Leisure business

ASPECTS of John Comiskey’s reply (to compelling and well-articulated concerns about the purpose of Edinburgh Leisure, Letters, 17 January) are disingenuous and evasive (Letters, 18 January).

His mere introduction of himself as “chief executive” is, in my opinion, hugely revealing – heralding a vision of his role at Edinburgh Leisure as a business prima donna rather than as the provider of leisure facilities to citizens of the capital.

Incidentally, are citizens aware that Richard Jeffrey, the deposed head of Tie and a key architect of the city’s tram calamity, is a member of the Edinburgh Leisure board – presumably bringing to Edinburgh’s recreational facilities, a management ethos so ably demonstrated in tram construction and financial control?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Comiskey has an advantage of access to Edinburgh Leisure’s 2010-11 accounts, a privilege not yet granted to the rest of us, but two issues stand out.

Firstly, Mr Comiskey does not recognise a pay-off to his predecessor for what it was. “One-off costs associated with the early retirement of Mr Jackson will impact reserves by circa £180,000”.

That is Edinburgh Leisure terminology, not mine and not the original letter writer’s either. How else might Mr Comiskey choose to define a golden goodbye?

Secondly, he ignores the letter writer’s valid observation about the Ratho Climbing Centre’s enormous and disproportionate drain on Edinburgh Leisure’s resources. It is costing £590,000 a year to subsidise what is really a white elephant.

Money well spent? Mr Comiskey seems to think so, but then he has got Mr Jeffrey’s vast experience of preserving white elephants to draw upon.

ANDREW Niven

Braid Farm Road

Edinburgh

Related topics: