Chris Robertshaw

That scenario was hardly possible prior to the Mezeron issue so is must be definitely impossible now? By way of an answer could I refer you to lines 950 to 955 of the select committee report from which I quote an extract Mr Quayle I am relieved to hear.............. that the user agreement is in place and there is no suggestion of a change, but obviously if recommendations from this select committee lead to OFT inquiries, which in turn raises the question of caps on fares or reduced freight fares or whatever..............it does raise questions with bankers, with shareholders..............

Thanks for that. I hadn't spotted that note to the accounts. So the reserves have gone from £23.9 million in 2007 to £7.7 million at the end of 2008. Wonder what the position is now? Presumably they can't continue to keep paying big dividends if there are limited reserves? yeah correct, you can't pay divdends out of share premium account it's illegal. So distributable reserves of £7.7m c/f from 2008 y/e plus retained profit for 2009 (whatever that was) would be max dividend possible for 2009. which means shareholders likely have BIG problem, because now operating company doesn't generate enough CASH to service the interest (via the dividends) on the borrowing. Cash flow statement would be telling.... even rough calculation on borrowing of £200m at best at 5% - £10m per annum interest costs.... means either a) shareholders provide additonal funding to MIOM to pay interest b) they default on interest payments, meaning bank could call in loans... looking forward, how the hell the £200m capital will be repaid is anyones guess... some red faced bankers in portugal facing big write offs.... Anyone care to put a value on IOMSPC at moment??? seems we both just said the same thing at the same time in a different form

For me the most interesting question lies within the balance sheet. If the value of the bank loan is balanced by recognising the value of the goodwill within the User Agreement and if it is the case that there are no capital repayments being made(lines 815 to 825 of the Select Committee Report)whilst of course it is stating the obvious that the value of the User Agreement goodwill must be reduced over the lifetime of the agreement (Page 30 of the select committee report - MIOM Ltd amortisation of goodwill £10,561.000 for the year end Dec 2007) then the question remains how the balance sheet can be kept in an acceptable condition. Is the view that sufficient profits are being generated to increase the revenue reserves to cover this developing gap whilst still paying the annual interest cost of the bank loans as well as pay the management fees and some form of income for the investors? Seems a very big ask to me.

Sean - I went to the TravelWatch Meeting. The TravelWatch people seemed to be taking minutes so it would be interesting to see if a transcript does become available in time. I think my views are very well known already - the User Agreement in the form that it took was a dreadful, well intentioned, mistake. I said so in the Isle of Man Examiner when it was first proposed in 1994 (year?), I have said so since and I say so again now. It has led to a series of unintended and unforseen consequences (at least on the part of our government and the IOMSPCo respectively) These being the huge debt that it created on the international money markets at the height of the financial boom and now the realisation by the ferry company owners that they have not got the complete monopoly they thought they had. The owners of the IOMSPCo should have known better because according to the user agreement they signed it was always a real possibility. It is unfortunate that opinion is becoming polarized on here because everyone wants the same thing - the best for the Isle of Man. There were five or six companies between the actual ferry operation and the 'distant'owners (last time I looked) and I dont think it is helpful for the owners of the debt(whoever they are now)trying to frighten everyone with bully boy tactics and scare stories locally. People must not allow themselves to be used like this.

Before bailing of silage became standard practice it was 'normal' to use old tyres to hold down the plastic sheeting which covered the silage pit. This in order to keep the heat in and the oxygen out. These tyres are no longer needed. It was a form of recycling.

Thank you for raising this topic. I too have hundreds of tyres I need to get rid of. If we cant take them direct - which is the cheapest route currently available?