The proposed NCA

The weather isn't being very helpful here, so there's time to deal with these.

Voila: "Face Fit and Doesn't" . A phrase that seems to apply to anyone in curling who dares to rock the boat.
As my Grandpa used to say "Don't mess with an institution".

The situation is this. On the one hand, there is a group of curling-ice technicians who has taken the bull by the horns and looked very closely at what works, and what doesn't. Every one of them, and I will vouch for them, is an individual of integrity, experience, dedication and total commitment. They expect nothing other than a living wage and the support to do their work, which is to make good ice for all their customers. Many of them, if not most, work seven days a week for at least eight months of the year, and making good ice is their life and priority. Ask their wives, who will tell you the same.
This group of people has identified the problems of their facilities and developed ways of solving them, not by throwing money at it but by doing it right, just so, to enable curling to prosper. They put the information into a melting pot and designed the Circle, which is to my knowledge the only such design in existence. The Circle can produce any kind of ice you want, any problem you want to look at, any scenario within which to prepare a team for a World Championship and more. It can also provide quality ice for any daily curler, any beginner, any wheelie, any top player -- at the most cost-effective price and method. The opportunity arises for them to translate the Circle into a reality for the good of Scottish curling and they decide to accept the challenge. The SCIG decides to try and build the Circle.

On the other hand there is the RCCC who needs such a facility, now referred to as the NCA, and a landowner who has land available and a curling rink in need of replacement, but he doesn't have the money. The RCCC can find some money from Sportscotland but not much more, and there is a shortfall. Meanwhile, to strengthen their case, the RCCC adds an office requirement and a museum. The landowner, who owns (via the bank) the two adjacent hotels, agrees to work with the SCIG to prepare a bid, but without including accommodation or a restaurant -- he would have far more to gain by forcing curlers to use his hotel facilities. Next he decides to propose building on his Market Park, which he can't build anything else on, and then expects an annual income of £10k for the favour, never mind what he takes in the hotels. Bob Tait, at the time Chaiman for the RCCC, gets voted off the board, but is kept on for the KCT. Colin Grahamslaw, CEO for the RCCC at the time, leaves for the WCF, but is kept on for the KCT. Jamie Montgomery, the landowner, discovers that the Stewarts can't be bribed and, without their agreement, he cannot build on the Market Park unless he uses the courts to force the issue.
The KCT and all those under that umbrella decide to build a six sheeter to enable them to host national or international competitions. I seem to recall that Dewars followed the same argument many years ago, and they are struggling. This will not bother Jamie much, his hotels will rake it in while the NCA can run to the government for more money. It will not bother the RCCC, they'll all be working somewhere else by then, while their names remain engraved on a plaque at the door. The SCIG refuses to support the six sheeter simply because the figures don't add up, and the KCT cannot produce figures that do add up. Simple: get rid of the SCIG and charge forth with the white elephant.

"Face fit" is not the issue here. The issue is the determination of a few individuals who WILL have their way, and in the exact words of Jamie, "whatever it takes". The rest really couldn't care less unless they get the glory. "Don't mess with an institution" is a wise saying. Those were the days, when committees could make decisions and bury the minutes under their carpet, and no-one would be any the wiser, especially after two years or so of other priorities filling people's minds. The days now are of free information and communication on the internet, and you can decide for yourself whom to believe and what the facts REALLY are.

The fact is that the SCIG did nothing wrong, did their best, and have a plan that will work very well for all concerned and for the good of curling. Throwing them out because they "rock the boat" is wrong, primitive and selfish. It happens, yes, but that doesn't make it right.

You decide, we have already made as much genuine information public as we can.

Devil's Advocate:

Where does the design fall down?

One thing anyone can tell you, have simple lines for a building and the costs stay low, because everything is off the shelf for portal frames, walls, roof, etc. Add a few curves, funny angles, glass by the ten-square metre and the architects and constructors are laughing all the way. In my view, which as always has been carefully considered and discussed with my colleagues, the design is poor. Access is convoluted in many ways, the emphasis is on glory for the RCCC, the museum is a pokey hole at the back and the facilities for the curlers are ignoring the requirements.

Where will the running costs mount up?

Running a six sheeter is expensive, no matter what figures they provide to prove otherwise. There are too many council-run facilities in Scotland who have to abide by the law and employ a suitable number of technicians to staff the place -- thinking that one or two fellas off the street (with help, of course) can run a six sheeter is simply not on. Add to this the odd serious competition or so and costs escalate to such an extent that the technicians are simply too tired or disillusioned to provide for their regular customers. These, by the way, are the people who pay the bills, because money-making competitions are few and far between. Add to this the latest specifications in equipment, refurbishment of stones, must have deionised water, must have a new dehumidifier, etc, etc, and the costs have an open season on the rink's finances.

Where is the shortfall in revenue?

There are simply not sufficient curlers in the area of Kinross to serve a six sheeter with a certain, regular income to sustain the facility. There is also no sign of any additional income from any other sources, while the expenses keep rising. Land rent, bank charges, investment in plant, etc. will gobble up something like £200k per annum that HAS to be provided for, and then there are the running costs. No restaurant, no clubroom, and everyone will be off to the hotels or wherever -- that is shortfall in revenue. Keep the ice fees down and give them poor ice to compensate -- that is shortfall in revenue. Simply being on the back foot to such an extent that potential members have to be marched to the till to squeeze their fees out of them -- that is saying "right, that's the last money you'll ever get from me, mate!"
Without the loyal support of the full community (and not just the ones who have been marched to the till) there will always be a shortfall of revenue.

In short - spell out why it will fail.

The project has no product to sell.

Wee Eddie: The NCA qualifies as a vanity Project and, unfortunately, those in Power usually like to create a Monument to their tenure in Office. Especially when they are not the ones that have to find the Capital or cover the Operating Costs.

A Vanity Project has no product either. Quality ice, sustainable for all, in a facility small enough to be cost effective and simply large enough to serve its customers, is a product curlers will break down the door for.