Dispute at Pillings

[George94]

 

I'm afraid that there are precious few of your posts that are anything other than rude and insulting.

 

Are you acquainted with Newton's Third Law, Mr Mayall?

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Now, if you will kindly desist from insulting me, you will find that I will not insult you.

 

It's really very simple.

Edited February 12, 2014 by George94

[station tug]

 

Are you acquainted with Newton's Third Law, Mr Mayall?

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Now, if you will kindly desist from insulting me, you will find that I will not insult you.

 

It's really very simple.

how about you all get get back to the thread instead of ruining it by all the personal rubbish............either take it to PM or start a new thread ...ya bunch of big girls!!!!!

[deckhand]

edited

Edited February 12, 2014 by deckhand

[carlt]

Now, if you will kindly desist from insulting me, you will find that I will not insult you.

George, I think you'll find that: "You are wrong and here is supporting evidence to prove that you are wrong." isn't actually an insult.

 

These are the posts that have provoked your "reaction" and prompted you to insult more than one person.

[Theo]

 

Are you acquainted with Newton's Third Law, Mr Mayall?

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Now, if you will kindly desist from insulting me, you will find that I will not insult you.

 

It's really very simple.

I do hate that particular aphorism.

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. is a really unhelpful way of stating what is going on. I blush to confess that I have not read the whole of Newton's discussion which lead up to it. I much prefer the 3rd Law stated as: "When body A exerts a force on body B, body B exerts an exactly equal but opposite force on body A. Much clearer I feel.

 

Sorry chaps.

 

back to the fray.

 

When will this topic die? It seems to have been going on as long as the floods!

 

N

[patty-ann]

Maybe when our damp and sodden land becomes a dustbowl then Pillings can rest in peace.

[johnlillie]

keeping on topic, I emailed Phil Spencer, asking for comments re BWML trading conditIons, he acknowledged my request,as yet, no reply.

[carlt]

keeping on topic, I emailed Phil Spencer, asking for comments re BWML trading conditIons, he acknowledged my request,as yet, no reply.

He has never been the same since splitting with Kirstie.

[Paul G2]

 

I think it's important to say...each time you slag off your son on a public forum, the majority of people reading it, form a lesser opinion of you. Best not to?

 

A greenie to you for good words of advice, Dean.

 

"if only his brother had been an only child............." is something a father can maybe mumble to his wife, but it isn't something that should be said on a public forum.

 

And, John, I'm not trying to jump on you. The people that are familiar with the details of what happened, and with your style of writing, would probably spot "la tragedia comedia" of your remark and take it for nothing more. On the other hand, those who are less familiar with the whole story might find your remarks in bad taste.

[Machpoint005]

Greeny for Theo -- love a physicist!

[George94]

I do hate that particular aphorism.

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. is a really unhelpful way of stating what is going on. I blush to confess that I have not read the whole of Newton's discussion which lead up to it. I much prefer the 3rd Law stated as: "When body A exerts a force on body B, body B exerts an exactly equal but opposite force on body A. Much clearer I feel.

 

Sorry chaps.

 

back to the fray.

 

When will this topic die? It seems to have been going on as long as the floods!

 

N

 

I don't know if you speak Latin, but this is what Newton actually wrote:

 

Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.

 

The first part of that is translated by Google as: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction.

[johnlillie]

 

A greenie to you for good words of advice, Dean.

 

"if only his brother had been an only child............." is something a father can maybe mumble to his wife, but it isn't something that should be said on a public forum.

 

And, John, I'm not trying to jump on you. The people that are familiar with the details of what happened, and with your style of writing, would probably spot "la tragedia comedia" of your remark and take it for nothing more. On the other hand, those who are less familiar with the whole story might find your remarks in bad taste.

point taken, nuff said.

[FidoDido]

Gerorge94. Opposite. You should therefore have been spreading love and niceness in the direction of personal attack....

 

I'm just glad that I didn't chose to moor at Pillings a year ago when I needed to find a new spot. Thanks to this forum I saw some of the prior posts of Paul the owner made on Facebook etc, and discounted it.. The man seemed a loose cannon. I doubt I'm the only one who does their research, and in that respect, he is the victim of himself. I hope for the boaters sake that a better management comes to PL, as it's actually a rather nice marina in a good location, charging reasonable mooring fees.

 

I have the greatest sympathy with his father, but as Dean says, something's are best left off public forums. It was part of the downfall of your son. Be better than him. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but with sympathy.

[Phantasm]

 

 

You obviously don't know the history behind all this..

 

The majority have every sympathy towards Mr & Mrs J Lillie

True. I know the post will probably be removed I'll be banned but sometimes you just have to say it as it is.

 

As someone who was in at the start of this venture I can fully understand the animosity shown by John towards his son. He invested everything he had, including his house, into this venture and he and his wife worked hard to make it happen. Carol worked so hard in the office, and the café bar, and cleaned the loos to make sure things were right for the moorers. I'm sure John won't mind me saying but, yes he can blow up and tell you how he sees things, but at least he is man enough to realise when he is wrong, seek you out and apologise. And I respect him for that a hell of a lot more than his milksop of a son, who winds boaters up with his attitude and snide, sarcastic remarks and when they have a go at him he calls the police. I know who has the cojones in the family and it a'int PL.

 

I have SEEN and I have HEARD a lot of the things that went on at this marina. I was in the office one day when PL was being exceedingly rude to a moorer and quite frankly, had he been talking to me, I would have put him in the water.

 

But I agree the thread has gone off topic and I won't put anything else about it. I should be seeing friends over the weekend so may find out more what the situation is.

[George94]

Gerorge94. Opposite. You should therefore have been spreading love and niceness in the direction of personal attack....

 

I am not sure that you understood Mr Newton. Opposite refers to the direction, not to the character, of the action.

[Theo]

Greeny for Theo -- love a physicist!

Gee, thanks.

 

I can't get greenies, though. Cos I have the elevated and very lucrative position of Moderator (AKA Site Crew). This restriction helps to avoid bribery and corruption.

 

Again

 

Perhaps I should hide this...

 

Nick

 

PS Apart from the odd spat this topic has been very well behaved. All the mods are keen that it should not have to be removed. Keep it up chaps and ladies.

 

PPS Someone who quotes his boat's speed in terms of the speed of sound must be a physicist too!

Edited February 13, 2014 by Theo
To add the PPS

[MtB]

A point touched on a few days back but never expanded upon....

 

In voluntary liquidation the company gets to select a tame liquidator, so I understand. This means Mr Nelson was selected by QMP presumably.

 

A few suggestions were made that he might be a lapdog of the Steadmans, and consequently planning on wrapping things up as quickly as possible and with the minimum of questions asked, but we never explored this possibility.

 

Given the choice of liquidator can be challenged by the creditors, I must say I am surprised that CRT appears not to have taken any steps to get someone else appointed. This suggests CRT is perfectly happy with Mr Nelson's appointment.

 

What do we know about Mr Nelson and his independence, or otherwise? Has he acted for Steadman-controlled company liqudations in the past, do we know? Should we be bothered or can liquidators be trusted to adhere to strict professional standards?

 

MtB

[stickleback]

Very acute thinking MTB!

[tupperware]

Methinks Georges main aim is to have a view contrary to everyone elses.

 

As far as Tupperware's post go, though I've read the whole thread as it's rolled out I've only really understood what's really happening since he joined in with his excellent technical explanations. I think that's why George is getting abusive.

 

Thank you and I'm blushing.

 

I see that during my absence "George94" does seem to have engendered a little antagonism. I see that some of the flak came my way having being accused by the gentleman concerned of a "dishonest post" on the basis that I am supposed to have accused him of supporting non-payment under the NAA. Having revisited my post I and I made no such claim. I can only conclude that either George94 is experience some cognitive difficulties or is of the view that the only valid discussion is one in which everyone agrees 100% with everything he says. I suppose the jury is still out on that one? Anyway, enough of that.

 

Another couple of points have occurred during the last few days:

 

1. Someone was kind enough to post figures for the QMP for the period ending, I believe, June 2012. These showed liabilities of £2,750,000 described as a long-term loan. This, I assume, represents the mortgage sum outstanding in respect of the loan made by the Steadmans to QMP for the latter to purchase the site.. These same accounts also show current liabilities falling due within the following 12 months of just over £665,000. It seems likely that part of that sum may be monies due to CRT and it would be most interesting to know just how much, if any, QMP included in that figure as due to CRT. Either they included the full sum, in which case the company acknowledges the debt or they show a smaller sum in which case I would expect the accounts to show a qualifying note in respect of the disputed amount or they included nothing in which case the accounts do not represent a "full and fair" picture of the financial state. Did QMP actually pay anything to CRT during the 12 months following the accounts and had it received any monies from PLM during the preceding period in respect of those fees?

 

2. If CRT sever the marina from the national network in April which appears their current intention, then whether the business conducted from the site remains a marina might be a moot point. I assume that the original planning permission granted by the appropriate authority was for a marina business and its associated infrastructure and wonder if an inland sea would be regarded as a change of use or not. Certainly, it is unclear just what income PLM will actually have to remit to whoever the marina owners turn out to be in respect of the rent which they will need to pay. Just a thought.

A point touched on a few days back but never expanded upon....

 

In voluntary liquidation the company gets to select a tame liquidator, so I understand. This means Mr Nelson was selected by QMP presumably.

 

A few suggestions were made that he might be a lapdog of the Steadmans, and consequently planning on wrapping things up as quickly as possible and with the minimum of questions asked, but we never explored this possibility.

 

Given the choice of liquidator can be challenged by the creditors, I must say I am surprised that CRT appears not to have taken any steps to get someone else appointed. This suggests CRT is perfectly happy with Mr Nelson's appointment.

 

What do we know about Mr Nelson and his independence, or otherwise? Has he acted for Steadman-controlled company liqudations in the past, do we know? Should we be bothered or can liquidators be trusted to adhere to strict professional standards?

 

MtB

 

It has been suggested on this forum that the type of liquidation applied to QMP is a CVL which gives the creditors final say as to whether the Insolvency Practitioner proposed by the shareholders of the liquidated company is acceptable to them or not. I would be astonished were CRT to be unaware of this. Entry to the profession is regulated by the leading Accountancy and Legal bodies and also the appropriate department of state. Wikipedia has a god entry on CVLs at

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creditors%27_voluntary_liquidation

 

What a thoroughly offensive comment.

 

There is nothing dishonest in the post you quoted, just reasoned analysis.

 

 

MtB

 

Thanks Mike.

[tupperware]

 

What a thoroughly dishonest post. I have never suggested that the flaws in the scheme were a justification for not paying, or for not setting aside monies to pay.

 

And many people did indeed predict the calamity, though few, I think, the magnitude of it. That is why I said "Much smarter people than" Mr Mayall, not "Nobody". After all, there are plenty of people who are much smarter than the people who are much smarter than Mr Mayall.

 

I looked back at the post which precipitated your reply and am somewhat puzzled in being unable to find anything which could be construed as making such a claim. This puzzlement is, it would appear, shared by others.

 

Financial bubbles are nothing new and there will always be a few who can recognise that they are developing. It is to be regretted that this happy band did not include those organisations trading in financial instruments of doubtful provenance and those "regulatory" authorities, both here and elsewhere, whose smartness was conspicuous by its absence.

 

Finally, as we are not required to undergo any kind of intelligence test when we join this forum, it is only by judging the credibility of what the members post here that any kind of judgment as to their individual intellectual capacity may be made. Spurious claims and bogus assertions do not, of course, enhance one's credibility unless these are acknowledged.

 

I am sure that you will welcome this opportunity of correcting your error.

[tupperware]

Selective memory syndrome.

 

Or confirmation bias which, unfortunately, can affect even those with a comprehensive knowledge of both Newtonian Mechanics and languages.

[Paul G2]

 

 

Another couple of points have occurred during the last few days:

 

1. Someone was kind enough to post figures for the QMP for the period ending, I believe, June 2012. These showed liabilities of £2,750,000 described as a long-term loan. This, I assume, represents the mortgage sum outstanding in respect of the loan made by the Steadmans to QMP for the latter to purchase the site.. These same accounts also show current liabilities falling due within the following 12 months of just over £665,000. It seems likely that part of that sum may be monies due to CRT and it would be most interesting to know just how much, if any, QMP included in that figure as due to CRT. Either they included the full sum, in which case the company acknowledges the debt or they show a smaller sum in which case I would expect the accounts to show a qualifying note in respect of the disputed amount or they included nothing in which case the accounts do not represent a "full and fair" picture of the financial state. Did QMP actually pay anything to CRT during the 12 months following the accounts and had it received any monies from PLM during the preceding period in respect of those fees?

 

2. If CRT sever the marina from the national network in April which appears their current intention, then whether the business conducted from the site remains a marina might be a moot point. I assume that the original planning permission granted by the appropriate authority was for a marina business and its associated infrastructure and wonder if an inland sea would be regarded as a change of use or not. Certainly, it is unclear just what income PLM will actually have to remit to whoever the marina owners turn out to be in respect of the rent which they will need to pay. Just a thought.

 

 

As usual, you raise interesting points.

 

1. One would think that the creditors would push for a full accounting of the interactions between all three Steadman/Lillie Companies. It has been stated here that your bankruptcy laws contain provisions for claw backs if any creditors were given preferential treatment (payments) over others. Considering that CRT was apparently paid nothing, every creditor that was paid anything was given preferential treatment over CRT. It will be interesting to see if CRT pushes this point with the liquidator.

 

2. Someone had suggested earlier that Steadman has the kind of wealth that he could be making investments for future generations to exploit/develop. It has also been suggested that Steadman develops real estate and that what he really wants is to build houses in this area. It's interesting to note that nearby, in Quorn I think is the Town, there is a Cricket Club and a Bowling Club that appear to part of housing developments, and there is also a Football Club. Perhaps Mr. Steadman is thinking along the lines of a Yacht Club and associated housing development. (If he's not thinking Yacht Club, he should be! Even without a housing development there is plenty of room at Pillings to dedicate a section to a Yacht Club and for a Yacht Club to put up a nice clubhouse there on the premises. That seems like it would be one way to get the marina up to full occupancy.)

 

Regardless of the specifics of his future plans, a marina requires access to the canal and Steadman needs to make peace with CRT. Allowing Paul Lillie to send out letters to all the tenants about how cooperative he is trying to be and how terrible CRT is is not the best way to go about that. Steadman to needs to put a muzzle on that boy, at least until the liquidation and a new NAA are all sorted out.

 

I wonder what it would cost Steadman to buy the land (or an easement) and dig a channel and build a lock or flood gates to the river? Those NAA charges adds up. I bet you could offset the cost of connecting to the river within five to ten years, which is nothing in the life of a marina.

[Smelly]

Yacht club... How deep's the Soar?

[Willber G]

...

Those NAA charges adds up. I bet you could offset the cost of connecting to the river within five to ten years, which is nothing in the life of a marina.

That depends on whether or not you could get enough customers on that basis.

[tupperware]

 

As usual, you raise interesting points.

 

1. One would think that the creditors would push for a full accounting of the interactions between all three Steadman/Lillie Companies. It has been stated here that your bankruptcy laws contain provisions for claw backs if any creditors were given preferential treatment (payments) over others. Considering that CRT was apparently paid nothing, every creditor that was paid anything was given preferential treatment over CRT. It will be interesting to see if CRT pushes this point with the liquidator.

 

2. Someone had suggested earlier that Steadman has the kind of wealth that he could be making investments for future generations to exploit/develop. It has also been suggested that Steadman develops real estate and that what he really wants is to build houses in this area. It's interesting to note that nearby, in Quorn I think is the Town, there is a Cricket Club and a Bowling Club that appear to part of housing developments, and there is also a Football Club. Perhaps Mr. Steadman is thinking along the lines of a Yacht Club and associated housing development. (If he's not thinking Yacht Club, he should be! Even without a housing development there is plenty of room at Pillings to dedicate a section to a Yacht Club and for a Yacht Club to put up a nice clubhouse there on the premises. That seems like it would be one way to get the marina up to full occupancy.)

 

Regardless of the specifics of his future plans, a marina requires access to the canal and Steadman needs to make peace with CRT. Allowing Paul Lillie to send out letters to all the tenants about how cooperative he is trying to be and how terrible CRT is is not the best way to go about that. Steadman to needs to put a muzzle on that boy, at least until the liquidation and a new NAA are all sorted out.

 

I wonder what it would cost Steadman to buy the land (or an easement) and dig a channel and build a lock or flood gates to the river? Those NAA charges adds up. I bet you could offset the cost of connecting to the river within five to ten years, which is nothing in the life of a marina.

 

Thank you.

 

Your point about "Unfair Preference" (favouring one creditor over another) is one I raised here some days ago. An IP can go back over the last two years to look for evidence of this practice in any company whose activities he is winding up and where such activities are proven can require the return of such monies to be included in the liquidation "pot" for distribution to creditors. Where such activities are found an IP can also, I believe, consider the motivation for the act and can examine any associations between those directors who sanctioned the preference and the third parties who benefitted from it. Timing is also important in terms of the period which elapsed between the preference and the winding up. Consideration can also be taken as to whether at the date of the preference, the company was actually illiquid. I have mentioned two years as the normal historical period which an IP can review but I understand that, where if preference can be demonstrated, an application might be possible to consider earlier periods in addition.

 

Such matters will, of course, be of interest to CRT who are owed a significant sum and will, one assumes, seek to recover as much of their loss as possible.