CART connection charge

[Mike Tee]

If the C&RT Connection charge is such a bad deal,whether anyone agrees it should /should not be charged, its right there in their face before a bucket of earth is removed. If you don't like it, lobby to have the rules changed before you sign an agreement.

I have no time for anyone who signs up to something, and then expects the goalposts to be moved because they are crap at football.

[MtB]

 

Quite simple. CART is a monopoly. The marina owner has no choice but to pay. And he gets nothing for it. And, worst of all, it's a fixed charge.

 

Of course he has a choice. He had a choice in the first place whether to set up a marina and pay the charge, or not. And now, any marina owner paying the NAA has the option to sell or wind up the business and do something else with his capital. Mr Lillie seems to have elected to do the latter!

 

MtB

[nb Innisfree]

I keep reading about tearooms, you can't beat them, I like them very much, are CaRT intending to create a chain of them? And what about these fairs, will CaRT be going into that line of business also? I like fairs as well, especially the dodgems.

[MtB]

I keep reading about tearooms, you can't beat them, I like them very much, are CaRT intending to create a chain of them? And what about these fairs, will CaRT be going into that line of business also? I like fairs as well, especially the dodgems.

 

CaRT won't be starting tea rooms or fairs but you're welcome to.

 

You'll need to negotiate your own FAA though. 'Fair Access Agreement'

 

 

MtB

[George94]

 

Of course he has a choice. He had a choice in the first place whether to set up a marina and pay the charge, or not. And now, any marina owner paying the NAA has the option to sell or wind up the business and do something else with his capital. Mr Lillie seems to have elected to do the latter!

 

MtB

 

The problem is that it's a fixed cost to the marina that doesn't bring them anything in return and becomes a burden when the marina isn't full. I would have less of a problem with it if it was either a one-off charge at the beginning, or related to the marina's income. And as i said earlier, it isn't a problem when the marina is full.

 

In general, it is best for businesses if they can avoid fixed charges.

[MtB]

 

The problem is that it's a fixed cost to the marina that doesn't bring them anything in return and becomes a burden when the marina isn't full. I would have less of a problem with it if it was either a one-off charge at the beginning, or related to the marina's income. And as i said earlier, it isn't a problem when the marina is full.

 

In general, it is best for businesses if they can avoid fixed charges.

 

Businesses have dozens of fixed costs e.g. business rates, accountancy costs, bank charges, rent, staff wages, buildings maintenance, access road maintenance, loan/mortgage repayments, gas safety inspections, the list goes on. NAA fixed costs are a normal business expense for most marinas.

 

You'r another one who thinks they should be excused paying them, I guess?

 

 

MtB

[magictime]

 

Quite simple. CART is a monopoly. The marina owner has no choice but to pay. And he gets nothing for it. And, worst of all, it's a fixed charge.

 

OK, point by point then:

 

CART is a monopoly.

 

No it isn't. There are navigations run by the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority, the Manchester Ship Canal Company, the National Trust and various other organisations. The CaRT certainly dominates the market, but so what? Sky TV dominates the market in enabling pubs to show live sporting events, but it doesn't follow that they should provide that service for free.

 

The marina owner has no choice but to pay

 

Not if he wants direct access to CaRT waters, no. He also has 'no choice but to pay' various other charges that make his business viable: gas and electricity bills, business rates, etc. So what?

 

And he gets nothing for it.

 

This is the heart of matter, I think. You take the view that simply providing access to CaRT waters is not really providing anything of value in the way that providing satellite TV or electricity is. But it is providing something of value. It's that access to CaRT waters that puts the marina in a position to make money from boaters, just as a pitch in a football club's car park puts a burger van in a position to make money from football fans. Nothing is being 'supplied' by the club to that van other than the opportunity to sell things to its customers - but that is valuable in itself.

 

And, worst of all, it's a fixed charge.

 

Why shouldn't the charge be fixed? Businesses pay all sorts of fixed charges based on their own assumptions about the amount of custom they can attract. Restaurants pay a fixed charge for their rent; it's not their landlord's problem if they can't fill their tables. The CaRT spell out the charge to provide access to a marina with 50 berths, or 100 berths, or 200 berths, and it's then for the marina developer to decide how many berths they think they can fill. Why should the CaRT lose out because a neighbouring business does a poor job of attracting customers?

[furnessvale]

 

Businesses have dozens of fixed costs e.g. business rates, accountancy costs, bank charges, rent, staff wages, buildings maintenance, access road maintenance, loan/mortgage repayments, gas safety inspections, the list goes on. NAA fixed costs are a normal business expense for most marinas.

 

You'r another one who thinks they should be excused paying them, I guess?

 

 

MtB

Many businesses actively attract fixed costs by leasing equipment rather than buying it out right. Would they be relieved of lease charges when times get tough?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Jerra]

Yes, me.

 

Put simply it is a charge that should have been strangled at birth. It has nothing to do with boat access, or EOG moorings (something else I find difficult to understand), or water replacement.

Just as a matter of interest can you run a train on a railway line you don't own free or are you expected to pay a charge?

 

If you wanted to build a siding so you had permanent access to the railway line would you expect to pay a fee?

[George94]

Where do you get this ""nothing for it"" from

It allows them to run day boats up and down CRT waters all summer.

It allows them to get passing trade selling diesel/ pump outs, short term moorings.

It allows them to get passing trade in fixing and blacking boats, not to mention launching them to the network.

It allows them to sell boats, not only directly, but also as an agent for abnb, once you buy it you can sail it away onto the network.

 

Oh Gawd.

 

OK, point by point then:

 

CART is a monopoly.

 

No it isn't. There are navigations run by the Environment Agency, the Broads Authority, the Manchester Ship Canal Company, the National Trust and various other organisations. The CaRT certainly dominates the market, but so what? Sky TV dominates the market in enabling pubs to show live sporting events, but it doesn't follow that they should provide that service for free.

 

The marina owner has no choice but to pay

 

Not if he wants direct access to CaRT waters, no. He also has 'no choice but to pay' various other charges that make his business viable: gas and electricity bills, business rates, etc. So what?

 

And he gets nothing for it.

 

This is the heart of matter, I think. You take the view that simply providing access to CaRT waters is not really providing anything of value in the way that providing satellite TV or electricity is. But it is providing something of value. It's that access to CaRT waters that puts the marina in a position to make money from boaters, just as a pitch in a football club's car park puts a burger van in a position to make money from football fans. Nothing is being 'supplied' by the club to that van other than the opportunity to sell things to its customers - but that is valuable in itself.

 

And, worst of all, it's a fixed charge.

 

Why shouldn't the charge be fixed? Businesses pay all sorts of fixed charges based on their own assumptions about the amount of custom they can attract. Restaurants pay a fixed charge for their rent; it's not their landlord's problem if they can't fill their tables. The CaRT spell out the charge to provide access to a marina with 50 berths, or 100 berths, or 200 berths, and it's then for the marina developer to decide how many berths they think they can fill. Why should the CaRT lose out because a neighbouring business does a poor job of attracting customers?

 

Oh dear.

[MtB]

 

Oh Gawd.

 

Oh dear.

 

Top quality cut and thrust debate from you too now. Your point by point rebuttal of each argument presented is most impressive.

 

Are you Rich in disguise?

 

 

MtB

[Graham Davis]

Just as a matter of interest can you run a train on a railway line you don't own free or are you expected to pay a charge?

 

If you wanted to build a siding so you had permanent access to the railway line would you expect to pay a fee?

The Train Operating Companies pay Network Rail to run their trains.

If you want to build a private siding then Network rail will charge you for that access.

 

So basically the same as CaRT asking for the NAA from a Marina Owner.

[mayalld]

 

Oh Gawd.

 

 

Oh dear.

Such incisive arguments

[Jerra]

The Train Operating Companies pay Network Rail to run their trains.

If you want to build a private siding then Network rail will charge you for that access.

 

So basically the same as CaRT asking for the NAA from a Marina Owner.

My point exactly!

[magictime]

 

Oh Gawd.

 

Oh dear.

 

Come on George94. We don't have to run through all the detail. Cut to the chase and explain why you think a marina owner gets 'nothing' out of his access to CaRT waters. Because I'd have thought that was pretty much the basis of his entire business.

[mayalld]

Quite simple. CART is a monopoly. The marina owner has no choice but to pay. And he gets nothing for it. And, worst of all, it's a fixed charge.

And again you peddle the line that marina owner "gets nothing for his money".

 

If PLM are getting nothing for the money, it clearly won't be a matter of concern when they stop getting it will it.?

[MtB]

And again you peddle the line that marina owner "gets nothing for his money".

 

If PLM are getting nothing for the money, it clearly won't be a matter of concern when they stop getting it will it.?

 

Excellent point Dave.

 

PLM don't pay as they are getting 'nothing', CRT close off the entrance as it is worth 'nothing'. Everyone's happy including George94, Rich, and Paul Lillie.

 

Sorted! Yes?

 

 

MtB

[Jerra]

Sorted! Yes?

Sounds an ideal answer everybody is then happy!

[Paul G2]

This is an interesting debate.

 

Those that want to see the NAA abolished, or think it is unfair, seem to base their opinion on the premise that marinas would lower their rents if the NAA were abolished. Quite honestly, that belief seems quite naive.

 

It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that your debate should not be about the NAA so much as it should be about your canals getting all of the tax revenue that is attributable to those canals, and then making sure that the money is wisely spent to maintain the canals in good condition for those who use them. Personally, if I had a dog in this fight I think that what I would work for is to have something a "canal economic zone" established for a couple hundred yards on both sides of all canals. The canals would be entitled to all or most of the business taxes (VAT and so on) generated within the "canal economic zone", based on the premise that it is the canal and the boaters who are attracting the customers to canal-side businesses.

 

I'm not suggesting that any new taxes be established, only that the way that tax revenues are allocated and spent be changed. Additionally, any and all taxes paid by boaters for fuel, parts, service, supplies and so on should go to the canals. There should also be a generous amount of general fund taxes that should go to supporting the canals, in recognition of not only their contribution to the overall UK economy, but because they are part of your heritage and a national treasure as well.

 

Quite honestly, what I see here is people who really just want to see their canals maintained in good condition arguing about how the tax revenues they are allocated should be used. This is the problem with austerity budgets - it leaves all the common folks (among whom I include myself) arguing over "table scraps" rather than raising the larger issue that the whole idea behind austerity budgets has been thoroughly debunked as a scam by ultra-right-wing Americans to push their agenda of income inequality on the entire world. (For those who don't know, the entire rationale for austerity budgets is based on a study by two Harvard University professors who, it turns out, used faulty reasoning and faulty equations to make the results of their study match their desired outcome.)

 

Just my humble opinion....

[magictime]

This is an interesting debate.

 

Those that want to see the NAA abolished, or think it is unfair, seem to base their opinion on the premise that marinas would lower their rents if the NAA were abolished. Quite honestly, that belief seems quite naive.

 

It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that your debate should not be about the NAA so much as it should be about your canals getting all of the tax revenue that is attributable to those canals, and then making sure that the money is wisely spent to maintain the canals in good condition for those who use them. Personally, if I had a dog in this fight I think that what I would work for is to have something a "canal economic zone" established for a couple hundred yards on both sides of all canals. The canals would be entitled to all or most of the business taxes (VAT and so on) generated within the "canal economic zone", based on the premise that it is the canal and the boaters who are attracting the customers to canal-side businesses.

 

I'm not suggesting that any new taxes be established, only that the way that tax revenues are allocated and spent be changed. Additionally, any and all taxes paid by boaters for fuel, parts, service, supplies and so on should go to the canals. There should also be a generous amount of general fund taxes that should go to supporting the canals, in recognition of not only their contribution to the overall UK economy, but because they are part of your heritage and a national treasure as well.

 

Quite honestly, what I see here is people who really just want to see their canals maintained in good condition arguing about how the tax revenues they are allocated should be used. This is the problem with austerity budgets - it leaves all the common folks (among whom I include myself) arguing over "table scraps" rather than raising the larger issue that the whole idea behind austerity budgets has been thoroughly debunked as a scam by ultra-right-wing Americans to push their agenda of income inequality on the entire world. (For those who don't know, the entire rationale for austerity budgets is based on a study by two Harvard University professors who, it turns out, used faulty reasoning and faulty equations to make the results of their study match their desired outcome.)

 

Just my humble opinion....

 

I could happily talk politics all day, but I guess this isn't really the place. Just to say, though: the study that got debunked didn't provide 'the entire rationale for austerity budgets', which is just that the deficit includes a structural element that will need to be closed, at some time, through some combination of tax rises and/or spending cuts (because growth alone won't close it). Rather, it bolstered a questionable case for the extreme urgency of action by purporting to show that growth slows when national debt rises above a certain percentage of GDP.

 

Right, now that's out of the way: I quite like your idea of a 'canal economic zone', but the premise it's based on is (I think) going to be false in most cases. The businesses in that zone are not, generally speaking, going to be businesses that rely on the canal to attract their customers. Rather, they are going to be businesses unrelated to the canal that just happen to have premises in old warehouses etc.

 

Here's an alternative solution to the same problem: introduce a small supplement to taxes collected by local authorities (council tax, business rates) based on the number of kilometres of canal running through the area. This would then be passed on the the CaRT in recognition of the fact that the canal and its towpath are an asset to the area in just the same way as local parks, roads (etc.), and take money to maintain.

 

[Edited for punctuation]

Edited January 25, 2014 by magictime

[twbm]

 

The problem is that it's a fixed cost to the marina that doesn't bring them anything in return and becomes a burden when the marina isn't full. I would have less of a problem with it if it was either a one-off charge at the beginning, or related to the marina's income. And as i said earlier, it isn't a problem when the marina is full.

 

In general, it is best for businesses if they can avoid fixed charges.

 

For example commercial waste charges, business rates, licence fees, TV licences, PRS and PPL for playing music, employee and public liability insurance, rent, PAYE and VAT? Customers or no customers, they all need paying.

[NigelMoore]

 

Quite honestly, what I see here is people who really just want to see their canals maintained in good condition arguing about how the tax revenues they are allocated should be used. This is the problem with austerity budgets - it leaves all the common folks (among whom I include myself) arguing over "table scraps" rather than raising the larger issue that the whole idea behind austerity budgets has been thoroughly debunked as a scam by ultra-right-wing Americans to push their agenda of income inequality on the entire world. (For those who don't know, the entire rationale for austerity budgets is based on a study by two Harvard University professors who, it turns out, used faulty reasoning and faulty equations to make the results of their study match their desired outcome.)

 

Just my humble opinion....

 

 

It is a sound opinion, unfortunately inapplicable until Parliament reverses its decision to remove BW into the ‘third sector’ as a charity, and/or agrees to amend the terms of its contract with the company’s management.

 

A very significant motive for the government’s decision was relieving the so-called burden on the public purse – they bought into the argument prepared by Tony Hales, Robin Evans and Nigel Johnson that if BW were independent of government, the waterways would need far less in the way of supportive grants, Consequently, the limited company [which is CaRT] entered into a contract with government that they would be paid a fixed sum per annum for a period of years until the company got on its feet and were able to get by without the government funding.

 

That sum was less than needed for basic maintenance, but was agreed to because the directors gave reasons for their professed belief that as a charity they would swiftly become self-supporting [at least before the system went into terminal decline].

 

It may not be fair to us that the system is breaking down due to lack of expected income; it may not be fair that boaters are being leant on to contribute more as less waterways become available for use; it may not be fair that most of the non-boating canal users enjoy their facilities for less or for nothing, nor may it be fair to the conscientious workers employed by the company that their numbers diminish, but that is the way the management’s contract with government is working out.

 

Of course, the management and directors who contrived the agreement are meanwhile sloping off to milk other revenue sources [only one remains at this point] – but that’s all legal too. The company they leave behind has to cope with the financial situation that the former management agreed to, and they have no grounds to now go cap in hand to government and ask for a more workable agreement. Until CaRT go belly up and into liquidation, the government is under no obligation to revisit the terms of their contract and contribute more tax money to the enterprise, just because they are facing difficulties.

 

And, as so many are correctly suggesting re: the Pillings Marina debacle – why should they?

[Mike Todd]

But any renegotiation is likely to change the 9% on all berths to a higher percentage of an estimated likely level so that CaRT income is not impacted.. Then, if the marina becomes popular and is full, the marina will have to pay more and, in cases like PLM, will complain accordingly!

 

There are pluses and minuses for both options.

 

 

For example commercial waste charges, business rates, licence fees, TV licences, PRS and PPL for playing music, employee and public liability insurance, rent, PAYE and VAT? Customers or no customers, they all need paying.

[RLWP]

But any renegotiation is likely to change the 9% on all berths to a higher percentage of an estimated likely level so that CaRT income is not impacted.. Then, if the marina becomes popular and is full, the marina will have to pay more and, in cases like PLM, will complain accordingly!

 

There are pluses and minuses for both options.

 

 

That isn't right (as far as I understand it). The 'rate' is 9% for all marinas, and is based on the number of berths in the marina. Not an agreed amount between the Trust and the marina, and the number of occupied berths.

 

Richard

 

MORE: Have I missed your point?

Edited January 25, 2014 by RLWP

[BEngo]

Yes. It's 9% of mooring fees ( at whatever rate the marina charges so it can go up or down from year to year) on a fixed number of berths. It is not paid on bar and tearoom profits, burger sales, brokerage fees, docking charges, electricity charges, parking fees or any charge that is not for mooring.

 

Since a marina mooring fee is potentially greater than an on-line mooring fee the 9% CART get is a potentially larger sum than the money forgone by reducing on-line moorings.

 

The first year is free, to enable you to get enough boats into your new marina and prove your business case.

 

The number of berths is 'negotiable' between the marina and CART- if you wanted for example to set up a 200 berth-size marina and only put in pontoons for 100 at the beginning then you can get a NAA for 100 berths- with the proviso that it will be amended if the marina adds extra pontoons. It works the other way too- if you have 100 berths and consistently only fill 45 of them you can reduce the number of available berths (physically prevent their use) and go back for a revised NAA.

 

Since standardisation into the NAA it seems to me to be a pretty reasonable system which is 'fair to all new marina operators. The rest will catch up as and when their own access agreements with CART come up for renewal (if ever).

 

N