Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I'd love to read it but the GEF website is so crap that I can't. Do they ever test these trendy websites on different platforms. Android phone....unreadable.

Long story short lots of extra hidden fees on top of the ridiculous sum we paid for this. We were naive and we were conned. When they first started demanding extra money we should have cut our losses and looked elsewhere but we didn't and then they just kept adding more and more money on. It wouldn't surprise me if they ran into another last minute problem that'll cost an extra £10 million.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

Long story short lots of extra hidden fees on top of the ridiculous sum we paid for this. We were naive and we were conned. When they first started demanding extra money we should have cut our losses and looked elsewhere but we didn't and then they just kept adding more and more money on. It wouldn't surprise me if they ran into another last minute problem that'll cost an extra £10 million.

The most ridiculous part is the covenant on it that stops it being used for freight. So we can never ever use it for lifeline freight services (say in another pandemic situation) so we still need another port to run alongside it anyway. Frankly it’s an insane vanity project that someone somewhere must be laughing all the way to the bank over. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

The most ridiculous part is the covenant on it that stops it being used for freight. So we can never ever use it for lifeline freight services (say in another pandemic situation) so we still need another port to run alongside it anyway. Frankly it’s an insane vanity project that someone somewhere must be laughing all the way to the bank over. 

Don't panic, lessons have been learned...

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I'd love to read it but the GEF website is so crap that I can't. Do they ever test these trendy websites on different platforms. Android phone....unreadable.

I'll precis it for you.... We have no idea what the ongoing running costs are going to be until the project is completed. Suffice to say they will be substantial. FFS we should have walked (Nay run) away !

Who in gods name, keeps chucking money at anything without having any idea what the end game is !

Edited by asitis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

The most ridiculous part is the covenant on it that stops it being used for freight. So we can never ever use it for lifeline freight services (say in another pandemic situation) so we still need another port to run alongside it anyway. Frankly it’s an insane vanity project that someone somewhere must be laughing all the way to the bank over. 

All down to previous politicos in the DOI Hotseat, aided by their Civil Servants. The COMIN weren’t much better either, when the original contract was signed, COMIN said nothing and did nothing, so it’s obvious they were happy to pay anything, accept any terms, caveats, and conditions. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I was aghast that we paid 120 million for the SPCO, two elderly ships, and a monopoly contract we already owned, I was persuaded by others that it made a lot of sense.

I'm not sure the sense it did make still applies , we are going to be paying for this shit for many years to come, increase revenue my arse !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, asitis said:

Whilst I was aghast that we paid 120 million for the SPCO, two elderly ships, and a monopoly contract we already owned, I was persuaded by others that it made a lot of sense.

I'm not sure the sense it did make still applies , we are going to be paying for this shit for many years to come, increase revenue my arse !

At least the profits don't now go to someone's pension fund on the other side of the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The most ridiculous part is the covenant on it that stops it being used for freight. So we can never ever use it for lifeline freight services (say in another pandemic situation) so we still need another port to run alongside it anyway. Frankly it’s an insane vanity project that someone somewhere must be laughing all the way to the bank over. 

I think you may be confusing what is meant by freight. Most IOM freight is loaded at the docks. To do this you need an enormous holding area. Not a sensible thing to try and do in a city centre.

My understanding is the the terminal can be used for HGVs but only roll on roll off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I think you may be confusing what is meant by freight. Most IOM freight is loaded at the docks. To do this you need an enormous holding area. Not a sensible thing to try and do in a city centre.

My understanding is the the terminal can be used for HGVs but only roll on roll off

"Most" IoM freight arrives by artic. Even "roll on, roll off" HGVs will need a staging and holding area for sailings, as per Douglas, Heysham or any other Dock that deals with them. Does the Liverpool Terminal have this facility or are they going to queue on the M6?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

"Most" IoM freight arrives by artic. Even "roll on, roll off" HGVs will need a staging and holding area for sailings, as per Douglas, Heysham or any other Dock that deals with them. Does the Liverpool Terminal have this facility or are they going to queue on the M6?

Yet he’s what we said about freight when it was approved by Tynwald.

https://www.tynwald.org.im//business/opqp/sittings/20182021/IOM-Ferry-Terminal-Liverpool-July2019-MEMO.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Yet he’s what we said about freight when it was approved by Tynwald.

https://www.tynwald.org.im//business/opqp/sittings/20182021/IOM-Ferry-Terminal-Liverpool-July2019-MEMO.pdf

Tynwald approval for the Department of Infrastructure incurring expenditure not exceeding £26,800,000 in respect of the construction of a new Ferry Terminal at Princes Half-Tide Dock, Liverpool.

 

LOL !!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, asitis said:

Have our MHK's seen a full cost breakdown of where the money has gone before they voted to continue this farce ?

Of course not.  Tynwald finally revolted back in December when the demand to increase the budget to £71 million from £38 million and Watterson got the motion modified to also demand:

the Department of Infrastructure to publish by the last day of January 2022 a report to Tynwald which should include (i) a detailed cost breakdown of the budget as envisaged in February 2019, July 2019, July 2021 and December 2021; (ii) a detailed explanation of each area in which the budgeted cost has increased along with all relevant reports

Now in any sort of remotely competently managed project all this information should be available in any case, so it would just me a matter of putting things together.

But they simply didn't.  Eventually, some time in May, I think, a report was produced:

Isle of Man Ferry Terminal at Liverpool Budget Breakdown:

February 2019, July 2019, July 2021, December 2021

So it took them six months to come up with something that should have been available in a few days

Proving again that the DoI thinks itself above any sort of democratic control and Tynwald seems unable to stop it.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, asitis said:

I wonder at what sort of detail level it was ?

It's linked above - there's about 15 pages worth plus photos etc.  As usual it tells you as little as they think they can get away with, but it doesn't tell you nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...