BWML and NAAs

[MtB]

This topic has just cropped up in the Pillings thread.

 

What is the financial status of British Watewways Marinas Limited since CRT came into existence, does anybody know? Are they an independent company now or wholly (or partly) owned by CRT?

 

And in particular, do they compete fairly and have NAAs with CRT? If not, why not, I wonder....

 

 

MtB

[b0atman]

This is a very good point and as they are supposedly run separately then it should be a level playing field for all. Sadly though at moment naa is not playing level with all marinas

[gaggle]

BWML may have different naa agreements or non at all as it seems others do , others have pointed out in the other thread historical rights to access are in place , THEY cannot be made to join in and start paying , the trade " MARINA OWNERS" always in my opinion look to have a moan about something to change in order they get some benefit , i reckon most of the most of the anti continuous cruiser stuff C&rt get is down to them , the pilling fiasco amazingly is not down to an uneven playing field .

[alan_fincher]

From the BWML Directors Report

BWML is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canal & River Trust (formerly British Waterways) and operates under a
Fair Trading Code of Practice. The principles of the Fair Trading Code are that BWML will be treated by Canal &
River Trust (CRT) in the same manner as any other private mooring or marina operator and that BWML should
not receive any special help, information, services or privileges that are not made available on the same terms to
other operators on the CRT network of waterways. Various operating measures are in place to ensure that BWML
complies with this Code which include paying CRT for the supply of accounting, payroll and pension services and
the open market rents for marinas that are leased from CRT. In the year ended 31st March 2012 BWML paid to
CRT( then incorpated as British Waterways) property rents of £677k (2011: £657k) and charges for services of
£72k (2011: £70k)

Edited to add:

That's from the 2012 report - something near identical in the 2013 one, but for some bizarre reason that is in a "scanned in" type of format, not allowing a cut and paste.

It is here.

Edited February 11, 2014 by alan_fincher

[b0atman]

so correct about pillings because money was paid by boaters and not passed on .pillings signed an agreement to naa so should have paid up whilst lobbying for a level playing field.any way lets get topic back to Bwml Sawley seems to be going down the weir according to other topics

[Swallowman]

Perhaps the NAA was only brought in for new ponds dug after the edict that for every 10 new berths built, one on-line mooring would be taken out of use. The NAA was probably brought in to replace the revenue lost from the on-line mooring no longer in use.

 

If I am correct, marinas built before that edict won't have a NAA,

[Mike Todd]

Page 18 lists the transaction with the parent company (now CRT). It is not obvious from the limited detail that and NAA charges have been paid. However, as just said, it may be that none of the marinas is new enough to be covered - but it would still make a justifiable question for boater reps to pursue. (How old is Cowroast, the most recently acquired I think?)

[alan_fincher]

(How old is Cowroast, the most recently acquired I think?)

Cow Roast is a 1970s marina, but subsequently extended.

 

I was itself subject of a connection dispute when first built, and remained piled in, (for some years I think), before that was finally resolved and it was opened.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In January 2011, BW's board approved a plan to expand BWML by acquisition.

 

I am told that discussions took place with regard to acquiring Pillings Marina but this fell through. However, BWML did acquire two marinas (Cow Roast mentioned above by Alan was one of them) before the plan was quietly abandoned abandoned.

I understand that the Board of Trustees has expressed some concern about BWML's performance and it will be put under the microscope.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[BEngo]

I am not sure it really matters to CRT whether BWML pay NAA charges or not- BWML's dividends accrue to CRT anyway. and CRT decide how much those dividends are. Paying NAA's might reduce BWML's profits and so reduce any Corporation Tax payable, but I'm not sure what the tax treatment of dividends from BWML to CRT is.

 

Similarly with charges for head office services rendered (payroll etc).

 

What it all comes down to is the ability of accountants to hide as much income from tax as possible and the ensure that any income that has to be taxed is taxed where the bill is least- viz Amazon, Google UK and others.

 

From a marina operators view point BWML just need to be charging what the market will bear and not artificially undercutting the private competition.

 

If BWML does not perform to suit CRT then presumably it gets sold and possibly broken up in the process. Any operator(s) taking over from BWML will surely be subject to a NAA.

 

N

[Bod]

I am not sure it really matters to CRT whether BWML pay NAA charges or not- BWML's dividends accrue to CRT anyway. and CRT decide how much those dividends are.

Wooden dollars?

 

If BWML does not perform to suit CRT then presumably it gets sold and possibly broken up in the process. Any operator(s) taking over from BWML will surely be subject to a NAA.

 

Would they?

 

Bod

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Posted Today, 07:24 PM

BEngo, on 11 Feb 2014 - 6:58 PM, said:

I am not sure it really matters to CRT whether BWML pay NAA charges or not- BWML's dividends accrue to CRT anyway. and CRT decide how much those dividends are.

Wooden dollars?

 

If BWML does not perform to suit CRT then presumably it gets sold and possibly broken up in the process. Any operator(s) taking over from BWML will surely be subject to a NAA.

 

Would they?

I subscribe to the 'wooden dollars'. From memory BW has invested over £12m in BWML which, in the main, is simply renting its parents marinas.

 

If BWML was sold off or broken up would this investment be recovered?

With regard to private operators running CaRT owned marina being subject to NAA, I suspect this would be very negotiable. It would be a different matter if the marina was sold.

[dew]

Ripon Marina is going down the pan too.

[Charles]

Then you should call it Ripoff Marina!