Dispute at Pillings

[George94]

well done to all for keeping this unlocked for 300 pages. The chances of tis happening - everyone playing nice - is quite small. I don't think there is anything new to learn here, but the discussion in general is still interesting.

 

I am not sure that you have read very much of the thread! :-)

[George94]

Thank you! That rather endorses my assertion that berths are unlikely to reduce in price if there is no NAA.

 

You may well be right, Jerra, given the present number of marinas near to major population centres. They seem to offer enough berths to satisfy demand at the price they are (all, apparently) charging.

 

What is happening is that the marinas are charging what the market will bear, which they can only do if there are not enough marina berths to satisfy demand at a lower price point. In other words, if there were more berths available, competition would force prices down and as a consequence, demand would rise.

 

This of course is what we all (except the marina owners) want to happen. More marina berths, lower prices, more boats in marinas, fewer boats on the cut. And the ready availability of berths at reasonable prices should encourage more boats to be bought, which would raise CART's revenue.

 

The problem at the moment is that in those areas where there is an apparent shortage of marinas (evidenced by them being full, and with waiting lists), not enough new marinas are opening, so there is no effective competition.

 

And why are not enough new marinas opening? Well, high fixed costs might be a factor, might they not? :-)

 

Mr Mayall claims that there is already a surplus of marina berths. Unfortunately, he has forgotten the old rule of location, location, location. In some areas, no doubt there are too many berths available, but in others it's a different story.

[George94]

In 1989 the ruling body of Golf - the R&A published a report entitled The Demand for Golf, which argued the case for up to 700 new golf courses needed to be built by the year 2000.

 

The following 3 or 4 years saw a huge number of Golf Courses open.

 

Since the early 1990’s it has been proven that too many new golf courses have been built, of the wrong kind, in the wrong location, to a low specification with poor drainage and many with lack-lustre or non-existent facilities.

 

Numbers playing Golf has actually decreased year-on-year, membership of Golf Course has fallen considerably and changes in the "market" mean that many people no longer join a golf club - they are just 'pay-and-play' floaters (CCers ?)

 

It has recently been announced that the country already has too many golf courses and any more could put too much pressure on existing facilities. Planning applications for new courses should be refused.

 

It was revealed in a KPMG market survey that 89% of clubs are actively seeking new members and half have not made a profit in the last 12 months.

 

On a UK wide basis, many older (and even the newer) golf clubs today are barely managing to survive with little or no money, struggling to make essential improvements, and having to reduce costs which often involves cutting staff levels.

 

Golf course owners have to pay a capitation fee for each and every member, to both the Golf Union and the Regional / County golf authorities.

 

A study by the London-based Golf Research Group estimates that 88 per cent of the 388 courses built since 1989 could be in need of financial intensive care. According to the group's report, 14 courses went into receivership last year alone.

 

 

Sounds a familiar story ?

 

The large number of Golf Courses that opened in the early 90's, and subsequently closed or went 'bust', received no 'compensation' from the R&A for misleading them with incorrect market demand proposals.

 

Good post, and a very familiar story!

 

In fairness to BW and the Royal and Ancient, things looked very different before the global crash (though I take your point that golf clubs were in trouble before that). Also, with restrictions on agricultural output, golf course seemed a good way for farmers to use redundant land which couldn't be built on for planning reasons.

[Alan de Enfield]

There may be some element of 'location' invoved but look at the scenario of Pillings.

 

Pillings is/was about 50% occupied yet within about a 10 mile radius there are a couple of marinas that are full - even with waiting lists - and another Marina (Sawley - a bit further away) at something like 70% capacity.

 

The customers choose to pay more to get what they want, the marina that meets, or exceeds. customers expectations will always be full, whilst those that 'rip-off' customers (electricity overcharging), sabotage customers boats, swear & insult customers, post obnoxious comments about customers on Facebook, do not pay their bills and so on ad-infinitum have little to commend them -

 

Yet you are surprised when such marinas are 'empty' ?

[NigelMoore]

For example, even though BW’s eminent QC’s asserted that s.43 entitled their client to unilaterally impose the charges and conditions for which they were seeking Parliamentary approval, they acknowledged that the legal force of the argument was in doubt [hence asking for the non-ambiguous statutory clauses].

 

Not having the material to hand, I can’t post the relevant excerpts by way of establishing that, but will do so in a few days’ time.

 

Finally got my laptop back in order. So herewith the House of Lords Select Committee minutes, with Mr Lockhart-Mummery QC explaining why they [bW] sought the clauses they did, in the 1990 Bill – because, according to him, while BW were confident that s.43(3) gave them all the powers they wanted already, there was admitted legal uncertainty about it.

 

 

Naturally enough, mayalld will support his confidence, while I applaud his caution – but it illustrates what I said in my quoted post:

 

“At the very least, there are grave doubts as to what you describe as the “catch all” nature of s.43 – this used to be recognised by BW in less desperate times.”

[johnlillie]

There may be some element of 'location' invoved but look at the scenario of Pillings.

 

Pillings is/was about 50% occupied yet within about a 10 mile radius there are a couple of marinas that are full - even with waiting lists - and another Marina (Sawley - a bit further away) at something like 70% capacity.

 

The customers choose to pay more to get what they want, the marina that meets, or exceeds. customers expectations will always be full, whilst those that 'rip-off' customers (electricity overcharging), sabotage customers boats, swear & insult customers, post obnoxious comments about customers on Facebook, do not pay their bills and so on ad-infinitum have little to commend them -

 

Yet you are surprised when such marinas are 'empty' ?

couldn't have put it better myself, sums it up brilliantly

[Dangerous Dave]

 

Well, actually, it doesn't have to be. Personally, I don't do facebook or that kind of social media, so I have no idea how their systems work. However, if you just think about search engines, that's a different story. Every time someone types Pillings Lock Marina into a thread here, or anytime PLM is mentioned anywhere on the internet, Google et al will pick that up and return the post (or thread) as a hit.

 

Anyone that is using a search engine to research PLM is going to come across a lot of hits for CWDF, and this thread in particular. This thread has long passed its usefulness in terms of informing the public about the shenanigans at PLM, simply because it is so long no one is going to read it from beginning to end. Now, if a person wanted to enlighten the public about things that had happened at PLM, the best way to do that would probably be to start a new thread, and to make sure that Pillings Lock Marina was spelled out as part of the title.

 

Let's say, for instance, you wanted people to be aware of the incident where PLM vandalized/disabled a fellow's boat because the boat owner owed the marina some money. What you would do is think of a snappy title, that included PLM spelled out. Then you write a factual summary of what happened (all of the info is here on this thread) and then use your snappy title and well-written, factual, unemotional synopsis. You would want to be sure to spell out Pillings Lock Marina a number of times in your synopsis, because that is what search engines will hit on. If you actually go to the trouble of doing it, you can get the information out there and get it noticed.

 

 

As always Paul ...You have put me /us STRAight!!

 

Over to you John!

[George94]

There may be some element of 'location' invoved but look at the scenario of Pillings.

 

Pillings is/was about 50% occupied yet within about a 10 mile radius there are a couple of marinas that are full - even with waiting lists - and another Marina (Sawley - a bit further away) at something like 70% capacity.

 

The customers choose to pay more to get what they want, the marina that meets, or exceeds. customers expectations will always be full, whilst those that 'rip-off' customers (electricity overcharging), sabotage customers boats, swear & insult customers, post obnoxious comments about customers on Facebook, do not pay their bills and so on ad-infinitum have little to commend them -

 

Yet you are surprised when such marinas are 'empty' ?

 

I am not at all surprised. But my comments have nothing to do with Pillings.

Edited May 17, 2014 by George94

[johnlillie]

apparently, PLM or its staff no longer look at this forum, for some reason or another........

[NigelMoore]

Remember that BW had a policy of finding a way of reducing permanent on line moorings as it was beginning to reacha scale that irritated many boaters (or at least those who move their boats some distamnce) and it was reasonable for them to encourage the alternative which reduces the demand for on line mooring.

 

This is correct. I have no recollection of when NAA’s &/or the prior equivalent were first brought in, but BW’s thinking regarding online moorings vis-à-vis marinas was outlined before the House of Lords when promoting the 1990 Bill. They wanted a reduction in online moorings [or at least wanted them kept for visitor facilities mainly], and intended to promote off-line facilities accordingly.

 

Lockhart-Mummery examining BW’s NE Regional Manager [Mr Ian Wright], Tuesday 21 May 1991 –

 

 

 

Edit to say I find these coming up largely blanked for reasons that escape me. ?

 

The bottom segment should read - ". . . moored in those marinas and not on on-line moorings which give us cause for concern.

 

1. In those occasions where such moorings have been or will be established, what would you seek to do in relation to linear moorings in that area? A. We would endeavour to restrict those moorings such that craft transfer into the new marinas and then use those linear moorings for visitors and local use, if need be."

Edited May 17, 2014 by NigelMoore

[George94]

So just to make off-line moorings more attractive, BW introduced the NAA so that people would find marina charges to be "reassuringly expensive".

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

One can imagine a meeting of the BW board.

 

Chairman: "So then, we need to find more money. Any ideas?"

Director: "Let's encourage more people to buy boats".

Chairman: "Great idea. But how?".

Another Director: "I know - let's raise the price of mooring".

Chairman: "Genius! All in favour say Aye."

Chorus: "Aye,aye,aye,aye".

Exeunt all rejoicing.

[mayalld]

So just to make off-line moorings more attractive, BW introduced the NAA so that people would find marina charges to be "reassuringly expensive".

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

One can imagine a meeting of the BW board.

 

Chairman: "So then, we need to find more money. Any ideas?"

Director: "Let's encourage more people to buy boats".

Chairman: "Great idea. But how?".

Another Director: "I know - let's raise the price of mooring".

Chairman: "Genius! All in favour say Aye."

Chorus: "Aye,aye,aye,aye".

Exeunt all rejoicing.

Every theory you have supposes that BW had a bottomless pot of money.

 

In order to encourage off line mooring, you need to restrict on line mooring availability.

 

Doing so eats into their income stream and also acts to drive business towards new marinas.

 

I see no evidence that there has been a reduction in the number of boats, so yet another junk theory that amounts to little more than "not fair"

[matty40s]

So just to make off-line moorings more attractive, BW introduced the NAA so that people would find marina charges to be "reassuringly expensive".

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

One can imagine a meeting of the BW board.

 

Chairman: "So then, we need to find more money. Any ideas?"

Director: "Let's encourage more people to buy boats".

Chairman: "Great idea. But how?".

Another Director: "I know - let's raise the price of mooring".

Chairman: "Genius! All in favour say Aye."

Chorus: "Aye,aye,aye,aye".

Exeunt all rejoicing.

You really have lost the plot now George, time for your medicine.

[Ray T]

So just to make off-line moorings more attractive, BW introduced the NAA so that people would find marina charges to be "reassuringly expensive".

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

One can imagine a meeting of the BW board.

 

Chairman: "So then, we need to find more money. Any ideas?"

Director: "Let's encourage more people to buy boats".

Chairman: "Great idea. But how?".

Another Director: "I know - let's raise the price of mooring".

Chairman: "Genius! All in favour say Aye."

Chorus: "Aye,aye,aye,aye".

Exeunt all rejoicing.

 

George, have you ever thought of becoming a contributor to NBW?

You'd fit in well I'm sure.

[Paul G2]

If only there were some way of finding a fairly new marina that didn't have the burden of an NAA. One could not only compare the rents at that marina to others in the area to see if the owner/operator passed those NAA savings on to the moorers, but one could also hold that marina up as a paradigm of success, as no doubt said marina would be in great financial shape without the burden of the NAA, and at full capacity with a waiting list because they had the competitive advantage of no NAA.

 

Now if only one could find a modern marina that operated for four or five years with no NAA. Where to look, where to look??? Surely this shining example and proof of everything George94 posits has to exist somewhere.

[Jerra]

If only there were some way of finding a fairly new marina that didn't have the burden of an NAA. One could not only compare the rents at that marina to others in the area to see if the owner/operator passed those NAA savings on to the moorers, but one could also hold that marina up as a paradigm of success, as no doubt said marina would be in great financial shape without the burden of the NAA, and at full capacity with a waiting list because they had the competitive advantage of no NAA.

 

Now if only one could find a modern marina that operated for four or five years with no NAA. Where to look, where to look??? Surely this shining example and proof of everything George94 posits has to exist somewhere.

Its a tough one

[matty40s]

Funnily enough, there are lots of new marinas PAYING the NAA which are a profitable concern, with happy customers,, almost full....i.e....success.

 

However, this does not suit George, who on a thread about Pillings, wants to talk about general marinas and NAA unfairness.

Edited May 17, 2014 by matty40s

[adam1uk]

So just to make off-line moorings more attractive, BW introduced the NAA so that people would find marina charges to be "reassuringly expensive".

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

One can imagine a meeting of the BW board.

 

Chairman: "So then, we need to find more money. Any ideas?"

Director: "Let's encourage more people to buy boats".

Chairman: "Great idea. But how?".

Another Director: "I know - let's raise the price of mooring".

Chairman: "Genius! All in favour say Aye."

Chorus: "Aye,aye,aye,aye".

Exeunt all rejoicing.

You keep on assuming that the NAA is higher than previous agreements. But there's an article on Jim Shead's site about the history of Braunston marina which say their agreement is to pay 20 per cent of moorings income.

[FadeToScarlet]

The thing that gets me is that Pillings, and other marinas, are fully in control of how much they pay for NAA. If they foind it was too much, they could remove a few pontoons- easy, as they have a slipway and plenty of staff on site already!

 

It's like moaning about an electricity bill being too high, whilst keeping all the lights on in the house 24/7.

[furnessvale]

You keep on assuming that the NAA is higher than previous agreements. But there's an article on Jim Shead's site about the history of Braunston marina which say their agreement is to pay 20 per cent of moorings income.

You have just beaten me to it. A post a couple of days ago mention that previous agreements varied and the industry was keen to have a standard agreement that all could work to.

 

Does anyone have any knowledge of earlier agreements that could be thrown into the pot?

 

George (NOT 94) ex nb Alton retired

[George94]

You keep on assuming that the NAA is higher than previous agreements. But there's an article on Jim Shead's site about the history of Braunston marina which say their agreement is to pay 20 per cent of moorings income.

 

I don't think I have ever suggested that the NAA is higher than previous arrangements. But thanks for pointing that out. It explains why the trade body supports the NAA, which did seem to me rather like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

ETA: Except, that is, in my previous post, which was made in jest.

 

The point being, that whilst charges on marinas may raise more money in the short term, in the long term they will have the opposite effect, by discouraging the building of marinas, and by pricing people off the canal.

 

When demand is inelastic, as it is for water, people will just pay more when there is a price rise. They won't stop using water, though of course for a while they will endeavour to use less. This is why we have to have a system to regulate the water companies and the prices they charge. If we didn't, we'd be paying more for water than we are for petrol.

 

When demand is elastic, as it is for boating, higher prices will tend to reduce demand. BW recognised this, it would seem, by lowering the price of access. In my view they need to lower it further. To zero. That's if they still want to encourage more people to use marinas. And more people to build them.

Edited May 18, 2014 by George94

[adam1uk]

I don't think I have ever suggested that the NAA is higher than previous arrangements. But thanks for pointing that out. It explains why the trade body supports the NAA, which did seem to me rather like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Really? What were you suggesting in this post, then?

 

So just to make off-line moorings more attractive, BW introduced the NAA so that people would find marina charges to be "reassuringly expensive".

 

You couldn't make it up.

 

One can imagine a meeting of the BW board.

 

Chairman: "So then, we need to find more money. Any ideas?"

Director: "Let's encourage more people to buy boats".

Chairman: "Great idea. But how?".

Another Director: "I know - let's raise the price of mooring".

Chairman: "Genius! All in favour say Aye."

Chorus: "Aye,aye,aye,aye".

Exeunt all rejoicing.

[George94]

Really? What were you suggesting in this post, then?

 

 

I was jesting, old chap. I don't really think the meeting went like that.

 

But I have amended my previous post.

Every theory you have supposes that BW had a bottomless pot of money.

 

In order to encourage off line mooring, you need to restrict on line mooring availability.

 

Doing so eats into their income stream and also acts to drive business towards new marinas.

 

I see no evidence that there has been a reduction in the number of boats, so yet another junk theory that amounts to little more than "not fair"

 

No. But I think increasing volumes rather than prices is the right way to go to maximise revenue.

Yes.

True - and driving people into marinas is their stated objective.

The number of new boats coming onto the canal is a long way below BW's projections. And I believe that the number of CC licences has grown at a faster rate than the number of home-mooring licences. However, this is based on what somebody here stated, I haven't seen any official figures.

 

BTW, there's a lot to be said for fairness. Distorting the market is seldom a good idea.

Edited May 18, 2014 by George94

[furnessvale]

BTW, there's a lot to be said for fairness. Distorting the market is seldom a good idea.

As you have finally admitted that marinas not being subject to NAA can be subject to a variety of charges, some of which may be higher than NAA, what could be fairer than a single unified charge applicable to all?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[George94]

As you have finally admitted that marinas not being subject to NAA can be subject to a variety of charges, some of which may be higher than NAA, what could be fairer than a single unified charge applicable to all?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

That's easy. Charging on-line moorers the same amount. And charging all marinas the same amount.

 

But I am less concerned with fairness in itself (though that is important) than by the effect in has in discouraging the building of new marinas.