As for the financial info you read on companies house, if accounts are late, which they are in many companies, the wording on companies house sounds much more dramatic than the actual truth in the majority of cases, once the accounts are filled, it all looks normal again! It may not take off but then again let us hope it is a success rather than try to pick someone’s ambitions it to pieces. All the negative nerds out there show a bit of can do attitude for a change.
This is completely true but it still smacks of poor management/coordination in not sorting the matter out. It's relatively straightforward to stop a strike off in the first instance through either contacting Companies House or filing the required accounts (which given the zoo's not trading should be very straightforward) but this has not been done. The company would have received numerous (nasty looking) reminders by now and one would have hoped some action would have been taken. To be fair they may just have poor/no advisors assisting them but they do need to sort this out or the company will be struck off by the end of June. In any case they will have incurred filing penalties due to the late filing of accounts which will be levied once accounts are filed -which strikes me as an avoidable waste of money.
I guess it will be the African subspecies given the (roughly incorporated) African theme throughout the zoo.
It's not about being a "negative nerd"; it's about being realistic. I suppose it depends on what you regard as "a zoo". To me it is a collection of exotic species on a fixed site which the public can visit. By that definition there is no "Manchester Zoo" currently. What there seems to be is a private collection of exotic (and native) species which are available for school visits etc. Nothing wrong with that, but to use "The Manchester Zoo is ..." and "a new species at the Manchester Zoo is ..." seems a bit misleading. I would be delighted if a Manchester Zoo gets off the ground (or - more accurately - gets on the ground) even though it might impact my beloved Chester. But talking about a "Manchester Zoo" in the present tense when the company behind it has - according to Company House records - only a few hundred pounds in the bank, and is days away from being struck off, seems more than a little presumptuous.
But... The company is called Manchester Zoo? So I don't see an issue with referring to is as such? "A few days from being struck off" - Not at all (and that's all I shall say on that matter)
Thank you, it may come as a surprise.... But I actually knew that!!! No need to be pedantic, the point I was trying to make is clear.
That's a fairly weak argument to be fair, I could name a company Newcastle Zoo Limited but it doesn't mean I've established a zoo in Newcastle (I don't even live there) or justify calling any collection of animals I own Newcastle Zoo. Following your logic I should set up a company called "Owned By Coolest Person In The World Limited" thus making me the coolest person in the world.
I can appreciate, and see your point . I do however feel like your examples can't really be used as a comparison... I may as well say that Flamingo land shouldn't be named as such, because it is far more than just flamingos as a collection... (I'm not making that criticism, just making a point). I think that using the title "Manchester Zoo" is more than appropriate - whatever you would like to call it now, *will* eventually become a zoo, so there is no harm in using such terminology now when merely reporting news on a forum for fellow enthusiasts. What else would you like me, or anyone else reporting news to refer to Manchester Zoo as?? I would love to hear any suggestions?
I think you've answered your own question, "Manchester Zoo" (in quotes) seems entirely suitable. Everyone could interpret the quotes in their own personal way and be happy. Alternatively, Manchester Zoo (under construction), Manchester Zoo (one day) or Manchester Zoo (fingers crossed) would seem suitable, if clunky.
Just a thought... but if this is the name of a private collection, should it not be listed in the 'Private Collections and Pets' category...?
If that were to happen, I think many collections would have to me moved... Heythrop and Wolds to name a few
As a sporadic and casual observer on this forum, some of the inner workings go right over my head...! There appears to be a section for private collections, but private collections don't belong in it?
Yeah, but they do have a defined physical location containing animals which can be visited (albeit only occasionally), arguably the definition of a zoo. "Manchester Zoo" does not have those characteristics as far as I know...... That said, I think you have half a point here and Heythrop and Wolds could be argued either way (whereas Park Exotics, or whatever it's currently called, would definitely be a a private collection).
Under UK law - 'a zoo is defined as an establishment where wild animals (those not normally domesticated in the British Isles) are kept for exhibition (except in a circus or pet shop) to which members of the public have access, with or without charge for admission, on seven or more days in a year.' The 'establishment' has to have a site which has to have planning permission. A pet shop in Peterborough selling tropical fish and aquariums, is called 'The Water Zoo'. It has a good reputation, but is still a pet shop...
