Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So you've no idea whether TITP 2015 in its new venue was profitable or not? No, I have a good idea that it was profitable. If the new venue were unprofitable, £150k wasn't going to be the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So you've no idea whether TITP 2015 in its new venue was profitable or not? I think that's clear. What's the point you are trying to make? I feel a be specific coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 If you have a good idea that it was profitable then you'll have evidence to substantiate that. Post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 If you have a good idea that it was profitable then you'll have evidence to substantiate that. Post it. If it were unprofitable, it is inconceivable that a company making annual pre-tax profits in the multi-millions would seek merely a six-figure grant on a one-off basis to support the transition from one location to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 There's no logic in your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 From the figures you've posted DF made a pre-tax profit in 2014 of £6.2m. Can you provide me with a split of this figure between TITP and other business please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 From the figures you've posted DF made a pre-tax profit in 2014 of £6.2m. Can you provide me with a split of this figure between TITP and other business please? They are not required to break-down their accounts into the different ventures they pursue, so no. Unless, however, you are suggesting that King Tuts, a couple of summer concerts at Bellahouston and the ice rink in George Square are DF Concerts' big money-spinners, though, I think it's safe to say that TITP is responsible for the lion's share of their pre-tax profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So you don't know whether TITP was profitable in 2014 either. Awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So you don't know whether TITP was profitable in 2014 either. Awkward. It was profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Evidence please. A company making £6.2 million pre-tax profit a year off the back of a £45 million turnover doesn't sell over £10 million of tickets for an event that isn't making a profit. Just because DF Concerts' public accounts don't differentiate between their different ventures doesn't mean the reasonable person with even a basic understanding of their business model cannot work out that TITP is probably about half of their revenue stream and that, if it were making no money, its other revenue streams would have to be significantly and disproportionately profitable relative to what is financially feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 A lot of supposition there but no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So you don't know whether TITP was profitable in 2014 either. Awkward. You're reeking of desperation here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Hyundai committing their company in Dunfermline rather than somewhere else, creating jobs and infrastructure for specialised local skills in the process, is not even remotely the same as throwing away £150k to DF Concerts for a music festival they'd have held in the place they intended to anyway, with no *added* employment, infrastructure or public benefit being secured as a condition of the grant. If DF Concerts said this grant would enable them to give unemployed people training and short term contracts as stewards or to turn the new site into a venue that could generate more revenue all year round for the local economy for outdoor events or something, the situation might be different. But the attitude here literally just seems to be "but the money's there and this is a profitable good thing so let's throw money at it." If it's profitable and already localised and committed, it needs f**k all. You do know what happened with Hyundai and why I used it as an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 You do know what happened with Hyundai and why I used it as an example? Yes. It failed as a venture because they never ended up managing to set-up the semi-conductor plant after building it. It was an example of governments making a mistake even where there was a bona fides case that could say there was the potential for job creation. DF Concerts-gate doesn't even offer that excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yes. It failed as a venture because they never ended up managing to set-up the semi-conductor plant after building it. It was an example of governments making a mistake even where there was a bona fides case that could say there was the potential for job creation. DF Concerts-gate doesn't even offer that excuse. So it's ok to lose millions through a companies incompetence but not to give a company £150,000 to help run an event that actually generates millions for the local economy? That's a stretch even for you, you silly fucker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So it's ok to lose millions through a companies incompetence but not to give a company £150,000 to help run an event that actually generates millions for the local economy? That's a stretch even for you, you silly fucker. They didn't need the money to run the event, that is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 So it's ok to lose millions through a companies incompetence but not to give a company £150,000 to help run an event that actually generates millions for the local economy? That's a stretch even for you, you silly fucker. 1. I didn't say it was "okay". 2. The £150k didn't help to run the event. It was cash straight into the coffers of a company that would have behaved in exactly the same way with or without the grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbermoresaint Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 More suppositions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 They didn't need the money to run the event, that is the point. Neither did Hyundai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.