Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 122871	2012-01-17 09:16:00	zion wildlife park	globe (11482)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1254704	2012-01-18 23:50:00	A lion park without lions is just tomorrows acres of gorse. However, I do want to add I've never been to the park, thanks to the hefty entrance price. They need more visitors in order to lower their prices. Locating the place in Northland (initially up by Kerikeri) has just being plain dumbass from day one. They need a huge base of locals to get the attendance needed to support the place. Somewhere within easy drive of Auckland would seem a lot more sense. I sure hope the local ratepayers haven't bought the place through the actions of their local council thinking it was a good investment.	Paul.Cov (425)
1254705	2012-01-19 01:21:00	It's a difficult situation, the receivers won't want to continue paying the staff or paying for the upkeep of the animals and neither should they have to, it will just hurt the people who Zion owes money to even more. On the other hand putting them down should be the absolute last option considered. What should be happening as a priority is finding new homes for them. In my opinion the fault lies with the owners and their poor management rather than the receivers . Long before things got to this stage they should have realised the business was not sustainable and taken steps to ensure the well being of the cats. Maybe if they had scaled things back a bit and reduced the number of animals they could have managed. Otherwise they should have organised homes for the animals before this happened.	dugimodo (138)
1254706	2012-01-19 01:38:00	Yes I think we all agree that putting down the animals is unacceptable and that the owners should have realised they were in financial $hit before it got as far as it did. My point was that to me this quite clearly demonstrates that from top to bottom we all only give a rats about ourselves and money, and that is what is leading to a poor society that we are living in, fast train to broken Britain, all aboard ? I can see parallels between this and all sorts of crimes that are debated on this forum yet people don't get up in arms about a bunch of white collar lawyers as they are following the letter of mans law - based around material belongings - even though in my mind morally what they proposed is a crime. Just because they did not rob someone on video in a supermarket in rotavegas it should not be viewed with a similar level of distaste.	globe (11482)
1254707	2012-01-19 03:50:00	Bottom line is someone has to pay for their food & keepers. Receivers cant keep funneling in $$$ for that . It may have been a bluff, just to get some action on new homes for these animals. Agreed. I doubt that Rabobank managers or the accountants running the receivership are horned devils. They are ordinary people with a problem they inherited from Zion's owners and which the public don't care about - until a drastic solution is raised. ....people don't get up in arms about a bunch of white collar lawyers as they are following the letter of mans law - based around material belongings - even though in my mind morally what they proposed is a crime. Forgive me, not picking on you but I'm genuinely puzzled. This has nothing to do with lawyers. A bank which holds money for depositors is owed money by a borrower. The bank has to get the money back because it belongs to the people who put it into the bank accounts in the first place. Receiverships are run by accountants appointed by whoever has advanced secured loans - usually banks. Receivers can only spend money if its justified to help sell the property. Apparently the only offer to buy Zion excludes the animals, so the receivers have to remove them somehow.	Winston001 (3612)
1254708	2012-01-19 06:17:00	Forgive me, not picking on you but I'm genuinely puzzled. This has nothing to do with lawyers. A bank which holds money for depositors is owed money by a borrower. The bank has to get the money back because it belongs to the people who put it into the bank accounts in the first place. Receiverships are run by accountants appointed by whoever has advanced secured loans - usually banks. Receivers can only spend money if its justified to help sell the property. Apparently the only offer to buy Zion excludes the animals, so the receivers have to remove them somehow. Lawyers/accountants irrelevant to me. I still find it unacceptable that they are prepared to consider destroying these animals to recover some money. Yes they are doing their utmost to try and recover money but I believe there are some lines you Don't cross full stop	globe (11482)
1254709	2012-01-19 07:49:00	Furthermore the companies that chose to back this venture have a certain level of responsiblity for making a decision to fund something that was quite probably a non starter from the off, as pointed out earlier in this thread a business like that needs high volumes of patrons and you don't get them up north	globe (11482)
1254710	2012-01-19 22:22:00	Lawyers/accountants irrelevant to me. I still find it unacceptable that they are prepared to consider destroying these animals to recover some money. Yes they are doing their utmost to try and recover money but I believe there are some lines you Don't cross full stop Perhaps you should 'put your money where your mouth is' & fund the welfare of these animals yourself ?? You can get out a 2nd mortgage on your house, funnel in a neverending supply of cash with no chance of getting it back. No ?? then why expect others to ?? these $$ have to come out of someones pocket. It isnt a fund of cash just sitting there unwanted or unclaimed waiting to be used to pay for this.	1101 (13337)
1254711	2012-01-19 22:36:00	Perhaps you should 'put your money where your mouth is' & fund the welfare of these animals yourself ?? You can get out a 2nd mortgage on your house, funnel in a neverending supply of cash with no chance of getting it back. No ?? then why expect others to ?? these $$ have to come out of someones pocket. It isnt a fund of cash just sitting there unwanted or unclaimed waiting to be used to pay for this. We all know where your priorities lie now don't we. If money is that important to you then good luck in life. I for one can live with a big corporation losing 0.0001% of their millions and millions of dollars profit in a situation such as this. As I said before was the business case ever really that realistic ? Probably not, then if that was the case and it was funded and this is the money they are after then they have to ask themselves about their decision to back this venture in the first instance. How do you know I am not one of the many people that have offered financial support to save the lives of these animals ? You seem to be assuming that I have done nothing. It is not about keeping the park going it is about making sure these animals are not destroyed to pay off some debts. A point you seemed to have missed. Of course if the debts could be repaid and the animals saved by moving them overseas or to other sanctuaries (as it the likely outcome) then this is the correct answer. If not then majestic animals such as these should come first ahead of corporation greed. And finally quite frankly you sum up the attitude that rabobank have shown with their suggestion to destroy these animals and quite frankly I think it stinks.	globe (11482)
1254712	2012-01-19 22:50:00	Globe again, if these animals are so important, then be willing to pay for them 100% YOURSELF. or admit that your $$ are more important You know nothing about me, or my priorities. I get sick of those, like youself who keen saying, something should be done, someone should pay for this, money isnt as important, yet are unwilling to make a REALLY HARD SUBSTANTAL & TOTAL $$ commitment themsleves. I bet your money, your home, your car is more import to you if it really came down to the crunch. Did you actually start to think about selling your house to pay for this?? No ?? , then money IS more important . Again, a case of some else should pay for it. I have never advocated having these animals destroyed, Im just realistic about how things work in the real world.	1101 (13337)
1254713	2012-01-19 23:06:00	I have never advocated having these animals destroyed So you actually agree with me. Well done. :thumbs: Im just realistic about how things work in the real world. Just because something happens one way presently does not mean it can't be changed if there is enough groundswell support. Why lie down and accept things like this if you can make a difference ? As I have said several times now, people that back businesses know the risks etc when they chose to sign the check. There is a level of responsiblity that comes with gambling on a business, and a gamble is what it is when you financially back anything. Why should the animals be destroyed for somebody landing on black instead of red. For all I care put the owners on a chain gang and get them digging roads to pay back debt - their are always other ways rather than the "realistic ways" if you look hard enough, and some situations require looking in different directions. This isn't about me funding a wildlife park its about corporate money being given priority ahead of everything else. Tell me how much positive advertising would be earned if they took a hit on some of the money and rehoused the animals elsewhere (or at least helped find alternative homes), The value of that would far outweigh any losses. I believe it is just a typical example of corporations bulldozing the little people again...	globe (11482)
1 2 3