Student bar reopening

haro124

So the student bar is opening valentines day at 18.00 ! €8 in an have to get a ticket an it's only open 5 days this semester ... Well I guess it's better than nothing

LifesaverNiall

The SU are renting it off the college and theyre charging the SU €5 per person according to the Ents facebook page.
Its better than nothing.. And kielys on a tuesday seems like its going to be pretty popular!

Raphael

Interesting. Wonder if it'll be available for a similar kind of rental deal for other societies.

[Jackass]

Is this the new bar or the old bar? Does it even have a licence any more?

And by "only open 5 days this semester" do you mean 5 days a week, or 5 days total?

Any news on when the new bar will be fully open and functional?

Raphael

Old bar, it must have, 5 days total, current estimate is May.

errlloyd

The rental cost is pretty steep. I kicked up a bit of a fuss with the officers about it because I thought it would look like the SU were hoping to profit off the bar re-opening, when many people see them as the reason the bar is closed.

But the numbers they sent back to me show that the SU are likely to make a slight loss charging 8e per head. The college have ridiculous demands, 15 bouncers will attend on the night, and there has to be a stand by paramedic.

In short, it is re-opening on a theatre license. Madigans pubs (one of the larger pub groups in Ireland) will be running the bar (as in the long counter with the taps). The SU have rented the bar (as in the building) off the college. The SU have to pay rental, act, security, cleaning and cover those costs from door receipts.

However I have been assured that this arrangement will only exist for opening night, they expect to be able to relax security and re-negotiate the allocation of bar (the counter with the taps) profits before the second night.

ironclaw

errlloyd wrote: »

The SU have to pay rental, act, security, cleaning and cover those costs from door receipts.

I read the basic jist of the deal and the SU frankly got shafted. Utterly laughable and this:

high cost radio communication requirements between staff, an additional on-site paramedic

Is utter non-sense and a poor excuse. Its actually laughable. Anyone with any industry knowledge knows this is utter toss.

Same with this:

We also may receive a rebate from the bar if it exceeds a certain amount, this is still being negotiated and any surplus will be reinvested in making the next night cheaper.

So basically the SU are renting the bar, paying a company to run it (my interpretation of it), paying all the extra staff, charging in and not even getting a cut of the proceedings. An utterly pointless venture that is the equivalent of burning a huge pile of money. Its like the want to waste money. The bar is missed, I get it, but opening it for 5 days and wasting a huge amount of our money is just lunacy.

If the SU was a company and run as such they'd all be in the courts.

Raphael

So, did anyone go to this and want to report back?

errlloyd

Apparently they sold almost half the capacity, but the place still felt very quiet. They are blaming the length of the night. I guess some sort of problem with trying to sell a bar night, but also a gig. People won't necessarily allow show up at the same time.

ironclaw

errlloyd wrote: »

Apparently they sold almost half the capacity, but the place still felt very quiet. They are blaming the length of the night. I guess some sort of problem with trying to sell a bar night, but also a gig. People won't necessarily allow show up at the same time.

Totally agree. The bar was only ever a staging post for going into town. Come 11.20 or so it cleared out for people to go to town. There was the odd huge night and it was rammed all night but they were few and far between, from my experience that was LMFAO, The Blizzards and the clubland-esque nights (Rankin etc) Every other night it was empty come 12.

Raphael

Quiet could be good in the long run - they might not need the overkill security and such for the next night.

And sure it'll all be grand next year when there's a bar again (god I hope there's a bar again)

SparkySpitfire

Excuse my ickle firstie ignorance...

But someone said to me in passing that there was loadsa controversy surrounding that monument outside the SU because it cost a ***load and the SU was already in debt when they got it, and the bar could've been saved otherwise?

This is just what I heard, please don't attack me for my professed ignorance. Just wondering if it was true, and if not, what's the story - if any?

errlloyd

I believe there is some legal or policy thing in public buildings that 2% of the cost has to be channelled into art work of some kind. The building was 52mn, so they had a 1mn euro art budget. The sculpture outside the new building was 92,500.

All of those figures are based on a certain degree of hearsay.

SparkySpitfire

errlloyd wrote: »

I believe there is some legal or policy thing in public buildings that 2% of the cost has to be channelled into art work of some kind. The building was 52mn, so they had a 1mn euro art budget. The sculpture outside the new building was 92,500.

All of those figures are based on a certain degree of hearsay.

That's interesting, had no idea that was a policy!

Also didn't know it was a public building

errlloyd

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

That's interesting, had no idea that was a policy!

Also didn't know it was a public building

I don't quite mean public, I mean state owned, or semi state owned!