Dispute at Pillings

[Pen n Ink]

Just another of my random middle-of-the-night thoughts..

 

From what I've read, the water is CRT's. That being the case, what is to stop them putting a dam across the entrance, and simply pumping their water back into their system? If they wanted to avoid any controversy over access and ownership they would simply build the dam a foot out into the canal, and put the suction hoses in the dead space behind.

 

That way there wouldn't be a marina from which to "withhold access" and the boot would be firmly on their own foot, newco or no newco.

 

Of course, I'm assuming that all boaters with any intentions of actually wanting to use their boats in the foreseeable future are going to get the hell out of there in the very near future!

[Stilllearning]

 

 

 

Of course, I'm assuming that all boaters with any intentions of actually wanting to use their boats in the foreseeable future are going to get the hell out of there in the very near future!

 

Just another of my random middle-of-the-night thoughts..

 

From what I've read, the water is CRT's. That being the case, what is to stop them putting a dam across the entrance, and simply pumping their water back into their system? If they wanted to avoid any controversy over access and ownership they would simply build the dam a foot out into the canal, and put the suction hoses in the dead space behind.

 

That way there wouldn't be a marina from which to "withhold access" and the boot would be firmly on their own foot, newco or no newco.

 

Of course, I'm assuming that all boaters with any intentions of actually wanting to use their boats in the foreseeable future are going to get the hell out of there in the very near future!

If the Soar is anything like the Trent is at the moment, it is unlikely that boats will be able to leave the marina.....

[nicknorman]

 

If the Soar is anything like the Trent is at the moment, it is unlikely that boats will be able to leave the marina.....

Yes and imagine the irony when, having completed pumping all the water out of the marina, it floods over the top of the dam and all the water goes back in!

[MtB]

Just another of my random middle-of-the-night thoughts..

 

From what I've read, the water is CRT's. That being the case, what is to stop them putting a dam across the entrance, and simply pumping their water back into their system? If they wanted to avoid any controversy over access and ownership they would simply build the dam a foot out into the canal, and put the suction hoses in the dead space behind.

 

Have you actually read ANY of this thread at all?

 

Cutting off the access with a 'dam' is exactly what CRT have announced they are doing in April, and the thread is all about. There is no need to pump the water back out.

 

Or are you just yanking out anchor chains posting this?

 

MtB

[Jerra]

 

Have you actually read ANY of this thread at all?

 

Cutting off the access with a 'dam' is exactly what CRT have announced they are doing in April, and the thread is all about. There is no need to pump the water back out.

 

Or are you just yanking out anchor chains posting this?

 

MtB

I think the idea was that if there is no water there is no marina for anyone to negotiate access from. However as pointed out flooding would solve the lack of water.

[MtB]

I think the idea was that if there is no water there is no marina for anyone to negotiate access from. However as pointed out flooding would solve the lack of water.

 

Indeed, and once the 'dam' is in place, a microsecond of thought shows the desired result has been achieved without all the effort of pumping, as the marina can no longer be used as such.

 

Further, as the marina does not have it's own water supply it will slowly empty out anyway, probably...

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to remove an unnecessary word, and add a missing one!)

Edited January 21, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Jerra]

 

Indeed, and once the 'dam' is in place, a microsecond of thought shows the desired result has been achieved without all the effort of pumping, as the marina can no longer be used as such.

 

Further, as the marina does not have it's own water supply it will slowly empty out anyway, probably...

 

MtB

 

 

(Edit to remove an unnecessary word, and add a missing one!)

There is still a marina and whoever runs it can claim CRT doesn't have the right to "unreasonably" withhold an agreement. Which will probably mean more court cases to establish if they are being reasonable.

 

At least that is how I read the poster idea. I might be wrong -i t has been known.

[johnlillie]

The marina only ever flooded once, that was when the pendulum sluice upstream was left closed, an oversight by BW! The marina would not hold a very high water level for long if and when it is blocked off, prior to me removing the stop planks in 2007 to fill the basin, there was barely 6 inches of water in the basin.

[gaggle]

 

 

Of course, I'm assuming that all boaters with any intentions of actually wanting to use their boats in the foreseeable future are going to get the hell out of there in the very near future!

 

If the Soar is anything like the Trent is at the moment, it is unlikely that boats will be able to leave the marina.....

In one of pilings posts he says C&RT will lose £50,000 in licence money that boats in the marina will no longer be liable to pay , so it looks like he is expecting a lot of boats to stay in the cut off marina and not be liable to pay for a licence , could there by any chance be that many people who after being informed of whats going on would remain inside the marina , piling seems to think so.

 

[Pen n Ink]

 

Have you actually read ANY of this thread at all?

 

Cutting off the access with a 'dam' is exactly what CRT have announced they are doing in April, and the thread is all about. There is no need to pump the water back out.

 

Or are you just yanking out anchor chains posting this?

 

MtB

 

Sorry - I hadn't seen the word Dam used anywhere… blocking off with pilings wouldn't achieve the same thing. Of course this was partly tongue in cheek (where is that icon) but Jerra has got my point correct that a marina with water is still a marina even when not connected to anything; a marina without water isn't.

[magictime]

The general problem could be fixed at a stroke. Eliminate the CCer licence, and then all marinas would be full.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never mind my coat, where is my armour!

 

Off-topic, but:

 

I love this. Some private companies (marinas) aren't making as much profit as they'd like, so to solve this 'problem' a charity (the CRT) should compel its customers (licence holders) to hand over thousands of pounds a year to those private companies in return for year-round moorings and related services that they have no intention of using (since they are continuously cruising the network).

 

You certainly can't argue with that as a business model. Open a marina with 100 berths, fill some of them with genuine customers if you can be bothered to attract any by actually providing decent services, a pleasant location, competitive prices, etc., then wait for the rest to fill up with phantom customers who have been compelled by the CRT to pay for a nominal year-round 'home' mooring they never use (or maybe use only over the winter - in which case paying for a winter mooring would seem more appropriate).

[Jim Batty]

Such a scam is being worked in the haulage industry and it is called "pre pack administration".

 

Quite simply, run up a load of debt and at the right moment go into administration. The administrators sell all the assets at a knock down price to a new company you have set up, leaving all the debt with the old company. All done in a couple of hours. All the business contacts and goodwill (that's a laugh) go to the new company and existing customers don't even notice, unlike the creditors who don't get paid.

 

Sounds almost criminal to me but it is legal. ...

 

Yes, I think this happens all the time. Only the largest creditor(s) will get paid anything first out of what assets are left. I suspect by the time you get down to individual boat owners and their mooring fees there will be nothing left.

 

I had this on a small scale selling an article to a magazine. The article was 'bought' and published in their full knowledge that the magazine was going out of business ... and that small fry like me would never get paid. I was getting lawyers' updates on a regular basis for some time, but of course not a penny in payment. I'm sure the lawyers had a field day. In the end, after the offices of the publication sat under white sheets for a couple of weeks, they re-opened fully operational under a different title. As if by magic!

[PaulG]

 

The article was 'bought' and published in their full knowledge that the magazine was going out of business ...

Technically it is illegal to operate a limited company when it is insolvent. Difficult to prove, though...

[Paul G2]

I'm curious - Does CRT set the rents in marinas, or is that up to the marina operator?

[bottle]

The only thin C&RT set is the cost to the marina for the connection to the system.

[mayalld]

I'm curious - Does CRT set the rents in marinas, or is that up to the marina operator?

 

The operator does. CRT take 9% of the mooring fee as a connection charge.

 

Some marina owners are very creative in their billing so as to reduce the amount that they pay 9% on.

[Athy]

 

Yes, I think this happens all the time. Only the largest creditor(s) will get paid anything first out of what assets are left. I suspect by the time you get down to individual boat owners and their mooring fees there will be nothing left.

 

I had this on a small scale selling an article to a magazine. The article was 'bought' and published in their full knowledge that the magazine was going out of business ... and that small fry like me would never get paid. I was getting lawyers' updates on a regular basis for some time, but of course not a penny in payment. I'm sure the lawyers had a field day. In the end, after the offices of the publication sat under white sheets for a couple of weeks, they re-opened fully operational under a different title. As if by magic!

A similar thing happened to me some 10 years ago with a music magazine for whom I wrote regularly. They went bust owing me a couple of hundred pounds; I did eventually get a payment of £30 from the receiver.

 

The mag re-started with largely the same people at the helm. They asked me back, I still write for them and they have always paid me since their relaunch. So, if Pillings Marina does have a relaunch, they may have learned their lesson and make a go of it financially this time.

[Kwacker]

I thought the leases at Pillings were for a car parking space ......

If the moorings are complimentary to the car park, what do C&RT get 9% of?

Edited January 21, 2014 by Kwacker

[Alan de Enfield]

The fact that Pillings Lock marina choose to 'give away' a mooring is of no concern to C&RT, no doubt they base their connetion fee on 9% of POTENTIAL mooring income - ie assuming that all (100%) of pontoons were let at the 'standard' rate for that marina.

 

Edit Add :

 

Much like Business Rates (commercial version of Council Tax) is based on the possible income if you were to rent out the building instead of using it yourself.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[BruceinSanity]

 

 

Of course, I'm assuming that all boaters with any intentions of actually wanting to use their boats in the foreseeable future are going to get the hell out of there in the very near future!

 

If the Soar is anything like the Trent is at the moment, it is unlikely that boats will be able to leave the marina.....

Yvonne in the Floating Life for Me blog reported that four boats left yesterday morning; apparently the Soar is high but not too fast atm.

[Paul G2]

 

The operator does. CRT take 9% of the mooring fee as a connection charge.

 

Some marina owners are very creative in their billing so as to reduce the amount that they pay 9% on.

 

Essentially, then, the vast majority of what Paul Lillie has said is pure balderdash.

 

First of all, as with anything that is for sale, given two identical items the one that is priced lower will most likely sell first. IOW, it isn't that Lillie couldn't fill the marina, he just couldn't fill the marina for the price he is asking for the berths.

 

Secondly, he claims he is not making much profit from the marina. This may be true as far the LLC operating the marina is concerned, however, his biggest expense is the rent paid to the holding company that actually owns the marina, which is himself.

 

One can only wonder what kind of rent reductions Lillie has insisted upon to make the marina profitable? Has he withheld any rent payments to himself? He seems to want CRT to accept pennies on the pound for what he owes them, one can't help but wonder if he has proposed paying the same pennies on the pound for the rent he owes himself?

[johnlillie]

BW set the rate at the commercial average for moorings in that area,

so "creative accounting" does not work, their 9% is based on the average price of a similar mooring in the local area.

[Rod a mod from Tod]

BW set the rate at the commercial average for moorings in that area,

so "creative accounting" does not work, their 9% is based on the average price of a similar mooring in the local area.

 

It can be 99% of whatever, but if the gobsh!!s responsible for paying it renege on the deal then it doesn't really matter.

[matty40s]

The marina only ever flooded once, that was when the pendulum sluice upstream was left closed, an oversight by BW! The marina would not hold a very high water level for long if and when it is blocked off, prior to me removing the stop planks in 2007 to fill the basin, there was barely 6 inches of water in the basin.

The pendulum sluice is under EA control john, pillings flood lock under CRT.

[alan_fincher]

I'm not sure if it has been asked yet whether "Pilling" will be changing their name to "Piling" if CRT carry out their threat?