-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
London Entertainment Resort: All Discussion
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
Craig
TS Administrator
Blimey, is there anyone they haven't signed with? 
. Yeah sure, a lot of these agreement are just provisional, but these constant little steps are fantastic to see things still progressing. It's really exciting to see a mass of potential IPs coming on board too, the possibilities for attractions are beyond anything we've seen for a long time.
That said, I'm a bit unsure as to what the BFI will actually add to the mix in the grand scheme of things, but looking forward to more plans and info coming soon.
. Yeah sure, a lot of these agreement are just provisional, but these constant little steps are fantastic to see things still progressing. It's really exciting to see a mass of potential IPs coming on board too, the possibilities for attractions are beyond anything we've seen for a long time.That said, I'm a bit unsure as to what the BFI will actually add to the mix in the grand scheme of things, but looking forward to more plans and info coming soon
.I agree that this may well be to give the project credibility. I suppose the other angle is that they seem to be keen to emphasis a British element to the project.
I know Disneyland Paris was criticised for being ‘too American’, with it being famously referred to as a ‘cultural Chernobyl’. Whether it was a fair criticism is a moot point, and a discussion in its own right. It’s true that the park was fairly American, although you could argue the Jules Verne inspired Discovery Land was a nod to French culture. I believe the directors took the view that if people visit a Disney park, it’s because they want Disney and what Disney stands for (the American dream), and that people will be disappointed if you build a Magic Kingdom that doesn’t feel like a Magic Kingdom. The theory had certainly worked well in Japan with Tokyo Disney. Nonetheless, Disneyland Paris attracted its share of criticism for not paying enough attention to French culture.
I get the feeling that the Paramount Park is trying to learn from this and show people that they want to reflect British culture. Involving the BFI is probably a good way of doing that. Perhaps they think it’ll be easier to get planning permission if they reflect British culture. Or perhaps they want to differentiate it from any other Paramount Parks that may be built. I don’t know how likely it is there could be more than one. If another one did go ahead in somewhere like Spain, they might feel it’s best if each park has a different angle to people are more inclined to visit both.
I know Disneyland Paris was criticised for being ‘too American’, with it being famously referred to as a ‘cultural Chernobyl’. Whether it was a fair criticism is a moot point, and a discussion in its own right. It’s true that the park was fairly American, although you could argue the Jules Verne inspired Discovery Land was a nod to French culture. I believe the directors took the view that if people visit a Disney park, it’s because they want Disney and what Disney stands for (the American dream), and that people will be disappointed if you build a Magic Kingdom that doesn’t feel like a Magic Kingdom. The theory had certainly worked well in Japan with Tokyo Disney. Nonetheless, Disneyland Paris attracted its share of criticism for not paying enough attention to French culture.
I get the feeling that the Paramount Park is trying to learn from this and show people that they want to reflect British culture. Involving the BFI is probably a good way of doing that. Perhaps they think it’ll be easier to get planning permission if they reflect British culture. Or perhaps they want to differentiate it from any other Paramount Parks that may be built. I don’t know how likely it is there could be more than one. If another one did go ahead in somewhere like Spain, they might feel it’s best if each park has a different angle to people are more inclined to visit both.
There is a lot, most people do not understand about an investment project on former industry soils. (Brownfield)
I cannot discuss the dozens of aspects, but will list a few here.
(a) First priority vested interest: selling off the grounds
At the end of (heavy) industry use, the former owner want to sell off his grounds.
- Of course, at the highest possible price.
- And to, either avoid the (legal) brownfield sanitation costs (buyer will do these), or get those costs at least "payed back".
- some property transition deal of the kind, have been a zero profit operation (or a loss) more then often in the past.
Reason ? legal sanitation of a brownfield is very costly. First the survey costs, then the sanitation itself.
Tactics ? Get a plan on it, that promises huge profits. If someone buys the idea, transaction price can be high,
and : former owner HAPPY. (Even if the whole thing fails right after the deal, it's none of their problem.)
Lafarge Ebbsfleet, is a perfect example of the scenario.
The business vehicle for getting to that deal, was/is LRCH, in which Lafarge themselves were the KEY player.
The one with a single direct set goal : SELLING the property.
(b) Capital ?
The final sales deal was closed ONLY in jan 2015 !..it seems (press)
Now that it's sold (it seems), Lafarge has no interests anymore, and LRCH is living on as marketing instrument.
Owned 75% by Kuwaiti, it seems. Read carefully : "LRCH is owned by.." , not "Paramount Kent park"...
The business value of LRCH ifself , is very small.
(LRCH deposited Capital: £15,352.41 - on 4 Jun 2014, source : http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ )
And it seems, most seeding money payed. (As none of the partners who did some job around it is hitting the news by not having been payed for their services. However, I heared similar cases before of f.i. the architects office, been paid some retainer, and nothing at all afterwards, by full risk aggreement "payment on move date"...)
Actual Paramount Kent park capital in place ? NONE, actually. No trace in all press, all PR-notes, and all of the financial watcher's reports in the UK give evidence of one single £ of PARK-investment money, in place on some account.
(c) Second key vested interest: BUILD something
One can do almost whatever on a given plot, if planning permissing says "yes".
The real estate developer, is interested in BUILDING + selling off that property,
eventually renting off some property. (Like in offices, shopping centers)
Also that interest has no final goals into running a theme park.
Real estate development brings in money, whatever the purpose of the buildings.
Be it housing, or offices, or shopping mall, or leisure buildings...
To build something, you need the capital, so, there again, you play on the BIG marketing machine.
The real estate developer also pulls out after delivery,
or (partly) stays, as the one collecting RENTS in future, but will not be involved in operation.
It is never the concern of the real estate owner, to bother about the bankrupties of it's tennants.
(Common fare in shopping malls)
(d) "Creating" jobs
Any concious macro economy specialised economist,
will tell you that 'creation' is the near-scam terminology from the marketeers.
There are 2 completely opposed economic mechanisms :
- Private company economy (= competition with others, by definition)
- General city-zone, regional, country .. etc economic performance (maacroeconomic aspect)
A private company, when succesfull offers jobs, but those are both job moves (most) and job raises (few).
Job "creation" is only due to global raise of local economic activity in the region, and due to EXPORT.
Think about the simple example. You open a restaurant, you're really good, and soon you've got 10 staff.
Did you "create" 10 jobs ? Probably not, probably you moved 10 jobs, either from temporary "pool" (temporary unemployed) or coming from other restaurants. Tho population will not eat MORE in average because you opened your successfull restaurant, they will simply eat less with other restaurants. So, job losses are created in an indirect way. Some bankruptcy elsewhere will add staff to the "pool" (temporary unemployment)
It is very difficult to calculate the REAL % of maacro economic job "creation" by one specific business.
Just, that it probably will not be more then in the range of 0%-5% , when no explicit export factor is in place.
(e) What is export for a leisure venue ?
In tourism, it is :
- visitors coming in from distant destination (out of region, out of country)
- visitors NOT spending on some out travel, as they can spend similar in their own region, now
Although the regional scale is very important, especially with locaal politicians, of course,
most 'export' is getting described on national scale only.
Example: Disney Paris, has a roughly 55% out-of-France visitors. So, the profits raised from 55% of revenu, counts as "export", then, in view of France. That is why France was so keen on having Disney at Paris, and probably why they tollerate the constant (partly fraudulent) debth. Among those, 10% of Disney visitors are Brittish of origin.
To regain the macro economic 'import' caused by Disney on the UK, by equal 'export' by an Ebbsfleet venue, Paramount Kent then should generate the same 10% of all visits, from abroad...
So, is there an equal competition possible ? Focussing on the UK only as research object, perhaps 10% could be gained (making abstraction of the global 55% of Disney) , but that 10% then, must be drawn in by the theme park, only, PLUS, reasoning on the standard that there would be the same number of real theme park visitors at both ! (Which is a false premise)
(d) What is the actual theme park project size?
Be not misled. The project is a composed real estate project. The parts other then the theme park, take most of the grounds. Those parts are ALL without an exception, of LOCAL inportance only.
- Shopping centre : like any other one: local + regional scope. It generates zero tourism, yet is in direct competition with all other major shopping centres in the region. (Tipically, tennants bleed, not developers)
- Indoor water park : regional scope. BIG indoor water park : perhaps national scope, however, water parks almost NEVER attract destination tourism, they are typically 1/2 day dwell time places. However, generate quite stable repeat business, especially in this case, as greater London (forget about "Kent", it's about London) does not have a real major indoor waterpark, but many smaller leisure oriented swimming pool venues.
- Events venue. Will compete with many other ones, f.i. nearby O2. Again, ONLY of regional / partly national interest.
- Offices, on site homes etc... No visitor related influence, yet real estate development value.
The theme park, when examined closely, is projected to be on a scale, still UNDER existing Merlin properties (Alton Towers, Chessington WoA, Thorpe) It is VERY meaningfull, that Merlin showed no interest at all in investing in the Ebbsfleet proposal. Merlin, aand thus backed by one of the biggest venture capital companies in the world with the sharpest business insights on theme park developments (owns most of Merlin, owns Seaworld inc., owns part of Universal... etc) , THUS is NOT interested. That is quite meaningfull !
The theme park, as sized on Ebbsfleet, then could be going in the realistic industry standard range of 1.5 - 3 million attendance. It is DIFFICULT to get over the 2.5 M barrier, you're among the most successful ON EARTH, in that case, and all those reached it only after a long road (decennia) of building up credibility.
(e) Hotels
Now lets look at :
... 5000 hotel rooms ... It is probably the most mindblowing number in the whole marketing machine. No hotel owner/operator is going to fill up that fairy tale. Still based on an "Alton Towers park" sized venue !? And a best estimate on 10% visitors from abroad.
Why would ANYONE arriving in the UK by Eurostar, choose to stay in Ebbsfleet, EVEN if they want to visit the park ? A London city trip, is very popular and is usually invoking at least 3 X overnights. If The London goer includes Paramount in his visiting scheme, for the non-on-wheels tourist (train and plane), LONDON itself is the place to look for hotel, not the outskirts. Nobody is going to book 3 or 4 nights at Ebbsfleet, for the one theme park visit, and then a most difficult (aand expensive) public transport adventure into London, every day.
This is different for those who are really on wheels.
But, the projection of so many rooms is totally eye-blinding. Even 500 would proove huge...
As I said,
there is a lot to be said about the project, including that it still could change course dramatically.
It was just SOME remarks.
There also is not one interested operator on the waitlist. Meaningfull.
Of course, tons of interested service providers.
(What can be sold, must be sold. Operational feasibility is not of their buisiness as well)
Greetings
I cannot discuss the dozens of aspects, but will list a few here.
(a) First priority vested interest: selling off the grounds
At the end of (heavy) industry use, the former owner want to sell off his grounds.
- Of course, at the highest possible price.
- And to, either avoid the (legal) brownfield sanitation costs (buyer will do these), or get those costs at least "payed back".
- some property transition deal of the kind, have been a zero profit operation (or a loss) more then often in the past.
Reason ? legal sanitation of a brownfield is very costly. First the survey costs, then the sanitation itself.
Tactics ? Get a plan on it, that promises huge profits. If someone buys the idea, transaction price can be high,
and : former owner HAPPY. (Even if the whole thing fails right after the deal, it's none of their problem.)
Lafarge Ebbsfleet, is a perfect example of the scenario.
The business vehicle for getting to that deal, was/is LRCH, in which Lafarge themselves were the KEY player.
The one with a single direct set goal : SELLING the property.
(b) Capital ?
The final sales deal was closed ONLY in jan 2015 !..it seems (press)
Now that it's sold (it seems), Lafarge has no interests anymore, and LRCH is living on as marketing instrument.
Owned 75% by Kuwaiti, it seems. Read carefully : "LRCH is owned by.." , not "Paramount Kent park"...
The business value of LRCH ifself , is very small.
(LRCH deposited Capital: £15,352.41 - on 4 Jun 2014, source : http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ )
And it seems, most seeding money payed. (As none of the partners who did some job around it is hitting the news by not having been payed for their services. However, I heared similar cases before of f.i. the architects office, been paid some retainer, and nothing at all afterwards, by full risk aggreement "payment on move date"...)
Actual Paramount Kent park capital in place ? NONE, actually. No trace in all press, all PR-notes, and all of the financial watcher's reports in the UK give evidence of one single £ of PARK-investment money, in place on some account.
(c) Second key vested interest: BUILD something
One can do almost whatever on a given plot, if planning permissing says "yes".
The real estate developer, is interested in BUILDING + selling off that property,
eventually renting off some property. (Like in offices, shopping centers)
Also that interest has no final goals into running a theme park.
Real estate development brings in money, whatever the purpose of the buildings.
Be it housing, or offices, or shopping mall, or leisure buildings...
To build something, you need the capital, so, there again, you play on the BIG marketing machine.
The real estate developer also pulls out after delivery,
or (partly) stays, as the one collecting RENTS in future, but will not be involved in operation.
It is never the concern of the real estate owner, to bother about the bankrupties of it's tennants.
(Common fare in shopping malls)
(d) "Creating" jobs
Any concious macro economy specialised economist,
will tell you that 'creation' is the near-scam terminology from the marketeers.
There are 2 completely opposed economic mechanisms :
- Private company economy (= competition with others, by definition)
- General city-zone, regional, country .. etc economic performance (maacroeconomic aspect)
A private company, when succesfull offers jobs, but those are both job moves (most) and job raises (few).
Job "creation" is only due to global raise of local economic activity in the region, and due to EXPORT.
Think about the simple example. You open a restaurant, you're really good, and soon you've got 10 staff.
Did you "create" 10 jobs ? Probably not, probably you moved 10 jobs, either from temporary "pool" (temporary unemployed) or coming from other restaurants. Tho population will not eat MORE in average because you opened your successfull restaurant, they will simply eat less with other restaurants. So, job losses are created in an indirect way. Some bankruptcy elsewhere will add staff to the "pool" (temporary unemployment)
It is very difficult to calculate the REAL % of maacro economic job "creation" by one specific business.
Just, that it probably will not be more then in the range of 0%-5% , when no explicit export factor is in place.
(e) What is export for a leisure venue ?
In tourism, it is :
- visitors coming in from distant destination (out of region, out of country)
- visitors NOT spending on some out travel, as they can spend similar in their own region, now
Although the regional scale is very important, especially with locaal politicians, of course,
most 'export' is getting described on national scale only.
Example: Disney Paris, has a roughly 55% out-of-France visitors. So, the profits raised from 55% of revenu, counts as "export", then, in view of France. That is why France was so keen on having Disney at Paris, and probably why they tollerate the constant (partly fraudulent) debth. Among those, 10% of Disney visitors are Brittish of origin.
To regain the macro economic 'import' caused by Disney on the UK, by equal 'export' by an Ebbsfleet venue, Paramount Kent then should generate the same 10% of all visits, from abroad...
So, is there an equal competition possible ? Focussing on the UK only as research object, perhaps 10% could be gained (making abstraction of the global 55% of Disney) , but that 10% then, must be drawn in by the theme park, only, PLUS, reasoning on the standard that there would be the same number of real theme park visitors at both ! (Which is a false premise)
(d) What is the actual theme park project size?
Be not misled. The project is a composed real estate project. The parts other then the theme park, take most of the grounds. Those parts are ALL without an exception, of LOCAL inportance only.
- Shopping centre : like any other one: local + regional scope. It generates zero tourism, yet is in direct competition with all other major shopping centres in the region. (Tipically, tennants bleed, not developers)
- Indoor water park : regional scope. BIG indoor water park : perhaps national scope, however, water parks almost NEVER attract destination tourism, they are typically 1/2 day dwell time places. However, generate quite stable repeat business, especially in this case, as greater London (forget about "Kent", it's about London) does not have a real major indoor waterpark, but many smaller leisure oriented swimming pool venues.
- Events venue. Will compete with many other ones, f.i. nearby O2. Again, ONLY of regional / partly national interest.
- Offices, on site homes etc... No visitor related influence, yet real estate development value.
The theme park, when examined closely, is projected to be on a scale, still UNDER existing Merlin properties (Alton Towers, Chessington WoA, Thorpe) It is VERY meaningfull, that Merlin showed no interest at all in investing in the Ebbsfleet proposal. Merlin, aand thus backed by one of the biggest venture capital companies in the world with the sharpest business insights on theme park developments (owns most of Merlin, owns Seaworld inc., owns part of Universal... etc) , THUS is NOT interested. That is quite meaningfull !
The theme park, as sized on Ebbsfleet, then could be going in the realistic industry standard range of 1.5 - 3 million attendance. It is DIFFICULT to get over the 2.5 M barrier, you're among the most successful ON EARTH, in that case, and all those reached it only after a long road (decennia) of building up credibility.
(e) Hotels
Now lets look at :
... 5000 hotel rooms ... It is probably the most mindblowing number in the whole marketing machine. No hotel owner/operator is going to fill up that fairy tale. Still based on an "Alton Towers park" sized venue !? And a best estimate on 10% visitors from abroad.
Why would ANYONE arriving in the UK by Eurostar, choose to stay in Ebbsfleet, EVEN if they want to visit the park ? A London city trip, is very popular and is usually invoking at least 3 X overnights. If The London goer includes Paramount in his visiting scheme, for the non-on-wheels tourist (train and plane), LONDON itself is the place to look for hotel, not the outskirts. Nobody is going to book 3 or 4 nights at Ebbsfleet, for the one theme park visit, and then a most difficult (aand expensive) public transport adventure into London, every day.
This is different for those who are really on wheels.
But, the projection of so many rooms is totally eye-blinding. Even 500 would proove huge...
As I said,
there is a lot to be said about the project, including that it still could change course dramatically.
It was just SOME remarks.
There also is not one interested operator on the waitlist. Meaningfull.
Of course, tons of interested service providers.
(What can be sold, must be sold. Operational feasibility is not of their buisiness as well)
Greetings
Last edited:
Rob
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Steel Vengeance
Varney was very dismissive of London Paramount at the Nemesis 21 event yesterday. He does not think it will happen and if it does he thinks they will go bust within two years and Merlin will then buy it at a hugely cut price (jokingly). He pointed out that the Paramount IPs are very dated and have not worked anywhere else, and that they have pretty much no-one with any theme park experience involved.
Valid concerns and hard to ignore such a prominent industry expert (albeit one that had not heard of Tayto Park and their woodie until yesterday morning).
I shalln't be backtracking though, I still think it will happen!
Valid concerns and hard to ignore such a prominent industry expert (albeit one that had not heard of Tayto Park and their woodie until yesterday morning).
I shalln't be backtracking though, I still think it will happen!
Tim
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Air / Blue Fire
Paramount might not have many people with Theme Park experienceat at the moment but if they offered a competitive rate of pay and good working conditions I imagine a lot of Merlin employes would jump ship without hesitation.
On a different subject I was wondering what effect the Top Gear situation could have on the park, given that was a major part of the BBC's contribution?
On a different subject I was wondering what effect the Top Gear situation could have on the park, given that was a major part of the BBC's contribution?
Benzin
TS Member
Yes, IPs like Star Trek and Mission Impossible are outdated...
I do get the feeling that the expectancy of failure will come to bite Merlin back... Even if some of Paramount's goals are very high, I would say 15 million guests annually for an entertainment complex just out of London isn't too far out of the realms of possibility...
I also like that he thinks inexperience will cost them, given what an apparently experienced operator has been doing the last few years at their biggest park...
I do get the feeling that the expectancy of failure will come to bite Merlin back... Even if some of Paramount's goals are very high, I would say 15 million guests annually for an entertainment complex just out of London isn't too far out of the realms of possibility...
I also like that he thinks inexperience will cost them, given what an apparently experienced operator has been doing the last few years at their biggest park...
nickhutson
TS Member
I kind of sniggered at him having the audacity to call Paramount's IPs outdated - what with Thorpe having an Angry Birds Land and London soon getting a Shrek Attraction... The first Shrek attraction opened in 2003 at Universal Studios Hollywood.
Jonathan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Helix <3
Likewise, Nick - Star Trek is going through a bit of a reboot, and is still popular across the world. And with other popular British IPs planned for usage (BBC and Aardman spring to mind), I think it's likely to succeed if it happens. Also, I believe the figures of 14m guests per year was an estimate for the resort as a whole, and not just the park alone. It was still an interesting Q&A, though!