BWML For Sale

[Victor Vectis]

20 minutes ago, Tacet said:

 

 

It a bit like - for example - Why would a teacher ever resign - unless intending to retire? They would be deprived of future income and would end up poorer, not richer than before" 

   

 

Because the faceless suits running the academy chain made the job untenable, perhaps?

(Further details can be provided on request, if you really, really want to know)

[Peter X]

It makes a lot of sense to me for CRT to not own any marinas, because although BWML was set up to operate at arm's length there's always the potential for CRT to be accused of favouritism whether or not there is any, as they were in the Pilling's Lock dispute. I'd expect that when sold off they'll charge NAA fees on those marinas where they legally can, and the buyers will be quite aware of this when handing over the dosh. As has been said, it's probably tricky to see in the accounts just what profit the marinas are making, but the truth will be in the books somewhere, and the price each marina fetches should in theory reflect its potential for profit.

It is in CRT's interest for there to be plenty of marinas spread around the system, enough to satisfy demand, because they collect the boat licence fees and NAA fees. More boats = more income, and boats in marinas are not online slowing traffic down. In financial terms, they probably love boats which spend most of their time moored in a marina and are just used for a two week holiday plus a number of weekends each year, because it's less wear on their locks etc. and less water used. But they should quite like most other boats too, because people pottering around all over the system are still paying a licence fee, and they need enough boats on the move to attract the general public to the canals.

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Peter X said:

As has been said, it's probably tricky to see in the accounts just what profit the marinas are making, but the truth will be in the books somewhere,

The accounts show that BWML make a £1 million per annum charity donation to C&RT (in addition to their management charges) so that's a potential £1m extra that can be added back into the P&L account, (unless the new owners fancy donating to the charity.)

[Alway Swilby]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

They can only charge the NAA on marinas where C&RT have 'control' of the waters, so the River and coastal waters must always remain free of NAA

Sawley is on a cut off the river Trent as is King's Marina in Newark (and no doubt many others. Do they have to pay NAA I wonder. And what about Castle Marina in Nottingham?

When we moored for a winter at King's in Newark I'm pretty sure we had to have a valid licence and that CRT came to check it. Is that related to having to pay NAA or is that something different?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alway Swilby said:

Sawley is on a cut off the river Trent as is King's Marina in Newark (and no doubt many others. Do they have to pay NAA I wonder. And what about Castle Marina in Nottingham?

When we moored for a winter at King's in Newark I'm pretty sure we had to have a valid licence and that CRT came to check it. Is that related to having to pay NAA or is that something different?

As far as I am aware only one of C&RT's marinas is subject to NAA. A few more are subject to earlier agreements.

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The accounts show that BWML make a £1 million per annum charity donation to C&RT (in addition to their management charges) so that's a potential £1m extra that can be added back into the P&L account, (unless the new owners fancy donating to the charity.)

BWML will only be gift aiding C&RT £250,000 this year (2017/18). 

Over the last eight years, BW/C&RT have received dividends and gift aid of just £4.3m. However, they have provided £5m equity via share purchase to add to the £6.2m already invested over the same period.

 

[ditchcrawler]

On 01/03/2018 at 15:00, NB Lola said:

Raise funds to shore up rest of the mess as govt subsidy drops

greenie

[NigelMoore]

On 3/1/2018 at 17:46, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes they do - Asset sales will need Government approval - although could it be argued that the Marinas are assets of a separate limited company (BWML) which is a trading division of C&RT ?

Tricky - where's Nigel when you want him ?

I seriously doubt that any of the marinas would be included within the Waterways Infrastructure Trust portfolio; they will be part of the investment portfolio with which CaRT can deal as they wish [subject only to the “protector” agreeing that it would not be squandering their assets - but his role is more an after-the-event one].

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I seriously doubt that any of the marinas would be included within the Waterways Infrastructure Trust portfolio; they will be part of the investment portfolio with which CaRT can deal as they wish [subject only to the “protector” agreeing that it would not be squandering their assets - but his role is more an after-the-event one].

Thank you.

[Richard Fairhurst]

58 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I seriously doubt that any of the marinas would be included within the Waterways Infrastructure Trust portfolio; they will be part of the investment portfolio with which CaRT can deal as they wish [subject only to the “protector” agreeing that it would not be squandering their assets - but his role is more an after-the-event one].

I'd be interested to know where the division lies. We moor in the old bit of Diglis Basin, for example. That's clearly historic Worcester & Birmingham Canal infrastructure. What will be included in the BWML sale - the entire "marina", just the new basin, or...?

(Aside from that it strikes me as a good idea, to be honest.)

On NAA - there isn't really any rhyme or reason to which marinas are subject to it, it's mostly historical accident. There are some non-historic layby-type marinas which aren't subject to NAA simply because BWB didn't require it at the time. I did many years ago see a list of those marinas which don't have to pay it (there were around 35 in total, I think); I can only remember three or four from the list, but I don't remember BWML marinas being particularly over-represented.

[TheBiscuits]

8 hours ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

I'd be interested to know where the division lies. We moor in the old bit of Diglis Basin, for example. That's clearly historic Worcester & Birmingham Canal infrastructure. What will be included in the BWML sale - the entire "marina", just the new basin, or...?

(Aside from that it strikes me as a good idea, to be honest.)

On NAA - there isn't really any rhyme or reason to which marinas are subject to it, it's mostly historical accident. There are some non-historic layby-type marinas which aren't subject to NAA simply because BWB didn't require it at the time. I did many years ago see a list of those marinas which don't have to pay it (there were around 35 in total, I think); I can only remember three or four from the list, but I don't remember BWML marinas being particularly over-represented.

My original point was that when/if CRT sell the BWML business I would be very surprised if they do not charge NAA fees on every one of the marinas where they can do so as part of the commercial negotiations.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

My original point was that when/if CRT sell the BWML business I would be very surprised if they do not charge NAA fees on every one of the marinas where they can do so as part of the commercial negotiations.

Agreed - they have their cake & eat it, sell them off and still have a £300k-£500k ?? income from them.

Alternatively they could retain the freehold and lease the marinas out giving them a risk / cost free income.

It just depends if they really need / want to release the capital, or if they just need a steady income.

The big 'elephant in the room' is going to be separating out the pensions of the BWML employees from the joint pension-pot, and resolving any underfunding issues.

TUPE will also (obviously) apply.

[Athy]

Is this thread also available in English? In post 28, the expression "NAA" was introduced. Assuming that it did not indicate an emphatic denial, I looked it up on the internet but, amongst its numerous possible meanings, found none that seemed to apply to the waterways. So what is it?

 

Now a TUPE has joined it, creating another mystery. At least in this case the internet is more helpful, stating that it's something to do with people's pension rights and not, as I first thought, a male sheep.

Perhaps if you decide to use an oibscure abbreviation you could explain what it mans - otherwise it's NBG.

[rusty69]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The big 'elephant in the room' is going to be separating out the pensions of the BWML employees from the joint pension-pot, and resolving any underfunding issues.

TUPE will also (obviously) apply

Obviously. You wouldn't send an elephant out of the room without a small hairpiece/wig, not in this weather. 

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

Is this thread also available in English? In post 28, the expression "NAA" was introduced. Assuming that it did not indicate an emphatic denial, I looked it up on the internet but, amongst its numerous possible meanings, found none that seemed to apply to the waterways. So what is it?

My apologies Athy.

The NAA is the Network Access Agreement that CRT (Canal and River Trust ) negotiate with all new marinas.  As part of the agreement, CRT take a percentage of the mooring fees, usually between 9 and 14%, for notionally full moorings. 

Put simply, if you build a marina that can take 100 boats, you will be charged the full mooring fees for around 11 of the places for the right to connect your marina to the canal.  This fee is charged regardless of the number of boats actually in your marina.

Another part of the agreement requires that all boats in the marina have a valid licence and that the marina allow access by CRT staff to check this.

Hopefully that's a bit more BG.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

Perhaps if you decide to use an oibscure abbreviation you could explain what it mans - otherwise it's NBG.

How long have you been on the canals ?

the NAA is the National Access Agreement that BW/C&RT charge marinas to allow them to have access to the canals for the boats in their marina. It is charged at 9% of potential mooring income.

So if a marina has 200 berths and charges (say) £3000 per berth then they pay C&RT 9% of £600,000, ie £54,000 per annum. This is irrespective of the number of boats in the marina - the charge is the same for 10 boats, 100 boats or 200 boats. It is the number of moorings in the marina.

 

Remember when Pillings Lock got 'into trouble' ? They actually removed a couple of their pontoons to reduce the number of available berths and hence their NAA liability.

13 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Obviously. You wouldn't send an elephant out of the room without a small hairpiece/wig, not in this weather. 

I wonder if it is possible to set up and automatic 'direct-debit' for Greenies - it seems that I give you one on virtually every one of your posts anyway.

We must have a similar sense of humour (or both be totally daft).

[TheBiscuits]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We must have a similar sense of humour (or both be totally daft).

Left without comment.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Here is the NAA summary details and requirements :

NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT FOR MARINAS AND OFF LINE MOORINGS
SUMMARY OF MAIN TERMS
• Is granted under the provisions of Section 43 Transport Act 1962.
• The purpose of the NAA is to authorise connection to our waterway network and to
charge marina operators for CRT services facilities including the impoundment, supply
and re-supply of water to enable navigation between the marina and the waterway
and within the marina.
• It deals with other issues such as entry upon and access across CRT land and other
statutory rights and powers.
• Lasts for a period of 150 years from a date that anticipates the date of connection.
• Has to be completed before you begin any works affecting CRT. (see Application
Process).
• Has a start date that will be agreed between the parties and will be the anticipated
date of the physical connection to the network.
• If the physical connection to the network is delayed the phasing in of payments will
not be deferred. Conversely if the physical connection is achieved earlier than
planned the phasing will not be brought forward so there is a financial incentive in
completing the connection to the network as soon as possible.
• Specifies an agreed gross mooring capacity in metres which can only be changed by
mutual agreement.
• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the
mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly
payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the
marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.
• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50%
capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity.
• Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the
whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed).
• Requires the operator to construct and keep the marina and connection to the canal
in good and watertight repair and to be properly dredged.
• Gives CRT the right to enter the marina to carry out inspections and testing relating to
the marina basin and effect of the marina on the waterway.
• Prohibits any taking of water from the marina or waterway.
• Prohibits the discharge of anything into the marina or waterway without CRT consent.
If at the design stage the marina or the waterway is seen to offer the best solution to
disposing of surface water from the marina’s land and buildings this will be assessed
by our engineers and if the waterway can accommodate the flows a separate
agreement will be granted but no additional charge will be made.
• Requires the marina operator not to allow any boat to be moored in the marina which
does not have a current valid CRT pleasure boat licence, to keep records of the
owners of all boats in the marina and to allow CRT to have access to the marina to
inspect boats and these records. This is to assist us in minimising licence evasion which is in everyone’s interest.
• Gives CRT step in rights in case of default and to seal off the access if necessary in
order to protect the waterway and allow for de watering of the waterway for
maintenance purposes. This should also preserve water levels in the marina while
the waterway is de-watered.
• Contains dispute resolution provisions.

P Spencer 23/12/2005

 

[Mike Todd]

15 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

My apologies Athy.

The NAA is the Network Access Agreement that CRT (Canal and River Trust ) negotiate with all new marinas.  As part of the agreement, CRT take a percentage of the mooring fees, usually between 9 and 14%, for notionally full moorings. 

Put simply, if you build a marina that can take 100 boats, you will be charged the full mooring fees for around 11 of the places for the right to connect your marina to the canal.  This fee is charged regardless of the number of boats actually in your marina.

Another part of the agreement requires that all boats in the marina have a valid licence and that the marina allow access by CRT staff to check this.

Hopefully that's a bit more BG.

I had assumed that the long term agreement that means sone marinas do not pay NAA is with the business and not the owner. Hence it continues even when the business has a new owner. 

If BWML really is a separate business then the current agreements will define what, if any, payments are made. They did not appear in the summary listed earlier.  Hence, for Crt to be able to create such a condition on sale would mean that BWML would gave to give up its right not to pay. Thus would be a wilful squander of their asset value which I would strongly suspect us not legitimate. 

[Athy]

24 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

My apologies Athy.

The NAA is the Network Access Agreement that CRT (Canal and River Trust ) negotiate with all new marinas. 

Thanks - no need to apologise, I sought enlightenment, that's all.

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

How long have you been on the canals ?

 

20 years as a boat owner, and three or four years before that as a hirer. And you?

[TheBiscuits]

11 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I had assumed that the long term agreement that means sone marinas do not pay NAA is with the business and not the owner. Hence it continues even when the business has a new owner. 

If BWML really is a separate business then the current agreements will define what, if any, payments are made. They did not appear in the summary listed earlier.  Hence, for Crt to be able to create such a condition on sale would mean that BWML would gave to give up its right not to pay. Thus would be a wilful squander of their asset value which I would strongly suspect us not legitimate. 

As I understand it, most of the BWML marinas predate the NAA, but as BWML give all their proceeds to CRT is is a moot point.

I'm fairly sure that any new private operator would rather pay 9% NAA fees than give all their proceeds to CRT!

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

 

20 years as a boat owner, and three or four years before that as a hirer. And you?

It was a rhetorical question, but in answer to yours - A little longer, my 1st Inland Waterways boat was, I think, in 1983 and was on the River Trent.

The NAA has been a regularly discussed item on this  forum*, and for a few has led to 'heated debate' so I was surprised you had not seen previous reference to it. A few forum members feel very strongly that C&RT do not have the legal right to impose such conditions in their commercial contracts - some even include it in their 'signature line'.

* Remember the Pillings Lock marina thread that ran to 10million posts and a record 249 pages ? that was all about none payment of the NAA.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

• Requires the marina operator not to allow any boat to be moored in the marina which
does not have a current valid CRT pleasure boat licence

I didn't know that clause was in the NAA.

Does that technically mean no roving traders are allowed to moor in any marina subject to the NAA?  What about workboats on their different licences?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

I didn't know that clause was in the NAA.

Does that technically mean no roving traders are allowed to moor in any marina subject to the NAA?  What about workboats on their different licences?

I imagine that's something the contract writers at C&RT never gave any thought to.

[Peter X]

Everybody remembers the Pillings Lock thread, it had something for everyone. I feel a certain nostalgia for it, because that was the first thread I posted on in CWDF. As I recall, there was some discussion of company law going on to which I felt able to contribute helpfully. I wonder I've they've now been paying their NAA over the intervening years as they promised they would?

[Athy]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It was a rhetorical question, but in answer to yours - A little longer, my 1st Inland Waterways boat was, I think, in 1983 and was on the River Trent.

The NAA has been a regularly discussed item on this  forum*, and for a few has led to 'heated debate' so I was surprised you had not seen previous reference to it. A few forum members feel very strongly that C&RT do not have the legal right to impose such conditions in their commercial contracts - some even include it in their 'signature line'.

* Remember the Pillings Lock marina thread that ran to 10million posts and a record 249 pages ? that was all about none payment of the NAA.

 

Yes, I'm afraid I do remember it, though I read but little of it. I recall the themes of alleged mismanagement and debts, but do not recall any "NAA" references.