old-lock-heron

That was what I said in my second paragraph -- the perception that the auction rate is the free market rate worries me because CRT take that view and use it to increase local mooring rates. The auction rate is emphatically nothing to do with the free market value and I would very much like for people (and CRT in partiular) to understand why it isn't.

They are tree lumps, not dinosaur lamps. Considered over a long enough period of time you could even argue that they are carbon neutral!

I often read MtB's posts and find them humourous and informative (sometimes even both at the same time) but on this matter, I disagree with him. In particular I disagree that the St Ed's moorings might be worth 6.5k for trhee years but that the Wolvercote moorings aren't. There are things to be said for and against both sites. He is correct when he says that it's right by the A34 and right next to the railway line. On the other hand, a lot of the mooring sites along the St Ed's section have completely rotten bank, there is less usable width of canal there, making disturbance from enthusiastic boaters more disruptive (although this is offset by the amount of rock on the bottom o fthe canal towpath side, meaning chances are your boat doesn't so much move as grind). Wolvercote, OTOH, has nicely piled edges and a decent amount of depth, the usable width of the canal is greater and it's sandwiched between two lift bridges which are both locked in the down position and which serve as speed bumps. St Ed's is closer to Summertown where there are banks and late opening shops. Wolvercote is near to Kidlington where there are banks and much larger late opening shops (you can walk most of the way there without ever seeing a car -- just follow the path through Stratford Brake wood) St Eds suffers slightly more antisocial behaviour (but not nearly as much as the Hythe Bridge Arm). Wolvercote has slightly more water taps per mooring. If St Ed's is worth 6.5k at a stretch, then so is Wolverecote. Both are great places to be moored with some really nice neighbours.

I disagree about the "market price" being 6.5k or anything like that. When you bid on an auction like this, you do so in the knowledge that you might pay a premium for three years but after that the price should drop down to the guide price (plus adjustments). If you are plannign to live on that mooring for a decade or more, then actually it might be worth paying that fat premium for the first three years just to secure the mooring at the more reasonable rate for the remaining seen or so. The "market value" argument worries me because it's actually how CRT see it, and use it as justification for raising the guide prices in a given area. 6.5k most definitely is not the "free market rate" for the mooring -- it's a hit that someone is prepared to take in the belief that the cost of the mooring will fall after three years. It's a very subtle, but very important distinction.

I may have misunderstood you, but that doesn't sound right to me. If they start with 1.75L and remove 1.1L, that leaves 0.65L of "old" oil How can three such changes result in 0.9L of "old" being left over? By my reckoning after 3 changes (assuming the oils and other crud is thorohly mixed) there should be about 0.43L of "old" left over (1.75 x (110/175)^3). Edit: Actually, that's wrong -- (1.75 * (1 - 110/175)^3) = 0.09L so actually yours was just an incorrect decimal point.

This was too good to pass up. I just had to register! So, without wishing to comment on the man himself, and only on the culture of managementese bull, I present a simple (and slightly buggy, but it is gone 3am) translator to plain English: #! /usr/bin/env perl use strict; use warnings; my %dictionary = ('action orientated' => 'person who dives straight in without understanding the situation first', 'dynamic' => 'stressed', 'people leader' => 'unqualified, unskilled middle management drone', 'innovation' => 'tendency to reinvent wheels', 'cross-functional' => 'directionless and unskilled', 'team player' => 'buck-passer', 'influence and engage' => 'bribe and corrupt', 'results driven' => "I don't care who gets hurt as long as I look good", 'robust experience of delivering' => 'ability to get other people to do my work for me', 'complex business transformation program.s' => "things I don't really understand", 'drive efficiencies' => 'outsource', 'colleague engagement' => 'support local pubs through my expense account', 'exceptional customer experience' => 'tendency to arselick my way out of problems', 'in house teams' => 'projects to decide on the colour of a new logo', 'building strong business partnerships' => 'outsourcing the actual design', 'motivated' => 'expensive', 'self.starter' => 'but otherwise average employee', 'thrives.on' => 'sometimes', 'outstanding' => 'mediocre', ); while (my $line = <>) { chomp($line); for my $bull (keys(%dictionary)) { $line =~ s/$bull/$dictionary{$bull}/gi; $line =~ s/\ba\b([aeiou])/an $1/gi; $line =~ s/\ban\b([^aeiou])/a $1/gi; } print "$line\n"; }Running that with the given managementese yields: a person who dives straight in without understanding the situation first and stressed unqualified, unskilled middle management drone whose drive, commitment and tendency to reinvent wheels has led to a exceptional career within the customer and operations sectors. A proven track record as a directionless and unskilled buck-passer, with the ability to bribe and corrupt at all levels. I don't care who gets hurt as long as I look good, with a ability to get other people to do my work for me on things I don't really understand to outsource, profit, support local pubs through my expense account and a tendency to arselick my way out of problems. Leading projects to decide on the colour of a new logo and outsourcing the actual design as a stressed, expensive but otherwise average employee, who sometimes delivering mediocre results under pressure, in challenging competitive and customer environments.