Select Page

Horizon Project

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #57743

    I’ve just watched the truly terrifying horizon project video, which if fully implemented would surely cause the bankruptcy of the club. The previous proposal what might be called the Holloway proposal pales by comparison. The more I watched the video the more I realised that the club is absolutely perfect as it is now bar a few tweaks. Who are these people who dislike the east wing so much – to my mind the east wing is excellent – fully functional for the clubs purposes. The idea of having another swimming pool is laughable. I swim a lot in the indoor pool and always feel blessed that there are so few people there. The catering definitely needs improving to bring it into line with a Soho House type offering. Hey teacher leave our club alone! – with apologies to Pink Floyd!

    #57750

    How right you are Mr Eggins.

    “The previous proposal what might be called the Holloway proposal pales by comparison”

    The Holloway proposal covered one project to be executed in just over two years.

    The Horizon Project is more like a twenty year plan – but capable of being executed in less if members wish – and covering a significantly larger number of activities.

    If that is not clear Mr Eggins then you need to let the Project Management know as I’m getting my information from the same source as you.

    Tony

    #57751

    Mr Eggins.

    Overnight thought but first I feel it is a bit unfair to call this the Holloway plan. Chairmen before him espoused the scheme with similar enthusiasm.

    Richard will have more precise figures but if you want to compare that project with the Horizon project you could compare costs per annum.

    The scheme you mention would, if the world had not had Covid, have taken just over two years and cost something in excess of £26m.

    Horizon has listed opportunities costing a bit more than double that but has suggested the expenditure could be spread over about ten times the length of time – and don’t forget almost any element could be cancelled from the list as the years, and needs, progressed.

    I have to challenge your opening sentence but would be fascinated to hear you justify it.

    Tony

    #57754

    This is just to confirm that each individual project within any programme that members may approve will be decided on, in sequence, over a period of 10 years+. At each step, we can review whether the Club’s needs and finances are developing as anticipated, and incorporate experience from implementing the previous projects. It does not seem plausible that the programme will bankrupt the club, because projects will be committed to only after members have voted to increase subscriptions, if that is needed to fund them. It is correct to say that some of the potential choices will increase subscriptions.

    Why then do we ask members to consider now different programmes for the next1–20 years? The reasons to think about a 10-20 year programme as we are doing are several :

    1. the configuration of each building depends, in part, on what we will do in the other buildings
    2. It takes a long time to create capacity that members may want; for example, we can anticipate our changing member numbers and demographics with some confidence, and we have the opportunity, if we wish, to create facilities that will be ready when they are needed; if we only react to problems when they are manifest, we will be 3-5 years behind where we could be
    3. We must be thoughtful and coherent in how we use such planning permission flexibility as we may have
    4. We need to bring in cash in advance of committing to building projects, to avoid financial risks.

    There are real choices to be made, and there is an option for minimal as well as more extensive (and expensive) renewal of our facilities. Each path will have different impacts on the extent and quality of services that are provided and on subscriptions.

    Unfortunately, what is not on offer is the possibility to keep things exactly as they are: with current membership policies we face steady increases in member numbers and, for example, a very fast increase in the number of child members – an 80% increase first in under 10s, then in teenagers, if our members in their thirties bring their children into the club at the same rate as our members in their 40s have done! Similarly, we can predict ageing of older members and that, too, is leading to changes in club usage.

    It is certainly a viable choice to handle these changes within the constraints of existing facilities (which would be properly maintained), bu that does mean members would have to accept more crowding and the greater use of reservation systems, restricted access and so on. However, they would benefit from lower subscriptions and less construction disruption. Our task is to find out which path members would prefer, from several that we have identified that are all viable and none of which will be allowed to threaten bankruptcy of the club.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.