An article about how a contract between Swindon Borough Council and Moirai Capital Investments for the development of the Oasis leisure facility changed over time
From a blog written in 2014:
“Given the importance of the Oasis example to the council’s plans for the future of the leisure centres, I think we should try to find out what is actually going on there. Here are some facts:
• The agreement between SBC and Moirai was signed in March 2012. In January 2013, the lease was varied at the request of Moirai. The revised terms included the following:
• Moirai’s obligation to provide a minimum area of development on the Oasis site was lifted.
• SBC gave up its option to purchase back the Oasis if no development takes place.
• Should recovery of debt be required as a result of loan default, the bank would be able to sell the lease into the open market.
• In January 2011 the Council invited expressions of interest to build a new leisure centre based on the former Clares site. The plan originally submitted by Moirai showed a ski centre, 7,500 seat arena and hotel on the Clares site.
However, in March 2013, Moirai presented a revised plan for the site, moving the arena (reduced to 6,500 seats) to the south side of the Oasis and apparently leaving half the Clares site vacant.
• Moirai said an application for outline planning application would be submitted in June 2013 (it had previously been expected in March that year).
• At the beginning of May 2014, the application had still not appeared on the council’s planning pages. An application for outline planning permission is now expected later in 2014.
• Oasis Operations Ltd, a management company set up by Moirai, was declared insolvent in 2013 (The London Gazette). The directors, who had resigned earlier in the year, are currently named by online data company Companycheck as directors of other Moirai companies.
• According to Companycheck, at the beginning of May 2014 two of the Moirai companies, Oasis Waterpark Ltd and Moirai Capital Investments (Swindon) Ltd, had recommended credit limits of £0.00. Companycheck could not assign them a risk score as it was too long since they filed audited accounts.
On 8 May 2014 Oasis Waterpark Ltd. had filed accounts and the credit limit has been raised to £25,000 with a credit score of 40 out of 100.
According to the lease variation referred to above, Oasis Waterpark Ltd is the company with the lease on the Oasis.
the time the agreement was signed in March 2012, Mr Martin Barber was described as the Chairman of Moirai. Mr Barber’s directorship of Moirai Capital Investments Ltd ended on 17 February 2014. (CompanyCheck)
• Mr Barber said in March 2012: “We are ready to press forward enthusiastically with the first phase, the refurbishment of the Oasis Leisure Centre. . . We have already plans in hand for the replacement of the Dome”.
…
I don’t know anything about finance, and I do not know what is going on at the Oasis. Clearly these little gobbets of information do not present anything like the whole picture, and they may well be misleading.
However, I question whether, as early as March 2013, when the Council report included the option of “an Oasis type deal”, the council should not have been keeping a closer eye on developments at the Oasis.
I question whether Swindon people should feel confident that the Oasis provides an encouraging model for the future of their leisure centres and golf courses.
In the light of the lease variation agreed in January 2013, I question whether Swindon people can have any confidence that the terms of a lease agreed with a private sector operator to take over the leisure centres and golf courses will not be altered in future at the request of the leaseholder.
And I question whether the Oasis model suggests that Swindon Borough Council is professionally equipped to make a deal with private sector operators over the future of the leisure centres and golf courses which will be to the advantage of the town.”
We also note that several other Moirai companies have appeared in the London Gazette notices of being struck off. Sometimes this is because compulsory information required of companies has not been filed within proper time limits, sometimes it isn’t.
It is usually considered preferable for a company’s reputation and the reputation of its directors to (a) file accounts on time and/or (b) voluntarily wind up a company rather than have it struck off.
East Devon Watch 