Happy Mondays gig postponed for medical reasons

The Happy Mondays

The Happy Mondays

Next month’s big sellout Happy Mondays gig in Mareel has been put off until next year after the Manchester rockers postponed a host of European tour dates due to “unforeseen medical circumstances”.  

The joint production between local promoters Klub Revolution and Shetland Arts was to have taken place on Saturday 15th December.

Alan McLeod of Klub Revolution said the Happy Mondays had been forced to cancel all their dates from 1st to 18th December because a band member is undergoing an operation.

He said discussions were taking place with another “name” band about filling the 15th December slot, but nothing had been confirmed.

Negotiations are continuing with the Happy Mondays’ management to reschedule the gig, but that is unlikely to happen before the spring. Refunds for the £50 tickets will be available through Shetland Box Office at Mareel or Islesburgh from Monday.

A Shetland Arts spokeswoman said: “Klub Revolution, Shetland Arts and the Happy Mondays would like to sincerely apologise for the major inconvenience caused by this unavoidable decision, especially for those who were travelling to Shetland for the show. We will bring news of a rescheduled date as soon as we can.”

Mr McLeod said it had been a “funny old year” for Klub Revolution, which has had to reschedule gigs by Britpop band Dodgy and DJ Kutski due to factors including bereavment, bad weather and Mareel’s delayed opening.

26 comments

  1. Ian Tinkler

    Happy Mondays cancelled!, How about a Charity Gig featuring all Shetland Talent. There are plenty of highly talented people on Shetland and many good charities needing funds.
    A Christmas Gig all profits to say, free music tuition would not be a bad idea. A collage of acts would be good, Blues, Indie, Folk and Traditional Shetland. Might just be fun. Shetland equivalent of Band Aid. All profits to charity including band fees, bar profits Staff wages and Mareel fees.

    Reply
  2. Robert Simpson

    ….I hear the Rolling Stones are getting back together….

    Reply
  3. David Spence

    I find it rather disingenuous towards people who are talented musically (we are talking people who are talented at playing a musical instrument) to equate them to, put bluntly, a person who does nothing more than plays (known as DJ’s) ‘ somebody else’s work/music ‘, and yet they are put into the same league as a person who obviously shows greater skill, talent and who is significantly more knowledgeable about music, I find highly insulting. It is almost as insulting as comparing the ‘ unmade bed ‘ exhibited (wrongly) at the Turner Prize to this of the beautiful artwork shown in the Sistine Chapel and saying they are equal in talent, skill and representation. Oh, I forgot, it is called ‘ Modern Art ‘ or ‘ Conceptual Art ‘, any excuse to justify commercializing art for the sake of profit, but take away any skill and talent which is required.

    Reply
  4. Forbes McAllister

    I don’t think David Spence’s view, which can be summarised as [your preferred cultural activity] pales in comparison with [my preferred cultural activity] because [my preferred cultural activity] is objectively BETTER than [your preferred cultural activity] really adds much to the cultural conversation. Perhaps if he stopped treating culture as a league table, and started taking things on their own merits, he’d be less indignant.

    Reply
  5. Johan Adamson

    Actually Tracey Emin is extremely talented and has recently returned to traditional art like painting. The unmade bed was shocking but that does not make it any less art, just as DJ ing is not any less creative – surely just using a different means to create?

    Reply
  6. Ian Tinkler

    Maybe I am a philistine, but when our kids are loosing their schools for lack of funds, do we have to spend £13 million plus on an Arts Centre that actually creates nothing at all. Just a showcase for the pretentious. No art has ever been created in the likes of Mareel, just shown off, and that could be done almost anywhere.

    Reply
  7. David Spence

    Well Mr McAllister, if you think commercializing and profiteering certain cultural traits as skilled and talented attributes towards society, I would question your validity of what you call art to this of what most people, lets get straight to the point and objective, would call rubbish or unskilled at best compared to many artists who obviously do show their skill and talent in this field of creativity. Just because some one decides that an ‘ unmade bed ‘ has been exhibited in the Turner Prize competition does not necessarily constitute it has art (despite what some people may justify it by using the excuse ‘ it’s open to your own interpretation ‘). Where do you draw the line between what is truly defined as art to this of profiteering and commercializing rubbish and calling it art? I suspect you would equate a few scribbles on a piece of paper as art to this of the beautifully painted Mona Lisa, and say they were both equal in skill, talent and creativity? I would question your ‘ cultural activity ‘, if you compared the two as equal.

    Reply
  8. clive munro

    Mr. Tinkler, “We” haven’t spent £13 million on Mareel. If the council coughs up the extra money now being sought Shetland’s contribution will have been about half that amount, meaning outside agencies have been of the opinion that Mareel was worth £6.5 million of their money. Also 28,000 cinema tickets sold in just three months, in a community of 22,000, suggests to me that, rather than being a “showcase for the pretentious”, Mareel is a marvelous asset that is being used, and enjoyed, by a huge cross-section of the people of Shetland. In the meantime, wild claims about how much money Mareel is going to lose or, indeed, quieter claims of possible modest profits seem, to me, to be totally pointless. It’s up and running, and thousands of us are enjoying it, so why not just give the subject (and us) a rest, at least until there’s a full year’s financial figures to argue over.

    Reply
  9. Ian Tinkler

    Clive, just where do these outside agencies funding Mareel get their funds. O yes that would be you and me by way of tax. Now surely if as you state Mareel is doing so well with all these ticket sales, surely it could pay its own way without putting out the begging bowl. You ask us to wait until there are a full year’s financial figures to argue over. Why not go to a commercial bank and save us all your bailout money, with all your ticket sails that should be no problem…

    Reply
  10. clive munro

    Mr. Tinkler, I intended to get back to you sooner but had tickets to see “Argo” at Mareel. Very good it was too, although the cinema wasn’t particularly full. I did hear though, while in there, that cinema ticket sales had just passed 30,000 so there’s apparently no let up in the steady stream of Shetlanders enjoying themselves there. The bar looked quite busy too, with a fair number of moderate, enlightened drinkers enjoying a quiet beer, glass of wine or coffee. Not a raver, or raving drunk, in sight. To get back, however, to the points you made earlier .Firstly, of course the external funding is someone’s taxes but the main point is that it didn’t come from the Council’s budget, or reserves, and therefore couldn’t have been used, for example, to keep open local schools. The outside agencies charged with responsibly spending people’s taxes did, however, decide that Mareel was worth investing £6 million in. As, democratically, did our elected Council. Additional costs have, unfortunately, arisen but those agencies have again decided to support Mareel and it would seem to me to be pointless, and self-defeating, for the council not to do likewise. Secondly, yes, ticket sales have been excellent but to suggest that Mareel therefore should, after three months trading, be able to pay this extra money itself is ludicrous, as I imagine you well know. The suggestion that Shetland Arts go to a commercial bank is equally daft, as I suspect (or hope) you also know, Mareel wasn’t built to make money, but to stimulate social, and cultural, activity in our community. Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs that, if this current financial hurdle can be overcome, it may very well, with hard work and imaginative programming, be able to pay it’s way in terms of running costs. That would be good enough for me and, I suspect, the majority of the thousands of taxpayers who are delighted to have it.

    Reply
  11. ian tinkler

    Clive, I would not dispute some of the points of your argument, however do you really believe the sum of 13.5 million pounds can be justifiable be spent at a time when rural schools are being closed, music teachers not being employed and music lessons axed, rural communities isolated and neglected, our elderly citizens welfare and social centres closed due to lack of funds. All that at a time when a few thousands of Lerwick taxpayers are being indulged and funded in a subsidised complex of cinema, bar, restaurant, nightclub and an indulgent office block for Shetland Arts? I am sure your taxpayers will enjoy Mareel, but is the cost to Shetland and the taxpayer justifiable? I understand that the true overspend is and will not be known until January of next year at the earliest , these latest funds are just cash to keep Mareel solvent until then and next cash request. Will anyone at Shetland Arts deny that? With regards to a commercial bank loan, usually a reasonable business reputation, budget and business plan and collateral is all that is needed. Shetland Arts and Mareel due to its expensive facilities and past excellent ticket sales should easily cover most of those requirements. That is if you can believe Shetland Arts claims and their business plan as realistic and equitable.

    Reply
  12. Robert Sim

    Well said, Clive, in your last comment on Mareel. The voice of reason indeed. And written coherently too…

    Reply
  13. Douglas Young

    The Mareel cannot make a profit, even with the luxury of the entire £13 million capital cost being supplied by the British taxpayer via various sources, because there is not the population to sustain it.
    The £500, 000 is in addition to the £300, 000 given to get it up and running. The cinema figures will decrease and cannot in any way sustain the building, nor have I heard the current revenue streams from recording studios. Two bands I spoke to recently laughed when asked if they were using Mareel, one was using Burra the other Wethersta.
    The project was flawed from the start and no bank will lend to it as security on the building implies it could be sold to pay off debts. Which it can’t. A very selfish building.

    Reply
  14. John Tulloch

    Surely the question of whether spending £13.5 million on Mareel was justifiable is one for an inquiry into past decisions and how the council got into its current difficulties?

    As I understand it, virtually all of the money has already been spent and a relatively small amount remains to be paid, some of which is related to late start-up costs.

    Given effective marketing, Mareel has rather obvious benefits for the whole of Shetland, notably, in tourism and publicising the islands, as well as boosting opportunities for local talent.

    The £12-13 million pounds already spent is a “sunk cost” and cannot be recovered so the question really is – like it or not – should we close this potentially wonderful asset which has already brought £6+ million of employment, paid for by outside sources, into Shetland, for the sake of £500k?

    People are angry and justifiably so, however what message would we be sending to “outside sources” of future finance if we let Mareel go belly up before it has even got going?

    Would you give anyone money again if they did that with it?

    Reply
  15. ian tinkler

    “I suspect the majority of the thousands of taxpayers who are delighted to have it (Mareel).” That is of course very true as Robert and Clive so agree. Now how about those not so l lucky. The Rural communities loosing ferries, schools, and community centers. The children of the West Side loosing Aith school facing up to three hours on the bus daily. Give a thought for our elderly losing the facilities of the Freefield Centre and hot food. Those delighted with Mareel I am sure will enjoy their shiny new facility, those supplying the funds are probably too spineless to admit a mistake has been made and will endlessly bail out the white elephant, lacking the courage to say enough is enough and calling a halt to this money waster.. That is until all the funds run out and the community of Shetland is ruined. That will start with the rural areas first, our children and the elderly, the most vulnerable will as always be the first hurt. Think on that Robert and Clive enjoy your subsidized monument to the self serving.

    Reply
  16. clive munro

    Oh dear, I really didn’t plan to say anything more on this subject but simply can’t ignore Ian Tinkler’s ridiculous inference that Mareel is only being enjoyed by “a few thousand (of) Lerwick taxpayers”, I’ve lived in Shetland all my life, and spent thirty-odd years serving the public here, so I think I can say with some certainty that I regularly see taxpayers from all corners of our bonny isles indulging themselves inside it’s walls. I’ve even heard French and Spanish voices there. Maybe they were checking out whether the European Regional Development Fund’s £2.8 million had been well spent? If so, I hope they were impressed. Over, and out.

    Reply
  17. ian tinkler

    Great Clive, now how about our senior friends using Freefield, or do they not matter to you. Are they not important enough to matter? If SIC cannot afford a few thousand for them how can you or any remotely compassionate and intelligent person, justify millions on Mareel?

    Reply
  18. Robert Sim

    I am sure, since he clearly regards himself as a full-time Times columnist, that Ian Tinkler won’t mind me saying that it is hard to follow his contributions here a lot of the time, so reliant are they on hyperbole. However there are some linguistic gems in there, such as the brilliant mixed metaphor which describes the funders of Mareel endlessly bailing out the white elephant. Great entertainment value!

    Reply
  19. ian tinkler

    “Great entertainment value!” Robert, what a powerful contribution to intelligent and reasoned argument. I am glad I amuse you; fortunately my entertainment of you will cost rather less than £13 million, but sadly, may not be as arty as Mareel, but perhaps more relevant. Now on a more serious note, have you an answer to my statement “If SIC cannot afford a few thousand for them how can you or any remotely compassionate and intelligent person, justify millions on Mareel?” . If you are unable or unwilling to comment, your silence will speak volumes. Also consider the following, “The Rural communities are losing ferries, schools, and community centres. The children of the West Side loosing Aith school facing up to three hours on the bus daily” Really amusing reading is that not?

    Reply
  20. clive munro

    Okay, Ian, although I can’t speak for Robert Sim I certainly wouldn’t want my silence to be misconstrued, so here goes. Firstly, I thought John Tulloch explained quite eloquently why Mareel should receive these extra funds. Maybe he explained it too well, in fact, as you didn’t respond to any of his comments. Secondly, believe it or not, I’m in agreement with you about Freefield, and Aith Junior High too. In fact I’m aghast at the council’s whole approach to Shetland’s economic crisis, which strikes me as petty, piecemeal and, ultimately likely to do more harm than good. It’s my understanding that, between them, the council’s reserves and the Charitable Trust,s investments are still worth about £400 million. That, to me, isn’t quite the same as being broke. In my opinion the council needs to reduce it’s administration costs, not it’s services, and that £400 million should be easily enough of a cushion to manage that over a period of, say, six years. Doing that would avoid suddenly throwing hundreds of council employees on to the dole, with all the economic and social upheaval that would entail. Doing that would also ensure that our services, and lifestyles, could be maintained at the level we’ve created for ourselves over the last few decades. We’d have less reserves, for sure, but we’d still have the quality of life which is, apparently, the envy of so many others. The future, economically, is finally looking up too, so I really think the council has to be brave and weather our current difficulties without dismantling what is, now, our way of life. So, Ian, that’s where I stand. We may actually have some common ground. That doesn’t, however, alter the fact that your various comments about Mareel amount to nothing more than a wearisome litany of red herrings, misdirections, inaccuracies and mean spirited divisiveness. Hope that helps.

    Reply
  21. ian tinkler

    Thanks for that Clive… Like so many, when unable to form rational argument you just resort to insults. Very sadly nearly everything I have stated about Mareel has come so very true. What a shame that my “wearisome litany of red herrings, misdirection, inaccuracies and mean spirited divisiveness.” has all come so very true. Let’s think if I had been wrong about Mareel and its stakeholders, Mareel might just have been opened now for two years ago, built on budget, run at a profit and its prime functions to primarily promote Shetland art and artists and educate been achieved. As it is, none of the fore mentioned have been achieved, how many more millions must Mareel absorb before it does, if ever? With regard to John Tullochs letter, I agree with all of his observations, right up until he advocated £5,000,000 from Shetlands reserves should be further squandered on Mareel. Those funds, under Mareel’s present management would at best, just delay and hide the underlying problems, until the next plea for yet more funding. To digress, I am very sorry your shop closed, that shop promoted the Arts and inspired young artists far more than Mareel ever will, and all, not at the public public expense!

    Reply
  22. John Tulloch

    It was £500, 000 – half a million – I understood was being asked, not five million. I would balk at five million myself.

    Reply
  23. ian tinkler

    Sorry John, One nought too many! Maybe I was thinking about next year’s Mareel begging bowl!!! Freudian slip or perhaps another of my “wearisome litany of red herrings, misdirection, inaccuracies and mean spirited divisiveness.” John, Í would agree with your previously expressed view absolutely if I could believe the £50K would be Shetland Arts last beg to keep Mareel solvent and if we were not suffering from so many other cut backs, on far more vital services.

    Reply
  24. Robert Sim

    Ian, you write: “…have you an answer to my statement “If SIC cannot afford a few thousand for them how can you or any remotely compassionate and intelligent person, justify millions on Mareel?”” Well, actually, that’s a question, not a staement. In fact, it’s a rhetorical question, the definition of which is: “…a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.” (wikipedia) Presumably, therefore, you don’t expect a reply.

    Reply
  25. John Tulloch

    If the council decide to award Mareel this extra finance in these straitened times I’m sure those running Mareel will be aware of both the responsibility they bear to ensure Mareel can “wash its own face” and also the great opportunity that presents itself to emulate the stunning success that has been achieved by investing in facilities and coaching/organisation in sport.

    I also think that part of the problem with the finances is government regulation; Colin Hunter claims in his letter that the council now has 4000 staff – if correct that means more than 1 in 6 of all people of all ages work for the council!

    Prior to the Flea accosting George Osborne about the £40 million owed by the UK government for oil-related spending during the oil boom that story was not well known. Government reneged on a promise and that is a scandal.

    And the charitable trust is constrained because the council is committed to going along with the Scottish government’s policy of investing in renewable energy which is all well and good if a return is forthcoming however the latest word is there will be no return on existing or future investment in VE until at least 2020.

    Surely lunch clubs for the elderly, music tuition for children, etc., would be appropriate territory for the charitable trust if it had money it could spend?

    I trust the council “heid eens” are lobbying the Scottish government about these issues with a view to obtaining assistance?

    Reply
  26. ian tinkler

    Fantastic critique of my use of English Robert (I am Dyslexic, could not read until 10, sorry about that). Shame you are unable to comment on the closure of our rural schools. What a pity the Quality Improvement Officer for Shetland Island Council education department lacks the moral courage to criticise the closure of rural schools and loss of music teachers. Never mind I am sure Mareel and Shetland Arts will promote your poetry. Sorry if I have the wrong Mr R Sim.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>