Work parties

[no-one in particular]

But then you have to have 80k just sitting there and available that can only be spent on landscape work and wouldn't cover the rest of the finance concerns of the club. To do that most clubs would have to have an instant, colossal price increase that would not only stop members re-joining but would also put new members off completely. Then where do you get the money?

That would also be an incredibly inefficient way of spending the club's resources because the money doesn't have to be spent and you'd inevitably end up paying far more than you'd need to for each individual job.

So which would you rather have: A club that needs its members support but looks after its finances and keeps the membership costs down, or one that wastes your subs and charges you more to do it? You might be able to afford the extra individually. But plenty of members wouldn't (or wouldn't want to) so you'd end up footing the bill for their absence too as they leave the club. Your method takes angling away from people, rather than opens opportunities up for them. You'll get very few members join because it's more expensive, but you'll get a lot leave.

I think too many people look at the club and think, 'right, what can I get out of it?' and treat it like a commodity. Of course there are those who can't do the physical stuff needed for a lot of club work days. But then there's always the easier stuff like litter picking, tackle removal or even turn up at a work party with tea and cake and pitch in where you're physically able.

I think your assuming too much, you could be right but then again you don't know if you don't try it. The extra money would be designated purely for the purpose of hiring a landscape firm, the rest of the clubs finances would not change so, I don't understand what you saying there. And this is not like just putting up the fees for no foreseen gain. As a club member it would be put to me all the improvements to the club waters which could be considerable, that's a different kettle than just telling me the price is going up. As for leaving the club, sure, some will but then again the club might gain a lot more members, Two clubs in my town, pretty much in competition for members and I know which one I would join if a new candidate; the one with well maintained fishable waters , not where half of them are unfishable, inaccessible over grown swamps. It is very possible it may increase membership.
As too affordability, I am talking £80 instead of £40 in my particular case. I wouldn't mind that if shown how much all the clubs waters were going to be improved. In fact I am just a gnats away from not renewing my membership this year at £40 because of the general lack or unfishable waters, if they were all fishable £80 would be fine to me and I am not rich, pensioner.
Anyway, your looking at it all negative, what would be the harm of exploring the possibilities, stage one; tender 3 landscape firms, itemize what you want done and see what they came back with. What to lose in that. If it looks good take it a stage further or not as the case may be, nothing ventured nothing gained. I cant see how any club would not be interested in finding out about that except of course they lack much ambition or imagination. Most I see are just interested in gaining as much water as they can without much thought to how they might maintain it. I have several fisheries near me run by clubs 50+ miles away that are not worth a ---- because of it.

 

[chrisjpainter]

I think your assuming too much, you could be right but then again you don't know if you don't try it. The extra money would be designated purely for the purpose of hiring a landscape firm, the rest of the clubs finances would not change so, I don't understand what you saying there. And this is not like just putting up the fees for no foreseen gain. As a club member it would be put to me all the improvements to the club waters which could be considerable, that's a different kettle than just telling me the price is going up. As for leaving the club, sure, some will but then again the club might gain a lot more members, Two clubs in my town, pretty much in competition for members and I know which one I would join if a new candidate.
As too affordability, I am talking £80 instead of £40 in my particular case. I wouldn't mind that if shown how much all the clubs waters were going to be improved. In fact I am just a gnats away from not renewing my membership this year at £40 because of the general lack or unfishable waters, if they were all fishable £80 would be fine to me and I am not rich, pensioner.
Anyway, your looking at it all negative, what would be the harm of exploring the possibilities, stage one; tender 3 landscape firms, itemize what you want done and see what they came back with. What to lose in that. If it looks good take it a stage further or not as the case may be, nothing ventured nothing gained. I cant see how any club would not be interested in finding out about that except of course they lack much ambition or imagination. Most I see are just interested in gaining as much water as they can without much thought to how they might maintain it. I have several fisheries near me run by clubs 50+ miles away that are not worth a ---- because of it.

You double the subscription over night? Plus remember this is all maintenance needing to be done, so you're going to have to get in landscaping companies that have insurance and expertise to do water management too. Most small companies don't, which puts you in the domain of the bigger ones and puts the price up further. I'm guessing your club does pensioner/seniors rates? Ask the full-price members how they'll feel when their tickets double in price at a time when household finances are so stretched.

I think you're being grossly unfair on angling committees to say they lack ambition or imagination. It's pragmatism. You say they could open up new waters and get new fishing opportunities...but that could be done with more members signing up for work parties. The ones just idly sitting around waiting to benefit from other people's hard work on WP's are the ones who lack ambition and imagination.

What did your committee say when you spoke to them about the unfishable swims and offered to organise a work party to get them back into a fishable condition? Also, what did they say when you took your idea to them about tendering out all the work? I'm guessing they had a reason for deciding not to do it. I'm not on my committee, so it'd be interesting to hear what the response was from people who would have to make that decision

 

[no-one in particular]

You double the subscription over night? Plus remember this is all maintenance needing to be done, so you're going to have to get in landscaping companies that have insurance and expertise to do water management too. Most small companies don't, which puts you in the domain of the bigger ones and puts the price up further. I'm guessing your club does pensioner/seniors rates? Ask the full-price members how they'll feel when their tickets double in price at a time when household finances are so stretched.

I think you're being grossly unfair on angling committees to say they lack ambition or imagination. It's pragmatism. You say they could open up new waters and get new fishing opportunities...but that could be done with more members signing up for work parties. The ones just idly sitting around waiting to benefit from other people's hard work on WP's are the ones who lack ambition and imagination.

What did your committee say when you spoke to them about the unfishable swims and offered to organise a work party to get them back into a fishable condition? Also, what did they say when you took your idea to them about tendering out all the work? I'm guessing they had a reason for deciding not to do it. I'm not on my committee, so it'd be interesting to hear what the response was from people who would have to make that decision

I am not doubling the subscription over night, It would be £40 extra for all, so those that pay full rate £60, it would go up to £100. And it is not overnight like some big surprise forced on members, there would be a lot of prior consultation with all members to see if they agree/want it or not.
And your missing the whole point, what happens when you can't get enough members to join work parties let alone more than you already have that cannot maintain the waters properly as it is, which is the case in my club and I wouldn't mind guessing in other clubs as well. That's what I find.
I don't mean new waters, just making those that are unfishable fishable, what's the point a club paying for waters that are barely fishable but for a few fully fit die hard natural anglers. Given the age group of most clubs that cannot be many..
I don't belong to any committee or have any contact with them but I might put it to them at some point. This is just my take on the situation regarding work parties in this thread as applies to my particular circumstances and the club I belong to.
I just don't understand the attitude or how much this is misunderstood. why wouldn't anyone not want to explore the possibility.
As to your denouncement on those that don't take part in work parties, I couldn't care much, I am sure everyone has their reasons even if it is they are lazy. It makes no different to the fact you cannot get enough work parties together to maintain waters properly so have a look at at ways of getting it done properly.

 

[chrisjpainter]

I am not doubling the subscription over night, It would be £40 extra for all, so those that pay full rate £60, it would go up to £100. And it is not overnight like some big surprise forced on members, there would be a lot of prior consultation with all members to see if they agree/want it or not.
And your missing the whole point, what happens when you can't get enough members to join work parties let alone more than you already have that cannot maintain the waters properly as it is, which is the case in my club and I wouldn't mind guessing in other clubs as well. That's what I find.
I don't mean new waters, just making those that are unfishable fishable, what's the point a club paying for waters that are barely fishable but for a few fully fit die hard natural anglers. Given the age group of most clubs that cannot be many..
I don't belong to any committee or have any contact with them but I might put it to them at some point. This is just my take on the situation regarding work parties in this thread as applies to my particular circumstances and the club I belong to.
I just don't understand the attitude or how much this is misunderstood. why wouldn't anyone not want to explore the possibility.
As to your denouncement on those that don't take part in work parties, I couldn't care much, I am sure everyone has their reasons even if it is they are lazy. It makes no different to the fact you cannot get enough work parties together to maintain waters properly so have a look at at ways of getting it done properly.

Consultation can't take place with potential new members. And you won't be able to use the work to advertise the club as it won't have been done yet. So all potential new members would see is a club with 67% or 100% increased fees for the same fishing. And the money will have to be spent up front for the contract. So you'll have to accrue the money by putting up fees for no initial benefit until the money's been raised, spent and the work's been done. If, as you say, the prices are borderline not worth it now, what's to stop members saying either a) that's now far too much even for the work done without work parties and extra fishing or b) saying you know what? I'm gonna skip a couple of years, wait until the work's done or at least started, then rejoin when it's worth it. New members will probably do the same. They'll wait until it's worth the 67%/100% increase and then join. Whichever way you look at it, you'll see a significant drop in membership, which makes raising the funds even harder.

Or are you suggesting clubs empty their finances in order to pay for it the up front cost, leaving nothing in reserve? No club would syphon it off and leave it unable to afford their other costs.

But you should report back what your club says when you offer to organise a work party for some of your more overgrown, inaccessible waters and broach the subject of a contractor to do the maintenance. I'd be curious to see what the opinion would be of the committee. You could even jump the gun. Get hold of three companies who do landscaping - including waterways management (so they have the necessary expertise, tools and insurance) - and find out how much it'd cost for your club's waters. Then you'd have something to bring to the club other than an idea?

 

[nottskev]

In the time it takes some people to dream up schemes to fund the work, others will simply get it done. I belong to a club where members do all the work voluntarily, and it gets done. I belong to a bigger club where, after consultation, they raised the subs to pay a salaried fisheries manager who gets the stuff involving machinery done, and mows and chainsaws his way through a load of work; at the same time there's lots of work left over and new members are obliged to put in a half day to help the volunteers who also chip in. It's hardly doing time in the gulag. Contractors are used for jobs that require them, and people make use of their contacts and connections. There are all kinds of ways to mix and match, and clubs' needs, means and circumstances vary. One size does not fit all.

I remember once explaining the exciting concept of the "skills bank" to my Ukrainian ex: people get credits for doing jobs for each other through an exchange centre, so people benefit from each other's skills without money changing hands. A paints B's house, B coaches C's kid to do maths, C sorts out D's plumbing problem, D helps A do his accounts etc. After listening patiently for a bit, she said " This is some new idea for you? That's life in a Kiev apartment block". I wonder sometimes if we've got so a) lazy b)obsessed with finance that we're losing the simple idea of helping ourselves and helping each other.

 

[john step]

This year my club did away with OAP rates. They were £25 for a full 365 days a year fishing on our mixed fishery lake.
Everyone pays £40 now for 365 days a year fishing.
At least two of the members have dropped out due to that being too expensive a rise.
Good luck with collecting another £40 for work to be done.

 

[The bad one]

I am not doubling the subscription over night, It would be £40 extra for all, so those that pay full rate £60, it would go up to £100. And it is not overnight like some big surprise forced on members, there would be a lot of prior consultation with all members to see if they agree/want it or not.
And your missing the whole point, what happens when you can't get enough members to join work parties let alone more than you already have that cannot maintain the waters properly as it is, which is the case in my club and I wouldn't mind guessing in other clubs as well. That's what I find.
I don't mean new waters, just making those that are unfishable fishable, what's the point a club paying for waters that are barely fishable but for a few fully fit die hard natural anglers. Given the age group of most clubs that cannot be many..
I don't belong to any committee or have any contact with them but I might put it to them at some point. This is just my take on the situation regarding work parties in this thread as applies to my particular circumstances and the club I belong to.
I just don't understand the attitude or how much this is misunderstood. why wouldn't anyone not want to explore the possibility.
As to your denouncement on those that don't take part in work parties, I couldn't care much, I am sure everyone has their reasons even if it is they are lazy. It makes no different to the fact you cannot get enough work parties together to maintain waters properly so have a look at at ways of getting it done properly.

Look mate the economics of what you are going on about don't add up as I explained to you in detailed costings above.

 

[theartist]

I like Marks thinking outside the box, lets face it the BAA case could have crippled a smaller club, it is an avenue where clubs will look at in future and many clubs already tender out specialist work to members who have expertise in the relevant fields.

I'm finding the constant references to those who haven't done a work party as shirkers who sit idly around is a bit poor, some of those people may have too much of their own work on, families to bring up, sick family members to care for and many other reasons, and could only wish for such time where they could idle.

Many club members also only have the time for a few trips each year and some don't get out at all, to label those who don't do a work party as sponging of others work is so ignorant.

 

[John Aston]

I agree completely - WPs can be a prime opportunity for virtue signalling and I sometimes wonder if some club's primary purpose is WPs , with fishing as a sideline . But I am always grateful for those who do the work - I'm a shirker myself , and concentrate on the admin /legal stuff instead . If only the enthusiasm for WPs extended to other areas - lobbying MPs , objecting to problem planning applications and generally flying the angling flag. Instead our efforts on water purity are often overshadowed by surfers, canoeists and wild swimmers and we have to endure the usual knuckle dragging suspects moaning publicly about the Great Satan - Tarka the Otter...

 

[mikench]

One of my clubs did the same and put up fees for this year and next. The rationale with which I was in total agreement was that it would help pay for maintenance , new pegs and restocking. Who wants inaccessible swims with no fish or very few. I have done WP’ s and only missed the last two years because they were cancelled because of covid. When I couldn’t go fishing I didn’t ask for a refund . I pay around £300 pa for membership of 3 clubs which I regard as value for money. Er indoors pays more than that as gym membership and a golf club would charge a great deal more.

I thus pay around 90p per day and only go on average throughout the year say, once a week. Thus my days fishing costs me around £7 which is the price of a day ticket, a couple of pints or a chicken. Speaking personally, I like the grass to be cut, pegs maintained and for there to be fish to be caught. If the fees increase but fishing and amenities improved as a result , I would happily pay. I will also help out if asked.

You always get what you pay for.

 

[no-one in particular]

Consultation can't take place with potential new members. And you won't be able to use the work to advertise the club as it won't have been done yet. So all potential new members would see is a club with 67% or 100% increased fees for the same fishing. And the money will have to be spent up front for the contract. So you'll have to accrue the money by putting up fees for no initial benefit until the money's been raised, spent and the work's been done. If, as you say, the prices are borderline not worth it now, what's to stop members saying either a) that's now far too much even for the work done without work parties and extra fishing or b) saying you know what? I'm gonna skip a couple of years, wait until the work's done or at least started, then rejoin when it's worth it. New members will probably do the same. They'll wait until it's worth the 67%/100% increase and then join. Whichever way you look at it, you'll see a significant drop in membership, which makes raising the funds even harder.

Or are you suggesting clubs empty their finances in order to pay for it the up front cost, leaving nothing in reserve? No club would syphon it off and leave it unable to afford their other costs.

But you should report back what your club says when you offer to organise a work party for some of your more overgrown, inaccessible waters and broach the subject of a contractor to do the maintenance. I'd be curious to see what the opinion would be of the committee. You could even jump the gun. Get hold of three companies who do landscaping - including waterways management (so they have the necessary expertise, tools and insurance) - and find out how much it'd cost for your club's waters. Then you'd have something to bring to the club other than an idea?

You have to start somewhere, after getting an itemized list of the work that could be done and a calendar for it thereof for say 80k/5years, and that was put to and agreed by the members, the increase would come on the next subscription on the 31st March. There are many different ways you could negotiate a contract, payment, pro rata, work done/pending, calendar of work done etc. etc. It could be worked out and negotiated with the chosen landscape firm and I take your point about specialized firms but it doesn't change much in finding out what is possible. The benefits would start to accrue through the following summer and at least the members will see that on going. If some left and rejoined, I suppose their are some that would be that mean and small minded, but would they want to give up the waters they do fish for a year or two for the sake of saving £40-£80, I cant see it myself.
As to me organizing a work party, taking any part in the club other than the £40 I pay to fish a couple of waters, not in my remit, but I may write a letter to them putting this as a proposal, as something they could look into. If it ever did come to anything and I got the choice of fishing a lot more water because a firm has made it fishable and it only cost me an extra 40 quid a year, then I would be happy with that. I don't think anything will ever happen if the club carries' on the same as it is now, no work party is ever going to do it.

Look mate the economics of what you are going on about don't add up as I explained to you in detailed costings above.

I don't agree with your economics. I don't believe you wouldn't get a lot of work done for 16k a year or 80k over 5 years. I think there are some landscape firms that would take that on, probably glad of the bread and butter money. What you would get I don t know but I think it would be worthwhile finding out. I think it is possible that members of my club would pay an extra £40 a year for the work as well, I could be wrong but until such a preposition was put to them who can claim they know they wouldn't.

 

[jon atkinson]

Thank you all for your contributions - plenty of food for thought and as ever, plenty of differing opinions! Things will obviously vary from one club to another - ours is not particularly big - 400+ senior members and we run perhaps 30 work parties a year, but if all seniors turned up to two work parties, the problem would become too many as opposed to too few - as ever, it's all about balance! One thing that strikes me in our club - as a bloke of 58, I'm usually amongst the youngest taking part! It is of course accepted that some members have other commitments, are too infirm Etc. the ones that frustrate me are those able-bodied members that will drop everything to take part in a match, even at short notice, but when it comes to work parties which are organised well in advance, they invariably seem to have something on that they 'can't get out of'!

 

[no-one in particular]

ttt

If the fees increase but fishing and amenities improved as a result , I would happily pay. I will also help out if asked.

You always get what you pay for.

Which is where I am at and what I am saying. Except I cant help out even if asked.

 

[The bad one]

You have to start somewhere, after getting an itemized list of the work that could be done and a calendar for it thereof for say 80k/5years, and that was put to and agreed by the members, the increase would come on the next subscription on the 31st March. There are many different ways you could negotiate a contract, payment, pro rata, work done/pending, calendar of work done etc. etc. It could be worked out and negotiated with the chosen landscape firm and I take your point about specialized firms but it doesn't change much in finding out what is possible. The benefits would start to accrue through the following summer and at least the members will see that on going. If some left and rejoined, I suppose their are some that would be that mean and small minded, but would they want to give up the waters they do fish for a year or two for the sake of saving £40-£80, I cant see it myself.
As to me organizing a work party, taking any part in the club other than the £40 I pay to fish a couple of waters, not in my remit, but I may write a letter to them putting this as a proposal, as something they could look into. If it ever did come to anything and I got the choice of fishing a lot more water because a firm has made it fishable and it only cost me an extra 40 quid a year, then I would be happy with that. I don't think anything will ever happen if the club carries' on the same as it is now, no work party is ever going to do it.


I don't agree with your economics. I don't believe you wouldn't get a lot of work done for 16k a year or 80k over 5 years. I think there are some landscape firms that would take that on, probably glad of the bread and butter money. What you would get I don t know but I think it would be worthwhile finding out. I think it is possible that members of my club would pay an extra £40 a year for the work as well, I could be wrong but until such a preposition was put to them who can claim they know they wouldn't.

Put some REAL costings to it not your unrealistic thoughts. You know what thought did don't you? Followed a sh1t cart and thought it was a wedding!
I've checked with our park manager yesterday on grass cut only for the parks in his area, 3 largest ones (30 acre plus) and 15 pocket parks less than 5 acres. Cost from Glendales a contractor that works across the NW. 210K for 6 cuts. And Glendales came in at the lowest bidder by a big margin he tells me. Good luck with your 16K pa for water maintenance.

 

[ian g]

Thank you all for your contributions - plenty of food for thought and as ever, plenty of differing opinions! Things will obviously vary from one club to another - ours is not particularly big - 400+ senior members and we run perhaps 30 work parties a year, but if all seniors turned up to two work parties, the problem would become too many as opposed to too few - as ever, it's all about balance! One thing that strikes me in our club - as a bloke of 58, I'm usually amongst the youngest taking part! It is of course accepted that some members have other commitments, are too infirm Etc. the ones that frustrate me are those able-bodied members that will drop everything to take part in a match, even at short notice, but when it comes to work parties which are organised well in advance, they invariably seem to have something on that they 'can't get out of'!

That's life Jon , I'm of a similar vintage and find the same . I do WP's because I enjoy them and because if myself and others didn't we wouldn't have places to fish on the Severn . I get that people are busy , I work full time myself and don't look to shame others. Contractors are used for stuff like new car parks but cutting swims on miles of river bank is a bit impractical .

 

[no-one in particular]

tt

Put some REAL costings to it not your unrealistic thoughts. You know what thought did don't you? Followed a sh1t cart and thought it was a wedding!
I've checked with our park manager yesterday on grass cut only for the parks in his area, 3 largest ones (30 acre plus) and 15 pocket parks less than 5 acres. Cost from Glendales a contractor that works across the NW. 210K for 6 cuts. And Glendales came in at the lowest bidder by a big margin he tells me. Good luck with your 16K pa for water maintenance.

Unrealistic, what has the cost of cutting park grass have to do with maintaining some river banks, building and maintaining a few platforms, making some bits of river banks accessible. What has mowing a path or just stripping some of it twice a year has any relation to mowing a big park area. You don't know anything until a proper investigation is done. Most landscape company have big overhead costs, staff machinery etc. Contracts like this would be bread and butter for them, guaranteed money and work over say a 5 years period. Most companies love this kind of contract work and guaranteed money. They may get a big job now and again and then they might not ever got another one for 6 months a year and sometimes just go bust. Guaranteed contract work is heaven for a lot of them. I wouldn't mind betting that some would be falling over backwards to get this work specially in the present climate. Negotiation is everything, you would negotiate and itemize with a time table with defaults added. I reckon you would negotiate a very good deal. You don't know what could be negotiated and nor do I but comparing with a council contract to cut park grass is absurd; you call that real costings, have a break mate, make a relevant contribution to the debate. You have absolutely no idea what could be negotiated for 16k a year or even more relevantly in my opinion 80k over 5 years, no idea at at all nor does anyone else so, why don't you say so instead of coming up with your imagined unrealistic economical theories; something a bit more stable than a conversation you had with a park man.
You will keep on making mountains out of molehills and absurdities because you cannot be wrong, at least come back with something realistic based on relevant details.

 

[mikench]

Be fair Phil, no club not even PAAAs have over 200 plus acres of grass to cut and it’s done at most twice a year and more like once. One of the club waters has beautiful wide grass verges and these are clearly cut by a member who has done it for years and loves doing so. I’m referring to Hack Green. I take your point though. Also some rentals paid include grass cutting particularly if adjacent to and not fenced off from the farmers/ landowners field used for sillage. Plus large areas need a tractor drawn grass cutter or at the very least a sit on mower and not your average flymo.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The major problem wth club finances is a matter of . . scale.

For small clubs with miniscule annual fees there is clearly not enough left over after leases etc to cover the cost of mainenance. A relatvely small increas in fees might just about cover the initial costs of grass cutting, but little else.

For larger ciubs here in the south, we are paying over £300 per annum, but then the number of venues available are huge and so are the costs of maitaining them. . . . again, the scale comes into play.

A doubling of a club's £60 per annum might not have much of an effect, but anothet £100 on top of £300 would see memberships thinned out . . . . with possible reduction in the number of available leased venues.

The sensible answer has to be work parties for members to assist with.

Our sydicate WP's are usually a good laugh, (and very well attended) with a lot of work undertaken, and I provide the food and drinks FoC as physically I am not able to contribute much with the grunt work. They are also a decent social event as many of us don't get to meet too often during the season, and usually we end up in a local pub' for a beer or two afterwards . . . .

 

[no-one in particular]

ttt

The major problem wth club finances is a matter of . . scale.

For small clubs with miniscule annual fees there is clearly not enough left over after leases etc to cover the cost of mainenance. A relatvely small increas in fees might just about cover the initial costs of grass cutting, but little else.

For larger ciubs here in the south, we are paying over £300 per annum, but then the number of venues available are huge and so are the costs of maitaining them. . . . again, the scale comes into play.

A doubling of a club's £60 per annum might not have much of an effect, but anothet £100 on top of £300 would see memberships thinned out . . . . with possible reduction in the number of available leased venues.

The sensible answer has to be work parties for members to assist with.

Our sydicate WP's are usually a good laugh, (and very well attended) with a lot of work undertaken, and I provide the food and drinks FoC as physically I am not able to contribute much with the grunt work. They are also a decent social event as many of us don't get to meet too often during the season, and usually we end up in a local pub' for a beer or two afterwards . . . .

Which is great but it doesn't solve the problem. Any suggestions as to how I might solve the problem, one is to actually pay for the work to be done. There is another, get rid of the waters that cannot be maintained and fishable but I would rather pay for the work and keep the waters. I have just payed £40 for a card that said there about 20 waters available for me but in fact they are not; at least not for the purpose that I paid for. I suppose I could sue the club under the trade description act but I would still rather pay and keep the waters, if that is possible, and I think it could be, and until someone finds out what the reality of the situation is I will never know. Or anyone has any other suggestion, but they haven't so far and unlikely to.

 

[The bad one]

tt

Unrealistic, what has the cost of cutting park grass have to do with maintaining some river banks, building and maintaining a few platforms, making some bits of river banks accessible. What has mowing a path or just stripping some of it twice a year has any relation to mowing a big park area. You don't know anything until a proper investigation is done. Most landscape company have big overhead costs, staff machinery etc. Contracts like this would be bread and butter for them, guaranteed money and work over say a 5 years period. Most companies love this kind of contract work and guaranteed money. They may get a big job now and again and then they might not ever got another one for 6 months a year and sometimes just go bust. Guaranteed contract work is heaven for a lot of them. I wouldn't mind betting that some would be falling over backwards to get this work specially in the present climate. Negotiation is everything, you would negotiate and itemize with a time table with defaults added. I reckon you would negotiate a very good deal. You don't know what could be negotiated and nor do I but comparing with a council contract to cut park grass is absurd; you call that real costings, have a break mate, make a relevant contribution to the debate. You have no idea what could be negotiated for 16k a year or even more relevantly in my opinion 80k over 5 years, no idea at at all nor does anyone else.
You will keep on making mountains out of molehills and absurdities because you cannot be wrong, at least come back with something realistic based on relevant details.

Grass may be? Clearly you have never been near a river with a strimmer in the summer months. Nor have you ever run any sort of environmental business (landscape etc) voluntary or paid. Paid, would have to be a minimum of £9.50 ph as that Minimum Wage. That's £76 per day per worker for 8 hours. You did read what I wrote in post 30 did you? Just to remind you it was part of my job (paid) for over 20 year and well over 30 + years voluntary for one of those large park I mentioned. Weighed against your complete unrealistic and poor knowledge that make me an Expert against you!

Oh and Mike I think you missed the point a bit like the above. The figure for grass cutting was to illustrate what "contractors" charge for just cutting the grass, not how much they cut. The price would be the same for both as I have no doubts they work the price out on per squire metre cut.