Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

But only if you're daft enough to sign up to it.

So give up on Liverpool as a ferry port?

ETA and also retail, office and warehouse leases. That’s how commercial rents usually work, a repairing lease. 

Edited by The Old Git
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Old Git said:

Do you have much experience of commercial leases?

The tenant is often responsible for repairs, renews, insurance, unlike renting a domestic property where you just phone them landlord to sort it. 

Except what we bought was a lease of the land only. I think it’s 90 years. So it’s not a commercial lease in the usual sense of the words.

Iom is responsible for the building, which it’ll own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except what we bought was a lease of the land only. I think it’s 90 years. So it’s not a commercial lease in the usual sense of the words.

Iom is responsible for the building, which it’ll own.

Presumably also responsible for the land though, de bombing it and making sure it’s up to the proposed use of the leaseholder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except what we bought was a lease of the land only. I think it’s 90 years. So it’s not a commercial lease in the usual sense of the words.

Iom is responsible for the building, which it’ll own.

What happens in 90 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GD4ELI said:

What happens in 90 years?

MF still has TJ trolling it as he finishes his days as a floating brain in a jar

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rhumsaa said:

Yes

It's easy to cast scorn on a decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight

The same people would have called the IOM Gov mad if they'd chosen a site away from the city centre of Liverpool

It's not been hindsight though Rhumsaa, people were predicting that this would happen from the very inception which itself predates this thread by 4 years. That IoM Gov and by implication the taxpayers, would be taken on a financial jolly without end by PP who had plenty of previous.

So it has proved to be, from an initial "no cost to the Manx taxpayer", up through £3M, £15M, to where we are now, anywhere between £41M and £53M depending on what Govt "erroneously" releases, with Baker suggesting that there will be more, certainly unable to refute it. Extra dredging, contaminated land, now bomb disposal as well. Now we are reinforcing PP's quayside for them too against potential damage from our maneuvering vessels. I wonder if PP stipulate this from other operators too?

All for a terminal development that we cannot put freight through and now, if what is suggested on these posts is correct, has a lease on the land of only 90 years. These costs are ludicrous when taken in that context.

The Govt should have examined all other options in depth including Holyhead, or construction possibilities in other ports, Liverpool is not the be-all and end-all. In 90 years time we may be doing it all again anyway if PP deem it so.

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, GD4ELI said:

What happens in 90 years?

The lease gets extended, or they hand everything back. That’s 3 lots of terminal buildings and link spans down the land based on a 30 year life

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

It's not been hindsight though Rhumsaa, people were predicting that this would happen from the very inception which itself predates this thread by 4 years. That IoM Gov and by implication the taxpayers, would be taken on a financial jolly without end by PP who had plenty of previous.

So it has proved to be, from an initial "no cost to the Manx taxpayer", up through £3M, £15M, to where we are now, anywhere between £41M and £53M depending on what Govt "erroneously" releases. Extra dredging, contaminated land, now bomb disposal as well. Now we are reinforcing PP's quayside for them too against potential damage from our maneuvering vessels. I wonder if PP stipulate this from other operators too?

All for a terminal development that we cannot put freight through and now, if what is suggested on these posts is correct, has a lease on the land of only 90 years. These costs are ludicrous when taken in that context.

The Govt should have examined all other options in depth including Holyhead, or construction possibilities in other ports, Liverpool is not the be-all and end-all. In 90 years time we may be doing it all again anyway if PP deem it so.

Well it's 40 or 50m for 90 years then perhaps that isn't as bad as it first appears.

And in 90 years it won't be a case of what PP decides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Old Git said:

Presumably also responsible for the land though, de bombing it and making sure it’s up to the proposed use of the leaseholder?

Sure, find a bomb on land you’ve leased, your responsibility. Was the bomb on the land, or on the riverbed mud?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

The lease gets extended, or they hand everything back.

Who exactly do they hand it back to -forgive my ignorance but is it Peel holdings ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Board Meeting NW England .........

STAFF ...Oh morning sir, we've surveyed the land on the dockside and we think there will be lots of issues with necessary repairs and without doubt WW2 ordnance.

SIR ..... I take it that will be costly to remedy

STAFF .... Sadly yes sir

SIR ........ So what you're telling me is, we need a real bunch of muppets to purchase the site and pay all our costs for us, no matter how costly or commercially unfeasible it gets.

STAFF .... I guess that's about it yes.

SIR ....... Leave it with me !

 

Edited by asitis
  • Haha 3
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...