Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is of course the Peel Group's baby into which the Manx Taxpayer is pouring £50 million plus.  Ironically to pay for the only bit that is continuing the maritime heritage.  Maybe they should be paying us rather than using giving them the key to the Treasury  and telling them to take  what they want.

This!

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

New forecast - £87m!

Not sure if I quoted it on this particular blog but somewhere on this Forum I suggested we wouldn't see much change out of +£100M for this 'project'. Nearly there.
 

Edited by Andy Onchan
Used K instead of M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Not sure if I quoted it on this particular blog but somewhere on this Forum I suggested we wouldn't see much change out of +£100K for this 'project'. Nearly there.

Apart from the typo I think you may even be on the low side. Still plenty of time...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Not sure if I quoted it on this particular blog but somewhere on this Forum I suggested we wouldn't see much change out of +£100M for this 'project'. Nearly there.
 

As Derek F. has previously pointed out on here, as well as the "appreciating" construction costs, there's also the running costs which everybody seems to have been very quiet about too.

Still, we'll have "full control" of our own sealinks when it's finished, that's the central plank of the argument, isn't it....? 🤢

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 talking about Liverpool losing UNESCO world heritage status. One of his contributors just accused Peel Holdings of being complicit in the loss of the status, even encouraging it in order to develop ferry terminal and other projects. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Itsmeee said:

Just listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 talking about Liverpool losing UNESCO world heritage status. One of his contributors just accused Peel Holdings of being complicit in the loss of the status, even encouraging it in order to develop ferry terminal and other projects. 

Yeah…Howard Quayle is quite often on Jeremy Vine’s show.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, pongo said:

UNESCO status isn't worth having  if it means having to preserve some kind of ye olde worlde look. The new blocks which the UNESCO people hate reflect a modern positivity.

Liverpool has spent far too much time competing for "City of ..." (this, that and the other) status over the years. It's not a museum.

UNESCO do Biospheres as well apparently. Another complete waste of time and money I bet.

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

3 hours ago, Twitch said:

UNESCO do Biospheres as well apparently. Another complete waste of time and money I bet.

Yes, having followed several knackered diesel engined vehicles this week and having had to drop back to stay out of the black smoke/ fumes I wonder how we ever got that accreditation in the first place.

*"Dont worry, the pollution we produce will blow away to somewhere else" - quoted from  IOM official spokesperson, 

*Likely response from comin

Edited by Boris Johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point in delaying the funding decision to October. Irrespective of any additional information supplied to members it will be voted through anyway. They won't leave it unfinished so it's not going to be blocked 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, snowman said:

What's the point in delaying the funding decision to October. Irrespective of any additional information supplied to members it will be voted through anyway. They won't leave it unfinished so it's not going to be blocked 

...... and that's exactly why Peel holdings have us by the shorts !!!!!!

I wonder how the original Cost / Benefit analysis stacks up against figures in excess of 50 million, plus ongoing costs ?

Edited by asitis
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who actually owns this site? Not been following things closely but I think it is iom government which has taken  a 99 year lease. Presumably on the grounds that the iomspc will pay whatever rent is necessary to cover the costs. 

If that is the case, if I were the Steamy I would be telling government that I will only pay a max of  £x if they want more I will stop using Liverpool. Why spend so much money on a shed?

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...