Dispute at Pillings

[Grace and Favour]

It is of course boaters that end up paying for unfilled berths .

 

 

No it isn't.

 

I simply don't follow that statement at all.

[Lampyrichard]

 

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

 

 

And according to CRT's guidance, the NAA can be renegotiated by reducing the fixed mooring capacity, so it's probably more flexible than most building leases...

[boat hermit]

Hi I am robin stewart and have only posted once on here to give information at the start of this thread .........I dislike Mr herberts comments if they are indeed his and would like to put him straight ?? ? If I am a grumpy old man it is because I dont like being fleesed by a dishonest marina manager , We took the marina to court for over charging on our electric meters , he didnt even bother to turn up at the small claims court and we were awarded our claim plus expenses but even then he refused to adjust the meters but instead offered to give leaseholders £50 of electric cards for £40 provided we didnt tell any other berth holders ! I have higher standards than that cretin and refused ! and we took him to court again and when he offered to pay us back our leases and pay our claim out of court I bit his hand off as I couldnt wait to get away even though the marina itself is very nice ............I have never even spoken to Mr Herbert and why would I ? he isnt anybody but the managers partner ! he is a nonentity so why he thinks he knows anything about me I have no idea .I am now in a marina not a bistro with a marina for the amusement of it bistro customers and the manager is honest and I am not grumpy anymore ............so Mr Herbert if thats who you are leave me out of your PLM propagander !! I am not interested and will take action against you if I have to as I am fed up with the pair of you ............whoops I am getting grumpy again

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It is of course boaters that end up paying for unfilled berths .

 

No it isn't.

 

I simply don't follow that statement at all.

Perhaps I should have said its boaters that end up paying NAA charges for unfilled berths.

[Slim]

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

And most utilities ie gas, electricity, water (supply and waste), telephone, TV licence fee, road tax. The list goes on. In most cases it's called a standing charge.

 

 

Slim

[Grace and Favour]

It is of course boaters that end up paying for unfilled berths .

 

Perhaps I should have said its boaters that end up paying NAA charges for unfilled berths.

 

Am still not sure how you get to that point either!

 

IF you mean, that a marina, with only a 50% occupancy (figure chosen at random) , will then increase their mooring fees to compensate for the NAA element that they have to find for the unlet berths - - then that IS an option. Other options are that the marina reduces the numbers of berths, or staffing levels, or wages, or borrows more from their bank until such time as business improves.

 

Boaters are in an excellent position to 'vote with their feet', of course, and if they feel that their marina with only 50% capacity is either too expensive, or doesn't fulfil their needs, then they can move their boat to somewhere better/cheaper.

 

Another alternative, of course, would be for the marina to open other facilities up to a wider audience, say - open a restaurant, and then the diners can hopefully swell the profits so they are subsidising the unlet berths' NAA fees. (A ridiculous example - but no less facile than your contention)

[Alan de Enfield]

And most utilities ie gas, electricity, water (supply and waste), telephone, TV licence fee, road tax. The list goes on. In most cases it's called a standing charge.

 

 

Slim

 

As the standing charges in the utility bills are a small percentage, with the majority of the cost being made up of 'pay for what you use' I'll have to disagree with you on those - however - yes TV licence and car tax probably could be viewed as 'fixed' .

 

If you were to never exceed your data limits, call minutes and text limits on your mobile phone you could call that a non-variable cost.

Actually I do not - in fact, I dont think I could exceed my mobile allowances.

[BruceinSanity]

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.

And don't forget that the NAA is a national agreement negotiated with the BMF as the industry representative body. BMF aren't noted for rolling over easily, so no doubt this was the best they could get.

[Alan de Enfield]

And don't forget that the NAA is a national agreement negotiated with the BMF as the industry representative body. BMF aren't noted for rolling over easily, so no doubt this was the best they could get.

 

And dont forget that according to Mr P Lillies the BMF never approved it and didnt even see it

 

"C&RT / BW claim that the NAA was given approval by the BMF - ask anyone at the BMF if they saw it and approved it ? No one will admit to this because no one did approve it"

[Paul G2]

 

And dont forget that according to Mr P Lillies the BMF never approved it and didnt even see it

 

"C&RT / BW claim that the NAA was given approval by the BMF - ask anyone at the BMF if they saw it and approved it ? No one will admit to this because no one did approve it"

 

Here's the thing, PL does not have a real firm footing on Planet Reality when it comes to the things he writes. He carries on with his CRT is so unfair! Why can't you people see I'm the victim here? mantra to the extent that he blames everything wrong with the world on CRT. Seriously, The Devil Incarnate, as Paul Lillie describes CRT, is a tad overboard on the hyperbole factor.

 

The bottom line, though, is that Paul Lillie has little use for facts or accuracy and, as a result, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Why NBW decided to publish that self-serving diatribe of his is anyone's guess.

[matty40s]

 

 

The bottom line, though, is that Paul Lillie has little use for facts or accuracy and, as a result, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Why NBW decided to publish that self-serving diatribe of his is anyone's guess.

It shows his viewpoint, and lets everyone laugh make their own mind up about his grasp of the real world of business and finance.

[johnlillie]

 

Here's the thing, PL does not have a real firm footing on Planet Reality when it comes to the things he writes. He carries on with his CRT is so unfair! Why can't you people see I'm the victim here? mantra to the extent that he blames everything wrong with the world on CRT. Seriously, The Devil Incarnate, as Paul Lillie describes CRT, is a tad overboard on the hyperbole factor.

 

The bottom line, though, is that Paul Lillie has little use for facts or accuracy and, as a result, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Why NBW decided to publish that self-serving diatribe of his is anyone's guess.

does PLM advertise with NBW I wonder? I think back to my old motorcycling days in the sixties, when the journalists were very reluctant to criticise Norton's finest for fear of jeopardising advertising revenue for the magazine.

[haggis]

The reason for publishing PLs diatribe on NBW is probably because the editor and most of the folk who write for NBW are very much anti BW/CRT and they appear not to be too concerned about the truth or accuracy of what appears on their site.

 

Haggis

[Ray T]

The reason for publishing PLs diatribe on NBW is probably because the editor and most of the folk who write for NBW are very much anti BW/CRT and they appear not to be too concerned about the truth or accuracy of what appears on their site.

 

Haggis

 

Have a green thing.

 

Well said. IMHO according to NBW, C&RT can't do right for doing wrong.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Ray T

[alan_fincher]

The bottom line, though, is that Paul Lillie has little use for facts or accuracy and, as a result, has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Why NBW decided to publish that self-serving diatribe of his is anyone's guess.

 

If it is BW and/or CRT bashing in any way shape or form whatsoever, then publication is almost guaranteed.

 

Accuracy is certainly not required, as long as the target is the "right" one.

[johnlillie]

It is of course boaters that end up paying for unfilled berths .

 

Perhaps I should have said its boaters that end up paying NAA charges for unfilled berths.

 

why should that be? As has been said many times, the opportunity to reduce costs by temporary removal of spare capacity was always an option for PLM, and it was a fairly straight forward task, I should know, I put most of them in!

Perhaps the esteemed MD can explain here why this was not an avenue pursued, maybe at the same time as his partner puts up the NAA payment schedule. (not holding my breath).

[Naughty Cal]

It is of course boaters that end up paying for unfilled berths .

 

Perhaps I should have said its boaters that end up paying NAA charges for unfilled berths.

 

Not really.

 

Our mooring fee is £1100 for 12 months regardless of whether every berth is filled or not.

 

It is the marina operators who pay the difference not the moorers.

[haggis]

Not really.

 

Our mooring fee is £1100 for 12 months regardless of whether every berth is filled or not.

 

It is the marina operators who pay the difference not the moorers.

yes, but it will be the marina who has to make up any shortfall in the NAA, not the boaters. That, of course should have been factored into the business plan.

 

haggis

[Hawkmoth]

I think what he meant to say (hope I'm not putting words in his mouth or indeed on his post) was that if the NAA isn't paid then we'll end up paying in our licence.

Bob

[Naughty Cal]

I think what he meant to say (hope I'm not putting words in his mouth or indeed on his post) was that if the NAA isn't paid then we'll end up paying in our licence.

Bob

That would make more sense

[Alan de Enfield]

Well now Stanilands marina is in receiveship no doubt PL will say its all down to them having to pay the NAA

[Grace and Favour]

Well now Stanilands marina is in receiveship no doubt PL will say its all down to them having to pay the NAA

Or maybe the Staniland Marina owner has been seeking help and advice from other operators on the best way to run a business??

[Tuscan]

If it is BW and/or CRT bashing in any way shape or form whatsoever, then publication is almost guaranteed.

Accuracy is certainly not required, as long as the target is the "right" one.

I am glad that Pillings had an opportunity to give their version of events and don't see the why NBW shouldn't publish it not particularly CRT bashing more a general whinge. It does beg the question why other established marina operators are signing the NAA and opening new marinas the latest marina near Cropedy comes to mind, and I believe the new one on the Leicester section is due to start this year presumeably their business model is differen.

[Naughty Cal]

I am glad that Pillings had an opportunity to give their version of events and don't see the why NBW shouldn't publish it not particularly CRT bashing more a general whinge. It does beg the question why other established marina operators are signing the NAA and opening new marinas the latest marina near Cropedy comes to mind, and I believe the new one on the Leicester section is due to start this year presumeably their business model is differen.

As in viable?

[Hawkmoth]

Well now Stanilands marina is in receiveship no doubt PL will say its all down to them having to pay the NAA

We passed Stanilands several times last year and it looked quite full so I wonder why it's gone down. At least one member who posts regularly on here had a blacking there last year.

Bob