Dispute at Pillings

[Ssscrudddy]

But surely as the spouse, of the shadow director of the current Co. & former director of the Co. that did a runner owing £180k, surely a more professional attitude would show how much better you people are.

[Dangerous Dave]

Oh please. But glad that JL accepts the physical abuse and I can confirm that all three of his children are far happier without him in their lives.

 

But to the topic.

 

The new NAA will be signed as soon as possible. The meeting between RR and PS ironed out some stipulations and both CRT's and our solicitors are working together to have it finalised.

 

John, try and get on with your own life. So sad. Really it is.

 

 

We will all be glad to get on with our lives once a group of management (?) come what may of little integrity are removed from the boating scene.

 

One in particular who cannot run a business without misleading customers and offer nothing but lies and deceit.

[csh]

More pertinently, how will Pillings manage in the future when all they could find in eight years was £50k?

 

And if £50k was really paid, which I doubt, why was this not taken into account in the judgement awarded to CRT?

 

 

MtB

You think £50k is a small sum? CRT have received this for doing nothing. It's additional revenue for them from a business working hard.

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. We are moving forward with CRT regardless of arguments raised in this thread - and the berth holders will continue to enjoy living in the lovely community they have developed at PLM.

G will be closed off, not removed. We can apply at a later date to have it reopened.

[johnlillie]

the fact that CSH thinks the CRT "do nothing" just serves to show how ignorant he is of the way the canal system is maintained, does he think it is all done by volunteers who work for nothing? Does he think the system is maintenance-free? Grow a pair, for heaven's sake!.

[Ssscrudddy]

BTW every time you say "moving forward" it doesnt make you sound clever.

On another note, what did you do for the guy whose boat you disabled? apart from let him moor there. vs CaRT letting you connect to their waterway & remove online moorings.

[Woodstock]

You think £50k is a small sum? CRT have received this for doing nothing. It's additional revenue for them from a business working hard.

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. We are moving forward with CRT regardless of arguments raised in this thread - and the berth holders will continue to enjoy living in the lovely community they have developed at PLM.

G will be closed off, not removed. We can apply at a later date to have it reopened.

Do you really believe that after all the heartache you have caused people

 

Deluded

[Naughty Cal]

You think £50k is a small sum? CRT have received this for doing nothing. It's additional revenue for them from a business working hard.

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. We are moving forward with CRT regardless of arguments raised in this thread - and the berth holders will continue to enjoy living in the lovely community they have developed at PLM.

G will be closed off, not removed. We can apply at a later date to have it reopened.

£50k is a very small sum in comparison to what other marinas have paid in that time scale.

 

Do you think that is fair to the other marinas who are paying their way?

[StarUKKiwi]

You think £50k is a small sum? CRT have received this for doing nothing. It's additional revenue for them from a business working hard.

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. We are moving forward with CRT regardless of arguments raised in this thread - and the berth holders will continue to enjoy living in the lovely community they have developed at PLM.

G will be closed off, not removed. We can apply at a later date to have it reopened.

Just to state the obvious, but surely this was known when the original agreement was signed and £50k is a small sum compared to the £4m IMHO

[csh]

I am fully aware of the great work that CRT do in maintaining the waterways for everyone to enjoy. You misunderstand JL (unsurprisingly). I referred to the connection from the marina to the network. I hope that clarifies things.

Do you really believe that after all the heartache you have caused people

 

Deluded:cloud9:

Yes, because I speak to the customers. I have been living this. I am not a spectator. We are aware of the distress caused and are sorry for this. But we are fortunate in that we have so very many lovely customers, many of which we consider friends. How lovely the marina is, is testimony to the great customer base we have.

[Ssscrudddy]

Just to state the obvious, but surely this was known when the original agreement was signed and £50k is a small sum compared to the £4m IMHO

possibly not, apparently they didnt account for VAT originally

[Naughty Cal]

Yes it clarifies how uninformed you are.

[mayalld]

As you can imagine we have had more pressing things occupying our time.

FYI we paid close to £50k. Regardless of your views, a fledging business having to pay 9% of their full occupancy during a recession when they have invested £4 million and CRT NOTHING, needs addressing. Phil Spencer cannot even explain how he reached the figure of 9%.

 

He doesn't need to explain how they arrived at that figure (although it is a figure that is remarkably close to the amount of revenue that CRT gave up by closing moorings as their side of the agreement).

 

If 9% was such an unreasonable figure, why did they sign up to it? Recessions happen. Clearly, thsoe running this fledgling business failed to understand that a contract isn't simply a statement of what you would like to do, if everything works out OK.

[PaulG]

CRT have received this for doing nothing. It's additional revenue for them from a business working hard.

 

I beg to differ. It is not "addition revenue" for CRT.

It is compensation for the revenue that they lost due to moorings that they took offline when the marina opened.

[Nightwatch]

Interesting that the moorers have created a community, not the owners.

 

CSH. You seem to be surprised that the NAA was payable. At the time of signing the agreement both sides realised what was obligated.

 

I must call the owner of Cropredy Marina, recently opened, how he has managed to go into a NAA agreement with C&RT without having seemingly worrying about future payments. He also owns another successful marina that doesn't seem to have any problems with the NAA.

 

Am I correct in understanding that the money due to C&RT for the past NAA had been contributed to by the past and present moorers by way of their mooring fees. If, true, why wasn't this money passed onto the appropriate recipient?

 

A bit like collecting VAT and spending it.

 

Martyn. Edit to add. I am not implying that PLM collected VAT and spent it. Just using it as an example.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Nightwatch

[Willber G]

 

He doesn't need to explain how they arrived at that figure (although it is a figure that is remarkably close to the amount of revenue that CRT gave up by closing moorings as their side of the agreement).

 

If 9% was such an unreasonable figure, why did they sign up to it? Recessions happen. Clearly, thsoe running this fledgling business failed to understand that a contract isn't simply a statement of what you would like to do, if everything works out OK.

 

Indeed, and the terms of the NAA were drawn up in collaboration with APCO and BMIF, not just imposed by BW.

[Dangerous Dave]

heard recently from reliable source that PLT has agreed to pay £31k a year to CRT, and reduce number of moorings to match fee size. Not sure whether G jetty is just closing or being removed, perhaps the all knowing CSH could enlighten?

 

 

Agreed...They -PLM(?) agreed to abide to a payment before but didn't..What makes anyone think they will pay anything in the future!

[mayalld]

You think £50k is a small sum? CRT have received this for doing nothing. It's additional revenue for them from a business working hard.

 

 

 

Yes, it is a small sum. It is less than PL agreed to pay when they signed a contract.

 

It is also significantly LESS than the amount of revenue that CRT lost by closing moorings. CRT would have got more revenue by not allowing PLM to open.

 

It is also less than PL pays himself out of a company that can't pay its way.

[Dangerous Dave]

Now now, no need to get personal. Everyone else is behaving

 

 

Moderator edit.

Edited April 10, 2014 by FadeToScarlet

[Willber G]

Just to state the obvious, but surely this was known when the original agreement was signed and £50k is a small sum compared to the £4m IMHO

From this post:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=63317&page=75#entry1224949

 

"maybe we were naïve, but the costs of the NAA were not in the original business plan!"

[SoosieQ]

So CSH is part of PLM then,constantly referring to us and we. Theres another salary drawn i imagine too. From a company that cannot pay its bills

[Naughty Cal]

From this post:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=63317&page=75#entry1224949

 

"maybe we were naïve, but the costs of the NAA were not in the original business plan!"

Sounds like a great business plan with no VAT or NAA taken account of.

 

Did this business plan happen to be on the back of a beer mat.?

[Drop_Shunt]

I am fully aware of the great work that CRT do in maintaining the waterways for everyone to enjoy. You misunderstand JL (unsurprisingly). I referred to the connection from the marina to the network. I hope that clarifies things.

 

You are fully aware of the great work that CaRT do, and presumably appreciate the costs involved, and yet you seem happy to be associated with a business which has apparently quite cynically deprived them of GBP 180,000 - breaking a legally binding contract freely entered into and then walking away from their responsibilities. Behaviour which deserves the opprobrium of their peers and customers.

 

You may not consider that CaRT have contributed anything to your business in return for the monies you agreed to pay them, but I suspect you would suffer if Pines Lock and Loughborough Lock were inoperable through lack of maintenance.

 

I, for one, hope most sincerely that CaRT keep the viprous nest of business under a microscope for a very long time, until they have demonstrated that they can be trusted, and that they waste no time in taking action in the event of future breaches of contract. I'm sure a significant number of people will be keeping an eye on the marina for them . . .

[PaulG]

Sounds like a great business plan with no VAT or NAA taken account of.

 

Did this business plan happen to be on the back of a beer mat.?

Planning in progress:

[Phantasm]

Because it doesn't warrant a response - it's utter nonsense.

 

Perhaps I'll post about how John Lillie is a nice person, but that too would be a lie (and all together far less plausible!) All three of his children (who don't speak to him) would testify to this.

 

The way in which JL seems intent on attacking his son (he has done this physically too) is beyond unpleasant.

Personally, after all I've witnessed I'm surprised John only smacked him one, I would have drowned him.

 

I know, I know, I'm on the naughty step!!

[haggis]

I am intrigued how the organisation (ie the multitude of incestuous companys which were/are PL management) can now find the money to pay a years fees up front when only a few months ago, they couldn't afford to pay.

Have they won the pools :-).

 

haggis

Edited April 10, 2014 by haggis