Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
So who paid for the Cannes sell of Tottenham?
The spend breaks down as:
Cost of exhibiting at MIPIM - £18,827.24
Lyn Garner and Cllr Strickland accommodation costs - £1,731
Lyn Garner and Cllr Strickland travel costs - £1,514
Some of the expenditure was covered by sponsorship of £13,000 by the following companies:
Granger - £3,500
Spurs - £3,500
Trowers and Hamlyn LLP - £2,000
Lea Valley Estates - £2,000
Hermes - £2,000
Therefore the Council had to spend £9,072.24 in excess of sponsorship income.
The council report proposing going to Cannes claimed:
'Cots are expected to be not more than £20,000.'
Adding:
'The Council will recoup all of its costs for MIPIM through sponsorship from partners.'
Commenting on the proposal, the Chief Finance Officer said:
'The risk of failure to secure sponsorship is low, however, if this is the case then any shortfall will need to be met from wider Departmental budgets.'
And that is what happened. Money has been taken from other budgets to pay for Lyn Garner and Cllr Strickland to go to Cannes to sell Tottenham.
Tags for Forum Posts: Cannes, Strickland, regeneration
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
And indirectly, the borough CEO Nick Walkman, who wisely paid his own costs. Good diplomacy, but it still comes out of his salary, which we pay him. (Unless of course he has independent wealth...) And we lost the week or so of his time, which costs us about £4000 a week.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
Not sure you can argue about the fact he paid costs out of his own salary, but you could ask why a CEO spent a week on this event (if it was a week- I think Martins' previous post indicated that the various folks mentioned spent a couple of days or so at the event (though you could add travel time if this occurred during office hours)). No doubt he did other things, but a week away is not the same as a week in the office. But, was this value for money and valuable to the borough?
I was Interested in Martin's breakdown above though, so a few thoughts here, and please do point out if I am missing anything or being a muppet:
- Lyn Garner and Cllr Strickland accommodation costs - £1,731: Assuming they stayed in the hotel the event occurred in and spent 3 nights there (@£250 per night including costs of food etc)… That comes to around £1,400 or so. Or was the hotel so much more keenly priced?
- Lyn Garner and Cllr Strickland travel costs - £1,514: Assuming they flew easy jet (£250, including travel to the relevant airport) to Nice and transferred (by cab £100 each way) to Cannes = £900 between them.
- Cost of exhibiting at MIPIM - £18,827.24. I know exhibitions can be expensive, but what exactly was the council exhibiting. This sounds steep to me having exhibited at conferences myself several years ago… Sy £1,000 for the stand, and another £1,000 for the transfer of relevant exhibit material, were there staff there manning the stand???
Finally. I hate these lazy 'The risk of failure to secure sponsorship is low' types of analysis. Perhaps if the shortfall were to be met by the officer making the relevant risk assessment then we might see a bit more of an honest answer. I would be interested to understand if there was in fact any analysis, and if so on what basis the risk was assumed to be low (were other possible sponsors in discussions and lined up to provide the funding and subsequently feel through), or did the officer use the words needed to get this passed, knowing full well that there was no chance of the money coming through from external sources?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
did the officer use the words needed to get this passed
One of the more extraordinary formulations used in a craven attempt to get something passed, was contained in a Regeneration Officer's report to the Council Cabinet Executive, about the Casino Proposal at Alexandra Palace (2006). In respect of the Casino, the final sentence reads:
16. Equalities Implications ...
...
16.2 Such an impact would be of particular benefit to black and minority ethnic
communities and socially excluded neighbourhoods.You could not make it up.
The Proposal was not passed.
Disclosure:
am a prospective councillor candidate
Highgate Ward | Liberal Democrat Party
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Clive, different topic; different thread.
-
-
Suggesting that a Casino (at Alexandra Palace) would be of particular benefit to socially excluded neighbourhoods, is an illustration of the tripe that can be written in order to justify poor policies or decisions.
If you're looking for something closer to the French Riviera (but not quite so starkly stupid), then I would offer the argument from the council that a presence at MIPIM (lunch on the yacht etc.) was justified because the council was attending as "land owner".
If they'd wanted to talk – as landowners or under any other rubric – to the football club (one of the sponsors), they could have hopped on the W3 bus, which I use to get to Alexandra Palace. It even goes as far as Northumberland Park.
Not so glamourous – and one wouldn't feel as important as being fêted in Cannes.
-
-
Thanks, Clive, for veering back on track. Yes, it was claimed they were attending Cannes as landowner and not as our Council. So much for having no conflict of interest!
People refuse to believe me when I claim that Obfuscandian is a language. But here we have Obfuscandians delicately employing their elegant, nuanced, mother tongue to avoid describing the unpleasant reality: they're selling-out Haringey residents.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
This mornings Guardian letters http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/18/public-housing-sell-...
-
-
What justification for marketing in Cannes of all places - one of the most expensive, if not the most, expensive areas in France! I cant imagine that those with private yaghts and villas in Cannes would be in the slightest bit interested in Tottenham Hale. Perhaps Councillors making such decisions should be surcharged in future.
-
-
What escapes me is why they need to 'market' Tottenham at all, given that the developers are already circling here. And of course Grainger was hooked in eight years ago, not least by the £1.5million bung from public funds gifted to them by the New Deal Bridge project, which eg would-be councillor Rivkin has lost the minutes of. (As has Cllr Brabazon and our cherished MP/would-be Mayor). Good that we got back that £3500 fraction via lobsters for our representatives.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
Pam
Eight years ago was 2006. I was not working in the NDC in 2006.If you want to speak to me about the NDC you know where I am.
___________________________________________________
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, St. Ann's Ward
-
-
Maybe not eight, it may be ten by now - I am a recent incomer to Seven Sisters. Maybe it was 2004 when Graingers was brought/bought in to the dealings about this town centre. Whenever, we have been unable to find anywhere a copy of the minutes when The Bridge NDC decided to bung this £1.5million to Grainger. Perhaps you still have your copy, or was it after your time?
-
Permalink Reply by Rory Bergin on
-
You are all slightly missing the point here. MIPIM is the main international gathering place for international property investors. If you have a site to sell or a property investment opportunity then this is the only place to go. It is cheaper to do this than to buy advertising space in a hundred property magazines, or carry out a major procurement programme. To complain about the costs of MIPIM without understanding the value of the investments that may come from it is to miss half the picture.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
