Why Ireland's so called 'Tourist Industry' is a joke

swimming in a sea

Its been very interesting reading the history of this tread, sounds like some people have really good ideas.

Dublin I think can compete with any of Europe's major cities as its big plus is its a capital, I think it should be run independently from the rest of the country with an elected mayor, I think its been a big success for London.

The rest of the country should base tourism more on the countryside activities, with the other big towns been a lunching point for this.

I would like to see an end to the delusions that are held in rural Ireland about things like the western rail corridor, this could make an excellent cycle track linking up to the successful Westport track.
Maybe Tourist board should get involved with the IFA to open up walkways, but maybe this is like getting in bed with the devil.

As i know personally of a farmer where the Westport cycle trail went through his land and he held it up for two years until he got rather dodgy planning permission for his sons one off house build, so I'd be vary of this.

maninasia

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

We need more focus on extracting money, not less! How long do you reckon it takes to even cover the costs of one of these visitor centers after wages and day-to-day expenses have been paid? My guess would be that the initial investment is *never* recovered. It would be nice if these projects were actually looked at in a "where can we make the most money" kind of way as opposed to anything else.

It's called 'industry', not 'charity'.

You've got the horse and cart backwards. You don't build a useless interpretative centre and then justify charging people more money to get in because you built the centre, that actually reduces your profit and overall revenue as people go somewhere else. If everything is overpriced for this reason it becomes a massive turn-off.

maninasia

PRAF wrote: »

Yes but there is a difference.

The Irish tourism industry is €5b plus a year industry, employing more than 200k people, catering to over 6m tourists. It is one of our biggest industries. We have many world class tourist attractions and hundreds of world class tourism businesses (be they hotels, golf courses, restaurants, visitor attractions, etc.)

What seems to be attracting a lot of negative comment are the public bodies. The likes of Fáilte Ireland, Dublin Tourism, Irish Rail, etc. seem to be the ones who are letting the side down. However, you also have the likes of Dublin Zoo, Kilmainham Jail, etc who are doing a superb job.

Statements like "the tourist industry is a joke" are too negative and downbeat. IMHO we have a lot to be proud of.

Saying 'you have a lot to be proud of' doesn't mean anything.

Now if you said that there was a lot of growth in terms of visitors , or in terms of tourist satisfaction, or in new facilities for cyclists and hikers, or in money spent per tourist (within reason), well then you have a lot to be proud of.

Until then..you can wrap up the green jersey.

PRAF

maninasia wrote: »

Saying 'you have a lot to be proud of' doesn't mean anything.

Now if you said that there was a lot of growth in terms of visitors , or in terms of tourist satisfaction, or in new facilities for cyclists and hikers, or in money spent per tourist (within reason), well then you have a lot to be proud of.

Until then..you can wrap up the green jersey.

According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO), overseas visits for 2011 increased by 6% overall compared to 2010, reaching over 6.5 million and exceeding targets. Domestic tourism is also reported to be on the increase with more Irish people holidaying at home. "The Gathering" is also expected to have a positive impact on tourism this year.

Both public costs (e.g. VAT on hotels, tax on flights, etc.) and private costs (e.g. hotel B&B rates) have fallen significantly in recent years. Our overall competitiveness as a holiday destination is also improving as Ireland is now in 19th position in the World Tourism & Travel Competitiveness Index

We already have some brilliant hikes out there (e.g. the Wicklow Way, Sheeps Head, etc.). I believe there is some good work happening now in the Dublin mountains and of course Coillte have done some good work in this area too.

Re cycling, there has been much progress in terms of making Dublin more cycling friendly. Further afield you have the Great Western Greenway in Mayo.

Any visitors I meet here in Ireland give fantastic feedback on their visits. Just a few days ago I met a group of Americans who were basing themselves in Dublin but playing golf all around the country. They were having a brilliant time by all accounts. We had a good chat about the golf, their ancestry and I even taught them a few words of Irish (the little that I remember from school).

I met a friend of a friend recently who does a food, drink, & storytelling night in a pub in Dublin. I presumed it must be a part time job or a hobby. Turns out its been his full time job for the last 5 years and business is thriving.

Again, I've no doubt that there are absolutely rubbish tourism offerrings around Ireland and I have no doubt that there are massive improvements to be made in lots of areas. However, I stand by my comment that we do have lots to be proud about here in Ireland. If I didn't believe it, I'd have left long ago.

creedp

maninasia wrote: »

Saying 'you have a lot to be proud of' doesn't mean anything.

Now if you said that there was a lot of growth in terms of visitors , or in terms of tourist satisfaction, or in new facilities for cyclists and hikers, or in money spent per tourist (within reason), well then you have a lot to be proud of.

Until then..you can wrap up the green jersey.

This is turning/has turned in to another example of a thread where people take extreme polar opposite views on a particular topic and won't listen to compromise. No one would argue that improvements couldn't be made to the Irish tourism product but IMHO that does not mean there aren't positive that shouldn't be championed. What somethings are wrong, e.g. a interpretative centre is inappropriate, so therefore the whole Irish tourism sector is sh1te? A bit excessive I would have thought. Why not focus on what could be done better and acknowledge what is positive.

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

You've got the horse and cart backwards. You don't build a useless interpretative centre and then justify charging people more money to get in because you built the centre, that actually reduces your profit and overall revenue as people go somewhere else. If everything is overpriced for this reason it becomes a massive turn-off.

My point being that if the centre and all the staff that go with it aren't going to be producing any sort of financial benefit, then what is the point of putting it there in the first place? It obviously isn't a viable enterprise, and is just piggybacking from government funds off the back of a tourist attraction that people were going to see anyway.

maninasia

Of course I agree it should never have been built in the first place.

maninasia

PRAF wrote: »

According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO), overseas visits for 2011 increased by 6% overall compared to 2010, reaching over 6.5 million and exceeding targets. Domestic tourism is also reported to be on the increase with more Irish people holidaying at home. "The Gathering" is also expected to have a positive impact on tourism this year.

Both public costs (e.g. VAT on hotels, tax on flights, etc.) and private costs (e.g. hotel B&B rates) have fallen significantly in recent years. Our overall competitiveness as a holiday destination is also improving as Ireland is now in 19th position in the World Tourism & Travel Competitiveness Index

We already have some brilliant hikes out there (e.g. the Wicklow Way, Sheeps Head, etc.). I believe there is some good work happening now in the Dublin mountains and of course Coillte have done some good work in this area too.

Re cycling, there has been much progress in terms of making Dublin more cycling friendly. Further afield you have the Great Western Greenway in Mayo.

Any visitors I meet here in Ireland give fantastic feedback on their visits. Just a few days ago I met a group of Americans who were basing themselves in Dublin but playing golf all around the country. They were having a brilliant time by all accounts. We had a good chat about the golf, their ancestry and I even taught them a few words of Irish (the little that I remember from school).

I met a friend of a friend recently who does a food, drink, & storytelling night in a pub in Dublin. I presumed it must be a part time job or a hobby. Turns out its been his full time job for the last 5 years and business is thriving.

Again, I've no doubt that there are absolutely rubbish tourism offerrings around Ireland and I have no doubt that there are massive improvements to be made in lots of areas. However, I stand by my comment that we do have lots to be proud about here in Ireland. If I didn't believe it, I'd have left long ago.

I could argue the toss on a few of these, like growth rebound, VAT going up to 23%, hiking access etc but I just wanted to see you outline your points and you have done that, fair play. Ireland's tourism 'product' is not bad, it just needs work and there is a lot more potential to be developed beyond the traditional Guinness storehouse, looking for my ancestors lark.

I personally think Ireland could do a lot more marketing to developing countries, where the real growth in tourists is coming from. So instead of very tepid and relatively passive growth and this Gathering thing which is really just raking over the same coals and piggybacking on existing events you could get a real boost in growth from new tourism markets. This needs a co-ordinated approach in terms of improving direct transport options, visas and understanding of Ireland overseas. It depends on one's expectations I guess.

Cody Pomeray

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

My point being that if the centre and all the staff that go with it aren't going to be producing any sort of financial benefit, then what is the point of putting it there in the first place? It obviously isn't a viable enterprise, and is just piggybacking from government funds off the back of a tourist attraction that people were going to see anyway.

There was a time when there was absolutely nothing there apart from the cliffs rolling off the fields away from the road, and people were complaining about that too.

Without wanting to get too specific on the visitor centre, It comes down to a social values. Lots of things that are unlikely to be economically profitable - for example, the Dead Zoo, have cultural merit that people attach a non-financial value to.

I'm sure some people disagree. I'm sure some people believe the state should only support financially profitable ventures. I reckon most people would disagree and admit that apparently non-profitable cultural and educational projects can still be worthwhile

PRAF

creedp wrote: »

This is turning/has turned in to another example of a thread where people take extreme polar opposite views on a particular topic and won't listen to compromise. No one would argue that improvements couldn't be made to the Irish tourism product but IMHO that does not mean there aren't positive that shouldn't be championed. What somethings are wrong, e.g. a interpretative centre is inappropriate, so therefore the whole Irish tourism sector is sh1te? A bit excessive I would have thought. Why not focus on what could be done better and acknowledge what is positive.

Nail on the head here.

Some people just have a very negative view on everything. Go to the cinema --> the movie was crap. Go to a restaurant --> the food was sh1te. Go on holiday --> the weather was brutal. Toilet seat broken somewhere --> the entire tourism industry in Ireland is a joke.

Maybe having a balanced view on things is just too boring for Boards.ie!

RATM

maninasia wrote: »

Listing the Cliffs of Moher was a bit of a mistake on that list. What a mess they made of that and they charge you big bucks just to see cliffs and park your car, stuck an interpretative centre for CLIFFS (to justify charging money of course) in and now the cliffs are actually hard to see because they put flagstones all around the edge.

Sure there are lots of nice places to visit in Ireland, but like other posters said already it's a bit hard to get around and not cheap at all. The train system is too expensive and doesn't link well with urban transport. The people (excepting the large amounts of drug addicts and scumbaggery) and bars and food are great, but just needs more work all round and less focus on extracting money.

Couldn't agree more with this. Clare County Council saw an opportunity to gouge tourists. In doing so they put pay barriers on the car park and painted double yellow lines on both sides of a rural road for 3kms either side of the Cliffs of Moher. I've brought friends from abroad to the Cliffs and even they remarked as to why there was double yellow lines on both sides of the road in a rural area. It just looks ridiculous.

The Cliffs should be free, they're a scenic outdoor attraction. Plenty of money to be made by Clare County Council via the rates they make from the shops that are there as well as all the local bars, restaurants, hotels locally who are viable because of the Cliffs and who already pay rates to the council. But instead the council got greedy and they wanted paying on the double.

So they wrecked the place and begun charging.

PRAF

RATM wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with this. Clare County Council saw an opportunity to gouge tourists. In doing so they put pay barriers on the car park and painted double yellow lines on both sides of a rural road for 3kms either side of the Cliffs of Moher. I've brought friends from abroad to the Cliffs and even they remarked as to why there was double yellow lines on both sides of the road in a rural area. It just looks ridiculous.

The Cliffs should be free, they're a scenic outdoor attraction. Plenty of money to be made by Clare County Council via the rates they make from the shops that are there as well as all the local bars, restaurants, hotels locally who are viable because of the Cliffs and who already pay rates to the council. But instead the council got greedy and they wanted paying on the double.

So they wrecked the place and begun charging.

In am ideal world it'd be free. However the principle of admission fees for natural attractions is not new. The Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Uluru, to name but a few and all of them considerably more than the cliffs of moher

maninasia

There's no logic in this statement, this is an asset that belongs to us all and there are better ways to manage it rather than straight up gouging tourists and ruining the experience in the process.

Interpretative centre for cliffs, you have to have a good chuckle at the stupidity.

johnr1

I bring people to the cliffs almost every week during the summer, and while clare Co council did annoy a lot of people with the way they went about charging for parking, I have to refute some of the shyte being spouted here.
First: If not for the ban on parking on the road, no tour bus could get up that road at all, and there would be mayhem.
Second: I regularly have a guest or several on the bus who are not up to or don't want to walk out to the cliffs and stand there in gale force winds, and they value the Interpretive Centre along with the restaurants, toilets, shop etc.

People ought to at least have experienced something before they comment !

Judgement Day

johnr1 wrote: »

I bring people to the cliffs almost every week during the summer, and while clare Co council did annoy a lot of people with the way they went about charging for parking, I have to refute some of the shyte being spouted here.
First: If not for the ban on parking on the road, no tour bus could get up that road at all, and there would be mayhem.
Second: I regularly have a guest or several on the bus who are not up to or don't want to walk out to the cliffs and stand there in gale force winds, and they value the Interpretive Centre along with the restaurants, toilets, shop etc.

People ought to at least have experienced something before they comment !

Why would anyone go to the Cliffs of Moher if they didn't want to see the cliffs, the view etc? Better to buy a book about the cliffs and read it at home with a nice cup of tea - and a pee.

ardmacha

First: If not for the ban on parking on the road, no tour bus could get up that road at all, and there would be mayhem.

If they didn't have rip off car parking, nobody would want to park on the road!

PRAF

If a natural attraction 'like the Cliffs of Moher gets thousands of visitors, then quite simply there is an obligation for the site to be managed in order to preserve the site, make it safe for visitors, etc. That costs money obviously - paths, car parks, lighting, toilets, staff, etc.

There's always a fine line between charging a fair price and 'gouging tourists'. €6 per adult seems ok to me for a one off visit. However, I suppose if you have a car full of adults and you are not that bothered about going into the visitor centre then it could be a bit much.

maninasia

PRAF wrote: »

If a natural attraction 'like the Cliffs of Moher gets thousands of visitors, then quite simply there is an obligation for the site to be managed in order to preserve the site, make it safe for visitors, etc. That costs money obviously - paths, car parks, lighting, toilets, staff, etc.

There's always a fine line between charging a fair price and 'gouging tourists'. €6 per adult seems ok to me for a one off visit. However, I suppose if you have a car full of adults and you are not that bothered about going into the visitor centre then it could be a bit much.

Yes, I agree. How much is charged to use the facilities and parking is the main issue. The current charge to have a squizz at some cliffs which are our free natural asset is way out of line.

I don't think they needed to build an interpretative centre, seal the place off and place loads of flagstones to 'protect' people. That for me took away the natural aspect of the site itself. They could have just out some shelter in for the rain and some toilets and kept the cost down for everybody and the intrusion on the natural environment to a minimum.

I visited the place before and after the new setup. I was very disappointed and much lighter in my pocket after the new centre was put in. I felt it was pretty much a price gouging exercise and done distastefully.

Chinasea

Actually,this is Ireland and there is one main big issue here. The size of the Cliffs of Moher. Unless we are made to 'behave' in this country, we will litter, obliterate, hack bits off, pave over and build some crapy apartment blocks, park in, on top of, double sided, any bloody place a car can be abandoned, we'll do it.

The fee isn't that high. It certainly isn't somewhere you would be visiting daily, so to avoid the sheer chaos and danger that ensued there before the behavourial enforcements were implemented, I see no problem.

PRAF

maninasia wrote: »

Yes, I agree. How much is charged to use the facilities and parking is the main issue. The current charge to have a squizz at some cliffs which are our free natural asset is way out of line.

I don't think they needed to build an interpretative centre, seal the place off and place loads of flagstones to 'protect' people. That for me took away the natural aspect of the site itself. They could have just out some shelter in for the rain and some toilets and kept the cost down for everybody and the intrusion on the natural environment to a minimum.

I visited the place before and after the new setup. I was very disappointed and much lighter in my pocket after the new centre was put in. I felt it was pretty much a price gouging exercise and done distastefully.

A rickety old tin shelter and a few out houses for people to take a whizz or a shyte is it? Come on, this is 2013, not 1913.

I think you're being a bit naieve. The Cliffs of Moher are one of the most iconic natural sites in Ireland and it is one of, if not the, most visited tourist attraction in Ireland.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of visitors and a sizeable proportion of them are either young kids, elderly people, or people with disabilities. An 'interpretive centre' or as I would call it a visitor & information centre makes things a little easier for them. It also offers people a nice place to shelter, get some food, and learn about the cliffs while they're there.

I've been lucky enough to travel quite a bit and have visited lots of natural attractions in places like the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Visitor & information centres are nothing new. In fact, in lots of these countries you have to pay significantly more than €6 to visit these sites.

I'll accept that perhaps the pricing plan may be wrong. For example, in the USA you can get an annual pass to visit these sites. In other sites, you pay to bring in a car rather than pay per adult. However, the principle of paying to see the cliffs is perfectly fine IMO.

As for the aesthetics of the site, that is a matter of opinion I guess. However, it looks pretty low key to me. Seems to blend into the natural environment as far as I'm concerned

maninasia

PRAF wrote: »

A rickety old tin shelter and a few out houses for people to take a whizz or a shyte is it? Come on, this is 2013, not 1913.

I think you're being a bit naieve. The Cliffs of Moher are one of the most iconic natural sites in Ireland and it is one of, if not the, most visited tourist attraction in Ireland.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of visitors and a sizeable proportion of them are either young kids, elderly people, or people with disabilities. An 'interpretive centre' or as I would call it a visitor & information centre makes things a little easier for them. It also offers people a nice place to shelter, get some food, and learn about the cliffs while they're there.

I've been lucky enough to travel quite a bit and have visited lots of natural attractions in places like the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Visitor & information centres are nothing new. In fact, in lots of these countries you have to pay significantly more than €6 to visit these sites.

I'll accept that perhaps the pricing plan may be wrong. For example, in the USA you can get an annual pass to visit these sites. In other sites, you pay to bring in a car rather than pay per adult. However, the principle of paying to see the cliffs is perfectly fine IMO.

As for the aesthetics of the site, that is a matter of opinion I guess. However, it looks pretty low key to me. Seems to blend into the natural environment as far as I'm concerned

I get a lot of what you are saying.

With that provision I will say that not everywhere charges for their famous sites (like the countey I live in now, charges little or nothing which is refreshing) whether they should or not is a matter of opinion, I'm all for crowd control when numbers get too much,
But not for pricing out people.
There's a principle of fairness there and county councils already get plenty of our tax.

I get why Clonmacnoise needs an Interpretatitve centre. I do not see the need in the case of the Cliffs of Moher. They are cliffs FFS .

PRAF

maninasia wrote: »

I get a lot of what you are saying.

With that provision I will say that not everywhere charges for their famous sites (like the countey I live in now, charges little or nothing which is refreshing) whether they should or not is a matter of opinion, I'm all for crowd control when numbers get too much,
But not for pricing out people.
There's a principle of fairness there and county councils already get plenty of our tax.

I get why Clonmacnoise needs an Interpretatitve centre. I do not see the need in the case of the Cliffs of Moher. They are cliffs FFS .

We're not a million miles apart here. I'd prefer that these sites are kept as low cost for visitors as possible, especially at the point of entry. If you need money to maintain the site, try to do it by charging people a bit more for their coffees, panini's, etc :-)

As for the interpretive centre, there is a need for it and I'll tell you why. People like me who've forgotten their junior cert geography who want answers to the simple question "how in the name of jaysus did those cliffs get there"!

maninasia

..Well you see there was a giant called Moher, and one day he had a fight with the other giant up North, Finn McCumhaill, well things didn't go too well and so he bailed back to Clare, ripped off a load of rock and flung it into the sea...this then became the Aran Islands....

djpbarry

maninasia wrote: »

There's a principle of fairness there and county councils already get plenty of our tax.

Well, no, they don't - all tax revenue goes to central government. Local government in Ireland is drastically under-funded.

maninasia

Well rates go to local government, and a large wodge of property taxes.

Giruilla

Do you actually have to pay for the cliffs of moher? I thought the ticket is just for the visitor centre? So everyone should just bail out of the car before the car park and walk in...

ardmacha

So everyone should just bail out of the car before the car park and walk in...

What do you do with the car?

maryishere

ardmacha wrote: »

What do you do with the car?

let the chaffeur do circles in it, or park and polish the bonnet.

On a serious note, there are equally nice cliffs elsewhere in Ireland, not as touristy, and where you do not have to pay money. Achill Atlantic drive, Mullaghmore cliffs in Sligo, the Atlantic drive on Inishowen in Donegal are all spectacular.

Hootanany

Slieve League in Donegal you can drive all the way to the top free as well tallest in Europe.

Giruilla

ardmacha wrote: »

What do you do with the car?

Just the driver drive in and park it so whoever else is with you doesn't need to pay. You don't have to pay for the cliffs of moher.. fact.

RATM

Giruilla wrote: »

Just the driver drive in and park it so whoever else is with you doesn't need to pay. You don't have to pay for the cliffs of moher.. fact.

Yeah they changed it to a per person charge, thus doubling or trebling (or more) the cost of visiting the Cliffs. I was there 6 weeks ago and both of us were made pay €6, it used to be a per car charge, now it is a per person one. I'll be there again in 3 weeks time with a guest and they'll be hopping out of the car before I go to park it.

I get the fact that the Cliffs are busy and the grounds have to be maintained. However comparisons with Yosemite are unfounded- Yosemite is a national park which is 3,100 square kilometres and have thousands of kilometers of marked trails which are maintained by rangers throughout the year. , the Cliffs of Moher site would barely be 3 square kilometres all up. In fact I'm sure if you did a cost per accessible acre comparison between the Cliffs and Yosemite I'm sure the conclusion would be that for the money you pay the Cliffs are a rip of in comparison to what you get in Yosemite.

In any case Yosemite is what is largely recognised as a world class national park, it gets nearly 4 million visitors annually which is far more than the Cliffs of Moher. The Cliffs of Moher aren't even in the same league. But one place the Cliffs do beat Yosemite is on price. I can take a car and four people into Yosemite for $20 http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/feesandreservations.htm That $20 gets me a 7 day ticket, for four people. If I have an RV and 10 kids it is still $20. For $80 you can get the Golden Eagle pass which will cover a vehicle into all of America's most famous national parks for an entire year.

On the other hand if I brought a car of four people to the Cliffs it would cost me €24, which is about $30. For that you get to walk in, view some cliffs for thirty minutes and walk back out again. At Yosemite you can pay $20 per night for a camping reservation. So a a family of four could make a 7 day holiday of it, paying out only $160 for park entrance fees and camping for 4 people for a week. That is excellent value and I don't think any American or tourist could argue with it to be honest. The Cliffs of Moher on the other hand are a different kettle of fish, overcharged by a bunch of county council gombeens to justify their own expensive existence.

If there is to be any charge it should be no more than a nominal one or even a donation system because when you do a value comparison with a world class national park like Yosemite you quickly begin to realise how much Clare County Council are gouging tourists, any American coming here would see the Cliffs as bad value.

But also by charging what happens is a precedent is set. How long will it be before Kerry County Council want to charge tourists for viewing the scenery of the Ring of Kerry ? Or Cork County Council the scenery on the Beara Peninsula ? Once the precedent is set then county councils are incentivised to start looking at ideas of how they can make money out of something with more taxes. They already take thousands off every small business in rates but come back for more from tourists who spend money in those very businesses and indirectly fund the rates. Our taxes already go to to the OPW to maintain sites of national importance and they want us and tourists to pay on the double.

ednwireland

RATM wrote: »

But also by charging what happens is a precedent is set. How long will it be before Kerry County Council want to charge tourists for viewing the scenery of the Ring of Kerry ? Or Cork County Council the scenery on the Beara Peninsula ? Once the precedent is set then county councils are incentivised to start looking at ideas of how they can make money out of something with more taxes. They already take thousands off every small business in rates but come back for more from tourists who spend money in those very businesses and indirectly fund the rates. Our taxes already go to to the OPW to maintain sites of national importance and they want us and tourists to pay on the double.

they were talking about doing the same at sleive league up here in donegal (building a interpretive centre etc etc) thankfully austerity seems to have put paid to it

PRAF

Hootanany wrote: »

Slieve League in Donegal you can drive all the way to the top free as well tallest in Europe.

An amazing site. Dare I say it, but they are far more spectacular than the Cliffs of Moher. Unfortunately, the tallest cliffs in Europe thing isn't quite true but I think they are in the top 5 or something. The cliffs in Achill Island are also spectacular

PRAF

RATM wrote: »

Yeah they changed it to a per person charge, thus doubling or trebling (or more) the cost of visiting the Cliffs. I was there 6 weeks ago and both of us were made pay €6, it used to be a per car charge, now it is a per person one. I'll be there again in 3 weeks time with a guest and they'll be hopping out of the car before I go to park it.

Yes, the pricing policy seems to be unfair, overpriced and open to abuse.

RATM wrote: »

I get the fact that the Cliffs are busy and the grounds have to be maintained. However comparisons with Yosemite are unfounded- Yosemite is a national park which is 3,100 square kilometres and have thousands of kilometers of marked trails which are maintained by rangers throughout the year. , the Cliffs of Moher site would barely be 3 square kilometres all up.

I think I mentioned Yosemite along with a number of other natural attractions that charged for entry. The point wasn't to say that the Cliffs are in the same league, the point was to illustrate the principle that it costs money to maintain a site (paths, toilets, car parks, lighting, etc.) and these costs have to be recouped. It is fairer to ask visitors to contribute towards the cost rather than asking Joe Taxpayer to foot the full bill. My preference would be for a smaller fee at the point of entry (say €5 per car) and then try to make more by charging a little extra for the panini's, scones, mochas, etc.

RATM wrote: »

In any case Yosemite is what is largely recognised as a world class national park, it gets nearly 4 million visitors annually which is far more than the Cliffs of Moher. The Cliffs of Moher aren't even in the same league. But one place the Cliffs do beat Yosemite is on price.

What do the Cliffs get - I think it was about 1m in recent times though I'm sure its gone back a bit from that. It is still one of Ireland's most visited sites, one of our marquee attractions. I don't begrudge Clare County Council trying to make a few quid off it, however, as I said earlier they've probably gone too far with the pricing.

Btw, an annual pass for all of Ireland's national heritage sites is €21 or €55 for a family. That includes the likes of Brú na Bóinne (Newgrange), Battle of the Boyne, Kilkenny Castle, Clonmacnoise, etc. As I said before, all of our national parks are free. The National Museum sites in Dublin are all free. The National Galleries are free.

As an aside, while all of Ireland's national parks are free at the point of entry, IMO they are chronically underfunded. The net result is a lesser visitor experience. The US is a world leader in national parks. They invest in the parks, promote them as part of essential national experience, and they reap the rewards. I'd love to see our parks getting the same treatment. Glenveagh, Glendalough / Wicklow National Park, Killarney, the Burren, Ballycroy, and Connemara are all beautiful parks. We don't have a Yosemite or a Grand Canyon but we should do more with what we do have.

mistermouse

As far as I know, Sliabh League are the highest Sea Cliffs in Western Europe, not sure whether the Sea Cliff part is what sets them apart from others or the fact that its western Europe, but higher than Moher and certainly less well marketed

Anyway, recently in local press in Donegal it was mooted that there should be some sort of charge to visit beaches in Donegal. The contributor makes a very good point as to how the money could be charged and the beaches manned with wardens etc.

It probably is a much less problem the further south you go but beaches in Donegal are more often populated by NI tourists who spend little locally and bring their own food beers etc. Many, though not all, tend to be a lot less than tidy and throw their rubbish on the beach.

Traffic can be a problem particularly in the current weather and perhaps the local Authority should be looking at some form of contribution to the upkeep of the beaches and the cost of cleaning up and maintaining

Interpretive centres in general, in my view are just a way of milking tourist attractions and rarely are needed or of value.

Ireland should have something like the New York Pass which is really useful and cost saving, but done well in a way considering the distance between attractions here and their visitor numbers

Still, the biggest rip off merchants in Ireland are privately owned businesses, though many do suffer from ott regulations, rates and costs

maninasia

The charging into every facility is a form of double taxation. Citizens should be very wary of this trend. Payment for everything is a big trend in the Anglo world, luckily I haven't seen it seep into Asia yet. This stealthy microgouging trend is very noticeable to me on my visits to Ireland and the UK. The improvements in services is not always so obvious.

While I see the necessity and benefits of paying people to look after a place properly, you don't want to price YOU, the citizen, out of YOUR own country's scenic and historical spots. Why pay income tax, property tax and yet another tax? Where is this tax money going?

spank_inferno

Heard yesterday that the summers friendly between Celtic & Liverpool has been clasified as a "Gathering" event.

Such games and many others happen here every year.

Blatant massaging of numbers to justify anoter quango.

Pete_Cavan

maninasia wrote: »

The charging into every facility is a form of double taxation. Citizens should be very wary of this trend. Payment for everything is a big trend in the Anglo world, luckily I haven't seen it seep into Asia yet. This stealthy microgouging trend is very noticeable to me on my visits to Ireland and the UK. The improvements in services is not always so obvious.

While I see the necessity and benefits of paying people to look after a place properly, you don't want to price YOU, the citizen, out of YOUR own country's scenic and historical spots. Why pay income tax, property tax and yet another tax? Where is this tax money going?

That is simply not true, having recently been in south east Asia, I had to pay an extrance fee into almost every tourist attraction. And these were in very poor countries where the average citizen would be priced out of the country's most scenic and historical spots. I know everyone in this country likes to think everything is a rip off here and everything is free in other countries but that is not true. Also, it is not double taxation.

RATM

PRAF wrote: »

Yes, the pricing policy seems to be unfair, overpriced and open to abuse.



I think I mentioned Yosemite along with a number of other natural attractions that charged for entry. The point wasn't to say that the Cliffs are in the same league, the point was to illustrate the principle that it costs money to maintain a site (paths, toilets, car parks, lighting, etc.) and these costs have to be recouped. It is fairer to ask visitors to contribute towards the cost rather than asking Joe Taxpayer to foot the full bill. My preference would be for a smaller fee at the point of entry (say €5 per car) and then try to make more by charging a little extra for the panini's, scones, mochas, etc.



What do the Cliffs get - I think it was about 1m in recent times though I'm sure its gone back a bit from that. It is still one of Ireland's most visited sites, one of our marquee attractions. I don't begrudge Clare County Council trying to make a few quid off it, however, as I said earlier they've probably gone too far with the pricing.

.

There is no doubt in my mind that Clare County Council charging for the Cliffs is now completely being abused. For if there are for example 750,000 visitors annually and they're all paying €6 each then the revenue gained is somewhere in the order of €4m.

I agree with you that sites have to be maintained but as I mentioned the Cliffs site is somewhere in the region of three square kilometres, it is tiny. I would say that two full time workers in summer season could easily maintain a site of 3sqm and in winter when the grass isn't growing one person could do it alone. Let the shops/ cafes/restaurant fund the costs of a cleaner in the centre and that's your lot. With proper planning and the right management you could easily maintain the Cliffs of Moher for less than €200k per year all up for labour matierals. Yet Clare County Council sees fit to extract €4m from the site.

I would begin to ask what the salary of the County Manager is and how many staff they have got in the council who are being paid more than €80k per year? I have no doubt in my mind there are plenty of pen pushers in the council who are on inflated salaries which are paid for by gouging tourists and the Irish public at the Cliffs where they make profits in the millions. Think about that- the Cliffs are a public resource, but one which has now turned into a multi-million euro cash cow by the cabal in the council.

Like I said I'm not entirely against charging a nominal fee where maintenance is required. But this is gouging pure and simple. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of every tourist that goes there and it gives truth to the idea that Ireland is poor value for money. The actions of Clare County Council are directly responsible for the countless people who complain in Failte surveys about Ireland's high prices. If they charged €1 per visitor and got 750,000 visitors per year they would more than cover their costs and still make a tidy profit to fund other projects. But instead they got greedy and charge €6 per head. If I was a family with three kids and it was going to cost me €30 to enter to see them I just wouldn't bother to be honest.

PRAF

RATM wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that Clare County Council charging for the Cliffs is now completely being abused. For if there are for example 750,000 visitors annually and they're all paying €6 each then the revenue gained is somewhere in the order of €4m.

I agree with you that sites have to be maintained but as I mentioned the Cliffs site is somewhere in the region of three square kilometres, it is tiny. I would say that two full time workers in summer season could easily maintain a site of 3sqm and in winter when the grass isn't growing one person could do it alone. Let the shops/ cafes/restaurant fund the costs of a cleaner in the centre and that's your lot. With proper planning and the right management you could easily maintain the Cliffs of Moher for less than €200k per year all up for labour matierals. Yet Clare County Council sees fit to extract €4m from the site.

I would begin to ask what the salary of the County Manager is and how many staff they have got in the council who are being paid more than €80k per year? I have no doubt in my mind there are plenty of pen pushers in the council who are on inflated salaries which are paid for by gouging tourists and the Irish public at the Cliffs where they make profits in the millions. Think about that- the Cliffs are a public resource, but one which has now turned into a multi-million euro cash cow by the cabal in the council.

Like I said I'm not entirely against charging a nominal fee where maintenance is required. But this is gouging pure and simple. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth of every tourist that goes there and it gives truth to the idea that Ireland is poor value for money. The actions of Clare County Council are directly responsible for the countless people who complain in Failte surveys about Ireland's high prices. If they charged €1 per visitor and got 750,000 visitors per year they would more than cover their costs and still make a tidy profit to fund other projects. But instead they got greedy and charge €6 per head. If I was a family with three kids and it was going to cost me €30 to enter to see them I just wouldn't bother to be honest.

Would be interesting to see the profit and loss accounts for the cliffs. You're right, I'm sure Clare CC are making a profit on this and using that to subsidise some loss making services and / or some inflated salaries.

However, I suspect you are overestimating the revenue and underestimating the costs somewhat. On the revenue side, a family of say 2 adults and 3 kids (1 of which is over 16) would pay €16 to enter, not 30. Kids under 16 are free. Students are €4.

Regarding costs, although the site may be relatively small, they have lots of paths to maintain, lights to maintain, electricity bills, cleaning costs, insurance, etc. My local golf club costs about half a mill a year to run. I doubt you could run a visitor site attracting the guts of 750k visitors a year for less.

Judgement Day

Funny how the cliffs ran themselves for virtually nothing for years - before people had to have an 'experience' as opposed to just looking at the view and perhaps taking a few pics. I haven't been since 1997 but there were only a handful of people there on a summer day - I'm not inclined to go back.

maninasia

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is simply not true, having recently been in south east Asia, I had to pay an extrance fee into almost every tourist attraction. And these were in very poor countries where the average citizen would be priced out of the country's most scenic and historical spots. I know everyone in this country likes to think everything is a rip off here and everything is free in other countries but that is not true. Also, it is not double taxation.

What is simply not true, I live in Asia and the charges are very reasonable to free. Every country has different policies and different systems. Of course in poorer countries you do get hit with fees a lot more.
Double taxation is charging for the same thing twice..not hard to understand.

However I believe it is the Anglos who really brought the habit of charging for everything to the fore, and I do mean everything. It's the Ryan Airsation of public services.

Judgement Day

And from the 'horse's mouth' in Saturday's Irish Times:



Instead of tackling the problem - a shoddy product - it needs rebranding. :rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog

Never mind the junkies, drunks, unpleasant atmosphere and physically feck all to see because feck all good was built during the boom unlike places like Dubai and London that created destinations out of modern construction. We did the opposite in Dublin. Our "Georgian" heritage must be protected so we can't build anything bigger or more entertaining than a 3 storey shoe box. Small minded, NIMBYism and incompetence means Dublin has very little going for it compared to pretty much every other capital city in Europe.


If I was an international tourist to Dublin I wouldn't even be disappointed because i'd expect so little anyway.

It really is a depressing dull city.

ardmacha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

feck all good was built during the boom unlike places like Dubai and London that created destinations out of modern construction.

Even Belfast did this!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Judgement Day wrote: »

Instead of tackling the problem - a shoddy product - it needs rebranding. :rolleyes:

In fairness, the article isn't really saying the city is dull. It sayings

http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/4_Corporate_Documents/Strategy_Operations_Plans/Destination_Dublin_GDT_2020_Full_File.pdf?ext=.pdf

<...> potential visitors are either not aware of Dublin and its attractions, or have a limited view of the city, considering it to be dusty and dull, with little of interest to see or do.[/b]

What the report seems to be more about is saying that Dublin needs to have its independent tourism body re-established. Dublin Tourism was merged into Failte Ireland a couple of years ago.

Judgement Day

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the article isn't really saying the city is dull. It sayings What the report seems to be more about is saying that Dublin needs to have its independent tourism body re-established. Dublin Tourism was merged into Failte Ireland a couple of years ago.

Ah yes, Dublin Tourism, the organisation that ran the Fry Model Railway into the ground - just what Dublin needs. Ireland already has three major tourism bodies and doesn't need any more.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Judgement Day wrote: »

Ah yes, Dublin Tourism, the organisation that ran the Fry Model Railway into the ground - just what Dublin needs. Ireland already has three major tourism bodies and doesn't need any more.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The city has been quite successful in attracting tourists; it's business was even relatively robust when tourism to other regions fell sharply.

The traditional problem was that tourism policy tended to be all about selling the West coast, which meant Ireland was competing for a very large part of the market. The same issue seems to be resurfacing.

robp

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Never mind the junkies, drunks, unpleasant atmosphere and physically feck all to see because feck all good was built during the boom unlike places like Dubai and London that created destinations out of modern construction. We did the opposite in Dublin. Our "Georgian" heritage must be protected so we can't build anything bigger or more entertaining than a 3 storey shoe box. Small minded, NIMBYism and incompetence means Dublin has very little going for it compared to pretty much every other capital city in Europe.


If I was an international tourist to Dublin I wouldn't even be disappointed because i'd expect so little anyway.

It really is a depressing dull city.

In fairness the older structures in London bring in far more tourists then the high rise , much of which is in the financial district. Realistically there is room for both in Dublin. I would argue the destruction of Dublin's Georgian and Victorian etc architecture in the 20th cen has it made it immeasurable less interesting for tourists.

FreudianSlippers

The problem is that poor urban planning and investment have meant that our Georgian cores dotted around the city have gone to ****, turned into hostels or squats.

The problem isn't the protection of the Georgian buildings, it's the opposite.