Masterplan – from bad to much much worse II
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:05 am
CH is an extremely wealthy organisation (the sixth largest charity in Britain?) because it owns a varied assortment of land and property in London and Sussex. The income generated by these assets has, by and large, been sufficient to fund the running of the school for the past few hundred years.
That is, until the Masterplan.
Viewed as unnecessarily lavish and over ambitious by many from when the first plans were submitted, certain Almoners zealously pushed on with the plan’s implementation. This, despite it being founded on economic projections that, at best, could be described as overly optimistic.
(Anyone with a basic grasp of economics knows that capitalist economies operate on cycles – and the wild stock market growth of a few years ago was no basis for constructing a plan to finance a multi-million pound building project.)
Now the school finds itself in the position of having to consider selling off more property in London (which it can freely do, because the Almoners recently suggested and passed a move to Total Return as a method of accounting) and land around the school in order to find cash. It goes without saying that once this property and land is sold off, it is gone forever – and the source of income on which the school has survived for so long, has lessened.
When viewed in the long term, things look very bleak for the future of CH as we know it.
To reply to Great Plum’s comment on what can be done, the Ridley Society sees an urgent need to address the apparent incompetence of certain Almoners. When the school moved from London to the site near Horsham, it was as a result of recommendations put forward by a Royal Commission appointed to safeguard the school’s survival. Perhaps a similar move, where the appointment of a group of experts who ARE ACCOUNTABLE IN EVERYTHING THEY DO would be appropriate now.
I stress accountable because, in the Ridley Society’s opinion, certain decisions by Almoners involved in the awarding of building contracts at the school (starting with the alleged rigging of the Sports Centre contract and going right through to the disastrous Masterplan itself) remain open to question. However, this is part of an ongoing enquiry with the Charities Commission so, for now, names and details must remain secret. The Ridley Society hopes to be far more forthcoming very soon.
Shoz’s point about CH being over generous in its subsidies is an entirely different matter. CH was founded as an establishment to educate underprivileged children. Many believe the opposite to your point: rules have been relaxed so much in recent times a large percentage of pupils aren’t from poor backgrounds at all.
Indeed, for a few parents with ‘creative’ accountancy skills, CH has become a way for the very wealthy to get their children an outstanding education ‘on the cheap’.
Look at the cars that fill the grounds at the beginning and end of each term. And that’s not including the Aston Martins prudently left at home in the owner’s double garage!
That is, until the Masterplan.
Viewed as unnecessarily lavish and over ambitious by many from when the first plans were submitted, certain Almoners zealously pushed on with the plan’s implementation. This, despite it being founded on economic projections that, at best, could be described as overly optimistic.
(Anyone with a basic grasp of economics knows that capitalist economies operate on cycles – and the wild stock market growth of a few years ago was no basis for constructing a plan to finance a multi-million pound building project.)
Now the school finds itself in the position of having to consider selling off more property in London (which it can freely do, because the Almoners recently suggested and passed a move to Total Return as a method of accounting) and land around the school in order to find cash. It goes without saying that once this property and land is sold off, it is gone forever – and the source of income on which the school has survived for so long, has lessened.
When viewed in the long term, things look very bleak for the future of CH as we know it.
To reply to Great Plum’s comment on what can be done, the Ridley Society sees an urgent need to address the apparent incompetence of certain Almoners. When the school moved from London to the site near Horsham, it was as a result of recommendations put forward by a Royal Commission appointed to safeguard the school’s survival. Perhaps a similar move, where the appointment of a group of experts who ARE ACCOUNTABLE IN EVERYTHING THEY DO would be appropriate now.
I stress accountable because, in the Ridley Society’s opinion, certain decisions by Almoners involved in the awarding of building contracts at the school (starting with the alleged rigging of the Sports Centre contract and going right through to the disastrous Masterplan itself) remain open to question. However, this is part of an ongoing enquiry with the Charities Commission so, for now, names and details must remain secret. The Ridley Society hopes to be far more forthcoming very soon.
Shoz’s point about CH being over generous in its subsidies is an entirely different matter. CH was founded as an establishment to educate underprivileged children. Many believe the opposite to your point: rules have been relaxed so much in recent times a large percentage of pupils aren’t from poor backgrounds at all.
Indeed, for a few parents with ‘creative’ accountancy skills, CH has become a way for the very wealthy to get their children an outstanding education ‘on the cheap’.
Look at the cars that fill the grounds at the beginning and end of each term. And that’s not including the Aston Martins prudently left at home in the owner’s double garage!