CART connection charge

[Tam & Di]

Another big difference is that withdrawal of coffee won't represent a major deprivation for the visitors, whereas removing access to the canal is a huge deprivation for innocent moorers. And forcing a marina into liquidation is a savage step, with serious implications for staff as well as moorers and other creditors.

 

As you know, I believe that the basis for the NAA is flawed practically as well as morally, and that CART, as successors to BW, have a responsibility to all who will be affected by this, most of whom are entirely innocent, to try to find a proper resolution, rather than just using brute force.

 

I am NOT impressed by Mr Spencer.

 

A more significant point that has been missed (as far as I can see) is that no-one forced Lillie to go into the marina business. He could have bought some land and opened it as a car park (actually I had in mind some land right away from any canal when I started that sentence ), or bought some houses for renting out. Or if he was definitely set upon a marina he could have bought land beside EA waters or those of some other agency. He saw what he took to be a chance of entering a boom industry and didn't allow for the fact things might change. When the Marine Industry representatives hammered out the agreement with BW Di & I made known our objections to a fixed % of maximum take up, so I basically agree with you on that point. However the 9% was accepted, though another option debated involved marinas presenting audited figures of actual take-up and paying a much higher % on them. Also as I noted in an earlier post new marinas at that time were being offered 5 year connection licences, so the agreement also gave businesses the opportunity to make longer term plans. This in itself was worth the pragmatic acceptance of the terms by most new marina businesses.

 

I would agree with Nigel's post #272 that there might be a case for renegotiating the NAA agreements across the board. I know many marinas are having a hard time, but I don't know any others that have offered what on the face of it is a fairly trivial portion of their contractual fees on a take it or leave it basis.

[adam1uk]

He saw what he took to be a chance of entering a boom industry and didn't allow for the fact things might change.

He keeps saying that take up hasn't been as high as expected, and there's even been some suggestion that he was expecting a hundred per cent occupancy. But surely any business plan based on full occupancy wouldn't have been taken seriously -- certainly not by a bank, even in the pre-credit crunch days. That's why I find it difficult to believe that a shortfall in the expected number of moorers is entirely to blame here.

[Mick and Maggie]

The point is that you don't have to build your marina on a CRT waterway if you don't want to. Just ask Billing Aquadrome on the Nene, the Thames and Kennet Marina on the Thames, or Pyrford Marina on the Wey if CRT have a monopoly.

 

I think you will find that the examples given are also monopolies in their own right.

[George94]

Thanks for this George.

 

 

The key point here is that you're talking about questions of scale - how much is at stake for the tea room relative to the marina? How strong is the NT's position relative to the CaRT? How great is the value added to the NT property by a tea room relative to the value added to the canal by a marina? - rather than about the basic rationale behind the charging of an access fee. You haven't been able to point to a glaring, fundamental difference such that the tea room and its customers get something in return for an access fee and the marina and its customers get nothing, which is the assertion I've taken issue with. Everything else (should the fee be higher, lower, fixed, variable, renegotiated, etc.) is detail.

 

Magic, I agree that there are similarities, but I am not sure that there is much point in pursuing this line. If the NT charged the cafe a large fixed fee, irrespective of turnover, and based on highly optimistic projections, then it too would be a bad idea.

 

However, I am sure the cafe owner would have been able to negotiate an appropriate fee with the NT. In the Pillings case, CART just imposed an unrealistic figure and said take it or leave it.

 

I admit to having got bogged down arguing about monopolies with ignoramuses, but my central point was made very clearly in my first post (No 45 in this thread). Big fixed fees, unrelated to profit or turnover, are a BAD THING. As we see all too clearly now.

[adam1uk]

I think you will find that the examples given are also monopolies in their own right.

 

So now you're saying that there are several monopolies from which marina operators can choose. In everyone's world apart from yours, that is the very definition of not-a-monopoly.

[magictime]

bogged down arguing about monopolies with ignoramuses

 

Nice to see you leading by example in avoiding 'unpleasant' and 'ad hominem remarks'. I'm one of the 'ignoramuses' who thinks that the CaRT doesn't have a monopoly on potential marina locations (since there are many hundreds of miles of navigable waterways run by other authorities), remember? But I agree that the issue is not worth getting bogged down in. Monopoly or not, the CaRT certainly have a dominant position in the market (in most areas, anyway).

 

 

my central point was made very clearly in my first post (No 45 in this thread). Big fixed fees, unrelated to profit or turnover, are a BAD THING.

 

A reasonable enough position. What rattled my cage was your assertion that marinas and their customers get nothing in return for the NAA fee and that it should therefore be scrapped altogether in favour of a higher licence fee. If you'd simply been arguing that the current fee is too high, and/or that any fee charged ought to be variable rather than fixed, while recognising that the charging of an access fee is justified in principle because access between a marina and the canal network is of value to that marina and its customers, I wouldn't have had an issue.

[George94]

It's only a monopoly if you set the sort of very very tight criteria that you have -- which is a self fulfilling prophecy. It would be like me saying that I wanted to moor at Pillings Lock Marina, and then complaining that Pillings Lock Marina had a monopoly on meeting my needs.

 

The point is that you don't have to build your marina on a CRT waterway if you don't want to. Just ask Billing Aquadrome on the Nene, the Thames and Kennet Marina on the Thames, or Pyrford Marina on the Wey if CRT have a monopoly.

 

Adam, you would argue black is white.

 

You are being utterly ridiculous. Totally and completely absurd. Mad as a box of frogs.

 

Just have the cojones to admit that you are wrong on this, and attack from another angle.

 

Sheesh.

 

The canal, however, IS their asset.

 

As others have pointed out a million times before, the ability to move boats to and from the canal network is something of value to the marina. Without that facility, the mooring income will reduce.

 

In return for the NAA, CRT agrees that it will allow the free passage of boats into the marina. If the marina feels that it isn't getting anything for its money, it can opt out. In return, CRT can opt out of their side of the bargain.

 

You can't on the one hand claim that the NAA has no worth and on the other complain that you have lost something valuable when it is taken away!

 

Peopel have previously mentioned the tea room analogy. Let me relate a real life story!

 

Some years ago, I worked in an office in Chesterfied (for the Post Office). Next door was a club (gym, pool, tennis courts, bar etc). The Post Office and the club had an arrangement.

 

Essentially, the club allowed 30 staff to park there free of charge during the day (when the club was quiet). Many of the staff went through a gate in the wall for a pleasant lunch.

 

No money actually changed hands, but effectively the club gave the PO 30 car spaces without making a charge.

 

There was a change of management, and the new management felt that their daytime clientelle would prefer that the car park was empty for them, so they took away the free parking. The PO locked the gate in the hedge, which meant that a trip to the club now involved walking down our drive to the main road, along the road and up their drive. The walking distance was quadrupled.

 

The takings at the club fell, and after 3 months, the free parking was restored.

 

That is an absolutely splendid anecdote, Dave, and supports my argument beautifully.

 

The club (CART) realised that they needed the PO (marina) as much as the PO needed them, and provided free access.

 

Good to have your incisive mind on the side of reason.

I suspect the problem with turnover lies in just the kind of complex arrangement of companies used at PLM - and by many much larger multi nationals to avoid tax. What you might find is that you pay moorings to one company and other charges to another.eg £1 for mooring and £2000 for vehicle and pedestrian site access.

 

That's an excellent point, Mike, and no doubt explains why CART chose the formula they did. Unfortunately, it doesn't work if the unrealistic expectations on which it is based are not met.

[carlt]

 

 

 

 

The club (CART) realised that they needed the PO (marina) as much as the PO needed them, and provided free access.

 

 

So, following the same logic, councils should immediately stop charging business rates and landlords should stop charging rent.

 

CRT do not need marinas any more than they need boats so are you suggesting that the licence fee be scrapped too?

Edited January 28, 2014 by carlt

[George94]

 

Nice to see you leading by example in avoiding 'unpleasant' and 'ad hominem remarks'. I'm one of the 'ignoramuses' who thinks that the CaRT doesn't have a monopoly on potential marina locations (since there are many hundreds of miles of navigable waterways run by other authorities), remember? But I agree that the issue is not worth getting bogged down in. Monopoly or not, the CaRT certainly have a dominant position in the market (in most areas, anyway).

 

 

 

A reasonable enough position. What rattled my cage was your assertion that marinas and their customers get nothing in return for the NAA fee and that it should therefore be scrapped altogether in favour of a higher licence fee. If you'd simply been arguing that the current fee is too high, and/or that any fee charged ought to be variable rather than fixed, while recognising that the charging of an access fee is justified in principle because access between a marina and the canal network is of value to that marina and its customers, I wouldn't have had an issue.

 

Fair enough. And apologies for ignoramuses (I had just read one of Adam's posts!).

 

However, my point about the marina getting nothing for the charge is a subtle one. The access is needed by the boaters, and their needs in this case are no different from CCers'. Why should marina-based boats pay more than CCers to be able to use the canal? What rights are they getting that their licence doesn't also provide? Bear in mind that the marina paid for the access to be created.

[RLWP]

Bear in mind that the marina paid for the access to be created.

 

Isn't this the point. They didn't pay once for an access (noun) to be created, they pay annually to have access (verb)

 

Personally, I think the name of this fee causes the confusion

 

Richard

Edited January 28, 2014 by RLWP

[magnetman]

I don't see why CRT 'need' marinas. They don't at all they have plenty of canal space for moorings its just some people can't quite get that on line moorings are the answer. So what if you have to slow down/people go past too fast.

 

If you don't like it get a caravan and it won't happen

As I see it marinas are leeches trying to take money from CRT then they moan that its the other way around !

[carlt]

 

The access is needed by the boaters, and their needs in this case are no different from CCers'. Why should marina-based boats pay more than CCers to be able to use the canal? What rights are they getting that their licence doesn't also provide? Bear in mind that the marina paid for the access to be created.

That is no different to saying "A marina based boat moored against the bank is no different to a CCing boat moored against the towpath so why should the marina boat owner pay the marina owner a mooring fee?"

 

The marina is required to pay a fee for access from his marina onto the network which, like all his other overheads, he passes on to his customers.

 

This is usual business practice and I struggle to understand why you differentiate the access charge from any other expenses incurred in the day to day running of the marina.

[matty40s]

 

The Thames is not a canal, Matty. Nor are the majority of the other EA waterways.

 

But since you have mentioned the EA, they have a monopoly over various things in the waterways that they do control.

I really don't know why some people find this so difficult to grasp. It does, however, shed light on why so many of the arguments put forward here are so devoid of real content.

ETA: Try to avoid the ad hominem remarks if you want people to take you seriously.

 

I admit to having got bogged down arguing about monopolies with ignoramuses, but my central point was made very clearly in my first post (No 45 in this thread). Big fixed fees, unrelated to profit or turnover, are a BAD THING. As we see all too clearly now.

 

nuff said!

 

 

 

Pillings has (as one of their team stated yesterday so proudly) many excellent income streams other than just the moorings - the Bistro, the apartments, the workshops(now sublet), the boat sales, hire boats , along with the normal diesel sales/pump outs /chandlery sales etc etc.

Were it not for the NAA allowing visiting boats into the marina, these would not be so good.

The moorings are your core income to pay fixed costs and salaries and should be the most important insome stream to be looked after, the other things are the profit realisation elements.

Pillings has not looked after it's moorers - some perhaps, but certainly not all, and indeed has actively pushed out those who do not fit the mould.

 

If I do not like my neighbors as a CC-er, I move on, young Pillie has taken this route with his moorings customers, a move which has cost him occupancy on a quite large scale.

The one thing you do in business is look after your core customers....all of them....even if it makes you grate your teeth whilst smiling.

 

 

edited to add, example of excellent customer service...........

Pump out has been frozen, temperature has risen above freezing for two days and a moorer wishes to use the pump out so goes to see Pillie in the office.

"Is the pump-out working yet?"

"Don't know, you can try it if you want to, but won't get your money back if it doesn't"

 

Edited January 28, 2014 by matty40s

[Dank]

I don't see why CRT 'need' marinas. They don't at all they have plenty of canal space for moorings its just some people can't quite get that on line moorings are the answer. So what if you have to slow down/people go past too fast.

 

 

 

CRT don't need marinas - we do as boaters, if every boat was moored on the cut then you would spend most of your journey on tickover.

On top of that think of the poor so and so who can't find a mooring close to road access.

[magnetman]

If marinas were not built the number of boats on the system would be self controlling

 

If you don't like it get a caravan and it won't happen

 

There is space for online moorings the problem is people don't tie up properly and moan about speeding boaters.

 

Maybe these people are not suited to the cut, which is a waterway designed for boats to move about

[Dank]

 

There is space for online moorings the problem is people don't tie up properly and moan about speeding boaters.

 

Maybe these people are not suited to the cut, which is a waterway designed for boats to move about

 

Does this mean that you don't believe in showing other boaters that courtesy?

 

As it stands I like things just the way they are thanks and I don't like fibre glass boxes on wheels

[magnetman]

I do slow down a lot (have been shouted at by a boater behind me )as I don't go boating to schedules but some people have time constraints and I think it is reasonable they may want to get somewhere. I am making a distinction between long term moorings (rings) and people on mooring pins btw

[George94]

 

Isn't this the point. They didn't pay once for an access (noun) to be created, they pay annually to have access (verb)

 

Personally, I think the name of this fee causes the confusion

 

Richard

 

Both. The marina paid for the physical work, and is also liable to pay the NAA fee.

[RLWP]

 

Both. The marina paid for the physical work, and is also liable to pay the NAA fee.

 

They pay the bill for the physical work to the builder, and the NAA fee to the Trust. This discussion is about the latter, not the former

 

Richard

[George94]

 

They pay the bill for the physical work to the builder, and the NAA fee to the Trust. This discussion is about the latter, not the former

 

Richard

 

We are not disagreeing.

[adam1uk]

Adam, you would argue black is white.

 

You are being utterly ridiculous. Totally and completely absurd. Mad as a box of frogs.

 

Just have the cojones to admit that you are wrong on this, and attack from another angle.

 

Sheesh.

 

No, it's you who's being ridiculous. No-one forced Mr Lillie to build his marina on CRT waters. He could have built one on EA waters, the Bridgewater which is controlled by Peel Holdings, the Wey owned by th National Trust, the Broads, the middle levels, the Cam. He had that choice, which means he had a choice of whose rules and charges to abide by. If he didn't like BW/CRTs charges, he should have built his marina elsewhere.

[MtB]

No, it's you who's being ridiculous. No-one forced Mr Lillie to build his marina on CRT waters. He could have built one on EA waters, the Bridgewater which is controlled by Peel Holdings, the Wey owned by th National Trust, the Broads, the middle levels, the Cam. He had that choice, which means he had a choice of whose rules and charges to abide by. If he didn't like BW/CRTs charges, he should have built his marina elsewhere.

 

Is it groundhog day, again?

 

MtB

[magictime]

However, my point about the marina getting nothing for the charge is a subtle one. The access is needed by the boaters, and their needs in this case are no different from CCers'. Why should marina-based boats pay more than CCers to be able to use the canal? What rights are they getting that their licence doesn't also provide? Bear in mind that the marina paid for the access to be created.

 

Funny, my imaginary friend George95 just pressed a very similar point on me in relation to the tea room case.

 

"My point about the tea room getting nothing for the charge,' he said, 'is a subtle one. The access is needed by its customers, and their needs in this case are no different from NT visitors who don't visit the tea room. Why should the tea room's customers pay more than other NT visitors for permission to look round the house and gardens? What rights are they getting that the admission fee doesn't also provide? Bear in mind that the tea room paid for the access to be created."

 

George95's mistake - and frustatingly, I'm sure you can see this perfectly clearly - is in thinking that the tea room's customers are paying more for permission to look round the house and gardens than NT visitors who don't bother with the tea room. The cost of permission to look round the house and gardens, in both cases, is just the admission fee. The tea room's customers do bear the cost of the access fee it pays to the NT, though, and they do get something in return - the right (or, to express the matter more naturally, the opportunity) to take a few steps off the NT's property, sit and have a cup of tea, then take a few steps back to resume their enjoyment of the garden.

 

In just the same way, the marina's customers bear the cost of the NAA fee it pays to the CaRT, and in return, they get the opportunity to pull a few metres off the CaRT's waterway, moor their boat securely away from the towpath and passing boats, take advantage of any other services offered by the marina, then pull out again and resume their enjoyment of the canals.

[Willber G]

No, it's you who's being ridiculous. No-one forced Mr Lillie to build his marina on CRT waters. He could have built one on EA waters, the Bridgewater which is controlled by Peel Holdings, the Wey owned by th National Trust, the Broads, the middle levels, the Cam. He had that choice, which means he had a choice of whose rules and charges to abide by. If he didn't like BW/CRTs charges, he should have built his marina elsewhere.

Or not built one at all - which, going by revelations on the other thread, would probably have been the wisest course...

Edited January 28, 2014 by Willber G

[adam1uk]

 

Is it groundhog day, again?

 

MtB

 

Apparently so.