Jump to content

If it takes six men to ..................


Midnight

Featured Posts

11 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

^^^^^^ it is funny - be even funnier if it wasn’t true

Yes, but . . .

 

Flat structures are good for efficient operation of a steady state business - just get on with the job. However they are very bad at dealing with strategic and change. Whilst there are those, some here, who would probably say that all that CaRT should do is go back to doing things the way they used to be and stick to it, the real fear I have with the canal system is that there is really no long term strategy - the whole operation remains dependent on public funds that are at the whim of governments who typically think that tomorrow is long term. I'd be a lot happier with some real strategic planning that was done i the public arena so that we could all contribute, even if only as scrutineers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that there is a long term strategy that does not require some form of public funding? If you are I think you are mistaken. The transfer of BW to CRT was a long term strategy to remove the need for public funding and it has failed, and in my opinion it was always going to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

Are you suggesting that there is a long term strategy that does not require some form of public funding? If you are I think you are mistaken. The transfer of BW to CRT was a long term strategy to remove the need for public funding and it has failed, and in my opinion it was always going to.

 

Prior to the transfer to C&RT, the Government, BW and C&RT commissioned KPMG to evaluate the Business plans submitted by BW & C&RT for financial viability with the aim to make C&RT self sufficient and viable by 2027.

 

They issued a 45 page summary report of their findings :

 

 

 

Screenshot (1227).png

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The covering letter doesn't tell us much! But I would be surprised if it didn't endorse the proposal. Consultants reports usually do, especially as that letter is dated only 5 weeks before consent was given to the transfer order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orwellian said:

The covering letter doesn't tell us much! But I would be surprised if it didn't endorse the proposal. Consultants reports usually do, especially as that letter is dated only 5 weeks before consent was given to the transfer order.

 

What the report does tell us is that there WAS a 'long term stategy not needing public funding.

 

The report specifically stated that 'fund raising / charity giving', or 'volunters' was not critical to achieving the strategy and that the financial business plan itself was sufficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (1229).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Well they got that wrong then.

 

What they got wrong was :

1) assuming that BW / C&RT could produce realistic business plans.

2) using BW / C&RT financial projections without assessing if they were achievable.

 

One of C&RTs forecasts that has turned out to be correct is that the maintenance &  condition of the 'principle assest' will worsen over the time period.

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (1231).png

 

 

 

Screenshot (1233).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding future funding, Alan de Enfield is essentially correct.

It is little use Richard Parry saying "No grant is not an option" because the Transition Trustees agreed with Defra that it is the preferred option as per the CRT/Defra Memorandum of Understanding -
 

Quote

To move the long term cost of maintaining the inland waterways and the associated heritage infrastructure (estimated at around £4 billion in nominal net present value terms) from the public sector to civil society.

 

Indeed, it is one of the four funding scenarios currently under consideration.

The problem that CRT has is that it has been telling government that the condition of the waterways has been improving and that commercially it is over-performing.

Unfortunately, this means that CRT can be branded a success and not reliant on grant post 2027. I suspect the most we can hope for is grant set to 50% of current level. 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Grassman said:

....But a lot of CRT haters take it seriously and really do think it's their licence fees being wasted. 

Then there's the CRT excusers who do think their license fees are being well managed

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside those are nice LTM's, we looked at mooring there at one time but I didnt like the proximity of the road and the ease of access it gave to the boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The problem that CRT has is that it has been telling government that the condition of the waterways has been improving and that commercially it is over-performing.

Unfortunately, this means that CRT can be branded a success and not reliant on grant post 2027. I suspect the most we can hope for is grant set to 50% of current level. 

 

Its a catch 22

 

Report that conditions are not improving and the grant is immediately cut.

 

Report that conditions are improving and the grant is not renewed (as you obvioulsy don't need it any longer)

 

Falsifying reports and quoting ficticious improvements never got anyone anywhere (longterm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

There was a boat race between a Japanese crew and a crew from the National Health Service (UK). Both sides practised long and hard and the Japanese team won by a mile. So the NHS ...faced with this problem setup a working party which reported that the Japanese had eight people rowing and one steering and the NHS had eight people steering and one rowing.

So they brought in management consultants and the management consultants confirmed the diagnosis, suggested the NHS team be completely restructured to make it more efficient, more cohesive, streamlining and all-round better performance. A strategy document was drawn up and the recommendations encouraged restructuring for the entire organisation.

As part of the restructuring, a number of appointments were made including three Assistant Steering Managers, three Deputy Steering Managers, a Director of Steering Services and the rower was given an incentive to row harder. They had another race, this time the NHS team lost by two miles, so management laid off the rower for poor performance, sold the boat and gave the Director of steering services a large payout for making the ‘hard decisions’ and concluded they had too many management consultants and not enough managers!"
 

Sounds about right, but you're missing the efficiency generated by adding in private sector incentives (the NHS fires the rower before hiring him back via a newly-formed private contracting agency specialising in rowers with NHS experience that's run by the Director of Steering's old schoolfriend at twice the previous annual cost)

 

"Creating a market for canal service innovation" consisting of paying inflated fees to contractors with good relations with government ministers might be the best hope of the CRT keeping its grant though...

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Sounds about right, but you're missing the efficiency generated by adding in private sector incentives (the NHS fires the rower before hiring him back via a newly-formed private contracting agency specialising in rowers with NHS experience that's run by the Director of Steering's old schoolfriend at twice the previous annual cost)

 

"Creating a market for canal service innovation" consisting of paying inflated fees to contractors with good relations with government ministers might be the best hope of the CRT keeping its grant though...

The source for this version of the story claimed the author was the late Tony Benn. I suspect the above obscenity was not widespread at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/05/2022 at 09:17, Slow and Steady said:

Nothing new under the sun.

 

When I worked for Crown Castle we had a site meeting in the Lake District timed for 9am to look at a few sites that might be suitable for a TV relay up a valley. One of each utility for avoiding digging them up, 3 bods from Crown Castle, a legal chap and me (the ultimate site designer). All 3 Crown Castle peeps drove up from Winchester in separate cars. We all had to get up rather early to get there in time... except for the essential honcho for CC who arrived 4 hours late saying "I'm not getting up at 4am for anybody". If he'd told us that... grrr. None of the sites were suitable and we did it all again a month later.

 

I was once supplied a hire car outside my house in Ely to drive to Stanstead, a flight to Edinburgh, a hire car to Aberdeen and all back again to measure 12ft of fence. The company paying (Transco) had a local engineering office in Aberdeen about 10 minutes from the site!

You mean there was no archaeologist, ecologist or UXO bod to supervise this endeavour? That's downright efficient!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.