Sauron97
TS Member
As I said, it was a presumption, given capitalism was getting the blame for Merlin's failures.
When it comes to public ownership of Alton Towers, I don't feel that the GP would be well placed (or have any desire) to interpret and make serious decisions based on the assets, liabilities and income of the resort. Having said that, outside of the financial side of things, I could potentially agree that it might be an interesting experiment to let the public, or at least certain sections of the public enter the creative side of things, even to thee extent of budgeting for future developments so long as the cash is available.
In terms of the job that John Wardley had in the 90s (just had a quick peak on his linkedin) which was a non executive director, I suppose it would essentially be substituting this role with some sort of forum or consortium that have an interest in the resort. We'd hold Merlin to account, create ideas for future investments and also strategies on how to expand the theme park. That I could accept, and as a matter of fact, it arguably could be a solution to the looming crisis that Towers could be in, but anything else is far too extreme/radical/idealistic. And let's be honest, outside of enthusiasts who are passionate about change and the direction of the place, who would really care about this stuff.
Edit: I wasn't quite expecting my views to be that controversial , but I obviously stand by what I say, and respect everyone's opinion on this matter.
When it comes to public ownership of Alton Towers, I don't feel that the GP would be well placed (or have any desire) to interpret and make serious decisions based on the assets, liabilities and income of the resort. Having said that, outside of the financial side of things, I could potentially agree that it might be an interesting experiment to let the public, or at least certain sections of the public enter the creative side of things, even to thee extent of budgeting for future developments so long as the cash is available.
In terms of the job that John Wardley had in the 90s (just had a quick peak on his linkedin) which was a non executive director, I suppose it would essentially be substituting this role with some sort of forum or consortium that have an interest in the resort. We'd hold Merlin to account, create ideas for future investments and also strategies on how to expand the theme park. That I could accept, and as a matter of fact, it arguably could be a solution to the looming crisis that Towers could be in, but anything else is far too extreme/radical/idealistic. And let's be honest, outside of enthusiasts who are passionate about change and the direction of the place, who would really care about this stuff.
Edit: I wasn't quite expecting my views to be that controversial , but I obviously stand by what I say, and respect everyone's opinion on this matter.
Last edited: