Colin Richell

[Edited by moderator] you may care to ask the person on the Appeal who you represent about my involvement in the Ally Pally organ ,you might be surprised [edited by moderator]. Better still read Alan Taylor's previous messages, read both web sites, and let us worry about the future of the organ. [Edited by moderator.] Colin Richell.

Of course the Ally Pally organ can be removed, it is not listed by English Heritage for that very reason. I understand that a question about the future of the organ has been raised by a councillor and the answer will be provided at a full Council meeting later this month. I am not tired of the subject and I and my colleagues fight on, Watch this space ! Colin Richell.

In my opinion there is only one building in which the Alexandra Palace Willis organ should be installed and that is in the Great Hall of the Palace, which is its rightful home. The constitution of the Organ Appeal does allow for the organ to be moved to another building, but this is irrelevant as the organ is owned by the Palace Trustees, and the Appeal has no rights or control over the instrument. Personally I am not a fan of the concrete jungle called The Barbican, and I would be very unhappy to see the Willis organ installed in such a lifeless building. I hope that when a new Appeal organisation(with no connections to the existing one) is set up, that the Palace Trustees can be convinced that they own a gem which must not be discarded, Colin Richell

Thanks for the lesson. I cannot believe that you could have read the messages from myself and Alan Taylor. or read the unofficial web site with sufficent care, to have made the above remarks. The proposed restoration is a serious business, and I for one am not prepared to respond to someone who does not have the courage to publish their real name. and makes offensive remarks about someone who is still working hard to realise our dream. I suspect I know who you are, and if you wish to continue to support the organ appeal, why not write them a cheque for 1 million pounds, and I can then seek pastures new.? This action would entitle you to a place on the Committee, and then you could tell us all where we had all gone wrong. Colin Richell.

I feel that Fred Clarke and others would disagree, with their 20 years plus of hard work, and raising sufficient funding to produce less than half an organ. When Fred and Felix retired and with other loyal members passing away, the enthusiasm waned to some extent. It was only when I, Alan Taylor, john winn,Malcolm Smith joined that things started to happen, with the assistance of the Chairman Arthur Phillips. further donations to the exisiting Organ appeal, will just mean that piecemeal work will be carried out, which will eventually have to be dismantled. This is an insult to loyal donors, and the persons responsible should be name and shamed. If you want to see the organ completed then connect with the right people. Colin Richell

Rofensis, I do appreciate you taking the time to offer your views on the Willis organ, and I understand much of what you say. You have constantly stated that I should have not left the Appeal, but as I keep repeating, I was dismissed by the existing members of the Appeal, so what is the point of fighting? When Henry Willis 1V partially restored the organ, he wanted to make sure that his Company would complete the restoration one day, and we were “told” that he had a signed contract with which he could enforce this. David Wyld however, agreed that he would not hold the AP Trustees to this contact, provided his Company was allowed to tender, which was obviously agreed by all. This agreement was later broken. You can read the minutes of the meetings, which covered the above, on the unofficial web site. I am afraid that there was an Act of parliament recently passed which allows the Palace to hand over control to a developer, and it is they who will not allow the organ to remain. (Apparently) The Appeal constitution allows for the organ to be moved elsewhere. I believe that there will be an outcry from local people, organ lovers and perhaps even the AP advisory and Consultative Committees, and the local newspapers. If only the existing Appeal members had allowed the restoration process to proceed in a proper and ethical manner, who is to know that Willis may have not won the contract ? Colin Richell.

Roffensis asks "why the fight" Simply because the present committee of the APOA will not agree to a tendering process. They will only deal with David Wyld of Henry Willis and Sons. I agree with Roffensis that people should not leave an organisation just because they disagree with policies, but when you know you are right, and that your opponents are just not going to listen or change, what on earth is the alternative? There is no-one in the organ world that believes you could raise 1 million pounds without a consultants report and a proper tendering process. There is, of course, always the danger that the report will not say what you want to hear. But for potential donors the truth, warts and all must be told. When good people are hounded out of an organisation, this can be counter productive. This has happened constantly over the years, but the truth is not going to go away. The actions of the Appeal have badly mis fired. The Palace no longer wants the organ and we are all the losers. The Appeal surely must be liable to repay all the donors who have so generously contributed, and what happens to the remnants of the organ, which unbelievably is being offered to the very people who have created the situation in which we find ourselves. Colin Richell.

See below

May I be allowed to answer the comments of Roffensis. I totally agree that the Willis Organ should be fully restored and I have worked to this aim officially and unofficially for over 20 years. I am NOT one of the people who gave up through sheer frustration, but I was prepared to fight my corner from within the Appeal. Unfortunately, the existing members of The Appeal would not accept my insistence(shared by 5 other members) that there must be a tendering process and that as Roffensis puts it "No single builder has any right to it, and it is time to try the other way, tender and consultant". I was dismissed from the committee. We feel that we did it the right way by employing a consultant, (whose views, opinions and recommendations were completely ignored) and by obtaining a distinguished person in the music world who could have introduced us to major donors, but he withdrew when our plans were sabotaged. There is no other way that I can put it. The existing Appeal and the ex members have differing views on how the restoration should proceed, and had we been allowed to do it our way, the restoration may well have commenced, making it far more difficult to remove the organ from the Palace. I, for one wish that my comments above were not true, but whilst the AP Trustees refuse to even talk to us officially there appears to be no chance of the restoration, and the organ remaining in Alexandra Palace. If any one can offer me advise or hope I would be interested to hear from them. Colin Richell.

As an ex member of the Alexandra Palace organ Appeal, I held the offices in turn of Friends Secretary, Treasurer and Concert Organiser, my attention has been drawn to the exchange of messages regarding the above. I have read the reply to Alan Taylor’s posting, and I would query a few points made by Mr Walsmsley. As an ex-treasurer, I was instrumental in arranging the purchase of the unfitted pipes from Henry Willis and Sons for a sum of £7,050. It was agreed to donate these pipes to the Alexandra Palace Trustees, but as many Committee meetings were not minuted, I do not hold documentary evidence. It was aslo agreed that the said pipes were to be delivered to the Palace. But this never happerned. The appeal was then charged to transport the pipes from Petersfield to Liverpool. As Willis are not the owners, they cannot of course insure these pipes. Documentation regarding the proposed move of pipes to the Palace will be supplied to the unofficial web site. Mr Walsmsley states that accounts are submitted to the Charity Commissioners annually. I have spoken to the CC and they are adamant that they only hold accounts for the years 1998 and 2002. Alan Taylor has never suggested that he is speaking on behalf of the Appeal. In fact none of the ex-members wish to be associated with that organisation in any way, As Alan Taylor and most of us have worked tirelessly for the Appeal and contributed financially substantially, I see no reason why we cannot express an opinion on the future of the Willis organ. Alan Taylor does not wish to destroy the Willis organ restoration project, but he is publicising the views of many supporters who are demanding a new regime to complete the restoration. And this with a tendering process in force, rather than favouring one organ builder. Can I comment on the missing pipes which have probably caused more controversy than any other matter, bearing in mind that the Appeal Committee was not aware of the removal. There is documentary evidence that the Choir organ was COMPLETED as confirmed in letters to the Charity Commission and the Foundation for sports and arts. There was no no mention in these letters that two of the ranks were on loan. It is a gross insult to those donors over the years who now find that their money is to be used to fund the replacement of those ranks yet again. Colin Richell

www.alexandrapalaceorg.com Moderator note: Mander Organs is not responsible for the content of external web sites