Tugger

They certainly were the days! I can remember taking 10 hrs from Liverpool to Douglas in a Force 10/11 on the old Ben side-loader.

Did that happen frequently? I remember being on a voyage on the old Ben precisely like that (perhaps the same one?), where we sailed to Peel (because it could not get into Douglas at the time) then back again. Mid seventies, not sure what year exactly

The real culprit here is the banks and debt financing of purchase and the over inflated value put on the company because it was perceived it had a monopoly under the UA

No it isn't. The banks did not force Macquarie to finance the acquisition through debt. It chose to.

It used to be the case that you could not use the money and assets of a company to purchase its own shares

It was always possible to circumvent this, either through the whitewash procedure or simply by using a subsidiary established in another jurisdiction.

That got changed ... Another flawed Thatcherite deregulatory move

The major change was introduced by Mr Justice Millett in the Arab Bank case.

The User Agreement allows a company to operate that service at a profit, of that I have little doubt. It's just not enough of a profit for the owners. That's not any bank's fault

I read this:

Some of the comments on this thread are amazing - nonsense about monorails, insulting remarks about Mark Woodward which really are offensive and utterly childish...

with some degree of puzzlement, until I saw this:

Posts: 1

I bet the Racket can't make enough money even with services pared back to the bare minimum under the User Agreement. If that was how to make more money, that's what they would already be doing. Woodward is clearly making a play for a direct subsidy, but somebody needs to tell him (perhaps Labour's Liam Byrne) that "There's no money left".

knows full well I meant Woodward's division in the diverse Macquairie group and not the shipping industry at large

He would have to be psychic to know that, because that is not the meaning of "business sector"

Tugger you are correct. I had forgotten that it had been taken private in 1996. What I had not realised is that after being incorporated as IOM company 73 in March 1885 IOMSPCo had been struck off on 12 12 2007 and a new TheIOMSPCo had been incorporated as an NMV. So much for 180 continuous years!

I think they are still entitled to that claim. The striking off is really only technical. Section 151 of the 2006 Act makes it clear that it is the same legal entity

The SPCo is a 2006 Act company, John. No accounts

government run airline and sea service is required

no NO NO

This is a recipe for the worst possible of outcomes. Look at our government. Can they be trusted to be in charge of anything? Look at the Civil Service. Is it in their interest to have government employees (indirectly) who are not overpaid, or underworked, or not on final salary pensions. Do not trust the government with ANYTHING unless it cannot possibly be avoided.

The problem here is that the current owners overpaid for the Racket, used too much debt, and are now feeling the pinch. If they had paid £20 million, not £200, they would comfortably be able to compete. We just have to wait for a private sector solution to arise

It looks like they are traveling across shit creek on one engine at the moment

This. The amount that they can put their fares up is hemmed in by the airlines and the User Agreement. The amount that they can put their freight charges up is hemmed in by Mezeron.

The reality is they can be profitable, just not profitable ENOUGH for their shareholders' purposes

If the Isle of Man Government were then to say - backed by a court - "do it anyway under the terms of the agreement", the company would go bust and nobody would be any better off. Macquarie could then sell off the saleable assets (the Manannan, the Ben and any real estate) and pack up, or it could do another 'deal' with the government, in which we'd still end up with a worse level of service

I don't think that this is necessarily the case. The fact is that Macquaries targets for its return on investment are quite aggressive, and it paid a shit load of money for the Steam Packet. If the Racket breaches the User Agreement, the IOMG would be able to terminate it, and the Racket would watch its £200m asset get revalued to zero.

If you then paid the government, say, £10 million for a User Agreement giving the same level of exclusivity for x years, you could make it pay its way.

The trouble is that Macquarie are badasses, and our government is weak and foolish. The government DEFINITELY has the whip hand in this relationship now, but whether it will use it is another story

You should read on to what Ms Appleby says. You have to wonder why the only people who don't really have a dog in the fight, the auditors, are the ones casting doubt over the legality of it all

I've had that spiteful little person on "ignore" for years now

LOL after I ignored all his stalking attempts maybe.

Let's not pretend that PK knows anything about the law. He does not (the last time I remember him pretending to was when he started his utterly incorrect legal summary with the oh-so-hilarious words "In my international business experience"!

but that's how I remember it

You remember it wrong. Tynwald became the guarantor when it ratified the loan. And if you're so bored, you could just fuck off. Or don't, I'm easy either way

I can see the argument about the goodwill outweighing the costs, I just don't happen to buy it. I'm unconvinced by anyone claiming to argue about the legality of it all, however

a deal had been done which saved millions in court fees

and costs hundreds of millions in payments

I am sure Barclays, the Lawyers who gave the opinion and the MEA board would all be of the belief that it did not

I'm sure they all breathed a huge sigh of relief when the government rolled over for its belly to be tickled. It was, to all intents and purposes, a gift from the Manx taxpayer. Tynwald wouldn't have needed to retrospectively approve anything that was already valid

I don't think Barclays would have wrecked the IOM's reputation, because it would not have been able to without wrecking its own.

"Do you know that lousy IOM government refused to pay us our money back?"

"Why?"

"Well, we fucked up basically."

"Why don't you sue them?"

"We can't. We'd lose".

The cash gain would have been substantially in excess of £100 million, and we rolled over.

Secondly what would it have done for the the Governments & The Islands reputation and ability to borrow if it had defaulted for whatever reason

There was never any question of the government defaulting. Defaulting is not paying back what you owe. This was a question of whether the government owed Barclays the money at all

You have to ask why the government was so keen to ensure that Barclays were paid off, don't you? Whether or not they would have got the approval, they didn't, and there are usually consequences that arise from such a failure. Barclays were not made to face them

If a cyclist is on the pavement anywhere near me he will be off his bike sharpish

You'll stop when you meet me in my car

Time for the Steam Packet to be nationalised?

Oh Christ no, the government and civil service's capacity to fuck things up is almost limitless. Private ownership is fine as long as the User Agreement gives the government enough levers against the operator. Admittedly they can fuck that up too, but they're bound to get it right by accident occasionally

I think he's a pretentious wanker. I've tried reading one of his books but thought it was turgid shite. That said, literary types seem to rate him so I can't really condemn him just because my own tastes are too lowbrow.

I do suspect Blair is motivated not solely by the quality of Rushdie's literature - a little bit of mischief before he departs, but the fact is that religious leaders in Pakistan and Iran don't get to nominate who gets knighted in Britain, and they should therefore be forced to stick their death threats where the sun don't shine.