Has any one else heard the same rumour as me. Heard that when we get our new pier, the Michaels are going to set a charge to go on it!
Not only did they take away the tradition of being to able to eat your own picnic on there, they going to make you pay to go on it. I for one wont be going on it. All they want to do is make big money, and forget its a seaside town.
So come on make sure it doesnt happen, or they will eventually detroy our town.
I do, but keeping my source quiet. You honestly think that they wont, I assume you are amongst the few who agreed with the charge they put on eating your own food on the pier. Wasnt this against what the pier stood for, being able to sit and watch the world go by enjoying your own sandwiches.
I went on after the fire with my grandchildren, we sat having brought food on the pier, and we were watched, especially when the youngest wanted a bottle of formula.
They only in it for themselves not the town, and its residents.
Well of course they're in it to make a profit - not many people run tourist attractions out of charity, do they?
But that said, I think they're pretty shrewd business people, and such a decision would undoubtedly lead to resentment and a lot of people staying away - I can't see them making such an ill-advised choice.
Still, if you have a source in the know, maybe you're right. I'll be interested to see how it pans out...
If someone knows the Grand Pier owners' email address, send them an email on the lines of this.
"Dear Grand Pier owners,
In order to stop the malicious rumours going around Weston that it is your intention to charge admission to get onto the Grand Pier, when it is re-built, could you please "once and for all" confirm that entry to the Grand Pier will remain free of charge. Thank you for your response, and please be advised of the continued support of Weston residents in your efforts to put the Grand back into the Pier".
After receiving an email like that, I'm sure the Grand Pier owners will put everybodys' mind at rest.
they only started to not allow people to bring there own food on there when it burnt down but i think as soon as its built they wouldnt care its just to get money for the rebuild i dont think they will charge you for going on the pier because its never happened before not what i no of anyway so all you have to do is contact the pier and ask them to pass on the message for you to the owners and they will they did when i asked them a question
Sounds like there may be some weight to this speculation... in today's Mercury, Kerry Michael is quoted as saying no decision has yet been made, but if an entrance fee is introduced it will be a 'nominal' amount.
I wonder what constitutes a nominal amount? 50p? £1? £2? Nominal in terms of the millions of pounds the new pier will generate for its owners, perhaps, but not so nominal when a family is asked to fork out for setting foot on the pier, most likely with the aim of emptying their pockets to enjoy its attractions.
I hope that a decision is made very quickly - and that the decision is to abandon this absurd, money-grabbing idea.
You had to pay the £3 before the pier burnt down, if you wanted to eat anything of your own.
Knew my source was right, a charge to go on the pier, well tell you what lets hope no one goes on, NO other pier makes a charge. Keep the pier the way it looks at the moment, looks like the rest of the sea front.
I wont be going on it, if they dont want to work with the town, the locals should react with theie feet and stay of it.
I've been talking to people about this, and they - being older and wiser than I - tell me that the pier always used to have a charge, and it is only in more recent years that that has been waived.
In which case, while I would still oppose its introduction myself, I suppose it's not as scandalous an idea as I at first thought...
Right, there was for many many years a charge for going onto the pier. The turnstiles were just about where the bullet train turns around at the land end, and it was built over an iron grating, the idea of which was to remove sand from patrons feet and sandals rather than have them trail it up the boardwalk. People delving in their pockets for sixpences to pay to 'go on' often dropped small coins though the grating, where grateful local kids sat under the pier, waiting.
Or as in our case we went along and dug the coins out at the end of the day after we had emptied pop and beer bottles out of all the rubbish bins so we could return them to the shop to collect the glass deposit.
If my memory serves, it was about sixpence and threepence entry fee (adults and kids rate) and if anyone is qualified to calculate the value of that now, go for it, but it was less than we had for pocket money and we didn't have much! I guess that's 'nominal'. Personally I don't have a problem in being asked to pay to go on. The pier isn't a local amenity and nobody has the automatic right to walk up there, it's a business, and if businesses don't show a profit they fail. Same goes for the food. But naturally others will disagree which is our right!
Old Westonians never die, they go out on the tide...
Ok that may have been the case in the past, but i am still ubnaware of any other piers that make a charge, that offer attractions and rides. Clevedon pier charges but that is a charity not a business.I would have thought they would make enough money from the rides etc on there, but obviously not.
Any one wanting to go on the pier with their family will end up spending a fortune, money to gain entrt, buy food as you cant eat your own, let alone the rides and souveniors.
I can not see many people affording everything, and i for one to save my grandchildren getting upset will be taking them to other attractions that offer better value for money.
Clevedon Pier charges an entry fee, it's a Charity.
Penarth Pier used to charge a fee, but is now free, because it cost more to collect the fee, than the actual amount collected. Penarth Pier is owned by the Local Authority, and fisherman have to pay, I believe, an annual licence fee
Mumbles Pier charges everyone an entry fee, and is privately owned. It's also almost falling into the sea, and awaiting planning permission for a hotel and flats and other "stuff". Locals think it is unlikely to succeed.
Currency. Sixpence (slang...a tanner) was the equivalent of today's two and a half pence (that's if we still had a halfpence) and threepence (slang...thrupence) would be the equivalent of today's one and a quarter pence (we never had a quarter pence after decimalisation in February 1971, to me it seems like only yesterday!, and the thrupenny bit disappeared on that day. The tanner continued in circulation for a few years until the halfpence was abandoned. Most tanners then ended up in peoples' homemade Christmas cakes.
The Grand Pier, Weston. As everybody knows, it's privately owned and therefore the owners can charge what they like. However, I think they will lose out if they introduce a charge. After all, they need to get people onto the Pier, in order to persuade "punters" to go on rides, buy food and drink etc, and spend money. If charges are considered to be too high, or simply unfair, then people could decide not to go onto the pier, and spend their money "on shore".
Ultimately it is for the Michaels to decide what pricing model to use, but the trend in recent years has been away from - rather than towards - admission pricing.
As others have said, both the Grand Pier and Birnbeck Island charged in the 80s.
It could, of course, be that parts of the pier cost. Perhaps parts of the pavilion will have free attractions once you pay to go in, but I really cannot see a charge to go on the pier per se because this will impact the number of people going for Sunday lunch or a pint at the bars, restaurants etc... I can't see that huge revolving observation tower thing being free, though... bet it'll cost something to go up it.
As for taking your own lunch onto the pier would you do that with a pub beer garden? Take that bar just opposite the end of the Grand Pier with the tables and chairs outside... would you take your own food and expect to sit there and not be moved on? I certainly wouldn't, so why should you consider that the pier which is another private business should encourage something that a pub would not?