C&RT sell warehouse in Birmingham

[Alan de Enfield]

 

A logistics warehouse in Birmingham has been sold for £7.1 million.

Charity Canal & River Trust has disposed of its building on the BSA Industrial Estate in Birmingham after 14 years of ownership.

 

The unit in Golden Hillock Road, Small Heath, was built in the 1980s and comprises 78,500 sq ft of space.

 

 

The warehouse has undergone significant improvement, including a new roof, the addition of 1,400 photovoltaic panels and electric vehicle charging bays.

The premises are let to MacDermid Performance Solutions UK, a manufacturer of surface coatings which has approximately eight years remaining on its lease.

Birmingham-based consultancy MK2 Real Estate advised the charity on the sale to Axel Logistics.

Mark Rooke, a director in MK2's investment team, said: "We received strong interest and multiple offers for this property, in particular from investors seeking urban logistics assets.

"Given the site's location, just two miles from Birmingham city centre, and the strong covenant of the incumbent tenant, it was a cracking opportunity."

Axel Logistics was advised by CBRE.

[robtheplod]

is this classed as a 'fire' sale?   assume CRT need the money in a big lump rather than the rent?

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

is this classed as a 'fire' sale?   assume CRT need the money in a big lump rather than the rent?

 

Maybe C&RT are in negotiation with Peel Holding to buy the Bridgewater Canal for £1 but they must take on the liabilties of the canal - including fixing the breech !

 

It is not an uncommon act  in the business world.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Following a couple of years that have seen a £200m reduction in the net value of CRT assets, trustees have decided to "rebalance" its portfolio to give a 50/50 split between property and non property holdings.

 

I suspect this property sale will be one of several over the next couple of years with proceeds used to buy non property assets.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

suspect this property sale will be one of several over the next couple of years with proceeds used to buy non property assets.

 

What would be non-property assests ?

 

Dredgers, chain saws, grease, lengthsmen ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What would be non-property assests ?

 

Dredgers, chain saws, grease, lengthsmen ?

 

CRT currently has about £1000m of non operational assets that are used to provide income. About £700m of that is property that provides income mainly via rents. It also has about £300m of non property assets held  mainly in an investment fund (as equities, bonds etc).

 

CRT's current investment plan is to change this 70/30 split to 50/50 over the next few years which means selling property.

[kris88]

On 10/03/2025 at 13:38, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Following a couple of years that have seen a £200m reduction in the net value of CRT assets, trustees have decided to "rebalance" its portfolio to give a 50/50 split between property and non property holdings.

 

I suspect this property sale will be one of several over the next couple of years with proceeds used to buy non property assets.

So they’ve decided there foray into out of town warehousing hadn’t gone well and are getting out. 

[magnetman]

On 10/03/2025 at 13:59, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What would be non-property assests ?

 

Dredgers, chain saws, grease, lengthsmen ?

Shares in Tesla

[kris88]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Shares in Tesla

Yes everybody else is selling there’s and getting out of Tesla. So it’s the sort of thing crt would do. Sell your marinas with a captive market and pretty much solid reliable income and invest in out of town commercial real estate. Much the same as buying Tesla shares at the moment. 

[Tonka]

Just now, kris88 said:

Yes everybody else is selling there’s and getting out of Tesla. So it’s the sort of thing crt would do. Sell your marinas with a captive market and pretty much solid reliable income and invest in out of town commercial real estate. Much the same as buying Tesla shares at the moment. 

I thought they sold their marinas because their was uproar at them owning them and there was a conflict of interest with them being a navigation authority 

[Yank on the Cut]

BW gifted their marinas to a standalone subsidiary (British Waterways Marina Ltd) which was then sold to Aquavista by CRT. There were no benefits to being part of BW and a lot of disadvantages like SAP computer systems and bureaucracy. CRT as a private company could easily of kept ahold of the marina portfolio and developed it.

Edited March 12 by Yank on the Cut
improved

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 hours ago, Tonka said:

I thought they sold their marinas because their was uproar at them owning them and there was a conflict of interest with them being a navigation authority 

Actually, the reverse is true. British Waterways created an "arms length" limited company, British Waterways Marinas Limited (BWML) in 2003 to operate its larger marinas due to concerns expressed by "the trade" regarding anti competitive practices. BW claimed that it treated BWML exactly the same as other marina owning companies.

4 hours ago, Yank on the Cut said:

BW gifted their marinas to a standalone subsidiary (British Waterways Marina Ltd) which was then sold to Aquavista by CRT. There were no benefits to being part of BW and a lot of disadvantages like SAP computer systems and bureaucracy. CRT as a private company could easily of kept ahold of the marina portfolio and developed it.

Not entirely true. No marinas were gifted to BWML. In 2003, they operated larger marinas owned by BW. Later when other marina operators got into financial trouble, BW purchased additional shares in BWML to provide finance to enable the company to acquire a number of these.

 

Before selling BWML to Project Belize, CRT loaned BWML the money to purchase most of the marinas owned by CRT. Project Belize repaid the loan as part of the sale agreement.

 

CRT said that it made the sale as marinas were not part of its core business.

 

My view is that BWML was never particularly profitable and was sold so that the proceeds could be invested in non-property assets to get a better return.

Edited March 12 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Heartland]

The comment of 14 years of ownership would place the acquisition as 2011 and the question that is raised is why?

 

This building is some distance from a waterway 

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

My view is that BWML was never particularly profitable and was sold so that the proceeds could be invested in non-property assets to get a better return.

 

My Son was looking to set up a consortium to buy BWML (this is what he does for a living) and viewed the actual accounts when shown 'broken out' of the C&RT group accounts.

 

BWML was quite (almost very) profitable but their previously reported profits were artificially lowered due to the large 'management costs' they paid to C&RT. (office space at C&RT, shared HR, shared accounts team etc etc)

 

They overvalued the 'estate' particularly as they were not including the sale of the 'bigger' (three I think) marinas in London, Hull and ????. the freehold of these was to be retained by C&RT and they buyer of the other marinas would be allowed to lease those 3 marinas from C&RT.

 

He pulled out and we lost sight of what may have gone on behind the scenes or what agreements were eventually made.

He did suggest that he thought C&RT was in error in selling them as they were a good profit generating arm of the C&RT group.

Once you have sold the 'family silver' for a quick buck, you never get it back again.

Edited March 12 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

My Son was looking to set up a consortium to buy BWML (this is what he does for a living) and viewed the actual accounts when shown 'broken out' of the C&RT group accounts.

 

BWML was quite (almost very) profitable but their previously reported profits were artificially lowered due to the large 'management costs' they paid to C&RT.

 

They overvalued the 'estate' particularly as they were not including the sale of the 'bigger' (three I think) marinas in London, Hull and ????. the freehold of these was to be retained by C&RT and they buyer of the other marinas would be allowed to lease those 3 marinas from C&RT.

 

He pulled out and we lost sight of what may have gone on behind the scenes or what agreements were eventually made.

He did suggest that he thought C&RT was in error in selling them as they were a good profit generating arm of the C&RT group.

Once you have sold the 'family silver' for a quick buck, you never get it back again.

 

Didn't stop our governments doing exactly that over the last 50 years or so though, did it? 😞 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, IanD said:

 

Didn't stop our governments doing exactly that over the last 50 years or so though, did it? 😞 

 

Unlike business men - politicians only look to a future of 4 or 5 years, so yes, they can sell the family silver (or gold - as the case may be) and have no responsibilities a few years later.

 

'Browns Bottom' features in pretty much all economic learning modules

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Unlike business men - politicians only look to a future of 4 or 5 years, so yes, they can sell the family silver (or gold - as the case may be) and have no responsibilities a few years later.

 

'Browns Bottom' features in pretty much all economic learning modules

 

You are kidding, aren't you?

 

A lot of executives nowadays struggle to look as far ahead as 4-5 years, all they really care about is short-term profits and the share price and dividends and their bonuses which depend on this -- in 5 years time they know they'll probably be gone, with the consolation of a mattress stuffed with cash to sleep soundly on... 😞 

 

If they try and do things which might be good in 5-10 years but cost money now so depressing share prices/dividends they'll often be kicked out by the board and/or investors, who really control what the company does. For example, see what happened recently to Pat Gelsinger at Intel, or Shell, or...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

18 minutes ago, Heartland said:

The comment of 14 years of ownership would place the acquisition as 2011 and the question that is raised is why?

 

This building is some distance from a waterway 

British Waterways was somewhat restricted with regard to dealing in non-operational property. Not so CRT. Part of the early investment policy was to sell off high numbers of small low value properties and use the money to buy fewer high value properties. The rational was that low value properties incurred disproportionate management fees compared to high value properties.

 

I guess this property was initially acquired as part of that strategy.

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, IanD said:

You are kidding, aren't you?

 

Maybe you are correct in your 'high tech rocket science business'

But in 'industry' when you are looking at investments with a 10 or 20 year payback with your philosophy you would do 'nothing' but have a slowly stagnating business.

A very wise man once told me , there are only three things you can do with a business, grow it, close it or sell it, staying where you are is not an option.

[Tacet]

43 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

He pulled out and we lost sight of what may have gone on behind the scenes or what agreements were eventually made.

He did suggest that he thought C&RT was in error in selling them as they were a good profit generating arm of the C&RT group.

Once you have sold the 'family silver' for a quick buck, you never get it back again.

 

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A very wise man once told me , there are only three things you can do with a business, grow it, close it or sell it, staying where you are is not an option.

So, your son says CRT should not have sold the marinas - which only leaves close or grow it according to the very wise man.

 

Which one would you recommend?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Tacet said:

Which one would you recommend?

 

 

 

If you hadn't put the ? at the end I'd have assumed this was a rhetorical question, but, in case you are serious..................

 

 

As the business was producing a good profit / income for C&RT you oviously want to grow the business so it makes more profit/income.

The marinas never had 100% occupancy so there is room for growth.

Once you get 100% occupancy increase the prices until the occupancy starts to fall - you are then getting more income for no additional work / effort / resources.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe you are correct in your 'high tech rocket science business'

But in 'industry' when you are looking at investments with a 10 or 20 year payback with your philosophy you would do 'nothing' but have a slowly stagnating business.

A very wise man once told me , there are only three things you can do with a business, grow it, close it or sell it, staying where you are is not an option.

 

Nothing to do with high tech, it's all to do with priorities and where the actual control of strategy is decided -- I'm afraid you're very much living in the past here... 😞 

 

Maybe in the old days benevolent businessmen could prioritise the long-term view and have a paternal attitude to their employees, but nowadays most public companies are beholden first to their board and investors/shareholders, and given this and their attitude to risk and return on investment it's very difficult to do things that are good for the long-term but are expensive in the short-term, including being nice to employees because this costs money -- there are literally *hundreds* of examples of this in all industries worldwide.

 

Any company doing this is liable to either have its CEO ousted in favour of someone who can generate more value to the shareholders, or will suffer by being uncompetitive in the near-term, or will be vulnerable to takeover by venture capital and asset-strippers whose first priority is often selling off the family silver and loading the company up with debt, and certainly care very little for what happens further than 5 years out because they'll probably have cashed out and moved on to another investment target by then.

 

That's not "my philosophy", I think it's an awful way to run companies -- but it's how business works today, as opposed to 50 years ago.

 

The water companies are a perfect example -- are they a "high tech rocket science business"?

Edited March 12 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

If you hadn't put the ? at the end I'd have assumed this was a rhetorical question, but, in case you are serious..................

 

 

As the business was producing a good profit / income for C&RT you oviously want to grow the business so it makes more profit/income.

The marinas never had 100% occupancy so there is room for growth.

Once you get 100% occupancy increase the prices until the occupancy starts to fall - you are then getting more income for no additional work / effort / resources.

When a non-core subsidiary needs investment to grow, it also needs a goodly share of the available management resources, unless those are allowed to grow comparably. It seemed at the time to me that the decision was not unreasonable as it was unlikely that CaRT could provide sufficient oversight without detracting from dealing with the growing problems of managing the main network with a declining grant. The two sectors are very different business propositions and need distinct skills.

[Alan de Enfield]

Why would it need additional resources from C&RT if they simply filled the vacant moorings, or increased the prices ?

[Tacet]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

If you hadn't put the ? at the end I'd have assumed this was a rhetorical question, but, in case you are serious..................

 

 

As the business was producing a good profit / income for C&RT you oviously want to grow the business so it makes more profit/income.

The marinas never had 100% occupancy so there is room for growth.

Once you get 100% occupancy increase the prices until the occupancy starts to fall - you are then getting more income for no additional work / effort / resources.

If it was that easy to obtain more income with no additional work or resources, it is surprising your son viewed the estate as overvalued and pulled away from the purchase.

 

'Punctuation' is not really your 'strong' point.

Edited March 12 by Tacet