The misconception that Observer clings to is the error by the council over a decade ago in believing that the PRSA would be profitable.
A report was produced to that effect but as someone with more than 30 years experience in the management of leisure facilities throughout the UK, this particular combination of facilities cannot be profitable and there are legal prohibitions on the introduction of fully commercial activities.
He makes the common mistake in saying ‘we now have a commercial business’. It is not and never has been and by various covenants is not allowed to be. It provides a service to the community for an agreed deficit in the same way the Geoff Moulder Pool does and as do swimming pools the length of the country.I would agree the PRSA has not achieved its potential but that is partly because of people who cannot let go of events 10 years ago and support the way forward, which would reduce the cost to the minimum and benefits to the community to the maximum.
I would also agree with further council support for other sporting ventures for the benefit of the community, but that would be to deny the reality of current budget restraints imposed on the council which finds itself in a difficult position not of its choosing.
What you have (in the opinion of a Bostonian which is probably more than is true of the anonymous Observer) is that the PRSA was a mistake, but now you have it, celebrate its successes and operate it for the lowest subsidy you can obtain, for it would be far more expensive shut and you would not gain the benefits, particularly for the disabled.