Non-Believer Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 So declares iom today. All the bluff and bluster proves to be just that. Mr Whittaker rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Everton are buying a site down there too. Looks like A LOT of investment in that area over the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 So declares iom today. All the bluff and bluster proves to be just that. Mr Whittaker rules. Eh? It isn't rocket science is it? Either we develop it or he does. The implication being obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 23, 2017 Author Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) Gawne repeatedly stated that this would be done with private equity, including a £15M input from Peel Ports. Bollocks as usual from Gawne. ETA. What about the freight movement restrictions? Our own port subject to others' whims and impositions? Edited March 23, 2017 by Non-Believer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Prom Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Gawne repeatedly stated that this would be done with private equity, including a £15M input from Peel Ports. Bollocks as usual from Gawne. ETA. What about the freight movement restrictions? Our own port subject to others' whims and impositions? it can't be much worse than the current joke of a port which doesn't even accept freight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I wouldn't listen to Gawne. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Seems logical to me. And it should form an integral part of the discussion/negotiation around a new user agreement with the Steam Packet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackCarter Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) Gawne repeatedly stated that this would be done with private equity, including a £15M input from Peel Ports. Bollocks as usual from Gawne. ETA. What about the freight movement restrictions? Our own port subject to others' whims and impositions? 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. Edited March 23, 2017 by JackCarter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 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! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 23, 2017 Author Share Posted March 23, 2017 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! This is the fear (as usual). Taxpayers fork out and we still end up over a barrel and beholden to Peel Ports with a reliance on Heysham? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 fleetwood docks was going cheap.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 Gawne repeatedly stated that this would be done with private equity, including a £15M input from Peel Ports. Bollocks as usual from Gawne. ETA. What about the freight movement restrictions? Our own port subject to others' whims and impositions? 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. 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! This is the fear (as usual). Taxpayers fork out and we still end up over a barrel and beholden to Peel Ports with a reliance on Heysham? we have always been held over a barrel regarding the berth in Liverpool. As far as I know we ( IOM Gov or SPCo ) own nothing there and have a contract running out very soon. What do you posters think was going to happen.? Phil Gawne hoped to get some private money involved, then maybe lease a new berth but at the end of the day we still have to either buy some land and build a berth, or just not go there. What else could be done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 build a tunnel! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 ..or use your helicopter like he does. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 I wouldn't listen to Gawne. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Seems logical to me. And it should form an integral part of the discussion/negotiation around a new user agreement with the Steam Packet. It should form part of the discussion with any interested operators in the user agreement !! FFS you don't close the doors on anyone then negotiate with the one stakeholder might as well bend over !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 just tax HNWIs - most, with a few honourable exceptions, give nothing back being on Island (when not using it as a cheap heliport to their day job in UK) only to avoid UK tax whilst tax for lower paid Manx residents is now very close to UK levels. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.