Search Results:

In December 2012, I analysed the proposal.

I was very skeptical about market feasibility. I found it not feasible, based on the market only.

Since march 2013, I could analyse the proposal again, with business references. On my second analysis I concluded feasibility was dead.

Shared my analysis with several other IAAPA consultant members.

There were 2 camps :
- those who thought they could still earn some share of the development money,
- and those who got a clear view of no-go.

Opportunist money grabbing has always existed. They do not care at all if a project begins bankrupt. I still doubt that all concept designers have been paid...

Anyway, feasibility on this project is negative. Since the start. And that's it...

Stricking to bare facts.
(1) Latest news : "Tony Sefton leaves Paramount Kent"
(The news is in all Kent / London press, f.i.
http://myinforms.com/en-gb/a/11886334-tony-sefton-who-had-vision-for-paramount-resort-in-kent-leaves-the-project/
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/man-with-paramount-vision-leaves-33905/
… or, clean opportunity to leave in style before the ship is sinking ?

(2) Capital investment. Actual state.
London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) is owned by Kuwaiti Investment since 1-1/2 year now. FACT.
However, read this very well and literally: LHCH, not Paramount Kent, is owned by... Kuwaiti.
If you OWN a company, you invested it's actual registered value. (No fairy tales)

Here is the REGISTERED business data overview, about LRCH, mid 2014.



Now compare with , quoted :
".... LRCH is driven by Kuwaiti European Holdings, bankrolled by the Al-Humaidi family. It is not funding the entire project, but it is providing the initial capital and actively spearheaded the key funding ..."

Source : http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/essential_guide_to_kent_s_london_paramount_resort_1_3914707

Make your own conclusions on the data...

Greetings

The press releases actually states indeed:

...a 75% stake of London Resort Company Holdings...

Now, what is actually the LRCH capital? Because the 75% is referring to LHCH, not to the needed investment capital... (which LRCH had NOT, they actually are representing the value of the grounds (ex Lagarge).

Any real capital move of the size of what is needed, is registered, thus publicly known.

Any GHOST (Anonymous guest) can play games with those rumours spread all over the KENT press long before. You try to claim them as personal insider information... lol... come on, you're just recalling what was published by press people over a year ago. But the press people AT LEAST made the side note : "LRCH refused commenting"... ;-)

All right, that was a "zero information". Thanks. (Nobody needs rumours)

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I have it on good authority that they have secured £1 billion in private funds already and that an opening in 2018 is still very much on the cards. Great news.

Source, please.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

First multi million pound construction contract had been awarded to build the infrastructure.

Please, show us that contract.
Thanks beforehand, Anonymous.

Just a general reminder to Amusement park development reality.

A.
Rule : Any project starts, with a real amount of capital, readily set apart to INVEST in something.
Fact : this 'project' was not initiated, based on investor capital.
Comment : although projects also are started by enterpreneurs who want to run a business, and LOOK for capital to do this, this "project" also was not initiated by a runtime type enterpreneur.

B.
Rule : Any development process starts in a spreadsheet , backed by a SERIOUS (= non biased, truly independent) initial feasibility study.
Fact : we never saw anything of the like, appearing in communications.
Comment : If it was there, the name of the feasibility study consultants office, would have been prominently up in the "first day" communincations.

C.
Rule : Real Estate Developers make money on BUILDING, then SELLING, not operating a company.
Fact : Behind "Paramount" (sic) project here is a real estate developer.
Comment : It doesn't matter to them, what is being build & sold, if just the money is cashed after conclusion of delivery of the build property. Operational success is of ZERO importance, to a real estate developer.

D.
Rule : Politic moves are the wrong way to start feasible businesses.
Fact : This "project" was a political (election campaing driven) game, from starters.
Comment : If you see "work starting" without having an investor around, it means that public taxpayers money is being spilled, as without an investor, the money to position 10 bulldozers and do some digging, can only come from 'some' government. Politicians are irresponsible with money, "by definition", as they just take-and-spend it, never earned it.

And a reminder about the name "Paramount".
It's not the attraction park owner and operator what is talked about here. 'Paramount Parks' stopped activities. Sold the former parks.
Anno 2007-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013-2014-...... it's history.
The whole topic here with the 'project' name , is a BRAND name licensing deal.
Paramount Pictures (now VIACOM), actually are not involved in this (these...) projects, labeled 'Paramount'.
It's not a 'Paramount Park' project, it's an AT RANDOM Spanish real estate developers hunt.
(And so is the UK project near London, as well. That's an AT RANDOM Brittish real estate developers hunt.)

Greets, all
(I am an independant designer/consultant)