BWML is really BW!!! evidence...

[minerva]

They have told us that BWML is a separate company yes?

Then why when I go on this companies checker this is what comes up?

 

I typed in British Waterways Marinas Limited and low and behold this came up....

 

http://www.checksure.biz/live/freesearch2_...earchID=1937156

 

 

expalin this BWML?!!!

 

 

this is a very handy website for checking companies and directors...

 

http://www.checksure.biz/

 

there's no hiding places out there..... if one is determined enough to find out.

[Moley]

So its registered office is Watford, what does that prove?

 

Am I being dense, what are you asking them to “expalin”?

 

Out of interest, why does every BW office, workshop etc. seem to be registered separately as a non-limited company?

Edited December 4, 2006 by Moley

[WJM]

The Registered Office means nothing - many smaller firms use their accountant's address as their registered address - so you will find that most accountant's offices are the registered address of hundreds of totally unconnected companies.

 

 

Registering each business unit as a separate company forces each unit to produce its own accounts - useful for spotting lame duck units that need remedial action

[DICKOREP]

They have told us that BWML is a separate company yes?

Then why when I go on this companies checker this is what comes up?

 

I typed in British Waterways Marinas Limited and low and behold this came up....

 

http://www.checksure.biz/live/freesearch2_...earchID=1937156

expalin this BWML?!!!

 

 

this is a very handy website for checking companies and directors...

 

http://www.checksure.biz/

 

there's no hiding places out there..... if one is determined enough to find out.

All BWML salaries are paid by BW!!! So who's kidding who?/

[fuzzyduck]

It was my understanding that BWML is a wholy owned subsidiary of BW, but that they were ring fenced so there could be no complaints of BWML using BW's money.

 

I would imagine they have to be very careful about pricing, as persistant under cutting of local marinas might intrroduce legal issues.

 

If the prices are too high vote with your wallets.

[WJM]

Ring-fencing a subsidiary like that allows an easy sell off if for whatever reason, the parent company decides it does not want to be in that business any more

 

But the more short term advantage is that the subsidiary must be seen to perform (as a business).

 

I am on a BW Marina - it is expensive but very good - being a separate company with it's own accounts I am sure the staff must feel a desire to perform and have that performance recognised.

[minerva]

All BWML salaries are paid by BW!!! So who's kidding who?/

 

Exactly, I have been told by an employee of BWML that their wage is issued by BW.

 

This stinks.

 

Of BS

[Sam]

I would have thought it was a bit obvious.

 

And also.. I dont see how it matters so much?!

[minerva]

It matters because they are supposed to be seperate entities Sam.... have you ever heard about having a monopoly?.... in business? its not supposed to be allowed, as I understand it.. thats why it matters.

[bottle]

 

Exactly, I have been told by an employee of BWML that their wage is issued by BW.

 

This stinks.

 

Of BS

 

May be that it is cheaper that way, the pay office may be the same but the money comes from different accounts.

 

BW may even charge BWML for doing the pay out.

 

My pay came from a 'private' company although I worked for the local health authority but the money came from the health authority bank account.

[Sam]

May be that it is cheaper that way, the pay office may be the same but the money comes from different accounts.

 

BW may even charge BWML for doing the pay out.

 

My pay came from a 'private' company although I worked for the local health authority but the money came from the health authority bank account.

 

mm yeh.

 

 

I don't think your argument is very good for WHY it matters.

 

You say

It matters because they are supposed to be seperate entities Sam.... have you ever heard about having a monopoly?.... in business? its not supposed to be allowed, as I understand it.. thats why it matters.

But it just seems like you are just trying to get at it.. this is just my views from someone who hasn't followed any of this closely.

 

Could someone explain the problem a bit more.. urm.. in depth?

 

Even if BWML was run sepertaely but still under BW (eg. profit centre - so budgeting etc all done through BWML) I do not understand the problem.. What is actually the disadvantages of BWML being a part of BW.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Sam

[DaveR]

Been down this road with another company. To establish a link between two companies at least four of the directors / board members must belong to both companies. Sharing an address, being paid by BW do not show a link, salary handling may be outsourced as it is in many companies.

 

That said, I am convinced that the two make a pair . . . . . .

[stuart]

Being as its a PLC company as well, I dont think you can get a list of the directors. Although they have recently filed their accounts!

 

Name & Registered Office:

BRITISH WATERWAYS MARINAS LIMITED

WILLOW GRANGE

CHURCH ROAD

WATFORD

HERTFORDSHIRE WD17 4QA

Company No. 04930453

 

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 13/10/2003

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

9272 - Other recreational activities

Accounting Reference Date: 31/03

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2006 (FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 13/10/2006

Next Return Due: 10/11/2007

Last Members List: 13/10/2006

 

www.companieshouse.gov.uk

[WJM]

Why does it matter - they operate in an open market - I am a customer of BWML simply because they offered the best product/price combination for my requirements - I looked at many of their competitors before making my buying decision. If at any point I become unhappy with my ongoing purchase I will look again at their competitors. The very fact that there are alternative suppliers means by definition that they do not operate a monopoly.

 

 

(btw - I run a business and I outsource my payroll too - it has no bearing on my independence)

Edited December 6, 2006 by WJM

[fender.]

Why does it matter - they operate in an open market - I am a customer of BWML simply because they offered the best product/price combination for my requirements - I looked at many of their competitors before making my buying decision. If at any point I become unhappy with my ongoing purchase I will look again at their competitors. The very fact that there are alternative suppliers means by definition that they do not operate a monopoly.

(btw - I run a business and I outsource my payroll too - it has no bearing on my independence)

 

Anyone know who the directors of BWML are?

[WJM]

No - but what would that tell you - even if the board is identical to the BW board that does not prevent it being an independent company.

 

Are you aware of any anti-competitive practices or other wrong doing on their part?

[Richard Fairhurst]

You can see a list of the directors in their annual accounts: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/B...06_Accounts.pdf (honestly, some of you guys should try Google once in a while). James Froomberg is BW's Commercial Director; Ian White used to be their NE director. Alan Thake I think works for BW. Cornel Howells is BWB secretary (obviously not a director's role).

 

FWIW, I'm pretty sure there's a little plaque on the entrance to Willow Grange which says "Registered Office, British Waterways Marinas Ltd". It's not like they're hiding anything.

 

May be that it is cheaper that way, the pay office may be the same but the money comes from different accounts.

 

BW may even charge BWML for doing the pay out.

Spot on. From my experience when Waterscape Ltd was constituted as a separate company (a ridiculous situation, but that's another story), BWML will pay the salaries itself but through the BW accounts system ("Shared Services", based in Leeds). BWML will then pay a monthly fee for services such as this. If you believe that Shared Services is an effective way of paying salaries, something on which I have my doubts, it's quite a sensible and above-board way of doing it.

[WJM]

"If you believe that Shared Services is an effective way of paying salaries, something on which I have my doubts..."

 

I outsource payroll because 1) it is quiet a difficult task and 2) the consequences of getting it wrong are very very severe, it could potentially destroy an otherwise good business

Edited December 6, 2006 by WJM

[Paul H]

The argument here is whether BW even though an independant subsidiary BWML should be in this business at all. They may not be a monopoly in one sense - there are other operators but those operators have connection agreements with BW and surrender usually 9% of their turnover at estimated full capacity (even when not full). BW also have a databse of potential customers through licencing and opportunities for free advertising. But above all, they are crap at running businesses - the profit generated in the last year represents 3% of capital employed. Not only is this unfair competition for private marinas (most of whom would have to pack up if they made such little return) but also it is a crap use of their (sorry our) money. If, as stated their intention is to generate money for the good of the waterways then they would be better off putting it in to a post office savings account.

 

And the only reason they made ANY money at all is due to a change in accounting. Previously they had paid BW a "rates equivalent" to create a level playing field with private marinas because as a subsidiary of BW they pay no rates. So if there is any profit at all is because they were effectively subisdised by the local authorities to the tune of £200,000!

 

And they are depreciating the pontoons over 25 years! Does anyone know ANY jetty or pontoon that lasts anywhere near that time?

 

But perhaps the fact that they are paying the highest paid Director (who I bet never does a pumpout!) over £80,000 a year explains a lot.

 

The sooner BW gets back to basics, the better.

 

Paul H

[WJM]

Paul H, The truth deep, deep below the DEFRA Cuts is aimed at your point entirely - BW has vast untapped resources - New management has come in from outside the 'industry' (if you can call it an industry now) and the cuts simply serve to kick start this commercial re-awakening of the sleeping giant. The unsaid truth is that as the rebirth of the canals happens, BW will become capable of total economic self sufficiency - we are just seeing the start of that process, DEFRA was just the excuse to hide behind - If Ken Livingstone was PM it would be held up for what it is, but we have TB (AB) who 'spins' everything - the end result will be the same though - and it is the way it should be - the new waterways should not be funded by my or your taxes.

[Grasshopper]

Not having used this forum for very long, I am struck by what strong feelings are generally held against BW. It seems all out of proportion to any offence somehow. I'm not suggesting that they are perfect, no bureaucratic organisation (public or private) is. But I'm not sure what makes them so particularly heinous.........

 

And I'm certainly not following this debate.

 

those operators have connection agreements with BW and surrender usually 9% of their turnover at estimated full capacity (even when not full

Are you arguing that BW shouldn't charge commercial marina owners for the ability to connect to the BW network? Or that they are charging too much?

 

But above all, they are crap at running businesses - the profit generated in the last year represents 3% of capital employed.

 

 

So presumably they should charge commercial marinas more then? Actually I used to work for a large finance house and we'd have been in heaven to achieve that rate of return. What you can expect varies enormously depending on the market in which you operate. Obviously the Waterways is a pretty unique market and to what extent it should be run to maximise returns, I would think, is open to question.

 

the highest paid Director (who I bet never does a pumpout!) over £80,000 a year explains a lot.

To be honest, I'm amazed it is so low in today's market. And having employed a director, would getting him to do pump outs be a sensible use of his time when you could employ someone to do that much cheaper? That would hardly sound like the good business management that you want to see........

 

BW has vast untapped resources

 

Does it? Evidence? I've seen nothing until now to suggest that it has sufficient assets to generate enough income to be totally independent of Government grant. The statements that I have read from BW certainly don't seem to imply that they believe that is achievable.

 

DEFRA was just the excuse to hide behind

Oh I love conspiracy theories. But I think one can see that the DEFRA cuts are the consequence of incompetence rather than cunning. The cock up theory of history is always more likely than the conspiracy theory.

 

and it is the way it should be - the new waterways should not be funded by my or your taxes.

 

I would envisage that being a minority view on the forum. And I'm not sure that it would be a good thing either. The Inland Waterways are part of the national infrastucture and a historical heritage. In both respects, I would see the use of some tax based income as reasonable in the same way as roads (in the first case) and other heritage sites (in the latter). Reducing the dependency on the Government grant as BW are trying to do is wise however.

[WJM]

Fair and reasonable comments Grasshopper;

 

 

Are BW not sitting on a property portfolio of extraordinary magnitude? On my recent trip from North to South (of England) I saw many many under-utilised properties.

 

£80,000 a year to run BW sounds rubbish - that figure cannot be correct - unless it is a part time position - you simply would not get a senior manager to drive the kind of changes needed for that money.

[Paul H]

Ok, perhaps I should have made myself clearer.

 

My point regarding the connection fees was really to explain why people feel that BW are in a monopoly position. Whilst they do not operate every marina, they have an element of control and financial interest in most of those that they do not.

 

I am not anti-BW, they often do what they should be doing very well but their forray in to marina management has been a financial disaster and has done little or nothing to generate any significant income for the waterways. In fact they could have given the marinas away free of charge to private operators and made more money in connection fees than they if they operated them themselves.

 

They don't charge any less than private marinas and in some cases much more. What is different is their cost structure. My comment about the Drectors doing pump outs was tongue in cheek but go to Braunston Marina on a Sunday and you will find Tim C. manning the office and a few miles down the canal you will find Sarah Jane at Weltonfield. Even these large successful marina operations do not generate enough to allow an £80K a year Director to swan about in a company car attending the occasional board meeting - the operators are hands-on and working all hours. And remember it is OUR money BW are playing with! What is significantly different with the private operators is that they are playing with their own money, often borrowed from the banks at a significantly higher interest rate than 3%!

 

Of course BW also used to operate hire boats and the zoo waterbuses - both lost substantial sums of money but in the hands of private operators, surprise surprise! I firmly believe that the future for BWML is for it to operate in some public-private partnership like BW is doing with its pub portfolio.

 

Paul H

[Paul H]

Fair and reasonable comments Grasshopper;

Are BW not sitting on a property portfolio of extraordinary magnitude? On my recent trip from North to South (of England) I saw many many under-utilised properties.

 

£80,000 a year to run BW sounds rubbish - that figure cannot be correct - unless it is a part time position - you simply would not get a senior manager to drive the kind of changes needed for that money.

No it was £80,000 a year to be a "the highest paid Director" of BW Marinas Ltd and, although I stand to be corrected, I do not imagine this to be any more than a part time position and mainly involved in attending meetings. The CEO of BW itself obviously earns much more and deservedly so - I imagine he's pretty busy at the moment!

 

Paul H

[Grasshopper]

I must admit that I'd assumed that the original reason that BW got into marinas was because there was a lack of provision of moorings rather than specifically to make money. And that there was a lack of willingness in the private sector to do so. Which just doing some back of fag packet sums based upon the Calcutt extension where I'm moored, wouldn't be a surprising position. Calcutt could utilise their existing infrastructure but if you had to build everything from scratch, it would seem a lot of outlay for not a very good rate of return even with fairly high mooring charges.

 

But I accept that I may well be wrong on the history.

 

As for the income that could be raised off BW's assets, I honestly don't know. I was basing my thoughts on what seemed to be the consensus of informed comment in the press. That seemed to be that there was scope to increase income and reduce dependency on the grant but not to be self sufficient. Of course that may depend in part on the view as to legitimate BW activity i.e. to what extent does it just maintain the existing network and to what extent does it get involved in restoration.