Who owns, manages and how secure are the multifunctional facilities in Bulgaria?

In this material, I would like to address two very important and defining aspects of the existence and development of our large outdoor and indoor multifunctional facilities, which have largely been built or reconstructed over the last ten years. The investments in them exceed 300 million BGN of state funds, which is why it is important to know and seek an answer to the question whether they meet the expectations of the society, the modern standards of management, whether they fulfill their mission and educational role. Do they manage to meet international standards in the fields of sports, culture and entertainment, which, among other things, have a huge social impact. Last but not least, are these facilities secure and are their concepts of prevention and security capable of responding to the current threats and challenges in the security sector.

But who owns and manages them? Traditionally, they are owned and operated by the state. It turns out that the state owns almost everything for which there is no clear vision for development and governance in the area we are considering. The subject of state-owned companies, their derivatives, the branches in the form of second and third-rate budget allocators, which by their very existence participate directly or indirectly in our lives, can be called at least as old as the transition, and it is already outdated. Almost 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall in Bulgaria, there is no politically and economically justified strategy and decision on how, how much and what are the benefits to society and business of such active presence of the state, through its poorly managed companies and the activities that take place in them. During the same period, most of the post-communist countries have moved significantly ahead and are largely aligned with leading examples in Europe and North America. Modern and well-managed facilities already exist in Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Poland, etc. For example, in Bulgaria, even if we are willing to pay for a higher level of service, in the state facilities you will not get anything different from the usual ones. Or jokingly paraphrased, "the rich cry too." No hall or facility maintains a VIP or Priority sustainable a-to-z service which, in addition to satisfying higher-income visitors, is also an exceptional revenue generating opportunity. Almost no facilities have been designed and constructed to allow the development of such services. If by chance there is some small potential, then it is useless at the managerial level. The best you can do is buy a ticket for a pricier seat , which in itself can be done by anyone who wants to invest a little more. However, let's face it directly, that with most unjustified but legitimate practice, the governing bodies of most state-owned facilities retain the few existing boxes in the facilities and first-class locations and then distribute them to superiors for political indulgence or other services. A mass practice with at least ten years of history. Black sales by some staff is also normal practice. But whether through incompetence or for any other purpose a whole prospective sector was gradually deprived of meaning and development.

It is not easy for the business in this segment either, because there is no serious motivation and competitive environment in which to develop various services. Why do it, when faced with an anti-competitive environment killing the potential of every conceivable project. Although some government facilities are heavily indebted or maintain their balance sheets through accounting tricks, they do not allow their territory to develop something that is positive to the public or raises the level of visitors' benefit, generates direct revenue and creates sustainable practices. The reasons are again well known - first of all, morally outdated projects, lack of visionary and managerial strategy, skills and experience, willingness to deal with problems. All this has led to a number of bad practices. Most event organizers tend to shy away from state facilities, and the audience going into them knows that even getting mineral water is a luxury! All this shows a lasting indifference of the investor to return his investment, as well as to use it in order to generate additional public benefits through it. The clash is present and it is due solely to the anthropological characteristic of the Bulgarian, that he is patient and seems to be more conservative, when expressing his opinion or anger. A country which, in the era of information, innovation and digitalization, continues to lack the long-term vision and measures to manage its state-owned companies, thereby contributing to the prosperity of its society, is a very serious cause for concern. With very few exceptions, state-owned companies suffer from the same viruses - lack of vision and strategy, indebtedness, sluggish administration, inadequate time management structures, lack of control mechanisms in all directions, weak staff and lack of selection criteria, and last but not least - no competitive start for leadership positions. For these reasons, state-owned companies have been severely criticized in the latest monitoring report from Brussels. This topic, along with corruption, was taken seriously, with the recommendation that the majority of the state-owned companies be merged into a single mega agency for better control and management of their activities. We are about to see a political decision on this topic!

Working on a project several years ago, I had the opportunity to analyze a few serious multifunctional sites belonging to a state-owned company. They all had the same business plans, the same marketing strategies, and the financial results for all were with little or no profit. Obviously made up numbers, but who needs that, I thought. The public - definitely not! The owner of the capital? Yes, but only for the sake of fair accountability, otherwise it is about creating a parallel reality. Where the state has dared to attract a serious concessionaire, the results are not delayed! When flying to Varna or Burgas, we enjoy the overall look and organization of the airports. These isolated examples show that where a serious operator with know-how and experience is involved, the results are not delayed. The question is, why is it so difficult for the state to interact with external operators and management structures that can guarantee positive results?

In the end, we could summarize that through its new or updated multifunctional facilities, the state has not achieved much, neither as an investor, nor as a country obliged to pursue different social policies through them. It may have collected a certain political dividend, but is that its long-term investment? Bad conditions for visitors and users, sometimes bordering on unnecessary hostility, are a common feature. Weak management teams that have no idea what levels and standards this modern industry has come to, with so much social significance called - sport, culture & entertainment. With few exceptions, such mega-facilities in our country are managed by people whose professional experience, behavior and skills have nothing to do with what is expected of them, and quite catastrophic compared to international standards! Why aren’t they competitions for a managers or a major global operator for managing any of these new mega-facilities? From what I have analyzed so far, I draw the following conclusions:

1. There is no good practice as a result of so many sites built with state and EU funds. The understanding that these are "social projects" brings only a "political" dividend, but not sustainable benefits for people and investors.

2. A big mistake is made in Bulgaria - first we design, build, and then seek a potential "facility manager" - a wrong approach that is still practiced today. Unfortunately, the results are visible to everyone. Managing such a facility should start long before the design - from the moment the concept is written. The approach that everything is completed with design and construction is deadly for the future of such an investment.

3. There is no strategic vision and decisions are made ad hoc and implemented in the same way. Sports facilities have been built over the years, but none of them can be pinpointed as "good practice" for a revenue-generating sports project or at least serving its investment.

4. The state is a poor host of its multifunctional facilities, and the way it manages kills the potential for active interaction with the business. Usually, such investments are made around the world to stimulate business and local communities.

HOW SECURE ARE THE FACILITIES? 

This aspect of their development is one of the most important, and in recent years it has become a major one, given the dynamics of the security sector and the steadily increasing conventional and hybrid attacks. The subject of security of such a facility is fundamental to formulating the concept of its existence. Its architecture, design, strategy and management structure comes after. Wherever these processes are viewed responsibly, one rule applies - security comes first! Multifunctional indoor and outdoor facilities are open organisms in which people have fun, making them comfortable and strategic targets, thus exposing them to psychological long-term negative impacts. A careful analysis of all factors relevant to security should be made in the first stages of conceptualization. Specialists are recruited to minimize risk and threat.

In Bulgaria, all new or refurbished facilities should meet the standards set by law. But this is far from sufficient, as the security environment is very dynamic and evolving with technology. In this sense, with very few exceptions, and in individual components, our native facilities are far from this dynamic. One would say that it is not necessary when there is no real threat, but dozens of examples have shown that such locations are the target of terrorism. These are permanent measures and criteria that must be met and fulfilled as a result of the analysis of the security environment. For this to happen, each facility must have an experienced team, strategy and tools to maximize prevention. It is important to interact with the services, but regularly, not sporadically, which is our practice. Above all, the risk of events that take place in one facility should be evaluated, given the fact that they may have political, ideological, religious or other means of increasing the potential risk.

There is much to be done in this respect to achieve a level that is close to the best standards. There is a constant lack of know-how, certification, accreditation, control and interaction between the various elements of such a strategic security framework. What law enforcement or specialized security services do during a large-scale event is not enough to say that there is a comprehensive strategy, prevention and lasting reduction of potential threats. Lots of work is needed to turn every employee into a small burst of holistic prevention and security. It is no coincidence that the terrorist attack at the Park de Princes Stadium in Paris was prevented by a well-trained steward. The security of the halls in the country is conducted on completely different principles, the leading one being financial, which significantly increases the risks in every respect. Positions such as steward and volunteer are not present in the legal provisions and the role of these people remains insignificant, contrary to world practice. Protective equipment, such as mantels, fences, etc., are not certified and do not meet international standards, which also poses huge risks. There are also serious gaps in the conventional protection of sites, and the reasons for this are many and again related to their management.

In conclusion, through its policy of managing its multifunctional facilities, the state lags far behind, both in the expectations of society and business, and in terms of trends, even in the region. But how multifunctional are these facilities in fact? This will be the subject of a future analysis. The pace to catch up must be more than accelerated, and the decisions that bring about lasting change must be dramatic. At the heart of these decisions are many aspects of social development, business and new opportunities, whose benefits and results we will only see when we level up with the able and successful examples in this segment.