Jump to content

Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings


Amadeus

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, kevster said:

That's a floating potoon for disembarking/embarking foot passengers only. Totally different setup needed for a RO-RO operation

Ah, its the link span that's costing the extra 75 million!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Banker said:

Well everyone else disagree with you as well so perhaps consider that!

I think you overstate your support, like you overstate your intelligence.

ETA the stats would seem to agree.

Me: 1775 likes from 2187 posts

You: 4310 likes from 10219 posts.

Maybe your bigoted opinions aren't as popular as you'd like to think.

Edited by A fool and his money.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

I think you overstate your support, like you overstate your intelligence.

ETA the stats would seem to agree.

Me: 1775 likes from 2187 posts

You: 4310 likes from 10219 posts.

Maybe your bigoted opinions aren't as popular as you'd like to think.

Ooh, that's familiar. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, finlo said:

Ah, its the link span that's costing the extra 75 million!

And the associated infrastructure - baggage handling, marshalling yard, passenger check-in and waiting area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kevster said:

And the associated infrastructure - baggage handling, marshalling yard, passenger check-in and waiting area

If you read the article it states as well as a 600+ metre floating pontoon other infrastructure including hospitality and retail etc. as for a marshalling yard that was already there save for a few white lines.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add, if any of the cruise ships will be starting their journey from there they will also have check in and baggage handling on a scale ten times that of our little tin shed!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kevster said:

That's a floating potoon for disembarking/embarking foot passengers only. Totally different setup needed for a RO-RO operation

Waterfront retail and hospitality too ? I fully accept that one thing may not be the same as the other, but is it 75 million not the same ?

Edited by asitis
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, finlo said:

According to IOM today the Liverpool sailing to and from Heysham is going despite a number of cancellations!

Up the M6...?

  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2024 at 7:13 AM, asitis said:

Good post but I still think we overpaid for the acquisition , the fact we could benefit from the 'user agreement' for however long we wished is true, but should not have had any bearing on the acquisition price, which imo it probably did having been alliterated to Government. I do wonder if anyone actually considered the implications of new vessels, the tin shed, alterations to port etc etc in projected returns going forward, and indeed their necessary effects on consumer pricing.

When the purchase price of £124m in 2018 is viewed against the previous aquistions adjusting for inflation, it doesn't look so bad!!

In July 2003, the company was sold for £142 million to Montagu Private Equity.( £196 million in 2018 prices ) 

 In 2005, the company was purchased by Macquarie Bank for £225 million. (£300million in 2018 prices)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

When the purchase price of £124m in 2018 is viewed against the previous aquistions adjusting for inflation, it doesn't look so bad!!

In July 2003, the company was sold for £142 million to Montagu Private Equity.( £196 million in 2018 prices ) 

 In 2005, the company was purchased by Macquarie Bank for £225 million. (£300million in 2018 prices)

Thanks, didn't Macquarie shore asset strip the company however ? and presumably there would be write downs of remaining assets. The basis of the remaining value in essence was two ships needing replacement and forecast returns based solely on exclusivity granted by Government in the first place ?. On your quoted figures I agree it looks okay but certainly since 2005 things had changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, asitis said:

Thanks, didn't Macquarie shore asset strip the company however ? and presumably there would be write downs of remaining assets. The basis of the remaining value in essence was two ships needing replacement and forecast returns based solely on exclusivity granted by Government in the first place ?. On your quoted figures I agree it looks okay but certainly since 2005 things had changed.

 

Biggest asset was the linkspan as with out that company value was almost zero

  • Like 2
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...