Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

Absolutely!

 

However, the inescapable fact is that developers believed BW's assertion that demand for berths would outstrip supply up till 2015.

 

From memory, BW's new marinas unit asserted that 47 x 250 berth marinas would be needed.

 

The reality is that many marinas, including Pillings, have been built on a financial model that is unsustainable.

I've always implicity believed everything that timeshare 'marketing executives' have told me too!

 

Oh - hang on, no I haven't - I've always carried out my own, independent research, but whatever the outcome, I've always accepted that the final decisions, and the responsibilities for the outcome, were mine.

Edited by Grace & Favour
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan(nb Albert), on 02 Mar 2014 - 12:47 AM, said:

Absolutely!

 

However, the inescapable fact is that developers believed BW's assertion that demand for berths would outstrip supply up till 2015.

 

From memory, BW's new marinas unit asserted that 47 x 250 berth marinas would be needed.

 

The reality is that many marinas, including Pillings, have been built on a financial model that is unsustainable.

 

I would suggest that all of the other marinas built / opened since 2007 have been done so by astute businessmen -what other ( to use your words) unsustainable marinas have failed / closed after following the CRT guidance ? - and as a CRT representative said in the same article :

 

A CRT spokesman also pointed out that among about 50 Network Access Agreements they have in being, Pillings Lock Marina is the only one that has failed to pay the agreed charges.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something seems too good to be true - - then it probably is.

 

I believe a reasonable business adage is "Caveat Emptor"

"Caveat Emptor" is that similar to boreinas maximus, I can't understand the passion this thread as developed, before tha puts money into ow't surly its good sense to make sure its not a scam, loser, too risky, etc. if it is than don't do it, if you do please don't bleat afterwards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always implicity believed everything that timeshare 'marketing executives' have told me too!

 

Oh - hang on, no I haven't - I've always carried out my own, independent research, but whatever the outcome, I've always accepted that the final decisions, and the responsibilities for the outcome, were mine.

However, another marina owner suggests that NAA is causing problems for all marina operators.

My concern is for the boater who ends up paying this hidden tax. If marina berths are empty the boater simply has to pay more.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any business has fixed costs, you price your 'product' to cover your fixed costs, your variable costs and a bit extra for a profit. (profit is not a dirty word)

 

Any company will tell you that if their fixed cost were lower they could then make more profit - or lower their 'selling price'.

 

The company (Marina) prices their berths to cover their costs and make a profit - if customers are prepared to pay that much they do so, if not then they go elsewhere.

 

You may not be the 'cheapest' and not everyone wants the cheapest, they want security, services and service and will be prepared to pay extra for it. The company needs to identify what it is good at and promote that.

 

Pillings had 300 berths, they took out 50 berths and have an occupancy of "over 200" out of a possible 250.

At (say) an average of £2000 per mooring (and dont forget there are 50 residential berths presumably paying more) thats £400,000, then there is the shop, flat, bistro, workshop rents, gas, diesel, etc etc.

 

There is absolutely no way (apart from mis-management) that the NAA could not be paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, another marina owners suggests that NAA is causing problems for all marina operators.

 

My concern is for the boater who ends up paying this hidden tax. If marina berths are empty the boater simply has to pay more.

Allan why don't you set up a marina boater group, stick together and demand a fair payment not hidden tax, if not move en-mass and course a problem for CRT by mooring up in the "honey spots", and the owners of the marinas by lack of people, this may force them around the table.

 

This isn't going to happen though, because what I've experienced about a lot of marina dwellers they are frightened to go on the cut, they have floating caravans icecream.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a shame for the boaters on the marina; who, through no fault of their own, will face taking their boat away if they want to cruise; or just being moored on a lake -I think that the people running the marina should face their responsibilities and accept that they are to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

CRT have stated their intention to make sure marina holders cough up the NAA fees; I'm paraphrasing but I think that accurately summarises their thinking. So what if CRT were to really grow a pair and announce, or maybe merely just put the word about, that nobody will be granted a new NAA for Pillings Lock, or any other marina in future, unless any outstanding debts to CRT from that site are paid in full, even if there's a genuinely new and unconnected owner who's bought it from a liquidator?

 

 

I doubt CRT is able to hold responsible other (unconnected) business for the debit incurred by one marina. The business has been liquidated at the debt has gone. There appears to only be sufficient equity left in the business to pay the secured creditor.

 

The crucial words Roy Rollings and his new company seem to rely upon are that a NAA...

Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

But the NAA issued to QMP has been terminated. It is deceased. It is an ex-agreement. It cannot be transferred.

And who is the arbiter of "unreasonably withheld or delayed" anyway? I think it's CRT.

 

I suspect you are correct and CRT will probably be most unwilling to reach any type of commercial arrangement with the new company if it is linked to the previous senior management.

 

The effect of my suggested CRT policy would be that Steadman/Lillie, or anyone else who ends up with the freehold, would face a stark choice. They either just operate a lake+cafe with a few long term leaseholders paying nothing and maybe suing for compensation (see my earlier post #3625), or they cough up £185,000, plus another £30,000 or so to cover the last chunk of the NAA which ran April to December 2013, in order to get a new NAA which enables them to make a far greater amount back in new mooring fee income. Mr Steadman would surely quickly cave in once he knows the CRT are serious, and no marina would ever try to monkey with the CRT again. A very happy ending.

 

My assessment is that Mr Steadman is just a financial investor in a business that happened to be a marina. He has astutely managed his risk by ensuring the business is structured to protect his investment. He doesn't appear to have had much to do with the financial management of the business. Worst case, he can walk away with his money. It is the "new" business (QMP Mk2) that will have to convince CRT they have the ability to pay the NAA and that a NAA should not unreasonably be withheld.

 

The 180,000 has gone and CRT will have to recover from the loss by other means. Either by reducing their costs (eg, deferring maintenance, etc) or increasing their income (eg, raising boat license fees)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TC. This I put squarely at the door of the CRT. Despite claims that it has ‘spent many months trying to resolve the issue,’ the CRT has refused to make any concessions that recognize the enormous difficulties many new marina operators now face in having to pay connection charges on their empty berths.“

 

It appears to me that Tim Coghlan has his own agenda. Frankly I can’t imagine him accepting one of his own moorers telling him that his (the boater’s) income isn’t what he anticipated when he signed the marina mooring contract and he therefore needed a lower mooring fee.

 

TC. The development of Pillings Lock Marina is a top-of-the-market inland waterways marina story. The 300 berth marina was constructed in an existing gravel quarry adjacent to the River Sore, and opened in 2007. The developers had only nominal experience of operating marinas, and in supporting their near £3m investment, they relied heavily on what transpired to have been the highly optimistic forecasts on need and profitability contained in the BW Inland Marina Investment Guide, published only the previous year in March 2006. Amongst its more controversial statements was the following: ‘Indicative nominal pre-tax rates of return (IRR) for newly constructed marinas can be up to 18%’.

 

So the marina opened in 2007, the last boom year before the GFC and they did not have to pay the NAA for the first year and only 50% of it the 2nd year. Why couldn’t they fill the “top of the market inland waterways marina”? One can only assume there was a problem with their business model. It can’t have been a lack of available boats because CRT reached their forecast number of licensed boats on the network by 2011 instead of the predicted 2015.

 

To prevent the marina from trading under new ownership, the CRT is now ridiculously threatening to blockade its entrance from April with its work-boats, despite 200 moorers having paid their licences to navigate the CRT’s waterways. And the stakes continue to be raised.

 

Tim, CRT is not preventing the marina from trading under new ownership. There are no new owners to reach an agreement with! CRT have offered to refund the moorers CRT licence fee if they elect to remain inside the marina.

 

Tim, at one point you were very vocal about there being too many applications for new marinas. If I recall correctly you reputedly said there wasn’t enough water. You were against marina developments as they were unsustainable. Most of these new marinas continue to operate so I guess that makes your assessment invalid. You obviously run a successful business and are good at managing the risk. Perhaps you were a banker in a former life!

 

Managing a business is about managing the risk. The greater the predicted return (eg, 18% when interest rates are 0.25%) the greater the risk! However this business has been cleverly structured to ensure the major creditors are protected and it’s the unsecured creditors (the major one being CRT) who are paying the price for the business failing to effectively manage their risk!

 

It may not sit well with your perception of CRT, but in this instance they are one of the victims……!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pillings Lock Marina lock out By Tim Coghlan of Braunston Marina:

 

The dispute between the CRT and Pillings Lock Marina, for unpaid connection charges, is a very sad mess, which daily gets worse. This I put squarely at the door of the CRT. Despite claims that it has ‘spent many months trying to resolve the issue,’ the CRT has refused to make any concessions that recognize the enormous difficulties many new marina operators now face in having to pay connection charges on their empty berths. There are estimated presently to be in excess of 3,000 of them across the inland waterways, and increasing daily with the inexorable rise of the uncontrolled continuous cruisers - as boaters leave marinas to seek the free alternative to paying a marina mooring.

 

The development of Pillings Lock Marina is a top-of-the-market inland waterways marina story. The 300 berth marina was constructed in an existing gravel quarry adjacent to the River Sore, and opened in 2007. The developers had only nominal experience of operating marinas, and in supporting their near £3m investment, they relied heavily on what transpired to have been the highly optimistic forecasts on need and profitability contained in the BW Inland Marina Investment Guide, published only the previous year in March 2006. Amongst its more controversial statements was the following: ‘Indicative nominal pre-tax rates of return (IRR) for newly constructed marinas can be up to 18%’.

 

Since opening, Pillings Lock Marina has never been able to fill more than 200 of its 300 berths. The company has hardly traded profitably in most years, often recording losses. That 18% rate of return proved little more than a pipe dream. Had the CRT agreed to review new marina connection agreements, so as to base them on the actual mooring income received, it is quite possible that the Pillings Lock Marina dispute would never have got this far. Instead the CRT has spent £23,000 in legal costs, and obtained judgment for £185,000 arrears of connection charges - none of which it has much chance of collecting.

 

Pillings Lock Marina stated that it couldn’t pay, and has now gone into receivership, with the marina’s assets going to the mortgagee. To prevent the marina from trading under new ownership, the CRT is now ridiculously threatening to blockade its entrance from April with its work-boats, despite 200 moorers having paid their licences to navigate the CRT’s waterways. And the stakes continue to be raised.

 

Many marina operators had hoped that with BW’s move to charitable status as the CRT, and the installation of a new CEO free from the shackles of the old BW’s mantle, there might have been a change for the better. But it is more of the same, and the relationship between marina operators and the CRT has never been at a lower ebb. We marina operators feel we are dealing with a dysfunctional organisation that is at once the navigation authority, landlord and competitor – that will stop at nothing to get its own way. -

 

See more at: http://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/industry-news/pillings-lock-marina-dispute#sthash.QR6Rvpll.dpuf

 

Only 200 ever filled....interesting as csh states theres over 250 happy moorers there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim coghlan has been writing to anyone he can think of complaining about BW and C&RT for at least four years now. He seems to think he is hard done by and being screwed by all and sundry.

He is either making good money out of his business or he is a poor businessman. His total support for PL shows what sort of businessman he really is. And has not done himself any favours, either with boaters or other marina owners, most of which don't want anything to do with him and his constant anti-C&RT beatings.

Businesses have fixed costs. They know about them, or should do, before they start. So do your costings accordingly. It is notable that the marinas with the highest occupancy often have the highest mooring fees. Perhaps it is something to do with knowing how to run a business instead of expecting everything handed to you on a plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, another marina owner suggests that NAA is causing problems for all marina operators.

My concern is for the boater who ends up paying this hidden tax. If marina berths are empty the boater simply has to pay more.

I also have concern for a boater paying a very similar hidden tax. The difference being that this particular hidden tax is a lot more than 9%.

 

It is called an End Of Garden mooring and is payable even when the boater is away.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim coghlan has been writing to anyone he can think of complaining about BW and C&RT for at least four years now. He seems to think he is hard done by and being screwed by all and sundry.

He is either making good money out of his business or he is a poor businessman. His total support for PL shows what sort of businessman he really is. And has not done himself any favours, either with boaters or other marina owners, most of which don't want anything to do with him and his constant anti-C&RT beatings.

Businesses have fixed costs. They know about them, or should do, before they start. So do your costings accordingly. It is notable that the marinas with the highest occupancy often have the highest mooring fees. Perhaps it is something to do with knowing how to run a business instead of expecting everything handed to you on a plate.

I may be wrong, but I think this is the same guy who refused to sell me fuel at anything other than a 60/40 split claiming a) it's the law, and B) it was too much hassle to calculate other splits anyway.

He didn't get my business and I do hope many others did the same as me.

This doesn't strike me as good customer service/relations.

Bob

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a meeting today Richard Parry mentioned this in passing and his slide mentioned a "new NAA" but, tantalisingly, he didn't explain this and I couldnt get to buttonhole him before he left.

What pleased me about this talk by Richard Parry was that he had a preprepared overhead slide mentioning the Pillings Lock problem.

 

To me, this showed an awareness of the problem. I cannot remember exactly what the slide or Richard said, but to paraphrase in terms of ensuring the protection of CRT revenues and making certain this never happens again would not be far off the mark.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Link to comment
Share on other sites

see NBW for the latest on Pilling , looks like in years 3 and 4 Pilling made a net profit of £7k and £22k without factoring in the CRT costs.

 

This can't be right or the directors would be trading knowing the company was insolvent.

 

Looks like continuous cruisers and to blame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uncontrolled continuous cruisers?

 

No, no no! This is going too far

 

I have nothing against continuous cruisers, I insist that they must hold the tiller whilst boating

 

Richard

Edited by RLWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Coghlan's statement beggars belief. I'm not going all the way through it because others on here have made excellent comments on it but I do want to support a few points.

 

The developers had only nominal experience of operating marinas, and in supporting their near £3m investment, they relied heavily on what transpired to have been the highly optimistic forecasts on need and profitability contained in the BW Inland Marina Investment Guide, published only the previous year in March 2006. Amongst its more controversial statements was the following: ‘Indicative nominal pre-tax rates of return (IRR) for newly constructed marinas can be up to 18%’.

 

Any new business venture needs to satisfy itself that it's business plan relies on it's own research and not on projected figures of the other party, especially if you have only nominal experience of operating marinas. BW's statement was technically correct the returns could have been up to 18%. No-one with any sense would rely on the words, "should", "can", "may" etc.

 

Since opening, Pillings Lock Marina has never been able to fill more than 200 of its 300 berths.

 

WHY? If it was so good boaters would be flocking there and there would be a waiting list.

 

To prevent the marina from trading under new ownership

 

I would have sympathy with PLM/QMP if it were under new ownership but in the words of Tim Coghlan himself "it is more of the same"

 

We marina operators feel we are dealing with a dysfunctional organisation .............– that will stop at nothing to get its own way. -

 

Now PL knows how the boaters feel.

 

 

Tim coghlan has been writing to anyone he can think of complaining about BW and C&RT for at least four years now. He seems to think he is hard done by and being screwed by all and sundry.
He is either making good money out of his business or he is a poor businessman. His total support for PL shows what sort of businessman he really is. And has not done himself any favours, either with boaters or other marina owners, most of which don't want anything to do with him and his constant anti-C&RT beatings.
Businesses have fixed costs. They know about them, or should do, before they start. So do your costings accordingly. It is notable that the marinas with the highest occupancy often have the highest mooring fees. Perhaps it is something to do with knowing how to run a business instead of expecting everything handed to you on a plate.

 

Mr Coghlan was very vocal at one point about the number of marinas being built and was a bit of a nimby.

 

I will reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. If your business is not doing so well you don't continue to take your full remuneration from the coffers, you take the hit until the business picks up. That's what I did, but based on PL's actions I need to go back over my books and find some way of paying myself the last 2 years shortfall on salary. Wonder if he'll give me any tips?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on his own admission (in the text) he is taking a £60,000 salary out of a fledgling business.

Why not take £20,000, pay C&RT the £40,000 and let his life partner help out with the bills that his £20k dosn't cover

 

When I set up our company myself and my wife each took £100 per week for the first 3 years and lived off our savings

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on his own admission (in the text) he is taking a £60,000 salary out of a fledgling business.

Why not take £20,000, pay C&RT the £40,000 and let his life partner help out with the bills that his £20k dosn't cover

 

When I set up our company myself and my wife each took £100 per week for the first 3 years and lived off our savings

Alan, this is one of my points exactly. I think you posted whilst I was still writing mine. He has taken a full salary, and a no-interest loan to cover buying his house, from a business that is not turning a profit. I did not take a salary for the first year at all, and then only living expenses for the next.

 

I cannot state that I know, but I suspect (and it's only my opinion) that his partner would also have been paid a salary. Or at the very least a "commission" for re-designing the café.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.