b4mbi

Regulars
  • Content count

    817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

3 Followers

About b4mbi

  • Rank
    MF Addicted
  • Birthday 03/05/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Doolish

Recent Profile Visitors

329 profile views
  1. Inspired. That made me LoL, if that's still a thing...
  2. You have got me wrong. Totally.
  3. Well it's my opinion that harbour improvements would come out of revenue already generated by the operator. Don't give them ideas about a ferry passenger tax!! Current rates for pax have been found to be not excessive and are competitive. So it is clearly the freight that is the £££ spinner. As stated currently the operator generates approx. £15m in cash income from £50m turnover p.a , as simplistically that's what EBITDA is. Is it any wonder that IOMSPC are not transparent when it comes to their finances/accounts? Very, very simplistically £15m x 20 years = £300m - that is certainly enough to support 2 x new vessels now, funding of harbour expansion AND build significant reserve for the replacement of the 2 new ferries at the end of their lives... has to be structured correctly though for max. benefit of IOM.
  4. They are only saying "we understand" because they relied heavily on information from IOMSPC and DoI to produce that report. From the executive summary of that report: "In short, we recommend that to ensure long-term resilience and remove barriers to economic growth, b) the Isle of Man secures passenger and freight port facilities on the GB mainland, and enhances the capacity of the port at Douglas to maximise the flexibility of ferry services. This resilience and flexibility then forms the bedrock of future ferry services, which would be operated by the private sector according to redefined passenger and political specification" Gov't have made steps in regards to securing port facilities in GB, so whilst we're expanding Douglas port, let's include a deep water fixed berth suitable for cruise ships. Oh and IMHO there is sufficient fat in the ferry monopoly to fund the harbour expansion, IF the model/deal can be structured correctly.
  5. page 53 of the Oxera report here woolley. It's not a copy of the licence, but reasonable confirmation of its terms.
  6. refer my earlier post, I checked and IOMSPC have a siting license with DoI for the positioning of their linkspan in the harbour. That expires with the expiration of the current UA. Ben can only use Victoria pier linkspan in certain low tide conditions.
  7. EBITDA of c.£15m on a turnover of c.£50m is not a great revenue earner? or is that just how things roll in Switzerland?!
  8. Let's hope so :-)
  9. Iomspc may own the Victoria pier linkspan, but I think it is positioned there under license from iom gov't for the term of the current UA. Once UA is terminated, govt would then politely ask iomspc to move their linkspan out of Douglas harbour as they no longer have a license to position it there. Clearly IOMSPC could not then compete with any new operator, as they wouldn't have access to a usable berth in the port for their current vessels.
  10. Vote for the ministers motion on the sss offer in tynwald was 23-0 keys, 6-1 leg co. Spc management scare tactics totally ineffective. Well done our elected representatives. Almost well done our non elected chamber
  11. Sp own Ben and manannan, arrow is chartered(rented) It's quite clear they can't fund new as already explained.
  12. Woodward said in a PAG meeting I attended a year or so ago that the debts they still had responsibility for would be repaid by end of current user agreement. not the same as no longer having debt, the restructuring ensured that they now have manageable debt given their cashflows..
  13. No they can't! Say their debt is down to £100m (as we know it was approx. £220m but some was parked up the structure/written off) they have 9 years to repay that before the existing agreement expires (2026) Their £8m profit will be after depreciation so estimate that at £4m per year mean they max generate £12m cash income per year. 9 years x £12m cash = £108m just about repays their debt and maybe the interest thereon. so where exactly do they get an extra £100m for 2 new ferries?
  14. Because they have no spare cash to pay for new vessels because they're too busy repaying their existing (re-financed) debts, and no-one in their right mind would lend more money to them without an extension of the user agreement, which is kinda the whole point of their offer!
  15. Agreed, kind of like an IF