From KCT statement on Bobs Blog
"The position statement has significant variations from the original specification for the competition which RCCC and Sportscotland issued in 2007. Key elements no longer feature---namely relocation of the elite coaching staff and players to an all year round facility of the highest quality, relocation of the RCCC offices and creation of a Curling Museum."

If that is the case, then just exactly what is a National Curling Academy?
If the requirements are now so different to the original outline in 2008 does that still make the bid by KCT valid?
Is this still the best solution to what the RCCC now require?
Is this the best solution for the good of the sport?

It then begs the question - how can the aims of the RCCC / NCA  be achieved both more efficiently and now more importantly, cost effectively?

A new rink in a geographical position where there is little requirement is not the way forward - As the much promised but not yet published "National Facility Strategy" will show - there is already a massive requirement for funds to provide facilities (refurbish & new) for the grass roots curlers & clubs in areas where the sport is dying on its feet - spending £1.5 million of Sportscotland money on an ice rink where they dont need one is nonsensical.

In a letter exactly a year ago, It was put to the board and ASC  that this would be the situation that they would find themselves in. Within that letter, it was requested that alternatives be discussed at board & ASC level to ensure that all options had been explored - there is no such record of these suggestions being discussed within the minutes of both the ASC and Board.

It was suggested to the board / ASC that -
1)NCA activities and responsibilities could be devolved to existing ice rinks and could be allocated on a regional basis. This would bring ice rinks much needed income and spread spending for athlete training fairer throughout the country. This will also enable athletes to train nearer to their local rink with resources (coaches, technical equipment etc) travelling to the regional rinks rather than forcing all the athletes to train at a central venue. Thus elite curling could still be a beneficiary of a National Academy ethos without the necessity of a physical building.
Also
2)The funding from SportScotland for the NCA would have a bigger impact for the good of curling if it was spent on improving / building a number of important local facilities rather than on a single rink project. Examples of this could be the refurbishment of the existing Kinross rink at a fraction of the NCA cost, part funding possible new builds at Tain, Cupar, Aviemore or even just securing the future of geographically important rinks such as Elgin or Kelso. This would be better value for money and have a far greater return in terms of sport participation and membership.
and
3)The administration of the sport could be carried out from any suitable office accommodation or home-working arrangement and does not need to be attached to an ice rink. There is no shortage of affordable good quality office space available at present at any location the RCCC would choose to relocate to.
finally
4)If the difficult decision to shelve the Kinross NCA is taken now, then there is an opportunity to negotiate with SportScotland to reallocate the funding in a manner that would bring credit to both organisations and still support the sport.

These points are still valid and the opportunity still remains - but only if the RCCC can grasp the concept of a "virtual" or "Devolved" National Curling Academy (- much like some universities have a number of campuses -) where the Capital Funding, Income and NCA responsibilites are spread over a number of rinks - thus helping everybody.

Could this happen - or as DA puts it - are they too far committed and now have to save face. Big decisions need big men (& women) - Are the RCCC up to the big decision that now needs taking?

There is an update on Bob's Blog here:

http://skipcottagecurling.blogspot.com/2012/01/progress-slow-at-kinross.html

It is not clear why the KCT website is still stuck in September somewhere, but perhaps they are using Bob as spokesman to save themselves the bother. What is clear is that there is no real progress and, considering the past few posts, no real appetite for this. We welcome any further news.

There is another update on Bob's Blog about this:

http://skipcottagecurling.blogspot.com/p/conundrum.html

As I understand it, they are asking this:
But what about the wider curling community and the blazerati? Largely invisible and sleep walking to disaster.

Many are invisible because they have been made so by the KCT members who expelled them from the process, like us. Many are hiding under the bed and distancing themselves from the project because they have become disillusioned by the KCT, like the RCCC. Now KCT finds itself in a situation where they either get lucky and receive a few million from Heaven, or they fail -- I must tell you, the reasons why they are failing are very clear to me and fill much of this thread, and if had such millions I would not give a single penny to the project. Elsewhere, perhaps, but not in Kinross.

So, will it be that bad if the new place is never built? No. The Kinross curling rink can be refurbished to last another thirty years, if the will can be found from the people who own it. We in the SCIG have discussed this many times and in much detail, and it will not cost as much as everyone is trying to make out. But it will always be a rural rink of significance to its members, and not to the nation, as any rural rink should be. I hear the calls for more ice, six sheeter please -- forget it, folks, the shortage of ice is not because Kinross is too small, it is because there are not sufficient curling rinks in the country.

We had a plan, a very good plan, for what would work in Kinross. They, the KCT, threw these out and went for BIG, BOLD, BEAUTIFUL, and now they are blaming us for sleepwalking to disaster??

Having attended two reunions in the past couple of weeks with curlers from all over the country, the subject of Kinross was raised and received the same 100% responce. That was close it (the new facility/plans) down. We dont need it and dont want it. And what is wrong with the other facilities such as the Peak with its gyms and seminar rooms and ice.
The Nation is in recession and we are all feeling the pinch, so lets forget someones pipe dream. We cannot afford it.

And to think that Gogar could have been in its second or third season now if that had been chosen.

But then DA somebodies ideas and kingdom might be ruined and how could they face their lemming like followers.
The whole idea should now be ditched and buried for dead.

WS

If you are criticising me, I'll take you head on. I put time, and money that I could ill afford, into the support of the project. I have supported it fully by publicising your efforts from the start.

Recently though, it has become apparent just how flawed the project now is, and I've said so.

Take a good look at yourself, stop blaming others, dump the project now, and start again with a fresh effort to progress a replacement four sheet community rink for Kinross. You have my support for that, and I wish you every success in that effort.

Bob Cowan

Healey's first law of politics springs to mind:

"When you get in a hole, stop digging."