Horace42
Patron
-
Posts
1,375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Horace42
-
-
On 04/01/2019 at 17:02, WotEver said:
No. Just no. That’s not what happens.
The boat is worth x. The seller sells it himself through eBay or wherever and pockets x less the listing/selling fees. Or he sells it privately and pockets the lot. Or he uses a broker and pays a few more quid in fees. In none of those cases has the price gone up or down - the boat is worth what the boat is worth.
The boat is worth what the buyer and seller agree on. My comments where more to do with the calculations to arrive at the selling price to start the sales process.
-
1 hour ago, WotEver said:
No it won't. It simply means that the seller has to accept that it's costing him 25% of the sale price to shift the boat.
If you sell a house you don't increase the price to cover the cost of solicitor's and Estate agent fees, you simply accept that you'll have to pay out a certain percentage as part of the deal. The house is worth what the house is worth. Same with a boat.
The house (or the boat) is worth what the buyer will pay for it, regardless of how the seller calculates the price.
But in order to arrive at a sales price, the seller has to decide the minimum net price they want, on to which is added all the selling costs, to arrive at the list price.
Which in terms of simple arithmetic, 33.33% will needed to be added to the net price to allow 25% to be deducted the list price.
Whether net price and list price, or even broker fees are realistic, is a separate issue.
-
On 02/01/2019 at 09:55, WotEver said:
Putting aside the actual figures you’ve used, I have never known of a transaction such as this.
The boat is worth x. If x is £120k then that’s what it’s marked up at. If x is £90k then that’s what it’s marked up at. The seller is (as others have said) using the broker for his expertise and experience and will pay him for that out of the proceeds of the sale. The sale price isn’t inflated to cover the commission.
Yes, that's right, the sales price is not inflated by commission. It is the minimum price the seller will accept that is inflated by broker costs to arrive at an
asking price. The sales price will eventually depend on the broker finding a buyer - from which the fees will be deducted.
It remains to be seen whether the expectations of the buyer and seller are achieved by the broker.
A broker who charges commission at 25% of the sales price, means the seller's price will have to be inflated by 33.33%.
-
8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
Agreed - basically you are paying to have it 'taken off the market whilst you decide if you want to buy it'.
Yes, but that does not stop the seller from accepting a higher price or better offer - and arbitrarily returning your deposit.
This is where a good broker comes in handy.
-
I suspect, in terms of sales psychology, the brokers fee can appear to be a lot less if calculated as a percentage of the sales price
and deducted from what the buyer actual pays, with the balance going to the seller.
By example, using round numbers to make the arithmetic easy to follow:
The boat seller wants £90k. The broker wants £30k. The buyer has to pay £120k.
To get £30k, the broker deducts 25% from the sales price, or must add 33.3% to the asking price.
As a sales ploy, for those not versed in the finer points of sales techniques, a broker charging 25% sounds a much better proposition than one charging 33.3%.
Whereas the step-by-step route the money takes could make a big difference.
-
11 hours ago, DHutch said:
Even simpler than that, they say 'This document is NOT proof of ownership' at the top.
Only issue then is a lot of people don't have any proof of ownership! I've yet to buy a car new enough that outstanding finance is likely to be an issue, but usually your left relying on a folder of garage bills with the right reg no and asking the seller to supply and handwritten receipt of th exchange.
Daniel
What is proof of ownership ? - nothing really. In fact, when you think about it, it is quite difficult to prove ownership (...of anything). In the end it comes down to trusting the evidence (the provenance). And then if it goes pear-shaped - what independent law enforcement parties make of the evidence if the buyer seeks redress.
Even if a scam, buying a boat off Arthur Daley, in itself is not an issue, it is only when the real buyer turns up wanting the boat back does the trouble start.
....when they in turn will have to produce evidence they are the real owners............not easy !
-
14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I still think surveys aren't worth the money spent on them. You have no comeback if anything is missed as the thing's full of weasel words, and no survey will cover every inch. They're about as reliable as a chocolate tea pot.
I would assume 70K is a fairly new boat, so why should there be anything wrong with the hull? Take it out for a chug, take an experienced boat friend with you to listen to and look at the engine and guess.
All boats are money pits, so it'll cost you an arm and a leg anyway. Worth it, though.
In response to the OP in arriving at a value 'after survey' and problems with deposit if the cost of repair seriously affects the price, prompts me to latch on to your negative comment about surveyors.
When a surveyor is called in (paid) to check a boat for condition and value, would you expect the surveyor to advice on the cost of remedial work?
My boat was inspected in the dry dock (when having anodes and blacking done) - when a lot of rust was found - enough to seriously affect the price if I sell it 'as is' - but also to cause problems with obtaining fully comp insurance if I keep it.
The surveyor did not give any indication of the cost of repairs and did not bother to inspect the 'inside' - "....because it would not have made much difference to the value..." thus taking no account of the fact there is no rust inside because I have ensured that no water gets in.
With hindsight - it looks as though the surveyor must have thought he was acting on behalf of a buyer or insurance company to protect their interests - not mine.
-
Padlock or not, it must be pretty easy to tell if a is unoccupied.
I padlock my boat from the outside when I am away, and keep the padlock inside when on board.
-
29 minutes ago, bizzard said:
They don't want to get lodgings at the beturbaned Mrs Butress's B&B at 13 Pengilly street Falmouth, she serves up old stale rubbery cornflakes for breakfast.
...isn't she the landlady with a glass navel?...... a womb with a view !
-
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
1) Dropped the 2nd anchor
2) Retrieved anchor and motored out to sea
We have had an anchor drag a number of times - the alarm goes off, (I set the radius of the anchor alarm at the length of chain deployed to allow for swinging). If the alarm sounds you know you have moved so start the engines, retrieve the anchor, drop the anchor again and try to re-set it.
If it doesn't work repeat.
If it doesn't work head out to open water under power.
You've probably guessed I have little knowledge of this sort of situation - I asked the question because I imagined the force on a boat enough to drag an anchor would be more than the engines could cope with - and the boat would still drift aground.... but perhaps more to do with how well the anchor holds.
-
2 hours ago, howardang said:
Congratulations- you have passed Second Mates orals!
Howard
...isn't that a bit like the old story of the test where the captain asked the novice seaman what he would do in the hypothetical case of a 30 knot wind blowing the ship onto the rocks. 'Drop anchor Sir' - and not the answer the Captain wanted to hear. 'OK, what would you do if the wind was 50 knots?'.... 'I'd drop another anchor Sir.'
Alright then, what if the wind was 80 knots? .......... 'I'd drop another anchor Sir'.... 'a 100 knots then!'......'I'd drop another anchor Sir'
'For goodness sake, seaman, where are you getting all these anchors from...! '...the same place as you get the wind, Sir...!
-
5 hours ago, cuthound said:
Yes, it's probably a Danforth folding one too. ?
But even so, what could they have done in conditions that were causing them to drag an anchor.
-
3 hours ago, koukouvagia said:
Also bear in mind that water can travel long distances along gunwales etc., so the leaking window might be at the far end of the boat.
I go along with that. In my case rainwater got in through a window by collecting on the upper horizontal glazing bar of the ventilation window and running to one end and passing a poor fitting rubber seal (shrunk with age I guess) leaving a gap at the end inside the frame channel, to drip down between the glass and frame but being inside the framel, unseen, and then to drip out at the bottom to seep along the underside of the gunnel, still unseen, a few feet or so, to eventually appear when it 'rotted' through the top edge of the wood panel - and judging by the rust when the panel was repaired, could have been like it for years.
I replaced all the rubber seals, but additionally embedded the ends in silicone sealant. That fixed it.
-
18 hours ago, Dyertribe said:
Here’s my two penorth as a haematologist:
The body is designed to use carbon dioxide (CO2) as a carrier of oxygen via haemoglobin as oxyhemoglobin which readily gives up its oxygen to the cells where its needed.
Carbon MONoxide (CO) forms carboxyhaemoglobin when in contact with haemoglobin and it is 200 times more difficult to separate from haemoglobin.
This means that if you have inhaled lots of CO your cells are deprived of the oxygen they need to work which is why you die.
Carboxyhaemoglobin is a very bright “cherry red” colour which gives victims of CO poisoning a very healthy complexion.
If you are found to have CO poisoning and aren’t dead yet, breathing pure oxygen, preferably in a hyperbaric chamber, may save your life, as may exchange transfusion where they remove your cells and replace them with transfused cells.
MAY is the operative word.
I've got a feeling you will find it is not CO2, but O2 in the blood that is carried to cells in the body tissues - which contain carbon C (from the food we eat). The carbon binds to the oxygen (that provides the nergy) and gets carried away as carbon dioxide CO2 back to the lungs, where it is displaced by O2 to start again.
1 hour ago, MJG said:If you re quote the post you followed up on or even just re-start the post you started you may find the forum software has saved your post as a draft from which you can start again. (Though note this doesn't always seem to work)
Thanks I tried that but it did not reappear.
-
5 hours ago, WotEver said:
Indeed. Haemoglobin is the carrier for O2. It binds with it in the lungs and releases it in the body’s other tissues. Unfortunately haemoglobin’s affinity to CO is about 230 times stronger than its affinity to O2 and hence it’s reluctant to release it. Haemoglobin saturated with CO leaves none to carry any O2, so the body effectively suffocates.
As far as I’m aware CO2 has nothing to do with it.
CO2 concentration in the blood is monitored by the brain - that sends signals to the heart to beat faster and the lungs to breathe faster and deeper.... I am not sure whether one has priority over the other ... but when neither can keep up ....to also to tell the muscles to slow down.
-
16 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:
That includes me. Could you outline some of the physiology please? Even just the coarse points would be interesting and helpful. You're right, we get NO training on the physiology, just the processes creating CO.
Many thanks.
Mini disaster .... in starting to prepare an answer here last night, I spent a couple of hours going over old notes buried in the office (they go back 60 years) hoping to translate into everyday language masses of complex medical terms, that I find hard to remember because I do not move in medical circles (I'm and engineer) but regretfully all my comments in the 'reply' box have disappeared - and I have run out of spare time at the moment to start again. I will try again if I can.
Meanwhile comments have come in from others that largely give a fairly simple explanation of what happens in the body when we breathe CO - from which is is reasonable to conclude that we should avoid it where possible.
-
On 15/12/2018 at 00:17, Greyladyx said:
Why would someone even think of doing that is beyond me, I put it in a bucket outside the side hatch.
Scary how little people know the dangers.
My CO alarms did go off once in the back bedroom but it turned out to be a marina full of Smokey chimneys. (That's not good either)
Fair comment, and it is scary, but why should people know about CO. It is not a subject of formal training. Things are picked up by chance.
Even people involved in work where CO could be present have surprisingly limited knowledge of the finer points of CO physiology.
-
3 hours ago, LadyG said:
I'm not convinced, we used to use the burners on the gas stove to warm the boat cabin which had no vents, I think it would have killed us if left on all night. There was less oxygen. We need oxygen.
Yes, and as the oxygen depletes the fierce blue jets of gas become wispy flickering yellow flames and produce lots of CO - and either way, if undetected, you die of asphyxiation - or you suffer brain damage - which is worse depends on your attitude to life....
..... so it is important to spread the 'mis-information' ... you might save somebody's life one day.
-
14 hours ago, mrsmelly said:
CO is usualy produced when the fuel is not smoking. Thats the problem with it, a smoking and burning properly fire doesnt produce lots of co that is produced when combustion is incomplete and fuel is barely smouldering. People die in tents camping in the summer because they bring barbecues into the tent thinking its burnt out and co kills them overnight.
The presence of smoke and smell is a warning sign that CO is present - and ignored at peril. Don't assume no smoke or smell means no CO.
CO is produced at all times of combustion of carbon based products - enough to kill in an unventilated, space especially if confined like a boat cabin.
The absence of smoke or smell is no safeguard against CO, and even when smell is present the olfactory nerves become accustomed to smell and the brain ignores it.
And worse if exposed to CO long enough, it is likely the brain will then ignore everything - forever.
-
6 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:
The bss tests instal and condition .there is no smoke test nor co2 monitoring. It used to have a ventilation calculation but i think this is now only advisory and possibly only related to gas burners.
problem with bss is there is so much to check especially as boats now have multi heating, multi electrics etc.
it was easier when they just used to tick no electrics no gas and 1930s exempt engine install. But accidents still happened.
I am sure my boat BSS examiner lit a smokey match and watched the smoke go up the chimney ... all very primitive, but effective in a practical way.
Which is what we can do ourselves in the years between BSS's.
-
On 12/12/2018 at 17:44, Athy said:
If it worries you then, to coin a phrase, shut that door!
You are right to be concerned, but bear in mind that although CO is odourless, tastless and colourless, it is very unlikely when near a source of combustion, for it not be be accompanied by copious amounts of smoke and fumes from all the other products being burnt that are easy to see and smell....if these are present, even in small amounts, then it should be a warning that CO is lurking nearby.
-
....aren't boat stoves tested for leaks and flue blockages as part of the BSS. What is the test for if not for safety reasons ?
-
You are right about hot ashes keeping hot for a couple of days - and smouldering - giving off CO in great amounts.
And I tell of an incidence I recall from 50 years ago. We kept hot ashes in a bucket outside the house, ready to cool down to go in the dustbin for collection, but during the wait under cover so no risk of CO in the house, and alongside a pile of paper and kindling for lighting the fire.
And by design a hook over the bucket was good for hanging wet raincoats on to dry out.
To cut a long story short, some paper on the pile somehow fell into the bucket that was assumed to be 'cold' - and nothing thought of it.
Coming home from work one day, and excited to see to see smoke and fire-engines in the road - except it turned out to be my house.
Yes......you've guessed - the paper had eventually caught fire, then the raincoat, as well as the mains electric cable up the wall.
Fortunately the smouldering had been going on for a long time creating lots of smoke seen by neighbours who called the fire brigade.
Luckily nobody was hurt, and little serious fire damage, before the fire was put out.
So yes, definitely buckets of ashes keep their heat for a long time.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:
The op has just taken the information from Farcebucket - its not their 'problem'.
It's not my problem either. I made a comment for what it is worth.
a reasonable offer.
in General Boating
Posted
Please provide an explanation, a example calculation for instance, to demonstrate the logic behind your NO's.
....one example will do ....