6.5 Pros and Cons The table below summarises the principal pros and cons of each of the 4 options Option For Against 1 (PPP/HLH only) Earns income with minimal costs; Limited community access increased margin could achieve Limited geographic coverage outstanding savings Loss of community activities Reduced requirement for Loss of HC income overtime/ evening and weekend Significant political impact working Parity between schools and leisure centres charges 2 (2009 policy + Would cover lets costs once Does not achieve savings 5%pa) schools rationalised (3+years) Parity between schools and leisure centres charges Competitive with other providers Most potential to grow and develop the business No staff impact Least political impact 3 (2009 policy + Would cover lets costs once Does not achieve savings, 10%pa) schools rationalised, sooner than No price parity between schools Option 2 and leisure centres Competitive with other providers Less competitive in market place No staff impact Limited political impact (10% price rise same as 17/18) – 4 (2009 policy + Achieves savings target Unlikely to maintain volumes 39% then 10%pa No staff impact (but reduced Limits access due to increased thereafter) volumes) prices Uncompetitive in marketplace No price parity between schools and leisure centres Significant political impact
6.5 Pros and Cons The table below summarises the principal pros and cons of each of the 4 options Option For Against 1 (PPP/HLH only) Earns income with minimal costs; increased margin could achieve outstanding savings Reduced requirement for overtime/ evening and weekend working Parity between schools and leisure centres charges Limited community access Limited geographic coverage Loss of community activities Loss of HC income Significant political impact 2 (2009 policy + 5%pa) Would cover lets costs once schools rationalised (3+years) Parity between schools and leisure centres charges Competitive with other providers Most potential to grow and develop the business No staff impact Least political impact Does not achieve savings 3 (2009 policy + 10%pa) Would cover lets costs once schools rationalised, sooner than Option 2 Competitive with other providers No staff impact Limited political impact (10% price rise – same as 17/18) Does not achieve savings, No price parity between schools and leisure centres Less competitive in market place 4 (2009 policy + 39% then 10%pa thereafter) Achieves savings target No staff impact (but reduced volumes) Unlikely to maintain volumes Limits access due to increased prices Uncompetitive in marketplace No price parity between schools and leisure centres Significant political impact