• 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

Still no signs of coaster contracts though. This looks more and more like building a leisure complex than a theme park, with the rides slowly being binned off
 
Poisson said:
Still no signs of coaster contracts though. This looks more and more like building a leisure complex than a theme park, with the rides slowly being binned off
Click to expand...
We’ll have to wait and see. That sort of thing might come once we’re further down the line with the DCO application.

Also, is it a possibility that the park has contracts in mind, and has had discussions behind closed doors, but just isn’t ready to reveal that information just yet?
 
I can’t see this being viable with just one investor it’s just not financially possible in the long term. I’m positive they just said that to entice new investors to get involved but they have been doing constantly.
 
Mr Pearse said:
I can’t see this being viable with just one investor it’s just not financially possible in the long term. I’m positive they just said that to entice new investors to get involved but they have been doing constantly.
Click to expand...
The application says that the funding they’ve been pledged should be sufficient to get the project funded entirely by this one investor, so that makes me confident that they’re not just saying it to entice investors.
 
To get even just the bog standard plan for the first stage they have set out will cost £5b that’s without any unexpected costs added in so I honestly can’t see who would be crazy enough to put £5b down on a project with no guarantee when the investment will pay back.
 
rob666 said:
No.
Because most people want to do theme parks in their own vehicles.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the tram link? I think it could possibly be good for foreign guests or inner-city guests from places like London, but I agree that most British guests will probably want to get there by car.
 
Poisson said:
Would it be classed as a mercy kill if they just came out and said it was over?
Click to expand...
Not soon after they announce the park is dead and buried they announce the land will become x amount of houses/apartments. It’s just a waiting a game now how long will they keep this going.
 
That fact this one investor doesn’t want to be known until planning has been granted is interesting.

It suggests that they are perhaps a controversial figure who would somehow jeopardise the planning consent.
 
AT86 said:
That fact this one investor doesn’t want to be known until planning has been granted is interesting.

It suggests that they are perhaps a controversial figure who would somehow jeopardise the planning consent.
Click to expand...
What sort of “controversial figure” might want to fund a theme park, though? Are there any controversial investors out there? I can’t think of too many, off the top of my head. And why would the choice of investor jeopardise the application? Surely it’s what’s getting built that the planners are interested in, is it not?

It could be for a different reason; the investor might not want to risk reputational damage if the project doesn’t come to fruition. It did also mention that the investor will only offer the money if the project is granted planning permission, so that could be another reason.
 
Controversial could cover many things, perhaps there is some unease about their wealth and how it came about. Or their moral or political beliefs aren’t great.

Or perhaps they have been involved and funded certain businesses in the past that haven’t performed well, or who don’t treat people well - be that neighbours, suppliers, staff etc.

Them keeping their identity a secret just makes me wonder if they would somehow harm the chances of getting planning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top