Congratulations to Pat, Paul and Mark for keeping this issue alive and
extracting the
attendance figures from the Council.

My first thought was indeed that the figure of 4120 seemed surprisingly
impressive; but as
Paul points out, it is a poor result in comparison with the pre-refurb figures.
I wonder
though if long-term attendance might fluctuate and we may see a significant rise
during
the winter months? I would imagine that the management would be looking to more
long-
term trends in attendance before caving in to our demands (neatly summarised by
Mark)
and admitting defeat.

Nonetheless, fantastic work in keeping the scrutiny intense. I think Mark's
suggested
proposal is a must and, regardless of the figures, should be submitted so that
they know
we are still watching.

David

--- In Yorkhall@..., Mark Mitchell <mark.mitchell@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> excellent news. Proof that after 4 months of operation their business plans
have failed
miserably - just as we have been predicting.
>
> I'm sure the majority of councillors are going to be very unhappy about this
performance. In the March 07 Annual Audit and Inspection Letter
>
> http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/aal/data/2006/lg/108542.pdf
>
> the Audit commission said :-
>
> "The Council continues to develop a rigorous approach to value for money."
>
> Unless something is done to turn around the situation quickly I cant see how
they could
say the same about Tower Hamlets performance in March 2008 and beyond.
>
> The Audit Commission now have quantative evidence demonstrating how a
significant
publicly funded facility has dramatically failed to deliver services to those
who need it. The
pricing and "Spa" mentality with its elitist, uptight approach to the provision
of basic
Turkish and Russian bathing facilities is totally misaligned with the real needs
of the
200,000 plus inhabitants of the borough.
>
> If such performance continues the total number for the year will be
12,360.(and I agree
with Paul that its likely to fall still further as the initial curiosity wears
off and the
facilities are not maintained due to a lack of revenue) Even if you assume
there are no
visitors from out side the borough this represents a pitiful 6% of the boroughs
population.
>
> *
> 6% assumes 1 visit per year. Once ever 2 weeks would be a more realist
average
- that would mean that only 0.24% use the baths regularly.
> *
> Even that abysmal figure is suspect! The Audit Commission identifies Tower
Hamlets high on the list of the most economically and socially deprived areas in
the
country . How many of the locals can afford £20 a visit ? Probably more than
20% of
those paying the full £20 have been attracted by the expensive media campaign
from
outside the borough. If 20% come from outside Tower Hamlets the figure drops
still
further to 0.2% of locals visiting the baths once a fortnight.
>
> 2 people out of every 1000 Tower Hamlets residents use the baths once a
fortnight!
>
> Given the proof that the business plan has failed so decisively over the first
4 months of
operation I think we need to make the full council aware of how business can be
increased
and services restored to a higher percentage of the population.
>
> Pat Harragan has already addressed the full council on this and had a
sympathetic
hearing - the publishing of the above figures followed. We should now build
on this
with a proposal to the council that clearly explains what needs to be changed
and why in
order to boast sales.
>
> I would suggest that
>
> *
> The price is reduced to £10 for non-concessionary customers.
>
> and that 2 days a week - 1 for women, 1 for men:-
>
> *
> The previous clothing optional rule is re-instated.
> *
> The tradition of customers schmiesing each other is brought back.
> *
> The time limits are removed.
>
> This will allow our views to be tested and the expected rise in revenue will
be achieved
without any costly advertising.
>
> Please check my figures. If you have a better, clearer way of expressing them
please
share it with the group.
>
> Your comments on next steps please !
>
> Best Regards Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Yorkhall@... [mailto:Yorkhall@...] On Behalf
Of
Paul Milican
> Sent: 13 September 2007 23:04
> To: Yorkhall@...
> Subject: [Yorkhall] Attendance figures
>
>
>
> Hello, back by popular demand... ahem. Anyway, thought
> you'd all like to see the attendance figures for York
> Hall from 13 May - 12 August. That's 121 days.
> Total number of people who attended: 4120
> Sound a lot to you? Sounds disastrous to me. That
> works out at just 34 people a day! Have the council
> and GLL spent over a million pounds and pissed off its
> former clientele for the sake of 34 people a day?
> What's more, their income was only about £50k for
> those 3 months (1512 of those 4120 who visited the
> lovely aroma spa were concessionary use). Please
> remember that before the council brought in the luxury
> hotel decorators, York Hall baths were bringing in
> about 1000 people A WEEK! (That's from the official
> figures and doesn't include all those taxi drivers who
> used to sneak in without paying...).
> The management is probably hoping that the winter will
> bring in the punters but it's just as likely that
> numbers have peaked - boosted by the curious and the
> incredulous.
> I shall of course be writing to the guys who thought
> up this crackpot scheme to turn the place into a
> ponced up beauty salon and ask them if they would like
> to consider their positions. Stay tuned.
> Paul
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good http://
uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html
<http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/
forgood/environment.html>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email was sent to you by Reuters, the global news and information
company.
> To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters
Limited.
>
> Reuters Limited is part of the Reuters Group of companies, of which Reuters
Group PLC
is the ultimate parent company.
> Reuters Group PLC - Registered office address: The Reuters Building, South
Colonnade,
Canary Wharf, London E14 5EP, United Kingdom
> Registered No: 3296375
> Registered in England and Wales
>