March of the Widebeams

[ditchcrawler]

Under the old system where everyone paid the same, how much worse off would CRT be if we all became CC's and CRT didn't collect any income from the mooring operators who would all close down?

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Under the old system where everyone paid the same, how much worse off would CRT be if we all became CC's and CRT didn't collect any income from the mooring operators who would all close down?

 

We'd all be worse off as there would be another 30,000 (?) boats tied up somewhere every night, using the elsans, water taps etc etc.

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

We'd all be worse off as there would be another 30,000 (?) boats tied up somewhere every night, using the elsans, water taps etc etc.

That can't be right, CC's don't use any more facilities than us boats with home moorings

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

That can't be right, CC's don't use any more facilities than us boats with home moorings

 

 

That is what they tell us, but maybe they don't use 'any more facilities' than a HMer, but they certainly make more use of the facilities.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

 

Well that’s certainly a better and more reasoned idea for the non home moorer to pay more

 

 

[adam1uk]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Under the old system where everyone paid the same, how much worse off would CRT be if we all became CC's and CRT didn't collect any income from the mooring operators who would all close down?

 

CRT would still get the money from the marinas for a while, because they have to pay it on capacity whether it's taken or not.  Except then all the marinas would go bust, so the income stream would dry up.

Edited August 1 by adam1uk

[Peanut]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Surely out of the (average) marina mooring fee of £3200, you are indirectly paying £300 additional to the licence fee to C&RT, and £2900 to the marina to cover all the extras that you list.

 

A secure place to leave your boat for as long as the contract allows, in a place convenient to you, a mains hook up, on site facilities, Elsan, pump out, fuel, water, all conveniently available. Parking for your car, the list goes on.

 

If you are paying the same (average) licence fee as a CCer of £1000, they you are contributing 30% more to C&RT than a CCer is, and CCers have the navigation, bins, refuse diposal etc etc available to them 24/7/365.

 

CCers need to pay considerably more than the 'new' rates to bring them into line with the amoubt C&RT actually gets from a HMer.

No Allen, You are paying the marina, or mooring provider, for the mooring you enjoy, you pay their charge. It happens that the business pays CART a fee to run their business, that money comes from the business, not from you. At that point, it is no longer your money, you are supporting the business.

 

If I shop in my home town, I support the businesses in the town, I don't claim to pay more in Council Tax by virtue of the business rates they pay, which would follow from your argument. My spending does help to keep the town alive, but I don't contribute more in Council Tax.

 

Likewise, the service you buy from the marina, or mooring provider, helps to keep their business open, but your payment is for the service they provide, you are not paying CART.

 

On the general note, the price of the licence is far too low, if boaters wish to keep the network open, without substantial Government funding. Which currently seems unlikely.

 

I understand from a previous post, most likely from you, that in the transfer from British Waterways to CART, it gave them the authority to change rules and vary charges as was needed. (citation needed)

 

[Big Bob W]

3 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Likewise, the service you buy from the marina, or mooring provider, helps to keep their business open, but your payment is for the service they provide, you are not paying CART.

But if my marina was not paying CRT £300pa for my berth, I would expect my mooring fee to be £300 less. 
I am paying the marina, say, £3k a year currently. £2.7k of that is for the marina services, which is the amount I would pay without the CRT surcharge.

[Peanut]

13 minutes ago, Big Bob W said:

But if my marina was not paying CRT £300pa for my berth, I would expect my mooring fee to be £300 less. 
I am paying the marina, say, £3k a year currently. £2.7k of that is for the marina services, which is the amount I would pay without the CRT surcharge.

That is one of the costs of running the business, the services of which you buy.

 

If you sell a boat through a broker, who has premises and moorings, and makes a contribution to CART for that, you don't then claim to be contributing more to use the system than a boat without a Home Mooring. You accept it as part of the brokers fee.

 

This claim to be paying more by virtue of paying for a Home Mooring is a quite specious argument. It is false, and has no merit, and appears only as an attempt by some, to justify the increased charge for those without a Home Mooring. CART didn't do that, they went on the possible increased usage of the system.

 

Incidently, as Home Moorers, you can use the navigation and it facilities just as much as anyone else, whether they have a Home Mooring or not.

[nicknorman]

I’m not sure why people bother to argue with each other on here, no one ever changes their mind.

[Peanut]

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I’m not sure why people bother to argue with each other on here, no one ever changes their mind.

Yes, nick, that's quite obvious, but you can't let them have it all their own way. Especially, when they are so, so, wrong.

 

I was trying to keep out of it, but felt goaded to reply. ;)

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I was trying to keep out of it, but felt goaded to reply.

I’m glad you did, it was wearing me down. 
And you have the patience to explain better. 
I don’t like typing on a phone so tend to keep it quick. And when something’s so blindingly obvious, I can’t be arsed to go on and on 

 

occasionally someone looking in says something  quite refreshing, I wish more would contribute, whether I agree with them or not,

there’s a couple of regular posters here that have made me think differently about a few things over time

 

 

 

 

[nicknorman]

18 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Yes, nick, that's quite obvious, but you can't let them have it all their own way. Especially, when they are so, so, wrong.

 

I was trying to keep out of it, but felt goaded to reply.

FWIW I disagree with you😁

[MtB]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

I’m not sure why people bother to argue with each other on here, no one ever changes their mind.

 

I used to think that, but now I don't.

 

😂

[IanD]

57 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Yes, nick, that's quite obvious, but you can't let them have it all their own way. Especially, when they are so, so, wrong.

 

I was trying to keep out of it, but felt goaded to reply.

Wrongly, of course... 😉

[Ianws]

To further muddy the waters. I currently pay £260 a year for my offside mooring. No parking or facilities but secure and some land to play with. The C&RT cost on top of that is approx £460. So more money going to C&RT than the 9% from marinas charging a few thousand. I'm not complaining, just adding to the discussion. 

[Tacet]

4 hours ago, Big Bob W said:

But if my marina was not paying CRT £300pa for my berth, I would expect my mooring fee to be £300 less. 
 

You would be disappointed.

 

The mooring price is set by supply and demand - not the costs of provision.  If the marina to CRT payment was dropped, the marina owner would be the lucky one.

 

If there was no payment for access for new marinas, the benefit would fall on the land owner as there would be more money to be made and thus more demand for marina sites.

 

Either way, it is the land owner that pockets the extra.

 

Only if you believe that more marinas would be built as a result of dropping the CRT charge would the mooring rate reduce due to the increased supply.  In practice, it is not likely for more complex economic reasons.

[Big Bob W]

7 hours ago, Tacet said:

You would be disappointed.

 

The mooring price is set by supply and demand - not the costs of provision.  If the marina to CRT payment was dropped, the marina owner would be the lucky one.

I run my own small business. Like most businesses, my fees are set by supply and demand. If one of my overheads was cut by 10%, I agree, I could keep fees the same and reap the benefits of that. 
But I know a competitor would soon drop there price by 10% and I can assure you, everyone else would soon follow suit.

That's how it would work with marina's without the CRT surcharge I am sure.
All marina moorers are, right now, indirectly paying CRT an additional sum. It t is not itemised in the mooring fee. It is part of the "service provided" by the marina. But we are paying it.

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Big Bob W said:

I run my own small business. Like most businesses, my fees are set by supply and demand. If one of my overheads was cut by 10%, I agree, I could keep fees the same and reap the benefits of that. 
But I know a competitor would soon drop there price by 10% and I can assure you, everyone else would soon follow suit.

That's how it would work with marina's without the CRT surcharge I am sure.
All marina moorers are, right now, indirectly paying CRT an additional sum. It t is not itemised in the mooring fee. It is part of the "service provided" by the marina. But we are paying it.

If a marina drops the mooring charge by 10% it would need an increase in moorers of over 11% to get back to even the same income.  In practice it will need more as other costs would increase with more moorers; let's say 15% or 20% as a guess.

 

Any marina with that level of spare capacity regularly needs to review its charges (or level of services) anyway. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Any marina with that level of spare capacity regularly needs to review its charges (or level of services) anyway. 

 

Or remove a pontoon (or two) as those naughty boys at Pilings Lock did (with C&RTs permission)

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

If a marina drops the mooring charge by 10% it would need an increase in moorers of over 11% to get back to even the same income.  In practice it will need more as other costs would increase with more moorers; let's say 15% or 20% as a guess.

 

Any marina with that level of spare capacity regularly needs to review its charges (or level of services) anyway. 

 

Except that for any business income dropping (less money coming in) doesn't matter if outgoings drop by the same amount (no precept to CART). See Mr Micawber... 🙂 

 

If CART did remove the charges to marinas -- 9% for those which pay it, 0% for a few that don't -- and increased the HM license fee by an amount to bring in the same amount of money to CART (e.g. 25%), it would do the following:

 

1. HMers in marinas paying the 9% (most HMers) would see no change in their boating costs

2. These marinas would see no change in their profits/business/occupancy, since the drop in income would exactly equal the decrease in outgoings

3. Marinas which for historical reasons don't pay the precept would become comparatively more expensive to moor in (no change to costs) -- levelling the playing field, "fairer"

4. CART would make a bit of extra money from the license fee increases to boaters moored in these marinas -- greatly outnumbered by marinas who pay, but still a small plus point for CART

4. HMers and CMers would pay the same license fee -- no division between boaters any more, "fairer".

 

In fact the "CC surcharge" would disappear and *everyone* would pay the same (25% higher) license fee -- isn't this exactly what some people on here have been clamouring for? 😉 

 

What's not to like? 🙂 🙂 🙂 

Edited August 2 by IanD

[Tacet]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Except that for any business income dropping (less money coming in) doesn't matter if outgoings drop by the same amount (no precept to CART). See Mr Micawber... 🙂 

 

If CART did remove the charges to marinas -- 9% for those which pay it, 0% for a few that don't -- and increased the HM license fee by an amount to bring in the same amount of money to CART (e.g. 25%), it would do the following:

 

1. HMers in marinas paying the 9% (most HMers) would see no change in their boating costs

2. These marinas would see no change in their profits/business/occupancy, since the drop in income would exactly equal the decrease in outgoings

3. Marinas which for historical reasons don't pay the precept would become comparatively more expensive to moor in (no change to costs) -- levelling the playing field, "fairer"

4. CART would make a bit of extra money from the license fee increases to boaters moored in these marinas -- greatly outnumbered by marinas who pay, but still a small plus point for CART

4. HMers and CMers would pay the same license fee -- no division between boaters any more, "fairer".

 

In fact the "CC surcharge" would disappear and *everyone* would pay the same (25% higher) license fee -- isn't this exactly what some people on here have been clamouring for? 😉 

 

What's not to like? 🙂 🙂 🙂 

What's not to like?  The economic fact that a reduction in the marinas' costs will not lead to an equal reduction in mooring charges.

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Tacet said:

What's not to like?  The economic fact that a reduction in the marinas' costs will not lead to an equal reduction in mooring charges.

Why not? CART tell all boaters to expect this, and make it a condition of removing the precept to the marinas.

 

How about a logical objection? I'd have thought this was *exactly* what you've been asking for, the same rise in license fees for everyone and no discrimination between boaters?

Edited August 2 by IanD
deleted mistaken attribution

[Tacet]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Why not? CART tell all boaters to expect this, and make it a condition of removing the precept to the marinas.

 

How about a logical objection? I'd have thought this was *exactly* what you've been asking for, the same rise in license fees for everyone and no discrimination between boaters?

You're becoming confused between posters. I've not exactly asked for anything.

 

Mooring prices are a function of supply and demand - not costs.  Reducing the marinas' costs changes neither supply or demand in itself.

 

By making marina development more financially attractive there might, somewhat theoretically, result in more supply which would drive down prices generally.  This is somewhat theoretical as it requires a non-viable (with access charge) site to become viable when the access charge is dropped.  Since the opportunity cost of a significant proportion of marina development opportunities is say, £10,000 per acre (being agriculture in current use) there is very little to tip the seesaw.

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Posted before I’d finished

 

 

Edited August 2 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer