Appeal

[Laurence Hogg]

I have just been told that CRT has received over £1500 in donations over the weekend, which is good news.

[Guest]

that's my point they will not allow the system to collapse, as its the goose that lays the golden egg

 

So the SMT at CRT have acquired the ability and wear with all to print as much money as they like?, when did this happen?,

 

I can't decide whether you are being incredibly dim, naive or just posting to try and wind folk up....

 

Whatever it is I'm afraid I won't be responding to any more of you posts.

[srthomas1957]

So the SMT at CRT have acquired the ability and wear with all to print as much money as they like?, when did this happen?,

 

I can't decide whether you are being incredibly dim, naive or just posting to try and wind folk up....

 

Whatever it is I'm afraid I won't be responding to any more of you posts.

its nice to see this , because as someone has a different opinion than yours, you resort to name calling , how adult :~)

[Guest]

I have just been told that CRT has received over £1500 in donations over the weekend, which is good news.

 

'Tis indeed but still a hell of a long way to go...

[PaulG]

From NBW:

 

The first was regular contributor Peter Ponting, whose published article ended with the words:

 

'So my advice is simple. Do not donate. BW/Cart/IWA have been having a good time for the last 30 years, so let them start paying for the incompetence of their past'.

 

Okay I give in...I simply cannot follow the advice of this miserable little man. Beans on toast for the next week for me, a Lady to bung into the breach for CaRT.

Hear Hear.

[Jo_]

I have just been told that CRT has received over £1500 in donations over the weekend, which is good news.

 

And that's just from the webpage gifts - doesn't include the TEXT gifts, though they hope to have a report on that soon.

[MtB]

Would be nice to get it fixed............ then maybe debate after

 

I find the whole thing quite disturbing. I am inferring from the appeal that CRT do not intend fixing the breach until the money has been raised from donations. This may be wrong, I hope so.

 

I also infer that they don't intend using the contingency fund to fix it - the contingency fund that exists for dealing with major unexpected issues like this.

 

Fair enough, shake the collecting bucket furiously when the contingency fund has been exhausted, but it appears to me they are choosing not to spend it and holding boaters to ransom instead.

 

I also think the licence fees are too low, judging by the phenomenal proliferation of boats on the system compared to 20 years ago. I wonder if doubling the licence fees would result in a halving of the number of boats, or would owners broadly speaking, keep their boats, moan one helluvalot and find the money. Or something in between. Like tax, there must be a sweet spot where increasing licence fees results in a reduction in income. I suspect CRT licence rates are currently some way cheaper than that point.

 

Just my opinions.

 

Mike

 

I have just been told that CRT has received over £1500 in donations over the weekend, which is good news.

 

Another 1000 weekends at this rate and the target will have been met!

 

Cool!

[Guest]

I find the whole thing quite disturbing. I am inferring from the appeal that CRT do not intend fixing the breach until the money has been raised from donations. This may be wrong, I hope so.

 

I also infer that they don't intend using the contingency fund to fix it - the contingency fund that exists for dealing with major unexpected issues like this.

 

Fair enough, shake the collecting bucket furiously when the contingency fund has been exhausted, but it appears to me they are choosing not to spend it and holding boaters to ransom instead.

 

I also think the licence fees are too low, judging by the phenomenal proliferation of boats on the system compared to 20 years ago. I wonder if doubling the licence fees would result in a halving of the number of boats, or would owners broadly speaking, keep their boats, moan one helluvalot and find the money. Or something in between. Like tax, there must be a sweet spot where increasing licence fees results in a reduction in income. I suspect CRT licence rates are currently some way cheaper than that point.

 

Just my opinions.

 

Mike

 

I reckon it would be 'something in between'

 

Doubling the fee in one go would certainly price some boaters out of boating but undoubtedly some would find the money, so CRT would probably only gain as half as much again by estimation as lots of boaters would end up having to scrap their boats as they wouldn't be able to sell them...

 

I think the interesting thing about the proliferation is that it seems to very much a regional thing, maybe us Northern Boaters should get a discount as we don't clutter as much of the system up...

[Higgs]

I also think the licence fees are too low, judging by the phenomenal proliferation of boats on the system compared to 20 years ago.

 

 

Could you use 6 point type for this opinion? And, in white.

[Theo]

I just don't get why people are moaning that CRT is fnd raising.

 

Completely gobsmacking, isn't it.

 

Nick

 

Hear Hear well said that man worth a greenie methinks

 

The above was in response to Carlt's post. I too would love to give him a greenie.

 

N

[Gillie]

I have not read all 13 pages so don't know if this has been raised before..

Have just got my email requesting a donation

and was wondering if CRT has also sent mails asking for donations from Sustrans & its members

or the fishing clubs or any other similar canal / towpath users?

[adam1uk]

I find the whole thing quite disturbing. I am inferring from the appeal that CRT do not intend fixing the breach until the money has been raised from donations. This may be wrong, I hope so.

 

I also infer that they don't intend using the contingency fund to fix it - the contingency fund that exists for dealing with major unexpected issues like this.

 

Fair enough, shake the collecting bucket furiously when the contingency fund has been exhausted, but it appears to me they are choosing not to spend it and holding boaters to ransom instead.

 

I believe you have inferred completely incorrectly. They have already said that the contingency fund will be used, and they're already looking at how to fix the breach. They are certainly not choosing not to use the contingency -- indeed, I suspect that if they were to wait for £1.5million to be raised, we'd be waiting forever. The appeal will mean that there's more left in the contingency than would have been the case.

 

Charities tend to like to raise as much money as possible. "Help us fix this massive hole" is more likely to generaten income than "help us replenish our contingency fund".

Edited October 1, 2012 by adam1uk

[PiRSqwared]

I have just been told that CRT has received over £1500 in donations over the weekend, which is good news.

Just a thousand weeks to go then

[Ronniesonic]

If you can afford to donate then it can only help. I am just glad no lives were lost. £5 given.

 

There is one mahoozive hole in one of our beautiful canals. I do not like that, regardless of what P&L sheet it comes under to fix!

[mayalld]

that's my point they will not allow the system to collapse, as its the goose that lays the golden egg

 

OK, you have expressed your opinion that "they" (whoever they might be) will not allow the system to collapse, and that they will just HAVE to repair it, whether we donate or not.

 

The simple facts are that yes, they will repair it. They will repair it using money from the contingency fund together with any donations that they get.

 

The reason that they will repair it promptly is largely because it is a major through route.

 

But don't delude yourself that come what may money will always be found.

 

If there is a spate of breaches, the money will run out, and no matter how much the senior management might wish to fix it (in order to keep their salaries) once the money has run out, it will have run out, and they won't be able to simply "find" more.

 

The immediate knock on effect of this will be that having depleted the contingency fund this year, they will be looking to replenish it over (probably) the next two years. That means that next year £750,000 will be slashed from the maintenance budget to replenish the contingency fund and the same the following year.

 

Those cuts will mean that some shallow but less-used corners of the system are going to have to wait for dredging. They will mean that some lock gates that were in need of replacement will be left for a couple of years longer. There is a probability that some quiet corners of the network will become less accessible because the money that would be used to maintain them is going to replenish the contingency fund.

 

If there is another breach, in a quieter part of the network, it won't be fixed, because they can't deplete the contingency further and risk not having the money to fix a major artery.

 

Your comparison with the roads is wide of the mark, partly for the reasons that Carl sets out, and partly because it is difficult to imagine a road failure so catastrophic that it would cost such a high proportion of the annual national road maintenance budget.

 

I find the whole thing quite disturbing. I am inferring from the appeal that CRT do not intend fixing the breach until the money has been raised from donations. This may be wrong, I hope so.

 

 

 

I don't see any inference.

 

On the contrary, they seem to be saying "yes we will fix it, but we will have to spend our 'rainy day money', and once we have done that, we will refil the rainy day tin by cutting back on our ordinary expenditure for a bit. If you give us some money we won't have to do quite so much of that"

[Theo]

It was said somewhere above that in the old days given the weather warning a lengthsman would have lowered the level so that the canal would not have overflowed. In order to keep the canals open and give this safety valve the canals need extensive dredging as a priority. I wonder how much dredging could be done for the cost of repairing a breach.

 

Just a bit of imagining here: it would be possible to install remote canal level lowering sluices to shoot water off into local water courses in anticipation of flooding. I wonder if this would be a good thing to do as a sort of insurance.

 

N

[Higgs]

This contingency (£2M) - Hypothetically, If the only funds left amounted to £2M and throughout the year no breaches or catastrophies, would that £2M be retained and kept as contingency even though the year hadn't ended? No non emergency repairs possible.

[srthomas1957]

OK, you have expressed your opinion that "they" (whoever they might be) will not allow the system to collapse, and that they will just HAVE to repair it, whether we donate or not.

 

The simple facts are that yes, they will repair it. They will repair it using money from the contingency fund together with any donations that they get.

 

The reason that they will repair it promptly is largely because it is a major through route.

 

But don't delude yourself that come what may money will always be found.

 

If there is a spate of breaches, the money will run out, and no matter how much the senior management might wish to fix it (in order to keep their salaries) once the money has run out, it will have run out, and they won't be able to simply "find" more.

 

The immediate knock on effect of this will be that having depleted the contingency fund this year, they will be looking to replenish it over (probably) the next two years. That means that next year £750,000 will be slashed from the maintenance budget to replenish the contingency fund and the same the following year.

 

Those cuts will mean that some shallow but less-used corners of the system are going to have to wait for dredging. They will mean that some lock gates that were in need of replacement will be left for a couple of years longer. There is a probability that some quiet corners of the network will become less accessible because the money that would be used to maintain them is going to replenish the contingency fund.

 

If there is another breach, in a quieter part of the network, it won't be fixed, because they can't deplete the contingency further and risk not having the money to fix a major artery.

Your comparison with the roads is wide of the mark, partly for the reasons that Carl sets out, and partly because it is difficult to imagine a road failure so catastrophic that it would cost such a high proportion of the annual national road maintenance budget.

 

 

 

 

I don't see any inference.

 

On the contrary, they seem to be saying "yes we will fix it, but we will have to spend our 'rainy day money', and once we have done that, we will refil the rainy day tin by cutting back on our ordinary expenditure for a bit. If you give us some money we won't have to do quite so much of that"

so another donation appeal will be needed, where will it stop. As I said i'm not against the appeal. but its my opinion if they can pay the directors theses large salary then surely they should of made sure that the initial pot of money should of been put in place to cover this emergency .

Edited October 1, 2012 by srthomas1957

[carlt]

so another donation appeal will be needed, where will it stop.

It won't stop.

 

It's a charity and will always rely on donations and appeals to make up the shortfall.

 

It's what charities do.

[srthomas1957]

It won't stop.

 

It's a charity and will always rely on donations and appeals to make up the shortfall.

 

It's what charities do.

I found this on the CRT web page

" June 2012, Third Sector magazine said: "Most charities don’t have the profile of the Canal & River Trust: a cast iron guarantee of £800m funding from government, as well as the third largest portfolio of historic buildings in the British Isles, and a collection of natural assets guaranteed to bring in visitors by, well, the boatload."

 

Most charities don't have this much funding

[John V]

so another donation appeal will be needed, where will it stop. As I said i'm not against the appeal. but its my opinion if they can pay the directors theses large salary then surely they should of made sure that the initial pot of money should of been put in place to cover this emergency .

 

The subject of salaries has no bearing on this subject, The (in my own opinion) over inflated salaries of directors is a result of past decisions by BW and of the changeover arrangements and is not something that can be laid at C&RT's door. I do however await with interest future arrangements.

[mayalld]

so another donation appeal will be needed, where will it stop. As I said i'm not against the appeal. but its my opinion if they can pay the directors theses large salary then surely they should of made sure that the initial pot of money should of been put in place to cover this emergency .

 

Yes, potentially in any situation where there is a large item of expenditure following a sudden an unplanned for failure there will be appeals for funds.

 

If those appeals mean that a wider group of people than licence holders contribute isn't that actually a good thing.

 

You raise, yet again, the red herring of the salaries. Certainly the senior management are paid a large salary, and it is certainly significantly more than my salary, but it is not wide of the mark for somebody in that position, and notwithstanding the siren calls of "what makes them worth that much" from people who couldn't actually DO their job, the salary level reflects the need to secure people with the right skills.

 

Certainly, CRT could pay peanuts, but they would probably end up with monkeys who couldn't understand how a contingency fund works.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It might be worthwhile pointing out that government says it has given CART £460m of assets including the £50m proceeds of the distressed Wood Wharf joint venture sale. The £50m was not a lump sum and CART will get £16m cash per year for each of the next three years.

 

This money is not currently earmarked for maintenance but for reinvestment in commercial enterprises.

 

So in the short term finding cash to fix multiple breaches should not be a problem and does not have to mean cuts elsewhere.

[mayalld]

I found this on the CRT web page

" June 2012, Third Sector magazine said: "Most charities don't have the profile of the Canal & River Trust: a cast iron guarantee of £800m funding from government, as well as the third largest portfolio of historic buildings in the British Isles, and a collection of natural assets guaranteed to bring in visitors by, well, the boatload."

 

Most charities don't have this much funding

 

You do know that the £800m funding is an agreement to £800m in funding over a number of years, rather than £800m sat in the bank to spend today?

 

It might be worthwhile pointing out that government says it has given CART £460m of assets including the £50m proceeds of the distressed Wood Wharf joint venture sale. The £50m was not a lump sum and CART will get £16m cash per year for each of the next three years.

 

This money is not currently earmarked for maintenance but for reinvestment in commercial enterprises.

 

So in the short term finding cash to fix multiple breaches should not be a problem and does not have to mean cuts elsewhere.

 

Yes, that would be good. They could blow that money now, and in 5 years time, when it is gone, Narrowmindedworld could run an article attacking the folly of not investing the money instead.

 

This contingency (£2M) - Hypothetically, If the only funds left amounted to £2M and throughout the year no breaches or catastrophies, would that £2M be retained and kept as contingency even though the year hadn't ended? No non emergency repairs possible.

 

If there was no money in the pot for non-emergency repairs then there would be no non-emergency repais.

[jenlyn]

You do know that the £800m funding is an agreement to £800m in funding over a number of years, rather than £800m sat in the bank to spend today?

 

don't give them Ideas about borrowing on future income either.