invest £340k to save £72k per annum equals 5 years to break even but only having half the resource in that time. Well it will take some convincing to make me appreciate the brilliance of that idea! thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Wed 30 Jan 13

IronLady2010 says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
The example I can quote is sharing Director Environment. Previous cost of full time Director circa £144k per annum. Cost to get rid of full time Director £340k. Cost of part time shared director circa £72k per annum. So, invest £340k to save £72k per annum equals 5 years to break even but only having half the resource in that time. Well it will take some convincing to make me appreciate the brilliance of that idea!
You missed out the salary of the one who may go?
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]The example I can quote is sharing Director Environment. Previous cost of full time Director circa £144k per annum. Cost to get rid of full time Director £340k. Cost of part time shared director circa £72k per annum. So, invest £340k to save £72k per annum equals 5 years to break even but only having half the resource in that time. Well it will take some convincing to make me appreciate the brilliance of that idea![/p][/quote]You missed out the salary of the one who may go? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

10:52am Thu 31 Jan 13

Youth fight for jobs says...

JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN!

https://www.facebook
.com/southampton.sos


#SotonSOS
JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN! https://www.facebook .com/southampton.sos #SotonSOS Youth fight for jobs
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Thu 31 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.
The example I can quote is sharing Director Environment. Previous cost of full time Director circa £144k per annum. Cost to get rid of full time Director £340k. Cost of part time shared director circa £72k per annum. So, invest £340k to save £72k per annum equals 5 years to break even but only having half the resource in that time. Well it will take some convincing to make me appreciate the brilliance of that idea!
You missed out the salary of the one who may go?
No, I don't think so. Previous cost of director £144k per annum, cost of shared director £72k per annum, so, saving of £72k per annum, but, years to recoup the 'saving' because of huge cost of getting rid of previous full time director, and, only half a person doing the job to boot! Can't make it plainer!
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Merge management with the IOW and save millions that what the Tories were doing. No mess left just good progress under the Tories. Linesman go to the Sea Museum, friendly staff and it does make a profit, you may even enjoy the visit.[/p][/quote]The example I can quote is sharing Director Environment. Previous cost of full time Director circa £144k per annum. Cost to get rid of full time Director £340k. Cost of part time shared director circa £72k per annum. So, invest £340k to save £72k per annum equals 5 years to break even but only having half the resource in that time. Well it will take some convincing to make me appreciate the brilliance of that idea![/p][/quote]You missed out the salary of the one who may go?[/p][/quote]No, I don't think so. Previous cost of director £144k per annum, cost of shared director £72k per annum, so, saving of £72k per annum, but, years to recoup the 'saving' because of huge cost of getting rid of previous full time director, and, only half a person doing the job to boot! Can't make it plainer! thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13

WalkingOnAWire says...

@Southy

In one place you've said Sea City is running at a (sic) lost. Here, you've just said 'It will take 10 years to pay for itself'. If that's true then it must be making profit, even if it's less than the original projection.

Which is true? They can't both be. I have searched for, but can't find these figures you mention. Coud you be kind enough to post a link to them please?

Thanks.
@Southy In one place you've said Sea City is running at a (sic) lost. Here, you've just said 'It will take 10 years to pay for itself'. If that's true then it must be making profit, even if it's less than the original projection. Which is true? They can't both be. I have searched for, but can't find these figures you mention. Coud you be kind enough to post a link to them please? Thanks. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 0

10:53am Fri 1 Feb 13

rich the stitch says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
@Southy In one place you've said Sea City is running at a (sic) lost. Here, you've just said 'It will take 10 years to pay for itself'. If that's true then it must be making profit, even if it's less than the original projection. Which is true? They can't both be. I have searched for, but can't find these figures you mention. Coud you be kind enough to post a link to them please? Thanks.
No chance. He's made it all up (again).
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: @Southy In one place you've said Sea City is running at a (sic) lost. Here, you've just said 'It will take 10 years to pay for itself'. If that's true then it must be making profit, even if it's less than the original projection. Which is true? They can't both be. I have searched for, but can't find these figures you mention. Coud you be kind enough to post a link to them please? Thanks.[/p][/quote]No chance. He's made it all up (again). rich the stitch
  • 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