Dispute at Pillings

[Phantasm]

PL (well, it says he wrote it but it doesn't really sound like him) has put a long message on the dark side at http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6669-pillings-marina-debacle

 

The figures just don't seem to add up somehow..

 

haggis

I've read through this article and I have to disagree with you Haggis. It sounds just like PL - whine, whine, whinge, whinge, poor me (pause for hand wringing), I'm being persecuted, it's not my fault, they're all getting at me, I'm suffering here because I've only had 6 holidays this year (ok maybe a little sarcasm creeping in there).

 

The bottom line is, if the marina was the Shangri-La he claims, there would be not problem in filling the berths. But his bad attitude and bad management style has earned him an appalling reputation that has spread throughout the network. He is a bad businessman and a poor strategist,.

 

I have always said that PLM itself could be an amazing place to moor. I loved being there but could not stand the prison camp mentality of the management.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Phantasm

[haggis]

I agree that the sentiments are all what we have been hearing form PL but the language style is a bit different. Maybe he is employing a ghost writer :-)

 

haggis

[Swallowman]

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

 

To paraphrase someone else from a service industry " He would say that wouldn't he?"

[matty40s]

PL (well, it says he wrote it but it doesn't really sound like him) has put a long message on the dark side at http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6669-pillings-marina-debacle

 

The figures just don't seem to add up somehow..

 

haggis

I think the figures are excellent.

 

The marinas manage to produce 5% profit AFTER paying the NAA.

 

He really does like shooting himself in the foot and everywhere else....

 

"It's the fault of that poetry it is, them voles too....."

[SoosieQ]

So now we're up to 300 customers?

'a barrage of letters to your customers telling them to get out as CaRT are blocking us up which are all sent out at a rate of one a fortnight to 300 people'

[Alan de Enfield]

PL Quote :-

 

"We have not kept moorers money that should have gone to C&RT - we have only ever managed to generate revenues that are barely sufficient to keep the main bills paid"

 

I would have thought that a figure of approaching £1000 per week to C&RT for the NAA would be considered a 'main bill' and probably only third to the mortgage repayments of (apparently) £2500 per week and PL salary £1250 per week

 

I would suggest that it was more a case of 'who will let us get a away with it' rather than 'pay the main bills' - lets see -

 

Elect / water / gas company - no they'll quickly cut us off or take action

VAT - no chance they will 'let us off'

Employees wages - no must pay those

PAYE - better pay them

Mortgage - its a bit much but we had better pay it or .........

Business Rates - yes - might stir things up a bit If I did'nt pay them

Edited March 2, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[SoosieQ]

'Talking of 'Money that CaRT have been cheated out of', take the BWML salaries for instance—most marina managers at BWML are paid £30k a year more than I pay myself. Reducing salaries would save £600k a year—that's £600k BWML are taking from you boat owners, year on year, every year! How much maintenance would that pay for? That would refurbish 10 extra locks a year at least! A BWML marina manager doesn't need to be paid £89k a year—some of the sites are now only 65% full. Great job they must be doing for their £89k a year eh?,

 

Practice what you preach and take a salary cut or take your partner off the books? If PLM was only at the same occupancy why does PL still need a salary of £1000 per week? Im sure PLM is smaller than a BWML?

[Phantasm]

Just 2 easy points for PL from the first page of the NBW article

 

“CaRT had already won the minute they got me to sign it in March 2007. But it was a case of sign it or there is no marina.”

 

So walk away from the negotiations and find something else. If the terms aren’t to your liking then don’t sign.

 

“5,600 new berths were constructed and put on-line in 2007 to 2012. Yet only 2,341 new boats to fill them. Get the gist now?”

 

You don’t need NEW boats to fill the marina. You need to attract customers from other marinas by giving them something they are not already getting, because that is exactly what they are doing to you. Get the gist now?

[tupperware]

PL Quote :-

 

"We have not kept moorers money that should have gone to C&RT - we have only ever managed to generate revenues that are barely sufficient to keep the main bills paid"

 

I would have thought that a figure of approaching £1000 per week to C&RT for the NAA would be considered a 'main bill' and probably only third to the mortgage repayments of (apparently) £2500 per week and PL salary £1250 per week

 

I would suggest that it was more a case of 'who will let us get a away with it' rather than 'pay the main bills' - lets see -

 

Elect / water / gas company - no they'll quickly cut us off or take action

VAT - no chance they will 'let us off'

Employees wages - no must pay those

PAYE - better pay them

Mortgage - its a bit much but we had better pay it or .........

Business Rates - yes - might stir things up a bit If I did'nt pay them

AdE

 

Where does the figure of £1,250 per week come from and was this paid by QMP of PLM or a combination of the two?

 

Where the director of a private limited company receives a salary, then this if frequently fairly low in order not to exceed the amount allowable before basic rate tax kicks in. After that, any additional remuneration may be paid as a monthly dividend up to the limit at which higher rate tax applies in order that the director avoids a higher tax rate liability. The company paying the dividend is then liable to pay corporation tax at the prevailing rate on their profits which means that the director effectively pays no more than 20% tax on the bulk of his income and both he and the company do not incur NI on that part of the remuneration paid as dividends. This would not cover an entire annual remuneration of around £65,000.

 

In order to remunerate a director by this means does, of course, mean that the company paying the dividends needs to make sufficient profit to allow it to so do which, given the figures in the latest referenced article seems somewhat doubtful. It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that a least a significant proportion of the remuneration was paid under normal PAYE on which Income Tax and NI would be payable to HMRC by both the company and director.

 

You have also suggested that the gentleman's partner may also be enjoying a paid position. Is this really the case?

Edited March 2, 2014 by tupperware

[Alan de Enfield]

tupperware, on 02 Mar 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

AdE

 

Where does the figure of £1,250 per week come from and was this paid by QMP of PLM or a combination of the two?

 

 

You have also suggested that the gentleman's partner may also be enjoying a paid position. Is this really the case?

 

In the 'article' PL states that BWML managers have a salary of £89,000, he then goes on to say that that sum is £30,000 more than he pays himself - hence his salary is £60,000, or approximately £5000 / month or £1250 / week

 

It was Phantasm that stated :

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.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[tupperware]

Just 2 easy points for PL from the first page of the NBW article

 

“CaRT had already won the minute they got me to sign it in March 2007. But it was a case of sign it or there is no marina.”

 

So walk away from the negotiations and find something else. If the terms aren’t to your liking then don’t sign.

 

“5,600 new berths were constructed and put on-line in 2007 to 2012. Yet only 2,341 new boats to fill them. Get the gist now?”

 

You don’t need NEW boats to fill the marina. You need to attract customers from other marinas by giving them something they are not already getting, because that is exactly what they are doing to you. Get the gist now?

 

 

I can sympathise with "CaRT had already won the minute they got me to sign it in March 2007. But it was a case of sign it or there is no marina.” quote. I have had similarly unfair treatment from my energy suppliers who absolutely refused to supply me with gas and electricity unless I signed a binding contract to pay them for the service. Likewise, my own marina were absolutely clear that my being allowed to moor our little boat at their site required me to agree to pay the quoted fee.

 

The article referenced in the last few posts includes a number of quotes which suggest a whiny kid ready to blame everyone but themselves rather than a keen business brain.

[PaulG]

I'm sure that C&RT management will be asking themselves why, for example, "No 626 Leicester Ltd", (or any other operating company, for that matter), should be able to make sufficient profit to be able to pay the NAA fees, when it seems that Pillings Lock Marina Ltd were unable to.

 

Looking at the major reasons for the marina's troubles, as described by Tim Coughlan of Braunston Marina (post #3763).

 

Too many empty berths

Increasing numbers of Continuous Cruisers

Overstated exectations of profit

NAA payment based on capacity, not occupied berths.

 

None of these problems were solved by the demise of Pillings Lock Marina Ltd. They are still there.

 

The concept of basing the NAA charge on actual mooring income received (as Mr. Coughlan seems to propose) might well have its attractions for Mr. Coughlan; however, depending on the proportion of mooring income decided upon, it's quite possible that it could cost some marinas more. As has been noted, not all marinas have low occupancy.

 

If C&RT agreed to what would effectively be a unique NAA for Pillings Lock Marina, then I'm sure that the rest of the industry would quickly cry "foul" and demand a "level playing field".

 

So these problems seem to be deep seated and certainly not immediately solvable.

 

Perhaps the marina should be declared a "basket case" and closed down as - according to the experts - it appears that it has a very slim chance of sucess?

[costalot]

[NBW Article quote.....] Its [CRT's?] Liquidation Agent (whom I took to the pub recently) agreed that CaRT do not make commercially sensible decisions.

 

Sorry, I though QMP went into voluntary liquidation. Don't you mean you were talking to your liquidation agent at the pub?

 

It will probably cost CaRT thousands to block us up—is that a good way of spending its money? Or should it not try and draw a line in the sand and move on— getting a new Agreement in place and paid as soon as possible?

 

CRT can't move on until the liquidator YOU appointed has completed their work. Somehow I can't see a "kiss and make up" working. I've no doubt there will (eventually) be a new NAA but I doubt the current MD will be part of that new business.

Edited March 2, 2014 by costalot

[tupperware]

 

In the 'article' PL states that BWML managers have a salary of £89,000, he then goes on to say that that sum is £30,000 more than he pays himself - hence his salary is £60,000, or approximately £5000 / month or £1250 / week

 

It was Phantasm that stated :

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.

 

Thanks AdeE for pointing out the source. I have already posted in respect of how such is sum this is unlikely to have included a significant dividend component when the quoted profits would not sustain them.

 

I also note that the article contains the quote "Its Liquidation Agent (whom I took to the pub recently) agreed that CaRT do not make commercially sensible decisions.".

I assume that this Liquidation Agent is the Insolvency Practitioner whose statutory obligations and duty of care to the creditors do not, it would seem, if the claim is true, prevent him or here having a pint or two with the senior management of the company whose liquidation he is investigating. IPs do, of course, operate to a strict code of conduct although whether this code is entirely clear on social drinking of the kind claimed in the article nor in dealing with criticism of the commercial sense of a major creditor is, perhaps, open to question.

[Alan de Enfield]

Lets play Devils Advocate for a few moments.

 

The NAA is based on 9% of the total number of berths available x the average cost per berth (or similar formula)

 

I am struggling to think of any other cost which is totally fixed irrespective of usage - Generally (would it not be agreed) that 'things' paid for on a monthly basis will be estimated either on previous usage, or 'industry standard' such as Electricity, Water. and Gas.

 

These are amended (annually) after a meter reading and next years payments increased or decreased as necessary - would it not be possible (and maybe beneficial) to 'read the meter' (count the boats) in each of the 50 marinas that have NAA's - say on March 1st each year.

 

Comments ?

 

Addendum - the only fixed cost I can think of where you pay it wether you use it or not is your Council Tax

[tupperware]

[NBW Article quote.....] Its [CRT's?] Liquidation Agent (whom I took to the pub recently) agreed that CaRT do not make commercially sensible decisions.

 

Sorry, I though QMP went into voluntary liquidation. Don't you mean you were talking to your liquidation agent at the pub?

 

Well, the point is really that the IP's role is to maximise the "pot" out of which the unsecured creditors, unlike Mr Steadman, will receive recompense in respect of the debts QMP owe to them. CRT are, of course, owed some £185,000 and are, it has has been claimed, following this forum and articles such as the one from which the quote is taken. One does wonder quite what they will make of the notion of the IP engaging in social drinking with the senior management of the company owing them a large amount of money and who has, according to the quote, also seen fit to criticise the commercial nous of one of the creditor whose interest he/she is supposed to hold as their primary concern. If I were CRT, I would be seeking an explanation s to what, if anything, lay behind the claim.

[John Holden]

 

 

 

Comments ?

 

Addendum - the only fixed cost I can think of where you pay it wether you use it or not is your Council Tax

 

Standing charges for utilities, insurance. There's a couple more.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I also note that the article contains the quote "Its (CRT's) Liquidation Agent (whom I took to the pub recently) agreed that CaRT do not make commercially sensible decisions.".

 

 

My 'Bold'

 

Its strange isn't it how thngs can be interpreted - I had read that statement as PL had a meeting with a CRT person who was 'handling' their end of the negotiations

[PaulG]

Lets play Devils Advocate for a few moments.

 

The NAA is based on 9% of the total number of berths available x the average cost per berth (or similar formula)

 

I am struggling to think of any other cost which is totally fixed irrespective of usage - Generally (would it not be agreed) that 'things' paid for on a monthly basis will be estimated either on previous usage, or 'industry standard' such as Electricity, Water. and Gas.

 

These are amended (annually) after a meter reading and next years payments increased or decreased as necessary - would it not be possible (and maybe beneficial) to 'read the meter' (count the boats) in each of the 50 marinas that have NAA's - say on March 1st each year.

 

Comments ?

 

Addendum - the only fixed cost I can think of where you pay it wether you use it or not is your Council Tax

Electricity, water and gas often have a "fixed" element in the form of standing charge.

Other common fixed costs are rent on buildings, salaries of company managers, council tax, refuse disposal costs, leases on company cars, rental/HP of capital equipment, insurance premiums.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

[NBW Article quote.....] Its [CRT's?] Liquidation Agent (whom I took to the pub recently) agreed that CaRT do not make commercially sensible decisions.

 

Sorry, I though QMP went into voluntary liquidation. Don't you mean you were talking to your liquidation agent at the pub?

 

It will probably cost CaRT thousands to block us up—is that a good way of spending its money? Or should it not try and draw a line in the sand and move on— getting a new Agreement in place and paid as soon as possible?

 

CRT can't move on until the liquidator YOU appointed has completed their work. Somehow I can't see a "kiss and make up" working. I've no doubt there will (eventually) be a new NAA but I doubt the current MD will be part of that new business.

I read that as the person that represented CaRT at the creditors meeting.

 

I seem to recall someone on here saying that he was a qualified IP.

 

 

 

 

[haggis]

Lets play Devils Advocate for a few moments.

 

The NAA is based on 9% of the total number of berths available x the average cost per berth (or similar formula)

 

I am struggling to think of any other cost which is totally fixed irrespective of usage - Generally (would it not be agreed) that 'things' paid for on a monthly basis will be estimated either on previous usage, or 'industry standard' such as Electricity, Water. and Gas.

 

These are amended (annually) after a meter reading and next years payments increased or decreased as necessary - would it not be possible (and maybe beneficial) to 'read the meter' (count the boats) in each of the 50 marinas that have NAA's - say on March 1st each year.

 

Comments ?

 

Addendum - the only fixed cost I can think of where you pay it wether you use it or not is your Council Tax

I can just see the mass exodus from marinas on 28th Feb, and the mass return on 2nd March :-)

I think counting the number of boats in marinas has already been considered and found to be unworkable (or that might have been the conclusion on this thread).

 

Haggis

Edited March 2, 2014 by haggis

[tupperware]

 

My 'Bold'

 

Its strange isn't it how thngs can be interpreted - I had read that statement as PL had a meeting with a CRT person who was 'handling' their end of the negotiations

 

AdeE. You may well be right although if this person is indeed a representative employed by CRT to handle their end of the liquidation then describing your employer as not making "commercially sensible decisions" may not be the smartest career move. No doubt "csh" or his partner will clarify the identity of the individual in question.

[Alan de Enfield]

Electricity, water and gas often have a "fixed" element in the form of standing charge.

Other common fixed costs are rent on buildings, salaries of company managers, council tax, refuse disposal costs, leases on company cars, rental/HP of capital equipment, insurance premiums.

 

Just to continue the debate :

 

Yes Utilities have an element of fixed costs but by far the bulk is 'variable' depending on usage - so say a Marina has a 'fixed' 5% charge on 25% of its berths and anoher 5% on any over that number ?

 

Buildings, salaries, refuse, company cars insurance etc can all be reduced by :

,

Taking a new lease on a new building, (not easy but possible - if times are hard 'downsize')

Salaries - if business is bad you need less people - redundancies

Refuse - go out to tender and get another contractor

Company cars - if business is bad you need less people / cars, or move down the heirarchy of cars.

Insurance - Find another lower cost supplier

 

In 'business speak' - yes - these would be fixed costs but in reality all can be vairied / reduced if the will is there

 

I am still unable to think of a truly 'pay the same wether used or not' cost except the council tax / Rates

[PaulG]

 

I think counting the number of boats in marinas has already been considered and found to be unworkable (or that might have been the conclusion on this thread).

 

Haggis

I agree it's probably unworkable.

The number of available berths in a marina is pretty easy to verify.

The number of occupied berths in a marina is difficult to verify.

The amount of income derived from the occupied berths is also difficult to verify.

 

The latter two options are easily falsified by the unscrupulous.

[PaulG]

 

Just to continue the debate :

 

Yes Utilities have an element of fixed costs but by far the bulk is 'variable' depending on usage - so say a Marina has a 'fixed' 5% charge on 25% of its berths and anoher 5% on any over that number ?

 

Buildings, salaries, refuse, company cars insurance etc can all be reduced by :

,

Taking a new lease on a new building, (not easy but possible - if times are hard 'downsize')

Salaries - if business is bad you need less people - redundancies

Refuse - go out to tender and get another contractor

Company cars - if business is bad you need less people / cars, or move down the heirarchy of cars.

Insurance - Find another lower cost supplier

 

In 'business speak' - yes - these would be fixed costs but in reality all can be vairied / reduced if the will is there

 

I am still unable to think of a truly 'pay the same wether used or not' cost except the council tax / Rates

Leases are fixed costs because there is usually a fixed term for the lease. It's a legal contract. Unless you have "break clauses" built into your lease, you would have to negotiate with your landlord, and he may or may not be willing to terminate the lease. Usually not, in my experience.

Managers are usually classed as fixed cost, direct labour as variable.

Refuse. Most providers apply a fixed charge per period, regardless of whether the bin is full or empty. There is, of course, some variable element.

Company cars - lease/HP agreements are legal contracts and have a fixed term. You pay, regardless of whether you need the car or not.

Insurance - regardless of actual cost, there are legal obligations (public liability, etc) so this cost is counted as a fixed cost.