Ship of Fools: The Church of Scotland Galilee 5* hotel fiasco

Thread: The Church of Scotland Galilee 5* hotel fiasco Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024128

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

The Church of Scotland owns a very posh hotel on the sea of Galilee. They've got themselves into a remarkably embarrassing situation: how should they escape? Actually they are not alone in their embarrassment; CMJ, the Anglican missionary society seeking to bring knowledge of their Messiah to the Jewish people, operates a school that largely serves expatriates and Palestinian elite in Jerusalem. Personally I think the Scots should sell up, preferably to a Christian buyer, but on the whole the concept is deeply flawed.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
If we were inventing a hotel, we wouldn't choose Tiberias as the place to put it. But that's where we have a hotel and we are going to use that to be a place for hope, for peace and reconciliation."

I'm sure someone will be along to correct me, but ISTM that this is the argument we deploy to pour our 100s of 1000s into our 'legacy' (ie all existing) church property in the UK. I've certainly been involved in it, on a non-conformist church property committee, and very uncomfortable, dispiriting and seemingly wasteful it could be, too.

But until we all meet in school halls on Sunday, I can't find the line behind which we can stand and criticise the Church of Scotland.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I don't know any more than what the linked BBC article says, but it doesn't seem that 'fiasco' would necessarily be the right word.

In at least one sense it works for the purpose proposed - in employing local people from across the religious and ethnic spectrum it is a beacon of non-discrimination in a region that is heavily beset by discriminatory policies and practices. If it was operated as a more modest hostel for pilgrims it would employ far fewer people, and so not serve that purpose as well. There's an opportunity there for the Kirk to demonstrate a different way to do business, a business model in line with Christian values. A business plan that treats employees as respected colleagues, without discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or education, one that pays a living wage, one that sources material ethically ... I don't know if they do, but to be able to demonstrate that even a top class hotel can be run in a manner that shows Kingdom values would be a remarkable thing.

And, the article cited some support from the local Christian leaders. That's something that shouldn't be forgotten either.

Whether it's the best use of Kirk finances is another question - the article doesn't say whether it's currently self-financing, only that it needed Kirk money to get going. And, one I can't answer. It's probably not a powerful mission statement, but then does everything the Church does need to be a powerful mission statement? On the other hand, it could be.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

The school founded in 1863, continues to teach children of all faiths.

As regards the hotel, I feel that it has been a case of "We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

There was a radio programme about this which is probably still available on iplayer (Radio 4)

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

So the Kirk's got an investment property- so what?

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

This is my shack, actually.
What am I supposed to do - forego the sacraments?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So the Kirk's got an investment property- so what?

No - the building was established as a missionary outpost, not a profit centre. The MISSION board has now invested more money and perhaps in the long term it will make a return, but that wasn't its purpose.

The R4 program is here.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

The missionary outpost had its day, but that day is gone, so why not put the place to use making a little cash for the Church? The Church in other places has owned breweries, fishing fleets, coffin workshops, brick kilns, and who knows what else, so why not a hotel?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Church in other places has owned breweries, fishing fleets, coffin workshops, brick kilns, and who knows what else, so why not a hotel?

In Shakespeare's time, the Bishop of Winchester owned all the brothels on London's south bank.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Is this another Ender's Shadow we have here? The one I'm used to is forever banging on about the need for enterprises to have freedom to hire and fire etc, the importance of the free market and the evils of the bloated public sector yet here, when a church appears to know a money-making opportunity from a hole in the ground it is just so wrong.

Come on dear Ender's Shadow, can't you see some inconsistency here? It isn't even a case of what's good for the goose being good for the gander, as we have only ganders here.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

A while back Baptist Trainfan made a comment about one denomination having a lot of money. It doesn't, he got the wrong institution. The one that does is this missionary organisation.

The story goes back to 1997 when the Nethersole Hospital vacated a prime site in the Middle of Hong Kong. The founding of the Nethersole Hospital had been by the London Missionary Society and the deeds passed to its successor organisations, CWM. So a missionary society ended up with a prime land in Hong Kong on its hands.

It was some of this money that was used whether rightly or wrongly to fund Zero Intolerance. No we are not the sole benefitters from this legacy, there are other denomination that receive world wide. Many in far poorer situations than us. Honestly most of the time I think they are better at doing mission than we are.

Those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Jengie

[ 01. November 2012, 20:44: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is this another Ender's Shadow we have here? The one I'm used to is forever banging on about the need for enterprises to have freedom to hire and fire etc, the importance of the free market and the evils of the bloated public sector yet here, when a church appears to know a money-making opportunity from a hole in the ground it is just so wrong.

Come on dear Ender's Shadow, can't you see some inconsistency here? It isn't even a case of what's good for the goose being good for the gander, as we have only ganders here.

I wouldn't have a problem with this exercise if it was a money making investment for the church; the CofE's church commissioners have a reasonable to good record as INVESTORS. But that's not what this was ever presented as - rather it was presented as a ministry of the mission board of the kirk. Mixing the two is how you get into a mess, as they have here; the value of the ministry being generated doesn't seem to approach the opportunity cost of the funds spent. So no, I don't think I'm being inconsistent.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

If the place was being run at a loss just so Kirk bureaucrats could have a place to summer with their kiddies, or if the profits were used to buy them sports cars, I could see something worth being upset about. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
This is my shack, actually.
What am I supposed to do - forego the sacraments?

You go to church at a hotel? I read the article, and if there was a reference to there being a church or chapel on the premises, I missed it.

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :

Ranked #1 out 41 hotels in Tiberius on Trip Advisor That says something right there.

Although we haven't seen an actual profit & loss statement, let's take a stab at a back of the envelope valuation. Buying and selling hotels - for other people - is what I do for a living.

I never I thought I'd get a chance to value a hotel on Ship of Fools - SO I AM GOING FOR IT!!!

It can be hard to run a hotel profitably at only 50 rooms unless its a luxury hotel, which is exactly what this is. The article mentions rates of $350. If the average daily rate is $300 and annual occupancy is 70%, then the hotel would generate $3.8 million in room revenues.

Room revenues usually run about 60% of total revenues so this would mean total revenues of approximately $6.4 million. With labor costs here one should be able to safely assume a net operating margin of 40% or $2.6 million. I would guess the going cap rate for a property like this is approximately 7.0% which would mean a fair market value in the order of $36.5 million. Not a huge return on an $18.4 million investment, but decent.

By the same math even if they are only running a 28% net operating profit margin, they are still doing $1.8 million in net operating income which would put the hotel at a valuation of roughly $26 million, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Furthermore, the site overlooking the ocean, when viewed on Google Earth, is approximately 660 feet by 272 feet or 4.1 acres. This is a HUGE site for a 50 room property and means the the inherent value is stronger than just the value of the cash flows above.

I think they've done a good job of being a steward of church resources as the nature of the neighborhood has matured and highest and best use for the land has changed.

Often the market for these properties is extremely illiquid meaning that if the church were forced to sell, it may not be able to capture the fair value of the property.

I vote for keeping it as a hotel. The neighborhood is too posh for outreach. Make lemonade out of your lemons.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
This is my shack, actually.
What am I supposed to do - forego the sacraments?
You go to church at a hotel? I read the article, and if there was a reference to there being a church or chapel on the premises, I missed it.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
This is my shack, actually.
What am I supposed to do - forego the sacraments?
You go to church at a hotel? I read the article, and if there was a reference to there being a church or chapel on the premises, I missed it.

The Church (St Andrew's Galilee) is 100 m down the hill (btw, now you can begin to imagine what a huge tract of land is involved here, everybody).

There is a Quiet Room (labelled in all the languages)on the actual hotel premises stocked with Jewish, Christian and Muslim "materials" and a Visitors book where you can put prayer requests too. It is located in an old Sentry Box set into the Town Wall from the Ottoman Empire times
We have an Easter Day Dawn Service on the roof there - the sun comes up over the Golan Heights at exactly the right time in the liturgy (because Galilit Googles sunrise times and we count back so we get to A Nice Bit at that moment).
But regular Sundays at the Church.

Twice a year I accept the invitation from The Minister to "Dinner at the Hotel". (Christmas and birthday)
HE does NOT eat there regularly either but in the staff caff,just so's you don't think...

[ 02. November 2012, 04:10: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The missionary outpost had its day, but that day is gone, so why not put the place to use making a little cash for the Church? The Church in other places has owned breweries, fishing fleets, coffin workshops, brick kilns, and who knows what else, so why not a hotel?

I've got to agree with Alan and Zach82 [Eek!]

here. Money seems to be coming in that may be used for all sorts of good purposes. And some devout people are rich and would like to visit the Galilee in a beautiful, peaceful, and multicultural environment. I think we should all just deal.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

The BBC Radio 4 crew said to me that they very much enjoyed their 3 day stay - I mean of course researching for the article.
But perhaps they were just being polite and English and were becoming more furious at the whole place with every bite and sip.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Churchmen were acutely aware that if they sold the property it would be bought by Israelis, which would be a blow not just to Christianity in the region but also to the Palestinians, whose cause the Church of Scotland strongly supports.

Hmm.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The missionary outpost had its day, but that day is gone, so why not put the place to use making a little cash for the Church? The Church in other places has owned breweries, fishing fleets, coffin workshops, brick kilns, and who knows what else, so why not a hotel?
I've got to agree with Alan and Zach82 here. Money seems to be coming in that may be used for all sorts of good purposes. And some devout people are rich and would like to visit the Galilee in a beautiful, peaceful, and multicultural environment. I think we should all just deal.

Actually, my point wasn't that it's OK for the Kirk to have an investment property that raises money for good causes elsewhere - though, every church needs some form of investment if it is to wisely steward the resources needed for mission.

My point was more that in choosing to run their hotel in accord with their mission objectives (eg: ethical, local sourcing of materials, living wages and non-discriminatory hiring, provision of space for local communities to worship etc) the hotel is still part of the mission of the Kirk in the region. If in running the hotel that way they manage to also raise funds that can be used for other mission activities then that is a bonus.

The use of the word "fiasco" in the thread title seemed to imply that running a hotel, especially a luxury hotel, is in direct opposition to the mission of the Kirk. I wanted to point out that it is entirely possible for the mission of the Kirk and the running of a hotel to be complementary activities.

The point in the article that made me go "hmm" was the suggestion that the hotel relied on Israeli government tourism grants, and that this was a lever used by the Israeli government to influence the debate in the Kirk over boycott of Israeli goods. I would be very surprised if that was a factor, would most people in that debate have even known of the hotel and the tourism grants? More likely the debate got stuck on the usual question re: boycotts of goods from any nation - it damages the whole economy of the nation, and would be felt particularly hard by the poor (often the very people a boycott is designed to help).

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

quote:
Churchmen were acutely aware that if they sold the property it would be bought by Israelis, which would be a blow not just to Christianity in the region but also to the Palestinians, whose cause the Church of Scotland strongly supports.
Hmm.

I don't know how long this went on for, but when the state of Israel was founded, the Jewish community of Glasgow instituted a scholarship for Jewish and Palestinian Arab girls to be educated together, on a strictly equal basis.

I don't think that "pro-Palestinian" necessarily means "anti-Israel" Tabeetha School educates Christian, Muslim and Jewish children together.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
This is my shack, actually.
What am I supposed to do - forego the sacraments?
You go to church at a hotel? I read the article, and if there was a reference to there being a church or chapel on the premises, I missed it.

I was in a group that booked in there, many years ago, for our Sunday mass.

They double-booked us with an African pentecostal group, so we shared it, which made for an interesting liturgy and made us two hours late on our itinerary for the day.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God. Mammon.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I got a PM to my rather inconsequential post upthread which suggests someone got the wrong end of my rather brief stick. Perhaps I ought to clarify with my reply, in case I pissed anyone else off.

quote:
I'm still involved in [church] - the church I attend isn't worth much (and the land less, on an inner-city housing estate) and there's not much money in the bank. But we still seem really good at pissing money away on the building, which provides a tension between giving for real 'good' and giving just to keep the building up. [But on reflection] - despite the larger sums involved, I actually see more potential for 'good' from the CofS scheme (thinking of Alan Creswell's posts) than I really, honestly do from our own building - and I'm a terrible inverted snob who forces his family away on holiday in a tent in N.Wales

The PM suggested being queasy about large church property spend implies a wish for the end of institutional church. In my context, a school hall would be a really good way out / forward for us...but sure, all those closed chapels I see on holiday in N.Wales don't raise my spirit to spontaneous praise and worship.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0