wigman
Well-known member
The West Pier Trust are worthless.
A bunch of numpties who no one gives a **** about.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
i360 buggered
- Thread starter goldstone
- Start date
The West Pier Trust are worthless.
A bunch of numpties who no one gives a **** about.
Dont know about self serving but ive had little time for them since they had their ridiculous stall at the shore end trying to raise funds and one of their ageing gophers running the stall ripped a money holder from round my 11 year old neck pointing at similar on their stall accusing me of stealing it. Obviously couldnt read as mine clearly said benidorm. No apology led to an assault charge for the poor old bloke. Ive remained somewhat bitter about all things west pier since
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
Maybe so. Not that there is a regular stream of other people coming forward with viable ideas for saving/preserving/rebuilding the West Pier. And paying for it.
Zukey Seagull
Well-known member
my auntie's sister was on it and a lot of people needed the toilet, which they don't have on the i360. but the bar was in use.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,272
I'm sure there was an news story a few years back where it was revealed that the West Pier Trust committee have paid themselves some handsome wages while administering its decline. As for saving/preserving/rebuilding the West Pier..... its not going to happen.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
That ship has sailed, there is absolutely no way any of your three options have any chance of happening.
What happens to the money raised? Is it frittered away in "expenses" as the farce drags on?
Bad Ash
Unregistered User
Having just Checked Companies House and seeing the list of directors, it's become very clear why a certain poster is being very defensive about the trust...
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
because anyone knows the trust (and regency society) will obstruct anything other than full, authentic restoration. and now in its current state the only remotly viable path is demolition of whats left and a new pier. i say remotly viable because i dont think a pier has been built in 100 years, so doubt they are viable commercially to build from scratch.
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,524
Hmmm. Don't know anything about the Trust but full disclosure before posting would have been good.
Bad Ash
Unregistered User
Some info from Companies House for 2015 filings:
Nick Szczepanik was appointed a director in April 2105.
Income £80.6k
Expenditure £77.3k
Expenditure includes wages paid to 1 person for £40k, an increase of 7% from previous year
Nick Szczepanik was appointed a director in April 2105.
Income £80.6k
Expenditure £77.3k
Expenditure includes wages paid to 1 person for £40k, an increase of 7% from previous year
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Does he have a Time Machine?
Bad Ash
Unregistered User
I wasn't making any inferences between Nick and salary paid to the Chief Exec, apologies if it came across like that. They were 2 separate points of note I gained from the accounts.
I also found it interesting that wages of one person was more than half of the total expenditure.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Bad Ash
Unregistered User
I was only referencing the date he became a director nothing more
OK, not sure what the date has to do with anything, but I included it because it was available. My point was that a poster on here is a current director and is posting defensively/positively about the trust. Until I'd been on Companies House I hadn't realised that could be a significant bias to the posts.
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,524
Maybe reading what you posted would help!
Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,524
You would think saying that you are on the board of something you are talking about would help strengthen your argument. And that a journo would jump all over a politician who stood up for a company without disclosing an interest. As I say, I have no idea about any of the facts but full disclosure would have been good from the start.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,314
To be fair to the poster, it's his right to do so. IMHO it's no different to, say, a current director of the Albion posting defensively/positively about the club under an assumed message board name. I'd be very surprised if that hasn't happened before now.
My gripe with the West Pier Trust is historical. This is a trust that's being going since 1983 (and from 1978-1982 under a slightly different name). According to the latest set of accounts (PDF available HERE)
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01399732/filing-history
the objectives for the trust include as its number one bullet point:
'to preserve and enhance for the public benefit the area comprising the West Pier, the foreshore and around and below it and their immediate surroundings...'
What's it been doing since 1978 other than presiding over the slow sad destruction of the pier by both natural and ignoble forces? And why hasn't it been wound up, seeing as how what little remains of the pier has all but sunk into the sea? What's it FOR?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
It's stuck again. Love the spelling mistake.
[tweet]775018456056000512[/tweet]
[tweet]775018456056000512[/tweet]
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
You could have found that out on the Trust website. It isn't exactly a secret.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015