Tendered / Auctioned BW Moorings

[alan_fincher]

Whilst many BW tendered or auctioned moorings are being let at well over "guide price", (the price existing moorers on the site are paying), it is obvious that some go for significantly less.

 

Under the new open auction system, (which replaced the "tender" system), the "reserve" price is also published, indicating the minimum that BW will let it go for, (often significantly below "guide price"). The "username", (not necessarily real name), of the winning bidder is now also available after the auction closes, giving some clues as to who it might be, (particularly when the same username appears on this forum ).

 

I think I have spotted something......

 

Someone already having a boat at a mooring site, presumably under the old arrangements, bidding for a vacancy at that site, at a lower price, (probably the "reserve").

 

In the case I've seen they appear to have won it.

 

Does this mean they are terminating an existing mooring to take up the "new" one. This would seem to be a case that they take the penalty of termination, in order to get a new lower annual cost (which unlike their current mooring will remain fixed for three years).

 

Has anybody actually studied this approach, or is prepared to admit to trying it, please ? I can't recall seeing anything in the "rules" that prohibit it, but I don't know what the penalty might be to buy your way out of your existing agreement under the old methods.

 

If I'm right, will BW start writing extra conditions that stop people doing this. ? Otherwise couldn't it all get more than a bit silly ?

[soldthehouse]

Whilst many BW tendered or auctioned moorings are being let at well over "guide price", (the price existing moorers on the site are paying), it is obvious that some go for significantly less.

 

Under the new open auction system, (which replaced the "tender" system), the "reserve" price is also published, indicating the minimum that BW will let it go for, (often significantly below "guide price"). The "username", (not necessarily real name), of the winning bidder is now also available after the auction closes, giving some clues as to who it might be, (particularly when the same username appears on this forum ).

 

I think I have spotted something......

 

Someone already having a boat at a mooring site, presumably under the old arrangements, bidding for a vacancy at that site, at a lower price, (probably the "reserve").

 

In the case I've seen they appear to have won it.

 

Does this mean they are terminating an existing mooring to take up the "new" one. This would seem to be a case that they take the penalty of termination, in order to get a new lower annual cost (which unlike their current mooring will remain fixed for three years).

 

Has anybody actually studied this approach, or is prepared to admit to trying it, please ? I can't recall seeing anything in the "rules" that prohibit it, but I don't know what the penalty might be to buy your way out of your existing agreement under the old methods.

 

If I'm right, will BW start writing extra conditions that stop people doing this. ? Otherwise couldn't it all get more than a bit silly ?

Slightly off your main point I have been on waterscape tonight and found a mooring listed on the l+l for a 21 mtr boat when the locks are only 17 and a residential mooring for a longish boat Iseem to remember at about 800 reserve am I missing something

[sueb]

Slightly off your main point I have been on waterscape tonight and found a mooring listed on the l+l for a 21 mtr boat when the locks are only 17 and a residential mooring for a longish boat Iseem to remember at about 800 reserve am I missing something

I love it! A full length narrowboat booked to got down the Anderton lift. The booking came back as 70' wide. Staff don't have to know anything about the canals

Sue

[Mac of Cygnet]

If I'm right, will BW start writing extra conditions that stop people doing this. ? Otherwise couldn't it all get more than a bit silly ?

 

I don't see anything silly about it at all, or why people shouldn't do it. It simply means that market forces are prevailing, and BW have to accept this. Any attempt on their part to prohibit this I think would be laughed out of court (as several other of their actions may be, according to the latest NABO bulletin).

 

Mac

[Zoro]

Do you run the risk of cancelling your mooring and then being out bidded? ending up with no mooring.

[sueb]

Do you run the risk of cancelling your mooring and then being out bidded? ending up with no mooring.

Only if you cancel your mooring first rather than last.

Sue

[deletedaccount]

Slightly off your main point I have been on waterscape tonight and found a mooring listed on the l+l for a 21 mtr boat when the locks are only 17 and a residential mooring for a longish boat Iseem to remember at about 800 reserve am I missing something

 

Conversely, a spot near me was advertised as narrowboat width, despite the fact there's already a widebeam on that section of moorings and tons of room.

[dor]

I believe that more than one person bid for a place on their existing mooring and got it below the price they were currently paying, and that was when the sealed bid tenders first came in.

[barge sara]

Slightly off your main point I have been on waterscape tonight and found a mooring listed on the l+l for a 21 mtr boat when the locks are only 17 and a residential mooring for a longish boat Iseem to remember at about 800 reserve am I missing something

 

There's one listed on the Macclesfield at 18 metres (59.06 feet) long and 201metres(659.45feet) wide.

https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/search/v...sic&id=1200

 

Don't recall anywhere on the Macc that wide!

Interesting illustration of precision versus accuracy - lengths specified to the nearest 100th of a foot, but the accuracy.....

Edited November 2, 2009 by barge sara

[Sir Nibble]

There's one listed on the Macclesfield at 18 metres (59.06 feet) long and 201metres(659.45feet) wide.

https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/search/v...sic&id=1200

 

Don't recall anywhere on the Macc that wide!

Interesting illustration of precision versus accuracy - lengths specified to the nearest 100th of a foot, but the accuracy.....

Erm, no, lengths specified to the nearest metre with a translation for cave dwellers.

[barge sara]

Erm, no, lengths specified to the nearest metre with a translation for cave dwellers.

My point.

Why would you specify to the nearest metre then convert to the nearest 100th of foot?

[RLWP]

My point.

Why would you specify to the nearest metre then convert to the nearest 100th of foot?

 

Is 1/100th of a foot a toenail?

 

Richard

[barge sara]

Is 1/100th of a foot a toenail?

 

Richard

 

Aye, and 150 toenails to the cubit, real cavedwellers measure.

[magpie patrick]

Aye, and 150 toenails to the cubit, real cavedwellers measure.

 

A few years ago I was in the Faroe Islands, and was chatting to a local about his boat. It went something like this. "How long is she?"

 

"seven metres"

 

Beam?"

 

"five foot 6"...

 

When I asked why they mixed the units he shrugged and just said it was how boats were measured in the Faroes

Edited November 2, 2009 by magpie patrick

[Hairy-Neil]

When I asked why they mixed the units he shrugged and just said it was how boats were measured in the Faroes

 

Plasterboard at one time (20+ years ago) came metric width, imperial length.....

[paulcatchpole]

Has anybody actually studied this approach, or is prepared to admit to trying it, please ? I can't recall seeing anything in the "rules" that prohibit it, but I don't know what the penalty might be to buy your way out of your existing agreement under the old methods.

 

It's crossed my mind and I wouldn't have a problem with doing it.

 

Our tendered mooring (on the older system) is fixed price for the three years, but allows us I believe, to terminate after 6 months, with one-month-notice. I can't see what would stop us bidding and taking up another mooring offered under the new system...

 

PC

[alan_fincher]

Our tendered mooring (on the older system) is fixed price for the three years, but allows us I believe, to terminate after 6 months, with one-month-notice.

We have also just one one in the dying moments of the 'old' "sealed bids" tender system, rather than the new more "open" auction system.

 

I read it much as you have - we are not actually tied to the full 3 years, once the first six months are up. The only bit I think different is that I think ours is two months notice after that, not one.

 

Even so, there must be a bid that is worth making each time a similar mooring comes up under the new system, just in case nobody bids higher.

 

I'd certainly try it, having "run the maths!".

[sueb]

We have also just one one in the dying moments of the 'old' "sealed bids" tender system, rather than the new more "open" auction system.

 

I read it much as you have - we are not actually tied to the full 3 years, once the first six months are up. The only bit I think different is that I think ours is two months notice after that, not one.

 

Even so, there must be a bid that is worth making each time a similar mooring comes up under the new system, just in case nobody bids higher.

 

I'd certainly try it, having "run the maths!".

Surely the rules & regs should be the same regards giving notice?

Sue

[alan_fincher]

Surely the rules & regs should be the same regards giving notice?

Sue

Yes you would think so, wouldn't you!

 

My permit came with a poorly photocopied document...

British Waterways - Mooring Vacancies Tendering Trial

 

Mooring Agreement Terms and Conditions (Tendered Mooring),

 

19th September 2007

 

and says....

 

Termination

 

37, You may terminate this agreement at any time except within the first six months by giving two months written notice of termination to our local waterways office

 

Paul do you have a different version, and do you mind quoting exact wording, please ?

[paulcatchpole]

Paul do you have a different version, and do you mind quoting exact wording, please ?

 

Sorry, it's on my other laptop at work! I'll see what I can do tomorrow!

 

PC

[g-man]

We have also just one one in the dying moments of the 'old' "sealed bids" tender system, rather than the new more "open" auction system.

 

I read it much as you have - we are not actually tied to the full 3 years, once the first six months are up. The only bit I think different is that I think ours is two months notice after that, not one.

 

Even so, there must be a bid that is worth making each time a similar mooring comes up under the new system, just in case nobody bids higher.

 

I'd certainly try it, having "run the maths!".

 

Yes it's certainly worth a speculative bid should a new vacancy arise. Under the old tender system I was paying £1825 but I've just won a mooring in the same area with £1079! Even with having to pay the two months notice its a big saving.

 

It's funny thay no one else bid this time around as last summer there was about 5 people bidding for the same spot. One wonders where all the others were, is it the recession, people cheesed off with the auction system or simply the time of year? Whatever, I'm a happy man.

[lucymorgan]

I really don't see anything stupid about it at all. I just wonder why people shouldn't do it. It simply means that market forces are prevailing, and BW have to accept this.

 

 

regards,

lucy

 

_______________

Simulation pret

[Laurie Booth]

I really don't see anything stupid about it at all. I just wonder why people shouldn't do it. It simply means that market forces are prevailing, and BW have to accept this.

 

 

regards,

lucy

 

_______________

Simulation pret

And when prevailing market forces are too low BW will change it's mind and go back to the old system.

[RLWP]

I really don't see anything stupid about it at all. I just wonder why people shouldn't do it. It simply means that market forces are prevailing, and BW have to accept this.

 

 

regards,

lucy

 

_______________

Simulation pret

 

Go on then Lucy, why do you have a link to a french web page in your signature?

 

Richard