Pen n Ink

Is it possible or would it be a good idea to prevent new members from starting a thread for a given time period - say 1 week - which would effectively stop this because it's unlikely that they'd be bothered to come back? You could evn prevent new members posting for say 24 hours "while membership is validated"... Just sayin'

So have I.. ... missed something, that is!

Obviously... they were planning on using the furniture in part settlement for next years bills!

Maybe - but he hasn't been told what to say or think......

Now that CSH is back from his extended absence perhaps he would care to hold good on his promises to provide information on all the payments made to CRT? Great minds think alike! Cross post with Drop_Shunt! Ed - Cross post

Ah - but you're forgetting - PL isn't involved in the discussions with CRT is he? (Where IS that tongue-in-check smiley)? Ed to correct idiocy.

I have to say as an "interested but independent party" I sure know who I would believe in the latest little episode. And it doesn't encourage me to want to moor at PLM at all. At the very least it shows an example of appalling business practice and customer service (or public relations), and at the very worst it shows deceit and an intent that may or may not have been verging on criminal. As such I believe that anyone now entering into any dealings at all until there is concrete proof that PL no longer has any interest in any of the group businesses needs their head examining. And before there are any complaints, this is my personal opinion, based entirely on information which is readily available in the public domain, and does not necessarily represent the views of the owner or moderators of this forum.

Haven't done press(-ups) for over 40 years anyway!

I'm losing puff - I don't think I can hold my breath much longer!

Not in Camden though....

Might still be transmogrified though….

Baying for blood maybe. Does that make them wrong? Err - NO!

It is not at all uncommon, nor has it been for some time, for Directors Personal Guarantees to be required before loans are given to businesses. It seems an obvious thing for CaRT to do here; if the directors themselves are not able to give such guarantees with adequate backup, then obviously guarantors of more substantial means should be sought (usually backed up by, for example, a legal charge on property), and I would be amazed if this wasn't going to happen here. That way, irrespective of whether the original debt is paid or covered, at least it would avoid a recurrence the debacle we currently see, because I suspect the directors might be a little more assiduous in ensuring payments are made correctly.

Can't have it dropping too far in the list!

I understand that. My genuine surprise is simply that given the current kerfuffling that more haven't taken an active part in the discussions - no matter which "side" they feel they want to take. Oh - btw - I'm patenting "kerfuffling"

What I find fascinating in all this is that excluding Pillingslock, csh and a couple of others who appear at the very least to act as stooges, we have heard very little from all of these 250 happy clients. The few clients we have heard from either directly or indirectly are clearly not "happy" as they are either asking questions or are already voting with their feet. I would have thought that by now if these happy boaters actually existed we would at least have heard from a few more of them, possibly aided by the PLM PR machine... I would like to think that this thread has at the very least acted as a kind of policeman cross wake-up-call to these boaters, who are the ones MOST affected by the whole debacle. I think it also bears repeating that they are not the only ones affected, however, as all boaters are affected by matters which have influence on CaRT's ability to raise funds, and in turn, the licence fees; furthermore any boaters who for whatever reason find themselves seeking moorings in the Soar area will also be directly affected for the foreseeable future, either by availability or cost issues. This therefore gives those of us not directly caught up in dealings with PLM/QMP/QMH absolute legitimacy in discussion of the situation. On the subject of costs, I have to say two things. Firstly, as a businessman I find the whole "it's someone else's fault because the contract I signed was too onerous and my figures were too optimistic based on information supplied by someone else" argument totally facile. If I sign an agreement, no matter what that might be, then it's my problem even if the other party is rubbing their hands in glee at my stupidity. Secondly, there seems to be a perception that somehow the NAA is artificially inflating costs to boaters. Rubbish. If the NAA is there to allow CaRT to replace a funding stream which has been withdrawn from them by agreeing to a new marina, then the overall effect is neutral. I haven't yet seen any calculations which show that CaRT have made any EXTRA money from the existence of NAAs at all; on the contrary, the naysayers seem simply to rely on continued bleating to provide the weight of an argument. I will be more than happy to eat my words if someone can actually show me a robust calculation to the contrary, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Whoosh!

Spot On. And this topic has so far been doing an excellent job in providing information which will allow all of us potential future customers for PLM to make up our own minds on the advisability of entering into any such arrangement. I have to say though, that I am disappointed that the discussion has been so one-sided and has had to rely on third party reports rather than having truthful, polite, helpful and constructive input direct from Pillingslock.

I would venture to suggest that it is entirely within the power of PL or one of his stooges to instantaneously remove any need for speculation by posting a truthful account of affairs past, and planned developments. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it would be essential for him to do so in order to establish goodwill for the marina going forward from potential customers such as most of us are (in theory).

I guess he's had his turn! (Post 3456)

Don't see why. Inverted commas simply used to denote a phrase which might not be in general use throughout the linguistic population, or referring to a phrase used by others as a quote. Where's the issue? This whole thing is manufactured rummage. I know I'm guilty but can we get back to the topic?