CRT adverts

[markeymark]

Heard CRT advertising that they run canals, on local radio in Kidsgrove the other day...so thats how they spend our money is it? Telling people that they live near a canal. Is that so that people can decide to drown themselves if they so please..not much chance with water levels so low

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, markeymark said:

Heard CRT advertising that they run canals, on local radio in Kidsgrove the other day...so thats how they spend our money is it? Telling people that they live near a canal. Is that so that people can decide to drown themselves if they so please..not much chance with water levels so low

There are lots of people who don't know the canal is virtually on their door step

[magictime]

Fine by me. CRT must spend about £4 on maintenance etc. for every £1 I pay them via my licence fee, with much of that extra money coming from the public purse, so it seems a bit churlish to protest that CRT should stop encouraging the wider public to enjoy the canals themselves rather than just subsidising boaters' enjoyment of them.

[markeymark]

Not so sure about the maintenance bit considering all the problems this year on the cut. Lack of water, broken paddles, gates, lack of dredging,continuous Marple flight stoppages despite the money they have thrown at it. Not met many boaters impressed by CRT this year...in fact only spoken to one who was and he was a friend of the top man, Richard Parry

[Grassman]

 

I'd sooner they spend money on advertising than waste money on a new logo.

 

If they are looking for additional revenue I'm happy they are trying to engage more public support rather than squeeze more money out of we boaters. With the current deal for government funding up for re-negotiation in 2027 they need to work on ways in which more funding can be justified because the more the canal system is used by the public the more chance they have of justifying the input of public funds.

 

But the new logo isn't the way to go and I think it is scandalous the way they have been brainwashed by a media company in to thinking this will achieve it.

 

Waterways World Magazine recently did a mini straw poll by showing 12 members of the public the new logo and not one of them guessed correctly what it was about. I wish they'd have also shown the same 12 people the old logo as well and I bet at least some of them would have sussed what it represented.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

17 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

There are lots of people who don't know the canal is virtually on their door step

I just wish people would do a bit more research before buying lengthsman and lock keeper cottages ...

[Alan de Enfield]

5 hours ago, Grassman said:

 

With the current deal for government funding up for re-negotiation in 2027 ……………………….

The grant is actually up for review in 21/22, and if the Government are not happy that the KPIs have been achieved its 'off with their heads' (or their money supply)

 

9.3 Notwithstanding the regular content and cycle of Review Meetings, in the financial year 2021/22 a review will take place to consider whether, and if so, the extent to which there is a case to continue to support by Grant the public benefits (including, but not by way of limitation, provision of land drainage, flood mitigation and other public safety benefits) provided by the waterways under CRT’s stewardship beyond the end of the Grant Period.  The 2021/22 Review shall take into account, among other matters, CRT’s performance of its obligations arising under the Grant Agreement. Defra shall issue a report setting out the conclusions of this review with regard to continued support of CRT by Grant beyond the term of this Grant Agreement on or before 1 July 2022. 

 

9.4 CRT shall on request provide Defra with such further information, explanations and documents as Defra may reasonably and proportionately require in order for it to establish that the Grant has been used properly in accordance with the Grant Agreement. 

9.5 CRT shall permit any person authorised by Defra reasonable and proportionate access to its employees, agents, premises, facilities and records, for the purpose of discussing, monitoring and evaluating CRT's fulfilment of the terms of this Grant Agreement and shall, if so required, provide appropriate oral or written explanations from them. 
 

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The grant is actually up for review in 21/22, and if the Government are not happy that the KPIs have been achieved its 'off with their heads' (or their money supply)

 

9.3 Notwithstanding the regular content and cycle of Review Meetings, in the financial year 2021/22 a review will take place to consider whether, and if so, the extent to which there is a case to continue to support by Grant the public benefits (including, but not by way of limitation, provision of land drainage, flood mitigation and other public safety benefits) provided by the waterways under CRT’s stewardship beyond the end of the Grant Period.  The 2021/22 Review shall take into account, among other matters, CRT’s performance of its obligations arising under the Grant Agreement. Defra shall issue a report setting out the conclusions of this review with regard to continued support of CRT by Grant beyond the term of this Grant Agreement on or before 1 July 2022. 

 

9.4 CRT shall on request provide Defra with such further information, explanations and documents as Defra may reasonably and proportionately require in order for it to establish that the Grant has been used properly in accordance with the Grant Agreement. 

9.5 CRT shall permit any person authorised by Defra reasonable and proportionate access to its employees, agents, premises, facilities and records, for the purpose of discussing, monitoring and evaluating CRT's fulfilment of the terms of this Grant Agreement and shall, if so required, provide appropriate oral or written explanations from them. 
 

I would suggest it is also worthwhile reading the MoU between Defra and C&RT -

 

Quote

 

Annex 8: Defra objectives for funding under the Grant Agreement

1. To reduce dependence on Government Grant and to foster increasing self-
sufficiency, by providing access to new charitable income streams and 
stimulating new efficiencies. Over time, to increase overall funding available 
for the waterways. A prerequisite for this is to support the viability of CRT –
especially in its early days - and so minimise the risk that Government has to 
intervene to take responsibility for the waterways from CRT.

2. To move the long term cost of maintaining the inland waterways and the 
associated heritage infrastructure (estimated at around £4 billion in nominal 
net present value terms) from the public sector to civil society.

.

.

 

.

Quote

 

 

 

 

I

[magictime]

Now that quote about moving the cost of maintenance 'from the public sector to civil society' is interesting.

 

On the one hand, it emphasises CRT's reasons for promoting such a broad view of the waterways' value - i.e. their value not just to boaters, but to walkers, cyclists, commuters, anglers, families, runners, wildlife, etc. They just aren't going to find the sort of funding streams they need (e.g. grants from charitable organisations) by focusing on boaters and navigation, because they're such 'niche' interests; get cycling organisations, arts organisations, educational organisations, community groups etc. on board and that picture changes.

 

On the other hand, the more people have their own reasons for valuing the waterways, the more public support there will be - and the stronger the case will be - for the government continuing to provide financial support in future. 

 

So it seems pretty much like the right, and only, approach whichever way you look at it. I just hope CRT will continue to ignore those boaters who think any money not spent directly on their narrow concerns is money wasted.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, magictime said:

Now that quote about moving the cost of maintenance 'from the public sector to civil society' is interesting.

 

On the one hand, it emphasises CRT's reasons for promoting such a broad view of the waterways' value - i.e. their value not just to boaters, but to walkers, cyclists, commuters, anglers, families, runners, wildlife, etc. They just aren't going to find the sort of funding streams they need (e.g. grants from charitable organisations) by focusing on boaters and navigation, because they're such 'niche' interests; get cycling organisations, arts organisations, educational organisations, community groups etc. on board and that picture changes.

 

On the other hand, the more people have their own reasons for valuing the waterways, the more public support there will be - and the stronger the case will be - for the government continuing to provide financial support in future. 

 

So it seems pretty much like the right, and only, approach whichever way you look at it. I just hope CRT will continue to ignore those boaters who think any money not spent directly on their narrow concerns is money wasted.

Since 2002, the waterways have been promoted as being for everyone. The measure of benefit has always been visitor numbers which are now going down rather than up.

Support will be measured by number of 'Friends' and revenue raised via individual charitable giving. C&RT are really struggling in this area. 100,000 'Friends' and £10m pa from charitable giving in 10 years will not happen. 

I don't see the rebranding and different focus on wellbeing to be much help with the above. 



 

[Jerra]

33 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Support will be measured by number of 'Friends' and revenue raised via individual charitable giving. C&RT are really struggling in this area. 100,000 'Friends' and £10m pa from charitable giving in 10 years will not happen.  

Friends are the problem as far as I am concerned.  I refuse to be a friend, I would however gladly be a member with as much say I have in the NT.

[Alan de Enfield]

38 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Since 2002, the waterways have been promoted as being for everyone. The measure of benefit has always been visitor numbers which are now going down rather than up.

Support will be measured by number of 'Friends' and revenue raised via individual charitable giving. C&RT are really struggling in this area. 100,000 'Friends' and £10m pa from charitable giving in 10 years will not happen. 

I don't see the rebranding and different focus on wellbeing to be much help with the above. 



 

I think you have the figures ?

 

The cost of generating the 'charitable income' has exceeded the income generated.

C&RT would actually have had more 'disposable income' had they not set up a big 'management team' and paid Chuggers etc to collect the money.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think you have the figures ?

 

The cost of generating the 'charitable income' has exceeded the income generated.

C&RT would actually have had more 'disposable income' had they not set up a big 'management team' and paid Chuggers etc to collect the money.

If the Trust were on target for 100,000 Friends in 10 years, they should have about 60,000 by the end of the 2017/18 financial year. They have provided two different figures - the higher of which is in the annual report - 24,100.

C&RT never give figures for 'Friends' income or expenditure in annual accounts. It forms part of voluntary income (also known as donations and legacies or charitable giving).

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 


 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

 

That's about what I remembered - many thanks.

 

 

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That's about what I remembered - many thanks.

 

 

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

I don't have figures for previous years to hand at the moment but believe the cumulative loss to date is over £5m. 

[nbfiresprite]

On 31/07/2018 at 12:27, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I just wish people would do a bit more research before buying lengthsman and lock keeper cottages ...

Then complain about the noisy smelly boats going passed.

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I don't have figures for previous years to hand at the moment but believe the cumulative loss to date is over £5m. 

I've just crunched the figures and the cumulative loss over the first six years of the Trust is £5.5m 

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I've just crunched the figures and the cumulative loss over the first six years of the Trust is £5.5m 

Thanks again.

 

Its made the point.

[magictime]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Voluntary income was £3.4m last year. Expenditure raising that income was £3.9m. Loss £500,000. 

Obviously that's not sustainable in the long term, but to be fair: surely you'd expect any charitable 'recruitment drive' for regular donors to have a net cost until their number hits a plateau, because the idea would be to invest up-front in recruiting long-term donors. £300 spent recruiting a £100-a-year donor, say, doesn't look great on the accounts in year one, but by year four it's looking like a sound investment.

 

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

If the Trust were on target for 100,000 Friends in 10 years, they should have about 60,000 by the end of the 2017/18 financial year. 

Depends on the recruitment mechanism, surely? What if they aim to sign up 2000 Friends a year at stalls etc., but also to have half of existing Friends introduce a further Friend (on average) once a year? They'd then be looking at 2000 Friends after one year, 5000 after two, 9500 after three, 16,250 after four, 26,375 after five, etc.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 hours ago, magictime said:

Obviously that's not sustainable in the long term, but to be fair: surely you'd expect any charitable 'recruitment drive' for regular donors to have a net cost until their number hits a plateau, because the idea would be to invest up-front in recruiting long-term donors. £300 spent recruiting a £100-a-year donor, say, doesn't look great on the accounts in year one, but by year four it's looking like a sound investment.

 

Depends on the recruitment mechanism, surely? What if they aim to sign up 2000 Friends a year at stalls etc., but also to have half of existing Friends introduce a further Friend (on average) once a year? They'd then be looking at 2000 Friends after one year, 5000 after two, 9500 after three, 16,250 after four, 26,375 after five, etc.

You are, of course, correct. The original projections were based on net income and contained a prudence factor of 25%. They show small loses in they first three years.

 

However, they show cumulative net income as £0.7m positive by 2017/18. What we actually have is a loss of £5.5m to date.

 

I understand what you are saying about growth in numbers but the fact is there are just four years left to recruit 76,000 Friends. Put another way, 19,000 for each of the remaining four years. Current recruitment rate is in decline and is less than 4,000 per year.

 

 

[magictime]

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You are, of course, correct. The original projections were based on net income and contained a prudence factor of 25%. They show small loses in they first three years.

 

However, they show cumulative net income as £0.7m positive by 2017/18. What we actually have is a loss of £5.5m to date.

 

I understand what you are saying about growth in numbers but the fact is there are just four years left to recruit 76,000 Friends. Put another way, 19,000 for each of the remaining four years. Current recruitment rate is in decline and is less than 4,000 per year.

 

 

Yeah... quite a bit of ground to make up, to say the least.