The gun has been fired

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Everything was so much better in the old days...

 

Knees, back, bladder control ....

[Orwellian]

On 06/05/2023 at 14:10, Allan(nb Albert) said:

... but they have failed to generate the necessary (planned) additional income. In particular, investment income is millions down on what it should be for 2021/22. 

Projected Investment Property contribution from KPMG report = £41,034,000
Actual Investment Property contribution (including diversified Investments) from annual report = £30,800,000


 

Is this correct as according to the relevant section of the Annual Report & Accounts for 2021/22 total Property & Investment Income was £51.4 millions? Or are these two different things?

[MtB]

46 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Is this correct as according to the relevant section of the Annual Report & Accounts for 2021/22 total Property & Investment Income was £51.4 millions? Or are these two different things?

 

I'd say "Property income" is a subset of "Investment income", so you are correct to question the terminological exactitude employed here. 

 

 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

13 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Is this correct as according to the relevant section of the Annual Report & Accounts for 2021/22 total Property & Investment Income was £51.4 millions? Or are these two different things?

 

 

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I'd say "Property income" is a subset of "Investment income", so you are correct to question the terminological exactitude employed here. 

 

CRT's income streams, as defined in the 2012 KPMG report, are -

Property

Leisure

Utilities

BWML

Joint Ventures
Charitable Giving

CRT have now diversified the "property" income stream and invested in non-property assets as well. 

The figure Owellian gives is gross. It includes property, non-property and £2.8m Joint Ventures. The actual gross figure for property plus non property is £48.6m.

The projected "Property" figure for the year (£41.034m) taken from the KPMG report is net rather than gross and does not include "Joint Ventures".

Taking direct costs (including CRT's repayment on its £150m loan) of £17.8m from the gross figure (£48.6m) gives the £30.8m net figure I quoted.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)
minor typo

[Orwellian]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Grassman]

BWML is no longer on that list because they sold all their marinas in 2018 to Aquavista. Another asset and useful form of regular income sold off to make a quick buck.

[MtB]

Just now, Grassman said:

BWML is no longer on that list because they sold all their marinas in 2018 to Aquavista. Another asset and useful form of regular income sold off to make a quick buck.

 

Or more accurately, to momentarily slow down the rate of losing those bucks.

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Or more accurately, to momentarily slow down the rate of losing those bucks.

 

 

 

 

Although BWML did make profit (which showed in their own financial accounts) they also paid a large 'chunk of cash' to C&RT as 'Management Fees'.

 

So, when sold-off C&RT in effect lost 2-sources of income.

in 2015 (for example) BWML paid C&RT almost £1m, AND, made them a 'gift aid' donation of £290k

In 2014 they paid C&RT almost £800k  AND made them a 'gift aid' donation was £916k

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Although BWML did make profit (which showed in their own financial accounts) they also paid a large 'chunk of cash' to C&RT as 'Management Fees'.

 

So, when sold-off C&RT in effect lost 2-sources of income.

in 2015 (for example) BWML paid C&RT almost £1m, AND, made them a 'gift aid' donation of £290k

In 2014 they paid C&RT almost £800k  AND made them a 'gift aid' donation was £916k

 

 

Quite. 

 

So grassman asserted that BWML was "sold off to make a quick buck". How much was it actually sold for? 

 

Was the sale price good enough to compensate CRT for loss of the £3m it appeared to contribute to CRT coffers every two years, but no longer?

 

Did they actually make "a quick buck" out of the sale? With a return on capital of say 5%, BWML would have been worth £30m. More than that would be 'a quick buck' in my book. Less, a poor business decision. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Quite. 

 

So grassman asserted that BWML was "sold off to make a quick buck". How much was it actually sold for? 

 

Was the sale price good enough to compensate CRT for loss of the £3m it appeared to contribute to CRT coffers every two years, but no longer?

 

Did they actually make "a quick buck" out of the sale? With a return on capital of say 5%, BWML would have been worth £30m. More than that would be 'a quick buck' in my book. Less, a poor business decision. 

 

As I've mentioned before No1 Son was looking at buying BWML but there were all sorts of 'hold-backs' and conditions. They wanted to retain the land (understandable) in the 'big city marinas' (the profitable ones) and would charge rent to the new owner. In the end he decided that it didn't stack up the value was in the freehold rather than the marina businesses. I have no idea 'what' was actually finally sold, or, the price that was paid for what was sold.

 

The offer seemed to be basically "we will tell you which bits are for sale and make us an offer".

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Although BWML did make profit (which showed in their own financial accounts) they also paid a large 'chunk of cash' to C&RT as 'Management Fees'.

 

So, when sold-off C&RT in effect lost 2-sources of income.

in 2015 (for example) BWML paid C&RT almost £1m, AND, made them a 'gift aid' donation of £290k

In 2014 they paid C&RT almost £800k  AND made them a 'gift aid' donation was £916k

Yes it was two souces of income. As a wholly owned subsiduary, it would return profit as a donation rather than a dividend because it attracted gift aid (more tax efficient). This was the BWML income stream.

However, CRT also made money from renting some of the marinas to BWML. Further income came from marinas subject to NAA. This income would be allocated to to leisure income stream.

 

When BWML was sold off, the sale also included CRT owned marinas. This was done by CRT lending BWML the money to buy CRT marinas and the buyer paying off the loan after purchase.


 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

When BWML was sold off, the sale also included CRT owned marinas. This was done by CRT lending BWML the money to buy CRT marinas and the buyer paying off the loan after purchase.

 

When we looked at the offer C&RT were adamant that they would be retaining the freehold of the London & Hull marinas as it was prime land which could be developed for residential use.

Do you know if they did, or, were the freeholds included in the TSB / Aquavista buy-out ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As I've mentioned before No1 Son was looking at buying BWML but there were all sorts of 'hold-backs' and conditions. They wanted to retain the land (understandable) in the 'big city marinas' (the profitable ones) and would charge rent to the new owner. In the end he decided that it didn't stack up the value was in the freehold rather than the marina businesses. I have no idea 'what' was actually finally sold, or, the price that was paid for what was sold.

 

The offer seemed to be basically "we will tell you which bits are for sale and make us an offer".

In North Wales at the moment and don't have access to a file containing information on the deal.

However, from memory, the freehold of at least London marina was retained with the buyer having a long lease.

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

When we looked at the offer C&RT were adamant that they would be retaining the freehold of the London & Hull marinas as it was prime land which could be developed for residential use.

Do you know if they did, or, were the freeholds included in the TSB / Aquavista buy-out ?

We seem to have cross posted. Freehold for London was retained. Would have to check Hull when I get back to Warwick in a week or so.

It is worth noting that the projected net income for BWML in 2021/22 was £2.66m.

As has been pointed out this income stream no longer exists ...

CRT have also been busy reducing its investment in Joint Ventures.

 

[Orwellian]

My understanding is that the two London marinas plus Diglis (Worcester) were not sold freehold because they are an integral part of the original waterway/dock infrastructure rather than built separate from it with a connection structure. I also think the freehold of Hull is still with the local authority and was always held on lease by BW when they first took it on.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

53 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

My understanding is that the two London marinas plus Diglis (Worcester) were not sold freehold because they are an integral part of the original waterway/dock infrastructure rather than built separate from it with a connection structure. I also think the freehold of Hull is still with the local authority and was always held on lease by BW when they first took it on.

It is an interesting point about the London sites and Diglis. In 2012 an order was signed by the minister which catagorised BW's assets into operational and non-operational. It seems to have ignored harbours and docks as being "operational". 

[Willonaboat]

Reading through the comments I'm left with the uneasy feeling of planned managed decline. I hope I'm wrong.

[Alan de Enfield]

On 09/05/2023 at 09:11, Orwellian said:

My understanding is that the two London marinas plus Diglis (Worcester) were not sold freehold because they are an integral part of the original waterway/dock infrastructure rather than built separate from it with a connection structure. I also think the freehold of Hull is still with the local authority and was always held on lease by BW when they first took it on.

When we took a mooring in Hull marina (BWML days)  they said that C&RT insisted that all boats in the marina were required by law to have a BSSC.

After a few weeks of back & forth I asked them if all of the sailing boats, and the 'big grey fleet' of Border Force boats were compliant.

 

It went quiet, and then BWML came back and said that C&RT were amending the T&Cs that BWML had to work to, and yes, a BSSC was not required for a boat to moor in Hull marina.

 

 

Us coming into Hull marina for the 1st time ..........................

 

Thru' the lock, around the main marina, under the lift bridge and into 'Railway Dock'

 

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Machpoint005]

On 06/05/2023 at 10:30, MtB said:

On the subject of starting guns, it's a little-known fact that a special starting gun was invented by the sister of that well known leftie, Karl Marx.

 

Her name was Onya. 

 

 

 

No, wrong family. She was a Marx Sister. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Willonaboat said:

Reading through the comments I'm left with the uneasy feeling of planned managed decline. I hope I'm wrong.

 

That has been going on since CRT was invented, by one David Cameron. His plans had a habit of going to shite. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Machpoint005 said:

That has been going on since CRT was invented, by one David Cameron. His plans had a habit of going to shite. 

 

It was happening a long time before C&RT was even a 'gleam in the Government's eye'.

 

Since monitoring began in 2004 (When Labour, with Tony Blair as PM) BW has underspent on maintenace to even retain the 'steady state' let alone improve the situation.

The condition of the infrastucture is acknowledged as worsening since 2004 - the figures for 2009/10 and 2011/12 are readily available and show the sorts of leves of underspend.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It was happening a long time before C&RT was even a 'gleam in the Government's eye'.

 

Since monitoring began in 2004 (When Labour, with Tony Blair as PM) BW has underspent on maintenace to even retain the 'steady state' let alone improve the situation.

The condition of the infrastucture is acknowledged as worsening since 2004 - the figures for 2009/10 and 2011/12 are readily available and show the sorts of leves of underspend.

I don't think there's any doubt about the slow deterioration of the system. The sheer number of sudden unplanned stoppages tells the story, as does the closing of the T&M last summer, and probably this one too. Half the northern canals seem to be in effect closed at least part time and journey planning is impossible. I don't know how the hire companies stay in business, and once they're gone traffic will reduce considerably.

Some of us have been noting this for years and been called doommongers for it.

If its another two or three years (and I bet it's more) before Todbrook gets refilled I think the holiday trade on the 4 counties will be stone dead.

Not really BW or CRT to blame. If it's worth anything, it's a national resource, but with governments (and their voters) deciding none of these are worth funding (from rail through NHS, law, policing, parks, sewage, roads, BBC) we have to accept that the powers that be (and the general public) think it's worthless. I'm just glad I've got my thirty years out of it.

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm just glad I've got my thirty years out of it.

 

We had almost 40 years, saw the improvements in the 80s and 90s, and the steady decline after the millenium.

 

It was getting to difficult to plan a trip, and even more difficult to 'work' the infrastructure, we decided that it was time to say goodbye and go 'back to the sea'.

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

We had almost 40 years, saw the improvements in the 80s and 90s, and the steady decline after the millenium.

 

It was getting to difficult to plan a trip, and even more difficult to 'work' the infrastructure, we decided that it was time to say goodbye and go 'back to the sea'.

Not an option for me! I'll end up with a cruiser for pottering about and time to actually sort the garden out...

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I'm just glad I've got my thirty years out of it.

I reckon the canal system will survive in one way or another, it’ll out live all of us and the next generations to come. 
The state of the canals is not what worries me so much. What worries me is who in the future will be able to afford to boat. 

Boating on the canals should remain as cheap as possible. It ought to be a subsidised activity. 

 

 

[Orwellian]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

It ought to be a subsidised activity. 

It already is.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, Orwellian said:

It already is.

Yes you’re right. 
 

I guess I should  have said “it ought to remain a heavily subsidised activity”.