Spirit of the age?

Photos@Flickr (tag: Black Cloud Bristol)

Some wealthy and painfully middle class hippies – sorry, “artists” – built a big shed (surely a “remarkable new temporary structure? Ed), cheerfully called The Black Cloud, in Victoria Park yesterday.

So locals now have a weird state-sponsored miserabilist temple of environmental doom in their kids’ local park for the summer holidays. Yipee! Or should that be Hippy?

Now first up, if a bunch of hippies want to build a shed in the middle of Victoria Park so they can invite their mates in to talk anti-modern claptrap about the environment and the end of the world they’re quite welcome to … If it’s at their own expense.

But why should we pay for it? And if we do have to fork out in the name of cultural improvement for all, why can’t the money at least be spent on people who aren’t fringe loonies with a fruitcake agenda?

Because rest assured, the people behind this – “internationally acclaimed artists Heather and Ivan Morison” – are fringe loonies.

This becomes immediately apparent if you leaf your way through any of the three leaflets, available at the park yesterday, published to accompany their shed building enterprise. Presumably because expending as many resources as possible explaining your urgent environmental message is OK then?

And what do these two artists have to say for themselves?

The Morisons’ art practice involves activities as diverse as gardening, kite flying, science fiction writing, anthropology, skywriting and for the past four years, the development of an arboretum in Wales.

Er … Pseuds’ Corner anyone?

Really, does anyone, anywhere, outside the slightly odd public sector environments of UWE and the council – who are funding these people – take a couple of wealthy hippies flying kites as “art practice” seriously?

Thought not.

But let’s move on to glean what we can about the structure of their structure from their voluminous publicity. Not surprisingly it’s mainly high-end dippy hippy drivel that leaves no cliché unturned:

The artists chose the shabono, a circular structure built by the Yanomamo Amer-Indians from the Amazon, as a starting point for the oval form of The Black Cloud.

Well you would wouldn’t you? Because if you’re looking to build a shelter from apocalyptic environmental catastrophe, you’d immediately turn your back on your own culture that can produce nuclear bomb proof shelters and instead consult the collective wisdom of an obscure South American indigenous tribe.

After all, there’s so much we can learn from them isn’t there maaaan?

But perhaps it’s best not to dwell too much on the finer detail of high-art apocalyptic shed building. Although you might like this one: the shed, we’re told, “is built entirely from timber harvested from the artists’ Welsh arboretum.”

Fabulous darling! Do you get a free arboretum with every council flat in Wales these days then? Possibly not, as it doesn’t sound like our struggling artists are working out of a Swansea estate:

For the last two years, they have been creating a series of ‘Escape Vehicles’. These are buildings, vehicles and structures, which explore the human desire to escape the modern world along with our interest in imaging (sic) future catastrophes

Really? I must have missed this headlong rush of the masses to escape the hell of longevity, nourishment, relative wealth, dental anaesthetic, foreign travel, immunisation, central heating and the rest of the trappings of the modern world.

Are Heather and Ivan maybe mistaking their and their privileged mates’ slightly off-the-wall desires with everyone else’s?

Who knows? Not sure Heather and Ivan do actually. Because does this desperate desire to escape the modern world only kick-in once Heather and Ivan have cleared their shed building site of the heavy machinery and power tools they used to build it in the first place?

I think we should be told. And you might well be if you’re in their Guardian reading target market and fancy spending a few hours listening to Heather and Ivan and friends in their new shed.

Get down to Victoria Park on 5 September for their ‘How to Prosper During the Coming Bad Years’ (get a lucrative public art commission? Ed.) workshop exploring nothing less than “the future of humanity” with Heather, Ivan, science fiction writers, future thinkers and environmental campaigners.

Can you imagine?

Personally I think I’ll be going down the pub and watching the football instead.

Posted in Bristol, Bristol South, Culture, Environment, Global warming, Windmill Hill | Tagged , , , | There are 122 comments

Muslim balls

Time to take a day off from the thrill ‘n’ spills of World Cup footBALLS and turn instead to another of this blog’s obsessions …

Yes it’s Tuesday, which means our old friend Farooq Siddique has his ‘A Muslim in Bristol’ column in the Evening Cancer.

And today folks the dazzling analyst manges to conclude everybody in the country – except him and presumably his mates natch – is a racist.

This, it seems, has got something to do with the media, who he complains have reported white supremacist terrorist incidents differently to Muslim terrorist incidents.

And he continues, “the media is simply reflecting the natural bias in a general public, more willing to read stories about a particular crime depending on the colour and creed of the perpetrator.”

See? QED. We’re all racists.

Now the obvious response to this might be to point out that yer average Cancer reader isn’t a news editor so what the fuck has it got to do with them what’s in the newspapers or on telly?

Aren’t the people who produce the shit responsible?

Indeed a wag might even point out that Siddique’s the media tart who writes for these racist media organisations for money so he’s the one helping to actively promote their ‘racism’ and sell their papers, not us.

But this is the kind of logic you get when you spend too much time hanging around with superannuated liberal higher education moralist types isn’t it?

Basically it’s: “The media are obviously racists. So I work for them and get paid for it but you ‘re all racists for reading it. OK?”

Siddique then goes on to hammer his brilliant point home by comparing the coverage of the recently convicted “Techno Terrorist”, Bristol’s Andrew “Isa” Ibrahim with the conviction of white supremacist terrorist Neil Lewington.

Both were lone nutters trying to kill people argues Siddique quite correctly. But, he thunders, why did Ibrahim get front page coverage and not Lewington?

Um? Perhaps it had something to do with the highly newsworthy fact that Ibrahim’s conviction is the first based on information to come from a Muslim community?

But why let simple news values and a positive Muslim story get in the way of your fixed beliefs?

Posted in Bristol, Bristol Evening Post, Equalities, Journalism, Media, Politics, Race | Tagged , , | There are 25 comments

World Cup footBALLS: parklife

Still wondering where this £100m in revenue the city council reckons can be made from hosting a World Cup is actually going to come from.

We already know that all the big money from TV rights goes to FIFA, not to host cities. Similarly cash from ticket sales, another big earner, is divided between FIFA, the FA and the football clubs concerned, leaving no room for a significant return on the council’s investment in the tournament.

However, last week Gary Hopkins likened the costs of hosting the World Cup to those of the Bristol Harbour Festival. Was he referring to the fan parks that are required as part of the bid?

Perhaps these are the cash cows the council’s expecting to make big money from?

Let’s take a closer look then: the Harbour Festival costs approximately £400,000 for a three day event in a single location and it’s attended by around 250,000 people.

It’s seen as worthwhile because it attracts visitors from outside the city who might otherwise not come; it provides some local businesses with the opportunity to book stalls at the event; and local bars, restaurants, pubs and the like benefit because visitors can pop in and out of the event and have a drink or a meal in central Bristol.

No one really knows if it’s the big economic engine some claim but the arguments made for it at least stack up.

But the Harbour Festival is also an event that doesn’t make you stay in the same place for a long period of time. Unlike a football match, which is essentially a two-hour event where the spectators remain within an enclosed area for its entirety and then make their way home.

So how does a World Cup fan park compare to a festival?

The capacity of a fan park is likely to be at least 20,000 (as it was in Hanover and Leipzig although Hamburg’s was 50,000 and Berlin’s over 100,000) and there must be at least 1 sq metre for each individual. So a 20,000 fan park will need to be at least 2 hectares, roughly half the size of the existing Bristol City football club site, and will probably host around 600,000 fans over the tournament.

And – as with all costs associated with hosting the World Cup – the cost for setting up and running the park falls not to FIFA, not to the FA but to the host city.

Although there’s plenty of strict rules courtesy of FIFA. They say these publicly funded fan parks have to be open throughout the tournament – that’s for 31 days compared to 3. The fan park has to be fenced with a security perimeter and have an ‘exclusion zone’ around it where the host city must ensure that no commercially branded goods are sold except those of the FIFA’s official sponsors.

Because FIFA’s official sponsors have the fan parks included in their sponsorship deals. This means no competitors will be allowed to sell either in the parks or in the ‘exclusion zone’.

To enforce this, each host city must, as part of its Host City Agreement with FIFA, set up and staff – at their own expense! – a Rights Protection Programme Team to safeguard against any breaches of sponsorship agreements.

For example, Coca-Cola – a regular World Cup sponsor – will be allowed to sell soft drinks in the fan park while McDonalds – another regular sponsor – will sell the food.

Other second level “local” sponsors can be involved as long as the main sponsors do not identify them as “competitors”.

In South Africa there will also be “unofficial” fan festivals but even here the sponsors must not be competitors of the main FIFA sponsors and if other products are allowed to be sold (for example tea or coffee) they must be sold in unbranded containers.

So a strict comparison between the Harbour Festival and the World Cup might be that if it costs us £400,000 to run a three day event it might cost us £4m to run a 30 day event … And funnily enough … The South African town of Rustenberg has calculated that it will cost nearly £4m to run it’s 20,000 capacity fan park during next year’s World Cup in South Africa.

The revenues, meanwhile, look set to be heading not to local businesses – like the Harbour Festival – but to multinational interests.

Indeed, the more you look at this, the more it seems like the World Cup Bid is an excuse to spend public money tobenefit of major corporations like Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Anheuser-Busch.

The fan parks – that will be paid for by us – are a good example.

Many local pubs and bars in Bristol made quite a bit of money during the last World Cup by putting up big screens and showing the games so that the vast majority of fans who didn’t travel to Germany could still enjoy the match in a group atmosphere.

But the fan parks will be attracting these same fans away from local bars and pubs to fenced off areas where the food and drink on offer will be provided by the official FIFA sponsors or “non-competitive” local sponsors backed by a council “Rights Protection Programme Team”.

As a result of this, “premium” prices of up to 50% above normal prices can be charged. For example in the European Championships in 2008, the normal price for a beer in Austria was 3-3.5 euros (£2.50 – £3.00) but in the fan zones it was priced at 4.5 euros (nearly £4.00).

So the fans get ripped off while local businesses lose out to global interests. In Germany in 2006 around 18 – 21 million fans attended the fan zones, the overwhelming majority of whom were locals …

Posted in Bristol, Culture, Economy, Harbourside, Local government, Politics, World Cup 2018 | Tagged , , , , , , | There is 1 comment

Blattered!

For the game. For the World.”

Rich with symbolism, this. Just a shame the old bastard didn’t break his neck.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJHuY_8yz0c]


Posted in World Cup 2018 | Tagged , | There are no comments yet

What a difference a day makes …

This new local online news thingy, Bristol 24/7, reported on Tuesday:

Simon Cook – executive member for the culture, sport and tourism projects executive – told a press conference held at the Marriott Hotel, College Green, that the costs of being a [World Cup] bid city would be recouped by the revenue gained.

Sounds good. Pretty clear isn’t it? Senior politician states on the record that there’s no costs to the taxpayer there. It’ll pay for itself through the massive amount of money it’s gonna make right?

Then yesterday a key member of the World Cup bid ‘executive team’, the serial quangocrat, John Savage, appeared in the Cancer billed as “a respected member of the business community with more than 40 years experience of management”. He said:

The Bristol bid team are hoping inclusion will also help secure funding from the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA)

“I think the Government would have to be a bit blind to ignore it.

“They have trained their attention on the north so if they want cities in the south they need to help us jump some of the transport hurdles.

“There’s an implicit understanding that more funding would be available.”

SWRDA? Funding? He’s talking about taxpayers money here isn’t he? No mention  of funding the World Cup from  “revenued gained” is there?

So what’s going on? One day politician says World Cup will make money and pay for itself. Next day his quangocrat colleague says it will be publicly funded.

Does anyone know what’s going on?

Savage’s phrase “implicit understanding” is especially intriguing. Is an “implicit understanding” with a government on its last legs that needs to cut billions in spending and a regional development quango that will be disbanded after elections next year enough of a guarantee to start punting £50 million of our money on four footie matches?

Posted in Bristol, Bristol Evening Post, Lib Dems, Local government, Politics, World Cup 2018 | Tagged , , | There are 4 comments

World Cup footBALLS: part two – the marketing case?

Saturday’s Comment in the Evening Cancer about the World Cup bid went on to claim, “there is the invaluable prospect of fantastic publicity for the city”

Really?

In September 2007, Egbert Oldenboom from MeerWaarde Sport and Economics in Amsterdam published research based on the results of a study conducted before and after the European Championships of 2000 that were held jointly in Belgium and Holland.

The purpose of the study was to measure the various host cities’ image and awareness abroad before and after being involved in a major sports event.

Reading through the report the conclusion has to be that publicity for a city hosting matches is dependent upon the success or otherwise of the national team of the country watching.

Put another way, because the German and English teams performed badly in 2000 going out at the group stages, there was a negative reaction from these countries toward the Dutch and Belgian host cities. Whereas the French and Italians whose teams reached the final had a positive view of the same cities.

In terms of overall name awareness for individual Dutch cities, from France, the tournament winners and  the country which saw the largest increase in awareness of host cities, the following results were gathered:

Amsterdam – before the tournament 98.7% awareness, after 99.7%
Rotterdam (host for the final) – before 90.2%, after 95.3%
Utrecht – before 26.8%, after 43.5%
Groningen – before 22.5%, after 31.3%
Eindhoven – before 50.5%, after 68.6%
Arnhem – before 28.2%, after 36.2%

What is particularly surprising about the above results is that Utrecht and Groningen did not even host any games yet appear to have benefitted just as much in increased awareness as those cities that were used as venues!

It also appears the effect of any publicity is short-lived. Just before the 2000 tournament started, respondents were asked who hosted the 1996 tournament – only 12.4% were able to correctly identify that it was held in England. Even British respondents only had a 19.6% success rate with Germany – the winners in 96 – next on 16.4%. All the other countries had less than 10% of respondents able to correctly identify the host country – let alone individual cities within that country!

So the overall effect might be that if Bristol is lucky enough to host, say Brazil – and they win the tournament – we can expect more Brazilians to know about Bristol. If on the other hand they perform badly, the Brazilians will disassociate themselves from anything to do with Bristol.

But don’t worry, good or bad, the effects will all be over by the time the next World Cup comes around …

In the unlikely event you were going to spend around £50m on marketing the city or ‘place marketing’ as Jan ‘n’ Steve call it – as they hang in the ‘breakout space’ – is this really an efficient way to do it?

Posted in Bristol, Bristol Evening Post, Local government, Politics, World Cup 2018 | Tagged , | There are 16 comments

World Cup footBALLS: part one – business case?

By chief sports writer, Sell Outter

Has the Evening Cancer realised it might have made a mistake believing senior council officer Stephen Wray’s absurd estimate that £100m could come into the city as a result of a successful World Cup bid?

The Cancer’s Comment column on Saturday blustered inanely, “There is debate about how much monetary value a series of World Cup games would bring to the City. Forget the exact figures ….let’s just say the effect would be considerable”

Perhaps the penny has dropped that Wray – who, believe it or not, is paid a six-figure salary to give supposedly skilled and objective advice to elected councillors rather than act as a PR bag carrier for the city’s wealthy men – has provided figures that appear to be entirely the product of his own imagination?

England hasn’t hosted a World Cup since 1966, so it’s difficult to gauge the financial benefits that might accrue from a major football tournament. Although in 1996 we did host football’s European Championships – a tournament that, after the World Cup, is football’s most prestigious.

Indeed the Euro 96 tournament in England still holds the record for the largest overall match attendance at a European Championships:

“Euro 96 was in economic terms the most successful sports event ever to be held in England. In total over 280,000 visiting spectators and media came to the UK to attend Euro’ 96 matches, spending approximately £120m in the eight host cities and surrounding regions.

“London enjoyed the biggest impact, £34m in additional expenditure generated by overseas visitors associated with Euro 96. In the North West of England overseas visitors generated an additional £16.3m in the regional economy in addition to the £10.3m and £6.7m generated in Manchester and Liverpool respectively. If additional domestic tourism expenditure is included, the total economic impact induced by all spectators, media and officials in the eight host cities as a result of Euro 96 is estimated at £195m.”

Football Came Home: The Economic Impact of Euro 96 – Dobson, Gratton, and Holliday, 1997

So the total additional expenditure for all overseas and domestic visitors was £195m, which at 2009 values is £245 million. But our highly paid objective expert Wray apparently thinks that Bristol – all on its own – will attract £100m.

How? If Manchester generated £10.3m (or £12.9m at 2009 values) from it’s 5 matches, and Liverpool £6.7m (£8.4m today) from the 4 games held there, it’s difficult to reconcile how Bristol would generate £100 million.

At Euro 96, the capacity for Manchester’s Old Trafford ground was 55,000 and all but one of the games had attendances beyond the maximum capacity of the proposed new stadium for Bristol City. The income generated equates to £2.6 million per match, which is nowhere near the £20 million per match that has been proclaimed by Wray from the pages of the Cancer.

A study produced by the Leisure Industries Research Centre looked at the specific case of the city of Sheffield, which hosted three games during Euro 96. Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough ground was used as a venue and with a capacity of 40,000 it is comparable to the proposed new Bristol City stadium.

During the tournament, Sheffield hosted the Danish team – their three games (against Portugal, Croatia and Turkey) attracted a total attendance of 97,615 (81% capacity). Of this, some 61,000 were visitors to the city (around 20,000 per game) with the majority being day visitors, despite the fact that Danish fans had good reason to locate themselves in the city itself.

The additional spend in the city by these visitors (both day and overnight stays, domestic and overseas visitors) worked out at £5.3m (£6.6m at 2009 values) over the three games or roughly £1.77m per match (2009: £2.2m). This, again, is nowhere near the £20m per match forecast by Wray but perfectly compatible with the figures for Manchester.

The World Cup Bid site itself quotes a figure equivalent to £340 million for additional tourism expenditure from the whole of the World Cup in Germany in 2006.

Is it any wonder the Evening Cancer suddenly wants to divert attention away from a detailed discussion of the potential financial benefits of a World Cup for Bristol? Their figures simply don’t stack up.

As for our extremely well-paid, “expert”, “best in the business“, “objective” employee Mr Wray, I wonder … Will he stepping up to the plate to issue a public correction and apology for his highly misleading figures? Or will he be keeping his head down hoping the new wealthy business and media friends he seems to be working for will protect him?

Posted in Bristol, Bristol Evening Post, Local government, Merchant Venturers, Politics, World Cup 2018 | Tagged , , , , | There are 17 comments

World Cup footBALLS: counting the cost

So far the business model devised by “the brains” of Bristol’s World Cup bid, Stephen Wray, seems to consist of Steve Lansdown somehow producing a £100 million stadium for £65 million that will see Germany and Brazil roll into town to play a few games over a couple of weeks in 2018 entirely paid for by someone else as £100 million magically floats down from the heavens into our pockets.

Unfortunately it doesn’t quite work like that. Neither are the costs of hosting a World Cup similar to running the Harbour Festival as Lib Dem Cabinet member Gary Hopkins seems to believe or has been told:

If we are successful and Bristol is a world cup venue there would be some extra costs as there is for any other event like the Harbour festival etc but the costs are comparatively small especially as it would advertise itself.

This all depends, I suppose, on what you call “comparatively small”. Indeed if you call £35 million “comparatively small” – which profligate idiots like Wray and his boss Jan Ormondroyd probably do – then hosting a World Cup is a bargain.

Let’s take Rustenberg, a city of 400,000 selected as a venue for the World Cup in South Africa 2010 as an example shall we?

The local stadium (Royal Bafokeng) was upgraded from 38,000 to 42,000 at a cost of £30 million and a “Host City Agreement” with FIFA and the World Cup 2010 Local Organising Committee (LOC) signed.

Last year Rustenberg Local Municipality did a presentation on 5 August 2008 on its funding requirements as a host city for the World Cup.

Here they are:

Training Venues = £11.25m
Fan Park = £3.75m
ICT related issues = £1.5m
Communication, Marketing and Branding = £2.25m
“City Beautification” = £2.25m
Greening projects = £1.5m
Volunteer Programme = £1.27m
Transport Infrastructure = £7.5m
Stadium Infrastructure (i.e excluding direct costs of stadium construction) = £3.6m

So the total funding required by Rustenberg Local Municipality is £35 million. And who will be paying this should Bristol host the tournament? Have Mr Wray and his executive team of Ms Ormondroyd, Bristol City FC’s Tesco blackmailer – Chief Exec Colin Sexston – and omnipresent Venturer ghoul John Savage thought about this?

You might also note that these Rustenberg figures so far make no allowance for policing and security. Let’s take a trip to Portland in Dorset then, where all the Olympic sailing events are set to take place in 2012.

And what’s this from the BBC just last Friday?

The estimated cost of security for the 2012 Olympic sailing events in Dorset has almost doubled, leaving uncertainty over the effect on council taxpayers

Fancy that! The budget for a major international sporting event has doubled. And the BBC even tell us by how much:

Originally put at £21m, the cost of the extra policing and security measures for the Weymouth and Portland events is now estimated at £38m

And who pays? Er …

The government has not confirmed whether it will pay the total cost.

But all this is small beer if we look at Cape Town.

In November, Cape Town’s 2010 World Cup preparation team asked their local council’s budget committee for another £34m to cover additional costs within that one budget year. This is part of a budget nightmare that has seen the cost to the city of hosting the World Cup jump to £434 million! Almost £150m above the original figure and more than 50% over-budget!

Cape Town’s 2010 team also needs another £96m over the next three budget years (i.e beyond the World Cup itself) for capital expenditure and operating requirements related to the World Cup.

Meanwhile top Cape Town politician Ian Neilson is describing FIFA, with their financial demands, as “bullies”.

Surely it’s obvious to anyone outside of Bristol’s World Cup bid team, the council’s senior managers, the Evening Cancer, Bristol’s Lib Dems and the Merchant Venturers that hosting the World Cup is the equivalent of digging a large hole and then tipping taxpayers money into it for a generation?

Indeed, with a £35m gap in the funding of the stadium and a minimum £35 million infrastructure costs before policing, it begins to look like Wray’s £100 million figure is pretty accurate … If he meant expenditure rather than income.

Are these people really serious about spending our money like this? Surely if Lansdown and Savage fancy hosting a World Cup, the council should encourage them to be putting a private sector consortium together to bid and pay for it all?

Just weeks after the council announced £30 million in cuts how can they possibly afford it? Do they even know what it’s going to cost us? Can’t they find basic information on the internet like the rest of us?

Perhaps we should at least be grateful the Cancer is now roping kids in to their squalid little World Cup indoctrination campaign? After all, they’ll be paying for it for a long time … Shouldn’t that first line in the Cancer’s article read, “Diverse, deserving and indebted”?

Posted in Bristol | | There are 3 comments

Bristol City Council’s frantic fact-free analysis-lite World Cup fantasy PR campaign in the pages of the Evening Cancer, fronted by Eddie Large and supported by an increasing cast of financially ignorant nobodies, continues apace.

Latest news is that the usual suspects among the city’s super wealthy – Venturer John Savage, City boss Steve Lansdown etc – have bounced (surely invited on the basis of their skills and experience? Ed.) the council into “leading” the World Cup bid. Or financially underwriting it as we call it in the real world.

We are of course being promised by the council riches beyond our wildest dreams for hosting and paying for Sepp Blatter’s carnival of cash in 2018. Although so far it doesn’t look like any of the fabulous wealth on offer has trickled down to the council’s bid team just yet.

“Sit back and sample what Bristol has to offer the world should the world be invited to Bristol for the 2018 World Cup,” gushed the Cancer on 30 June launching what appeared to look like the official Bristol bid video. An assumption perhaps confirmed by the video’s conspicuous appearance on Bristol’s new World Cup bid website.

But wait … What’s this on Youtube from April? Why it’s the city’s ‘official’ World Cup video. Only it isn’t. It hasn’t got the snot green World Cup logo and branding and doesn’t mention the World Cup at all. Instead it’s just a typical tourist information promo film about Bristol made by the more-money-than-they-know-what-to-do-with Visit Britain quango.

But just add that all-important green World Cup bid logo and lo and behold we have a World Cup bid video! Is it a subtle reference to the city’s commitment to recycling?

Posted in Bristol, Bristol Evening Post, Culture, Local government, Politics, World Cup 2018 | Tagged , | There are 8 comments

Glossary of Bristol City Council terms: free lunch

Free Lunch:

There is such a thing at Bristol City Council. Paid for by you. Always organic and Fair Trade. See also conference, Lord Mayor, expenses.

Posted in Bristol, Glossary of Bristol City Council terms, Local government, Politics | | There is 1 comment