The location is, paradoxically, part of the problem. Like Twycross (until recently, thankfully) the fact that there's no serious rivals means that a large number of people will continue to visit even if the collection slips downhill. In turn this means management can remain deluded that they're doing the right thing because visitor numbers probably still hold up. Technically it's still the premier zoological collection in the area, it's a long journey elsewhere if the locals want to see Rhino's, Giraffes, Tigers, etc (I suppose Longleat might offer some alternative for some but that's seriously expensive).
The Statutory Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31st December 2013 can be found on the Marwell website if you do a search ( not listed on the Site map ) .
The business is healthy with a surplus of £663 thousand for the year and cash and bank balances of £3.5 million and investments of about £2 million .
The 2014 Annual Report have not yet been published on the Charity Commission website .
There is some truth in what Shorts says and there is a core of "marwell faithful visitors". Interestingly, as Bele says, the accounts appear healthy - so why would the trustees worry ? If it looks good on paper then surely it must be ok ??
But we mustn`t forget that they have saved vast amounts of money simply by reducing the animal collection in the drastic way that they have, in addition less animals means less staff, they saved thousands when they did away with all the section heads for instance.
I know that the overall visitor numbers are down on what they once were, a few years ago they were easily attracting 6 or 7 thousand visitors on a single bank holiday day alone. That does not happen these days.
I also know that visitors are complaining about the state of the place, and justifiably so, when they are paying a decent entrance fee in order to see animals.
