Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Kopek said:

....but the lease the SP co have puts them in the drivers seat, although dual control, that they can demand an easy way out of the current contract, if the land is more valuable for other uses then that could be the way out of the contract for the IOM without oo much loss or even a break even situation?

The other parties will pay for the return of the land to their control?

Look at a map. It’s the wrong side of the dock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Spot on analysis @John Wright

the only thing I’d question is the doubt we could walk away. 

There ought to be a cost benefit analysis to see if we could walk away and the cost.  From prior, or even current,  experience, the costs will continue to spiral and the project will be delayed. 

How can something that was supposed to be at no cost spiral to the level we see?  Clearly the speccing and negotiation of the construction contract is where the issue is. Who would have led on that?  Is there scope for some kind of joint venture with another user? 

Another good subject for PAC, or the Auditor General, if we ever find one. 

Edited by Gladys
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Thanks.  Surely its saleability would depend on the terms of the lease though?  There could be all sorts of vetos or permissions or payments required.  Still I'm sure the crack legal team at the AG's Office will have sorted that out.

 There wasn't much room for negotiation on those points and the commercial aspects of the heads of terms including user, and term were not within the remit of the AG's to negotiate. The AG's go through the lease and say this is shit, this is shit and this is shit and the department says thanks, it doesn't matter it is happening come what may. That's how it works. The AG's are not the final arbiter on this. Cutting a shit deal is not against the law and it is the Departments and their political masters who have the final say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There ought to be a cost benefit analysis to see if we could walk away and the cost.  From prior, or even current,  experience, the costs will continue to spiral and the project will be delayed. 

How can something that was supposed to be at no cost spiral to the level we see?  Clearly the speccing and negotiation of the construction contract is where the issue is. Who would have led on that?  Is there scope for some kind of joint venture with another user? 

Another good subject for PAC, or the Auditor General, if we ever find one. 

they will never walk away as most of the current government, senior civil servants and half the island have a raging hard on for all things scouse, its destination number one for off island taxpayer funded jolly's for the senior CS.

Edited by The Chief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I can’t see the IOM walking away. If they do, they will be literally held to ransom, everywhere in the UK where they need services. If they need another berth elsewhere at another port, will there be sympathetic overtones with Liverpool if the IOM walk away, leaving a mess in the process? I could be the end of using Liverpool as a destination. What would happen if Heysham Port was out of action - upgrade works? Would Peel Ports be accommodating if they have x linkspans but more vessels that require their use? 
 

Does anyone seriously trust the politicos and civil servants to negotiate a good deal for the island? A deal - yes, and one more advantageous to the port. 

Edited by 2112
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2017 at 1:44 PM, JackCarter said:

Yes he did and Gawne can't distance himself from this. He pushed this situation and he drove the agenda that will see us pay Peel Ports the best part of £15m (on top of the £3.5m we paid for the land) to see this project through. Gawne might try to get out of it by saying the decision was backed by one of his stupid and pointless online democracy polls where 20 people voted and therefore it was not his fault; but it was him who pushed this and him who saw it through before the voting public hoofed him out.

Just as a reminder. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, GD4ELI said:

It'll make the prom seem cheap.

The prom fiasco was completely down to the politicos in charge, HOK and Tynpotwald. Lack of control over the budget, design, consultants and the project build itself. Everyone has run riot and sucked the project dry. The only ones not to get in on the act has been taxpayers and the GMP who have put up with non stop disruptions and businesses have suffered through no fault. Even now, nobody is prepared to get a grip, and as things stand, whilst it’s claimed November finishing, I would guess it will be next year.

When IOM Newspapers do their annual excellence awards, in which various IOMG department are nominated for awards, perhaps they could have a 2 minute silence for the failed businesses and the hardships everyone has and still is enduring. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, asitis said:

Whoever signed this contract, which seems to let them have us by the short and curlies needs to be emptied .

Surely a business case at 3 million doesn't still add up at 60 million does it ?

Nobody in the IOMG or Civil Service will take responsibility. They will get promoted as it’s cheaper than paying them off. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 2112 said:

[...]it’s claimed November finishing,

Correction.  It's now claimed "The 'majority' of work on Douglas promenade will be completed by the start of next month".  Though you would have though after so many months and missed deadlines, the 'majority' of the work would have been done already.

(Note that even the ever-faithful Manx Radio felt obliged to put majority in scare quotes to indicate their scepticism of the whole thing).

  • Like 4
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

×
×
  • Create New...