matty40s Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 just fill the gap with mud and lift the moorers out when they pay their licence. job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted April 10, 2014 Report Share Posted April 10, 2014 i can't get my head around CRT's mentality on this, why would they agree to a new NAA with someone that don't own or have shares in PLM, surely the MARINA should be having the NAA with CRT not a subsidiary company or an outsider that has nothing to do with the marina, the only thing in common with PLM and PLTL and 750 Leicester Ltd is the marina address. Roy Rollings has nothing to do with the marina at all so why is he signing the NAA, i don't think CRT are right in the head over this. This will explain it all: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patty-ann Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Hmmm having my ole pal insomnia sitting here I decided that the Pillings Lock thread could be just the medicine needed, it appears that a bit of upset has occurred ---not quite managed to read all but just thought that with a thread this long some one is bound to get upset but threats of solicitors and police shows emotions running high. When will it end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodGurl Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Hmmm having my ole pal insomnia sitting here I decided that the Pillings Lock thread could be just the medicine needed, it appears that a bit of upset has occurred ---not quite managed to read all but just thought that with a thread this long some one is bound to get upset but threats of solicitors and police shows emotions running high. When will it end? MONDAY??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patty-ann Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 You really think this thread will end Monday?? That's awfully optimistic considering there will be at least .......post mortons and analysises ---my spellings rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodGurl Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 nah it wont end monday but we will have an outcome to debate even further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boathunter Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) i can't get my head around CRT's mentality on this, why would they agree to a new NAA with someone that don't own or have shares in PLM, surely the MARINA should be having the NAA with CRT not a subsidiary company or an outsider that has nothing to do with the marina, the only thing in common with PLM and PLTL and 750 Leicester Ltd is the marina address. Roy Rollings has nothing to do with the marina at all so why is he signing the NAA, i don't think CRT are right in the head over this. In a nutshell. I think that's what we're all wondering. To me it seems CaRT have left a big hole in their safety net by requiring the deal to be done with the technical owner of the marina. This would seem to be open to a very simple abuse as happened last time with the company set up to own the marina and nothing more, sitting there getting into debt yet again regardless of whether they pay year one in advance or not. In my opinion, from recent postings from the people directly connected to the marina it's clear that they still regard the NAA as something they shouldn't have to pay and will try every trick in the book to wriggle out of. So they pay £30k this year. The bigger picture is that's £30k out of £210K. Wriggling pretty well thus far I'd say? My TV licence requires me to be miles ahead even though I pay by direct debit. A similar situation should be in place for this NAA in my opinion. They pay a year in advance, then continue to pay every 3 months so they are always a year ahead. This would give CaRT 9 months credit to fight for the next payment and plenty of time to give warning and be ready to block the entrance the very next day after the credit ran out, which you can bet your bottom dollar it will if past performance is any guide. Edited April 11, 2014 by boathunter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Fizz Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 "But payments were never up to scratch" Well Paul Lillie should know all about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughty Cal Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 In a nutshell. I think that's what we're all wondering. To me it seems CaRT have left a big hole in their safety net by requiring the deal to be done with the technical owner of the marina. This would seem to be open to a very simple abuse as happened last time with the company set up to own the marina and nothing more, sitting there getting into debt yet again regardless of whether they pay year one in advance or not. In my opinion, from recent postings from the people directly connected to the marina it's clear that they still regard the NAA as something they shouldn't have to pay and will try every trick in the book to wriggle out of. So they pay £30k this year. The bigger picture is that's £30k out of £210K. Wriggling pretty well thus far I'd say? My TV licence requires me to be miles ahead even though I pay by direct debit. A similar situation should be in place for this NAA in my opinion. They pay a year in advance, then continue to pay every 3 months so they are always a year ahead. This would give CaRT 9 months credit to fight for the next payment and plenty of time to give warning and be ready to block the entrance the very next day after the credit ran out, which you can bet your bottom dollar it will if past performance is any guide. Do we know for sure what sort of payment terms CRT are looking for here? They may well be looking for a payment in advance of reopening the marina access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray T Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 "Snip" Still the same PL...The dictators empire falling around him and he still tries to dictate the situation. I'm so pleased that you found somewhere else! Why do the words "fiddling, Rome and burning" come to mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLWP Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Do we know for sure what sort of payment terms CRT are looking for here? No, of course not. It's an agreement between two businesses Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerra Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 No, of course not. It's an agreement between two businesses Richard So am I right in understanding that the terms of the NAA aren't the same for everybody? Surely to have a "level playing field" everybody should be on the same terms including payment or have I got something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) So am I right in understanding that the terms of the NAA aren't the same for everybody? Surely to have a "level playing field" everybody should be on the same terms including payment or have I got something wrong? The terms of payment will vary (or ought to) according to the creditworthiness of the marina business holding the NAA. In reality AIUI the terms of payment of most NAAs are quarterly, paid at in advance at the start of each quarter. Quite how CRT managed to allow the Pillings thing to drag on to being five years in arrears beggars belief, and I've seen scant evidence the same thing won't be allowed to happen again should PLT get their NAA. My fear is that PLT will say and make whatever commitments it takes to get the NAA, but PLT will then make bugger all payments. CRT will then be back to square one, never holding PLT to account just as they failed to hold QMP to account once a payment was missed. CRT will let things slip, and slip, and slip, and slip until things until PLT are years behind, never actually applying the terms in the contract, as they have a solid track record of doing... MtB Edited April 11, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stickleback Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 My fear is that PLT will say and make whatever commitments it takes to get the NAA, but PLT will then make bugger all payments. CRT will then be back to square one, never holding PLT to account just as they failed to hold QMP to account once a payment was missed. CRT will let things slip, and slip, and slip, and slip until things until PLT are years behind, never actually applying the terms in the contract, as they have a solid track record of doing... MtB I would HOPE that at the first sign of non - payment, CRT would block the canal access until payment had been made.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costalot Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 The terms of payment will vary (or ought to) according to the creditworthiness of the marina business holding the NAA. In reality AIUI the terms of payment of most NAAs are quarterly, paid at in advance at the start of each quarter. Quite how CRT managed to allow the Pillings thing to drag on to being five years in arrears beggars belief, and I've seen scant evidence the same thing won't be allowed to happen again should PLT get their NAA. My fear is that PLT will say and make whatever commitments it takes to get the NAA, but PLT will then make bugger all payments. CRT will then be back to square one, never holding PLT to account just as they failed to hold QMP to account once a payment was missed. CRT will let things slip, and slip, and slip, and slip until things until PLT are years behind, never actually applying the terms in the contract, as they have a solid track record of doing... MtB I doubt CRT will allow the same situation to re-occur. I believe somewhere it was mentioned the proposed payment was 12 months in advance. As CRT have already gone to court once over late and non payment I'd be more inclined to believe any future non/late payment will result immediate closure of access to the canal. I also suspect from the signing of the new NAA CRT will be a high priority on PLT list of creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlillie Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 CSH stated earlier somewhere that PLT are having to pay 12 months (£31k) in advance, and close G jetty as terms of agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costalot Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 It will be interesting to see whether the jetty is 'closed' or 'removed'. If it is closed then I would anticipate CRT will closely monitor the area to ensure it doesn't 'open'. I also wonder whether CRT will reinstate some of the towpath moorings now that the capacity of PLM has been reduced along with the reduction in the revenue from the new NAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0atman Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 CaRT should never have got rid of their moorings it is up to private marinas to attract their customers Its called business competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Dave Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Well this is the last working day of sorts before the deadline.. I wonder if the "team" are pulling out all the stops for the wonderful community over the weekend. Or has it been solved today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 CSH stated earlier somewhere that PLT are having to pay 12 months (£31k) in advance, and close G jetty as terms of agreement Did he? I thought it was you who stated this! MtB I doubt CRT will allow the same situation to re-occur. I believe somewhere it was mentioned the proposed payment was 12 months in advance. As CRT have already gone to court once over late and non payment I'd be more inclined to believe any future non/late payment will result immediate closure of access to the canal. I also suspect from the signing of the new NAA CRT will be a high priority on PLT list of creditors. Why do you doubt this? With the previous NAA CRT were entitled to block off the access the minute a single quarterly payment fell into arrears. Instead, they waited six years and even now they still haven't done it. Their track record in holding both QMP and piss-taking CMers to account suggests they are highly likely to allow the same situation to occur again, surely. MtB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangerous Dave Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 CSH stated earlier somewhere that PLT are having to pay 12 months (£31k) in advance, and close G jetty as terms of agreement Closing G block only condenses the occupancy of the marina. Nothing lost there apart from the berths that would become available in the future of occupancy ..Which is unlikely to happen until Nero has gone! Of course money talks and in a short term offering more moorings at really cut down prices(£1299) is a good deal for non live aboards can as has been seen in the last year the only way for the marina to carry on.. During the 2012 winter the marina was nearly half empty due to the antics of the management..The area near the caff was full of boats for sale or the boat trip scene. The constant special deals have only filled the marina as it stands up until my attendance last June. I like a lot of posters on here would say that despite what happens with a NAA the marina is finished as a running concern. Of course we all realise that a lot of people there still and in the future live in PL';s La La land! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grace and Favour Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Did he? I thought it was you who stated this! MtB CSH: Link to post Extract " We have higher occupancy levels than in previous years and have negotiated and agreement that is satisfactory. We will be paying a year up front." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willber G Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Why is CSH acting as spokesman for PLT - isn't that RR's job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughty Cal Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Well this is the last working day of sorts before the deadline.. I wonder if the "team" are pulling out all the stops for the wonderful community over the weekend. Or has it been solved today? Would you like the legal teams bill if they had to work weekends as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pen n Ink Posted April 11, 2014 Report Share Posted April 11, 2014 Why is CSH acting as spokesman for PLT - isn't that RR's job? Maybe - but he hasn't been told what to say or think...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now