Manchester Zoo Manchester zoo

I know that's the strict legal definition but I think anyone who visited Heythrop would (strictly wrongly) say it was a zoo (albeit a private one).

Completely agree with your point about there needing to be an establishment (i.e. with planning permission) though.

 

As this is all a bit of a non-story - there may or may not be a Manchester Zoo in the future (I hope there will be and I hope it's fabulous and brings something new and exciting to the UK) and at the moment it is just an idea. I am not going to read this thread any more until land is purchased and enclosures are built. I suggest you all do the same.

 

I don't know what this section should be in, but it should not be in UK zoos as it is not a zoo at present.

 

Very much agreed - whilst ThomasNotTom seems very confident in Manchester Zoo (assuming either he is an investor or has been promised a job) despite the worrying facts that they do not have a confirmed plot of land they are building on yet (just to clarify before I get pedants coming at me, confirmed as in signed on the dotted line and building work has commenced, just because I’m considering buying a field does not make me a farmer) makes me think it is not a zoo by definition. No matter what people may say about “soon” or “in the near future” or “planned”.
The fact is, the argument that it has a social media page is not enough to say it’s a zoo. Many private collections - ACTP, Wisbroek, Park Exotics to name a few, have got social media pages. The mistake that has been made is that Manchester Zoo has created a bunch of hype about something that, until they have land and enclosures built, is just another person’s private collection. Yes a lot of zoos start that way, but there is no point referring to it as a zoo until it quite frankly exists as one. cliffxdavis puts it perfectly.

 

Simon, fair point, but maybe you could or should then change the title of this thread to 'The proposed Manchester Zoo'?

 

You have just successfully classified yourself as a negative nerd, and some .

1. Picking holes and being pedantic about 'what is a zoo', 'what defines a zoo' etc, yawn, …. who gives a ferrets.
2. You have already previously demonstrated what you know about Companies House in previous threads, that’s not much at all to be honest and being polite as possible in words.
3. Odd to read ‘it might impact on my beloved Chester’ – It will do nothing more than benefit Chester Zoo (ask if you don’t know why & how)
4. Where did ‘your beloved Chester’ get its first animals from many years ago….same places as Manchester zoo will (apart from the wild !!) , other collections (zoos & wild life parks) and circuses back then more so, unwanted surplus animals are someone else’s treasures at times.

I just want to briefly explain that it is a positive for what zoos are about (Conservation these days) the hopeful opening of Manchester Zoo. You can all it what you want, but 95% of people will call a zoo in Manchester, Manchester zoo, like 95% plus of people in the UK call ZSL London – London Zoo!.


I’ll stick with my negative nerd tag, but look at the possible benefits for Chester Zoo and you may become a positive one.

 

Copied from the Manchester Zoos Facebook page:

We've got some exciting news!

We've recently teamed up with the Manchester based production company Eight Engines, to develop a documentary series!

We will capture the story of Manchester Zoo, and take you on a journey from the projects conception, to fruition! Initially the series will focus on the lives of the people involved in the project, the construction of the site, our social science programmes within the community, and ultimately, what it's really like to work and live in a zoo, as its not just a job, it's a lifestyle!

 

The striking-off by Companies House did not take place, as accounts were submitted on 1st July. They can be viewed on the Companies House website.

They show net liabilities at the year-end (30th June 2018).

I will say nothing further as I wouldn't want Pootle to accuse me of being ignorant of companies house legislation.

 

I didn't and wouldn't call you ignorant, I did say negative nerd though.

All I will say, is just remember for now and the future that the wording on companies house and similar sites giving company financial and ownership information can easily mislead one to think that financial matters are shoddier than they are in reality.

 

And, to be fair, they can make things look better than they are in reality.

These distortions (either way) are partly due to accounts representing an historical snap-shot of assets and liabilities at what's essentially a past point in time rather than now (for "Manchester Zoo" at 30th June 2018). Additionally accounts can be misleading if accountants are shoddy and omit required disclosures (Companies House has no way of knowing this and pretty much accept anything submitted, including a shopping list accidentally stuck to accounts in a case infamous to nerd accountants).

For what it's worth, to me, the accounts for "Manchester Zoo" look no better or worse than many an embyronic business and few conclusions can be drawn. That said, I still consider it a poor reflection on peoples involved that the accounts were filed so late (it shouldn't take until late June 2019 to file fairly straightforward accounts to 30th June 2018) and I'm sure the company could have made better use of the monies they'll most likely have to pay for late filing penalties.

 

@Shorts, agree with above and in a nutshell, that is why for embryonic business's Companies House info isn't too telling.

Once they get up and running (I hope they do it) as a business and all financial matters including accounts become more complex then hopefully they will recruit the required staff to deal with these financial issues swifter. It’s part of ‘the dirty work’ behind the scenes that no one gets credit for, yet is absolutely critical for success…..

 

As some of you mentioned to me at Hamerton that you are interested in news regarding Manchester Zoo, but don't have Facebook... Here you go!

Security Check

 

Updates of the plans ( there seem to be already a good amount of money for the zoo ) :

Manchester is set to get its very own zoo

 

Is that a reference to the crowdfunding?

 

"While the funds for the first phase has already been secured, the project is looking for additional funding to help them develop the zoo more quickly, with your donations earning you a range of rewards - like branded Manchester Zoo t-shirts."

Would be interesting to know a rough figure for 'funds for the first phase'. I would have imagined that a projected budget would have included zoo development at the rate they would like? Smells odd.

 

Can you provide short excerpt here?

What is in their "first phase"?!

 

I agree it smells odd. This proposed Zoo entered into discussions with Trafford Council and announced in original press articles they had secured sufficient private funding. Now they have put out the begging bowl to the public to make donations while their original backers will be the ones who reap the benefit in investment return.
What will the £200k they have asked the public for be used for and why do they need it at this stage? Is it to be used as working capital, pay for professional consultants fees or planning application fees?
It seems unethical to prey on the goodwill of the public when Manchester Zoo still haven’t announced where the zoo site will be. Some of the public may live close to the proposed site and won’t realise they are funding a private development which ultimately may negatively impact on the their local area through increased traffic etc.