Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
GaryPotter

Future of sea services up for debate

Recommended Posts

As reported on Energy

 

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_438659.html

 

I'm not getting this. All the comments on IOMToday are strongly anti this saying there's not enough time and an outgoing government should not be voting on something we'll be stuck with for decades.

 

Most of the comments on that Democracy thing were strongly anti as well and yet 107 people voted with 70% being in favour. So there is a huge disconnect between comments and actual votes.

 

None of this seems to stack up.

 

What do people think?

 

I think this is more about throwing a financial life line to the SPC than anything else as we have years to make these decisions. Are the SPC re-financing and having this in the bag would make a difference to the outcome of that? I just don't see the timing in this at all.

Edited by GaryPotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As reported on Energy

 

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_438659.html

 

I'm not getting this. All the comments on IOMToday are strongly anti this saying there's not enough time and an outgoing government should not be voting on something we'll be stuck with for decades.

 

Most of the comments on that Democracy thing were strongly anti as well and yet 107 people voted with 70% being in favour. So there is a huge disconnect between comments and actual votes.

 

None of this seems to stack up.

 

What do people think?

 

I think this is more about throwing a financial life line to the SPC than anything else as we have years to make these decisions. Are the SPC re-financing and having this in the bag would make a difference to the outcome of that? I just don't see the timing in this at all.

 

I was surprised by the strength of support on Demoracy.im for Gov't buying the Liverpool site, but my perception is that this is so we can be independent of the Steam Packet - people don't want the ferry operator owning the Liverpool end and holding the island to ransom.

 

A small majority said we should not draw up an agreement with the Steam Packet yet, and a larger majority said that if we do draw up an agreement with the Steam Packet we should negotiate more concessions, so I don't see the Democracy.im votes as being in favour of throwing the Steam Packet a lifeline.

 

Personally I think we should do the Liverpool thing but let the Steam Packet stew and go out to tender for the ferry service.

 

I think Tynwald will cave in and give the Steam Packet an easy ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is where your (?) site fails as you can't link issues surely? People voted for 3 separate things didn't they? The agreement, the buying of the land (or not), and concessions. You can't say that those separate issues are linked to an overall outcome or policy in relation to the SPC as that's just misleading surely? I can't make any sense of anything on there or on IOMToday in relation to the SPC negotiations looking at it all again.

Edited by GaryPotter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is where your (?) site fails as you can't link issues surely? People voted for 3 separate things didn't they?

 

4 things re Liverpool and the Steam Packet, and you're right there is no hard linkage between the votes. The sentiment expressed in the comments is the only indicator, besides that each of us can only guess why people voted the way they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would support buying the land at the sort of price mentioned. However, I suspect that all we would be doing is handing it over to the Steam Packet and hoping that in the mist of time everyone forgets that we paid for it. But I agree that the actual agreement with the SPC could surely wait years unless there is another agenda. Have they published the results of all the other expressions of interest the DOI apparently had? One minute there were 6 companies interested, and the next we're trying to ram an agreement with the Steam Packet through in record time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its all a done deal, this is the post agreement posturing for the peasants.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an important little detail which is tucked away on Page 2 of the DoI submission to Tynwald.

 

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald%2020142016/2016-GD-0045.pdf

 

In this, Gawne state that the IOMSPC have made it very clear that they intend to remain of the route, (presumably Douglas - Heysham) using their own linkspan, regardless whether they gain an extended user agreement, operating a freight only service, at night.

 

This would mean that any freight traffic would be subject to competition, and would make the whole financial model uncertain, and precarious, for any new operator, such that it is unlikely that anyone would seriously come to the table?

 

Whether we, and Tynwald, like it, the IOMSPC are really the only show in town, and they know it.

Edited by Nellie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling too that Joe Public is being railroaded. Gawne got his £3.5m, subject to planning issues, for the landing stage land in Tynwald yesterday.

 

Yet a significant number of capable companies ahowed interest in tendering for the services?

 

Stinks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an important little detail which is tucked away on Page 2 of the DoI submission to Tynwald.

 

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald%2020142016/2016-GD-0045.pdf

 

In this, Gawne state that the IOMSPC have made it very clear that they intend to remain of the route, (presumably Douglas - Heysham) using their own linkspan, regardless whether they gain an extended user agreement, operating a freight only service, at night.

 

This would mean that any freight traffic would be subject to competition, and would make the whole financial model uncertain, and precarious, for any new operator, such that it is unlikely that anyone would seriously come to the table?

 

Whether we, and Tynwald, like it, the IOMSPC are really the only show in town, and they know it.

 

when you have exclusive rights to the stage you decide the show !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling too that Joe Public is being railroaded. Gawne got his £3.5m, subject to planning issues, for the landing stage land in Tynwald yesterday.

 

Yet a significant number of capable companies ahowed interest in tendering for the services?

 

Stinks.

I don't think that buying that site is a bad deal for the public purse. If the whole thing doesn't work out we could probably sell it at a profit. If not, we can just leave it as an eyesore and hold them to ransom. It's been done to us plenty of times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling too that Joe Public is being railroaded. Gawne got his £3.5m, subject to planning issues, for the landing stage land in Tynwald yesterday.

 

Yet a significant number of capable companies ahowed interest in tendering for the services?

 

Stinks.

Why does it stink? It makes perfect logistical sense to acquire the site.

 

Who were the significant number of capable companies interest in tendering for services? And what services would they provide that would make more sense that the IOM taking charge of the land acquisition itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Steam Packet hold the cards here. If they fancy a bit of brinkmanship, I say let them have it. We can buy the linkspan from the liquidator

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is confusion between a number of different issues.

 

Neither IoM nor Steam Packet own the ports or linkspans they use in UK.

 

That gives rise to lack of security of service.

 

Heysham is silting up. The current Liverpool landing stage belongs to Peel Holdings and they have said they are going to replace it with cruiser berths and Steam Packet has to go, Fleetwood is a dead duck, its silted up and has no facilities and no working link span. Birkenhead and even Holyhead present different challenges, as Steam packet would not be major user they are only available outside the schedules of other company sailings.

 

So acquiring land on the riverside at Liverpool to which berthing facilities can be attached and a check in and marshalling area built guarantees availability.

 

having a third party commercial operator build the facilities and recoup cost plus by port charges over 30 years could mean we own the lot at the end of that period, but the cost, ie the plus or proft charged for use will have to be carefully controlled.

 

As for the user agreement and the Steam Packet "franchise" the offer we have seen seems Ok apart from one thing. We don't want or need a fast craft, we need two multi purpose vessels all year round. The fast craft don't work in the Irish Sea for half the year. The one that Condor have for the Channel Islands (bigger than Mannanan) has been a disaster.

 

We all seem to forget that the last time we had competition ended badly and that we now have more frequent all year round sailings than we did with the steam packet in the late 1970's or any time since

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We all seem to forget that the last time we had competition ended badly and that we now have more frequent all year round sailings than we did with the steam packet in the late 1970's or any time since

Unless you want to travel to Ireland outside of the summer months, and even then it is limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...