b4mbi

Meatloaf at the bowl Kaiser Chiefs & Snow Patrol at the Villa. The Almighty at the Villa was great, as about the only concert you could be on front row, go for a beer, then come back to same place on front row. Saxon played in Port St Mary, didn't go, but could hear it from Castletown! Frank Sidebottom at Bushy's!!! "Who has been on Match of the Day?" "You have, in your big shorts" it was a bit shit really! ooh and Ladysmith Black Mabazo (I think at Gaiety) was great, as were both Davy Knowles gigs I've been to at Gaiety!

looked a bit bouncy on the ben this morning when viewed from my daily commute along the prom..

well, that was kinda my ironic point about a tax break for firms paying zero tax anyway, and he'd suggest it as his next idea don't really know what he means. Because paying voluntarily into a social fund is no different from supporting whichever charity a company sees fit to. If it was a mandatory charitable donation, is in effect no different to a tax!

Hey, how about a tax break for companies contributing to registered charity Mr Moorhouse? Or get seagulls to pay for the food they nick from your relatives? And dogs to pay for cleaning the mess on my shoe this morning

The port is operated and owned by DoI (IOMG), not IOMSPC, so ultimately they wouldn't have a say in a port expansion as that isn't covered in the User Agreement. IOMSPC have almost exclusive use of the IOMG owned linkspan on Edward Pier, and own the linkspan on Victoria Pier under which the IOMG let them keep it positioned in their harbour under license. No-one seems to know who paid for Dr Klein's flights to come over and provide "an alternative view" of the Cruise industry....but even he was stating on the radio this morning that any development should make business sense....

I'm glad you included the smiley! Could be that plans and proposals have adapted to critical feedback from various sources! I agree there have been mixed messages, but there are reasons for that which I can't discuss publically. A feasibility study was done into the floating breakwater, and the project was feasible in that location but on review would have been prohibitively expensive. I'm intrigued as to why you think it's a dangerous plan in the proposed location outside the Battery/Alexandra pier, as that's the only place that has the depth and length for a deep water berth. Would really appreciate some constructive criticism or evidence on that point, as local knowledge would be a vital component of any further exploration of a feasibility study or modelling of a port redesign by respected international marine port and harbour construction/engineering firms. " They are like scum sucking bottom feeding shapeshifting barnacles this lot , and a symptom of all that has been wrong and wasteful with this Island over decades, but they're hanging on for dear life because they can almost taste the money, and as per time honored proven model will be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan . " That is very cynical. People proposing these evolving ideas have the Island's best interests at heart and have spent a lot of time and effort exploring these possibilities, utilising their extensive contacts throughout the international maritime community, all of which has been for free and without any prospect of financial gain should the plans materialise. And I will stand by that 100%.

That's what the Deloitte report was commissioned for with respect to cruise and that's not been released yet.

Proposing a deepwater berth for the isle of man is as mental as proposing the earth is flat?? That's a bit of a stretch. Look, if the figures don't work, they don't work and I'd be happy to accept that, but it would be 'mental' not to look in detail at and seriously assess the economics of a port redevelopment, and the opportunities it could bring.

Oh come on! At least I'm not saying the earth is flat!!

Here's a figure for you. How about £15m per annum ebitda for your beloved iomspc on average since 2012. Where does that money go? Not back into the local economy, it goes to pay interest on their debt. Why else would they propose an agreement out to 2040's? Because they can't afford to invest in new tonnage without it. If you're happy with the way things are, then you're one of those rare people that don't complain about ferry prices and are happy that the majority of their profit goes to Portugal rather than stays on the Island. @craggy It's a port redevelopment that is being proposed, incorporating a deep water berth that can take cruise ships and potentially bigger ro-pax vessels.

Potential benefits: more tourists more economic activity more resilience cheaper ferry Cost worst case £5m p.a. over 15 years - then 85 years further usage. For comparison, Gov't are paying £14m p.a. in interest costs on the MEA loans until 2030. Not worth it? It's infrastructure. It will pay itself back over it's lifetime just a question of how long, even if it's 30 or 40 years - I don't envisage a future for the Island without ferry services!

Dr Ross Klein is the Cruise Junkie - a critic of the cruise industry and the guy who PAG have invited over to the Island for a speech this evening 7.30pm at the Manx Legion Club, Douglas - free entrance and open to anyone interested... It's no secret Deloitte's were commissioned by DED to do a report on the potential of the Cruise Industry for the Island, and clearly they didn't do that for free, the findings of that report have yet to be released. To expect a private investor to fully fund the expansion of Douglas Port would mean that the private operator would want control of the revenues and operations for the entire port. I seriously doubt that it's in IOMG interests to sell/give up the operational responsibility for the port, so there has to be some element of Government/ hence taxpayer involvement. This is 100 year lifetime infrastructure project we are talking about, providing options & resilience into the future.

That's the rub. It's not just about cruise. It's about developing and expanding Douglas harbour to provide a deep water berth that a) provides the Island with resilience and options with respect to its lifeline sea services. b) can accommodate larger ships of all types (tanker, cruise, Ro-Pax etc) than the current facilities c) will give opportunities for development of other maritime economic activity (supply vessels for windfarms and their parts, gas field development equipment, layby berths, renewable energy) Question that also should be asked is "who paid for Ross Klein's flights here?" or did the sociologist from Newfoundland come all the way to the Island from Canada at his own expense just because PAG invited him?

Laid up over every winter period of those 9 years and when operational, seems to have regular technical and/or propulsion issues.

Clearly you've never met me then. I don't profess to have any vast local knowledge, (despite being resident here for 38 years...) to talk any talk or have intricate knowledge of weather and tidal patterns. However, I know how to access that information, and present it to professionals who do the sort of engineering works and calculations necessary to provide for a fixed deep water berth. The proposal is for a fixed breakwater, which is essentially what the battery/Alexandra pier is, so even homarus and cb would find it hard to argue that it wouldn't work technically. I think it's possible Captain Carter would back me up on that point too, but I wouldn't presume to put words in his mouth. Of course, the business case has to stack up also, which would be the acid test of whether or not the scheme goes ahead.

Sorry, this is uninformed nonsense.

Oh surely that's not real footage!!! none the less - brilliant!!

think engine technology has moved on slightly from 100 years ago John!! I would also think it's moved on from 20years ago (BMC is 20 next year), so would doubt consumption would double. Think IOMSPC would love to ditch the fastcraft, and that was my point really, is the customer really that bothered whether the crossing is 3hr 45mins or 2hrs 45mins??

Manannan unsuitable for Irish sea. For the sake of an extra hour, wouldn't it be better to have a more reliable, regular ferry that can cope with higher seas and be more comfortable for the passengers? 2hrs 45mins scheduled Manannan crossing time to Liverpool service speed 40kts 3hrs 45min New Regular ferry to Liverpool - 24kts service speed 4hr 15mins scheduled time Ben-my-Chree crossing time to Birkenhead. BMC 18kts service speed.

guess what - infrastructure costs money, who would have thought it? And as for the Travelwatch view that govt "should have negotiated harder re existing berth".....get real... Liverpool City Council really going to say "ah you know what, we'd rather have your sometimes fast craft in our absolute premier historic waterfront location rather than a mahooosive cruise ship bringing many, many tourists and their lovely £££" This is why in my view the land purchase is a sensible move to permanently secure the Liverpool side for ferry operations, which is where I believe around 70% of people would prefer to go in their vehicles or for day trips. The berth should be as big as possible to cater for other possible ferry operators (Irish Ferries overnight to Liverpool?) and not just be restricted to our ferry service (although clearly that could be given priority) Not such a biggie that freight can't go there (Heysham geared up for it, has new access road and likely it can fulfil our freight requirements for the foreseeable future), and questionable that LCC would allow freight if it's all planned for residential development. They also need to clarify rights of way access to/from the berth/terminal very clearly with LCC, not to be held to ransom at a later date!

eh? were you playing drunk battleships?

Would the swell not be significantly dampened by the floating breakwater?

Or alternatively, IOM Newspapers and Manx Radio should get theirs right... these points are addressed in post #121

The estimated economic benefit to Orkney was £7m in 2016, the total cost of their berth was £29m (original in 2002 and then extension in 2013) The deep water berth will not cost "hundreds of millions" and its expected lifespan is 100 years. The £50m includes an estimate for shore-side infrastructure modifications, and is only an estimate based on feasibility study designs, not the final design. As stated, the business case detailing ownership/funding/revenues has to stack up, and this is the next step. If the project gets the go-ahead based on a sound business case, and for whatever reason the assumptions in the business case do not materialise over the longer term, there is still the option to sell the asset, as clearly it is moveable and it has 100 year design life. This also mitigates the financial risk.