The Gathering 2014 – Not repeating the financial failure of the 2009

[mookien]

IIRC this topic/question was pretty well beat to death in thread(s) after the first Gathering. My polite suggestion is to keep this thread looking forward, with discussion of the upcoming event, and use past thread(s) for post-mortem of the previous event.

I don't recall this subject being discussed at all, with the exception of two similar comments, one each in two separate threads, that I made in the past. Please point us to the threads you mentioned.

Also, I cannot think of a more useful/helpful subject for "looking forward" than one that encourages people to insist that provisions are made to insure that the non payment to subcontractors due to organizer default does not happen again.

[sydnie7]

I don't recall this subject being discussed at all, with the exception of two similar comments, one each in two separate threads, that I made in the past. Please point us to the threads you mentioned.

Also, I cannot think of a more useful/helpful subject for "looking forward" than one that encourages people to insist that provisions are made to insure that the non payment to subcontractors due to organizer default does not happen again.

I'll admit to having a low tolerance when it comes to judging something "beaten to death." The fact that the question has been asked multiple times, with either no response or no response that seems satisfactory to the questioner, would indicate to me that either nobody here has the answer or, if they do, they don't care to share what they might know.

If I were asking such a question, I'd consider that evidence enough that I needed to direct it elsewhere. Perhaps the editors of the newspaper(s) whose stories covering the event are linked here? Perhaps the organizers themselves, who are perhaps the folks best able to "insure that. . .default does not happen again"?

You know what "they" say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. I think that concept has multiple applications in this situation.

[mookien]

I'll admit to having a low tolerance when it comes to judging something "beaten to death." The fact that the question has been asked multiple times, with either no response or no response that seems satisfactory to the questioner, would indicate to me that either nobody here has the answer or, if they do, they don't care to share what they might know.

If I were asking such a question, I'd consider that evidence enough that I needed to direct it elsewhere. Perhaps the editors of the newspaper(s) whose stories covering the event are linked here? Perhaps the organizers themselves, who are perhaps the folks best able to "insure that. . .default does not happen again"?

You know what "they" say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. I think that concept has multiple applications in this situation.

So, it's now been settled that the question has only been raised twice before (ie multiple times), but hardly "beaten to death". Also, it would seem that I am a bit more persevering about this subject, than you would be. And, that's OK.

There are many folks who read this blog, but rarely or never submit posts. Perhaps, one or more of them can/will take action. A failure to receive a response to a query is little reason to stop asking.

Your suggestion to write letters to editors of relevant (local) newspapers is an excellent one. I would hope that at least some folks reading this will take you up on that. I would, if I lived in Great Britain and it materially affected me.

My interest is more one of curiosity about folks getting hurt financially, when it appears to me that, seemingly, there was/is no need for that to happen. And you are correct in that the organizers, along with those who grant the license, themselves are the folks best able to insure that a irremediable default does not recur.

Finally, you are also spot on about "doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results". It's like the old saw, "Fool me once, your fault; fool me twice, my fault." I just hope the people involved don't get fooled twice. For then, who's fault is it?

Cheers!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't recall this subject being discussed at all, with the exception of two similar comments, one each in two separate threads, that I made in the past. Please point us to the threads you mentioned.

This was discussed in some detail ("Collapse of Lord Semples Gathering Company" -- 14 posts) back in 2010 when it was first announced that Semple's company had lost money on the event. The thread is now locked, but can be accessed by clicking on "search" in the tool bar, and entering "Lord Semple" to find the thread. There was further discussion throughout the year, and, again, using the search feature in the tool bar you should be able to find the relevant posts.

[mookien]

This was discussed in some detail ("Collapse of Lord Semples Gathering Company" -- 14 posts) back in 2010 when it was first announced that Semple's company had lost money on the event. The thread is now locked, but can be accessed by clicking on "search" in the tool bar, and entering "Lord Semple" to find the thread. There was further discussion throughout the year, and, again, using the search feature in the tool bar you should be able to find the relevant posts.

Thank you for pointing me to 02/03/2010 thread. It was one I don't recall reading, though I did read at least some of the others.

I am convinced part of the "confusion" is that we are addressing two different subjects - one broad - "The Gathering", and the other narrow - "Posting a Surety Bond". I am, of course, interested in the latter, and it has hardly been discussed at all. For example, in the aforementioned thread only post #6 by ForrestorModern addresses the subject, though it is stated clearly and succinctly. It is a short comment, so I reproduce it below.

"They probably should have had the private organizing company put up a bond in a sizable amount to cover just these unforeseen and uncovered expenses. At least then the organizers would be paying the insurance comapny bond for the excess costs, instead of the little guys taking the hit---the people who should have had most to gain as a group from hosting the gathering. Too bad the financials were not worked out better in advance."

That, too, was my suggestion in post #29 of the 02/26/2011 thread, "Poor Communication Plagued Gathering", to wit ...

"My ignorant/naive question is "Why didn't Scottish authorities require the promoters/developers to post insurance bonds against possible financial distress, so that local contractors could recover at least some of their costs in the event of financial disaster?"

I realize this question in posed with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, but certainly experienced organizers would have considered this option. Or, am I wrong?"

I was hoping, and continue to hope, that someone reading this blog would be both knowledgeable and familiar enough with the subject material to enlighten us as to why the requirements for producing the Gathering did not include a stipulation for a surety bond, and why the same can't/shouldn't apply to any upcoming similar events.

I patiently wait edification.