Andy Onchan

Before the MDF, the financing and facilitation of film production wasn't happening on the island. It's a new industry for the island. You're not even reading my posts are you? I said it depends how you value it. I've seen nothing to say the media *development* fund was supposed to produce direct returns. But that's true of any asset. Why single out the pinewood shares, when the bulk of the reserves, plus the NI and Public Pension pot will also be invested in similar equities? Pre-tax of £3m http://www.guardian....s-profitability The dividend will be £250k I guess? Did Allan Bell say high risk? Where? In the link above he said "He also believes the investment is no more high-risk than other investments made by the Manx Government and by other countries.", that isn't saying it's high risk, it's saying it's not more risky than existing investments. I don't see anything you're saying to back up 'high risk'. I think the issue Slim is that the track record thus far speaks for itself and I personally don't see that improving because the same people/person are/is still involved.

http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_219619.html

There's going to have to be some spectacular spending on the island to wipe off the 17 million already written off the initial investment !!!! i think you will find it's more like 24 million...... or should that be 29 million?

Possibly, though ADHD does not fall into that category. In severe cases it very much needs treatment. And yet it's how old? Is it a new phenomenon or is it just the need to treat it that is new? It's called the nanny state... somewhere, someone thinks that you need to conform to a certain standard. And around that standard a whole new branch of medical prognosis and treament is created, all sustained by pharamceutical companies.

I just happened across this trade article: QUOTE DFDS’s sale of its Irish Sea routes to Stena is being investigated by the Irish Competition Authority (ICA) and, separately, hauliers are concerned that DFDS’s withdrawal from the market could push up prices. The ICA said an initial investigation into Stena Line’s €50 million (US$62.2m) proposal to purchase DFDS Seaways’ Belfast-Birkenhead and Belfast-Heysham services had been inconclusive, and it would look into the deal in more detail. It said: “Following a preliminary investigation, the competition authority is unable to conclude that the acquisition will not substantially lessen competition in markets for goods or services in the state without carrying out a full investigation.” Stena Line was unable to comment on the investigation. The ICA has until 13 April to make a decision on the proposed sale and has invited interested parties to make submissions no later than 5pm on 4 February. The UK’s Office of Fair Trading is also looking at the deal, as standard practice, and told IFW it would announce a decision on 8 February. By the end of the month, three routes on the Irish Sea will close – DFDS’s services between Dublin and Birkenhead and Heysham and Stena’s service between Larne and Fleetwood – leaving four ferry firms operating 14 freight-carrying routes. If the acquisition is given the green light by competition authorities, Stena will operate six. Meanwhile, hauliers are concerned that Stena’s acquisition and the loss of routes will result in increased prices on the trade. One industry observer said: “Stena Line, which is already dominant in shipping passengers, will increase market share instantly. “Prices for overnight ferry tickets are likely to increase dramatically as it starts to milk the freight v passengers [situation] on extremely full ships.” A spokesman for Stena Line said there would still be enough operators on the Irish Sea to ensure that prices would still be governed by market forces." UNQUOTE

Yes...just think how much it would save the taxpayer if people didn't get a chance to fight their case and just all admitted guilt, regardless. In fact why bother with courts at all, surely a couple of coppers could decide the outcome. Derrrrrr... The defendant is, of course, entitled to a plea change but the difference is £25K and on the eve of the trial. On that basis I would have thought that the prosecution would have a strong case for costs in the event of a successful conviction.

They do operate fares like airlines. If you went out on the Tuesday 21st the fair is down to I think £220. If you had tried booking six months ago then I expect you would have found cheaper fares. The fares on the SP may be expensive but booking in advance and having some flexibility so you avoid the busy sailings and you do get cheaper fares. I think it also compares well with the Airlines as the cheapest flight you could get to Livepool return the your original dates for 2 is £217 without bagage, booking fees. With a bag each and no booking fee it is £265 Even at 220 that still puts them almost twice as expensive (per nm) as P&O who are not even the cheapest (and I don't want to travel by air). The point I'm making is that Quayle is bleating on about having to cope with 15% less revenue. My answer would be to say, OK let's start putting bums on seats and cars on the deck because we need the revenue. Then we learn that they put up their prices for the freight, the very reason why they lost the revenue in the first place! I wanted to write more.... but I am truly lost for words on this occasion.

They don't deserve to be in business.... talk about extracting the Michael

That's shocking. Who would have thought that it would have been cheaper per mile the larger boat you operate and the longer trip. I look forward to more startling revelations, next you will be telling me that Father Christmas is not real. And don't forget that's subsidised by the freight!

I hope that I have made a few positive suggestions as to how the company could improve its profitability without major hikes in prices. Acorn forgetting the 'race to the bottom' what are your positive recommendations for achieving an improvement in the current situation? Simple Nationalisation is the obvious answer, run by a government owned company, note I say a government owned company, not a government run service. Though a govenrment run service would still be a massive improvement on the current rip off merchants in charge. It's a highly profitable service, currently being milked at our expense. Why shouldn't the profits from the service be ploughed back into the Manx economy? The inevitable objections are going to arise, borne out of neo-conservative (race to the bottom) dogma. The question I'd ask, before the rightard indoctrinated bleating starts, is why should a lifeline service not be run wholly for the benefit of the community it serves? This simple answer for IOMSPCo is to fill the vessels with cars & bodies, bums on seats. The below will probably give an indication as why they're in the current position: 1 car + two passengers Journey dates: Outbound to Heysham 22 December 2010 Return to IOM 5 January 2011 Daytime sailings IOMSCO cost: 330.00 Same dates and terms P&O cost: LPL-DUB-LPL 239.00 Irish Ferries: Holyhead-DUB-Holyhead 349.00 cabin as standard Norfolkline: LPL-DUB-LPL 198.00 What they need right now is revenue, any revenue until they get the freight business back but given the current managements' inability to think outside the box that's unlikely to happen. simple, just go on 21st and return on 6th for £183 Daytime service?

Those prices probably give an indication that on those two days the boat is fairly full. It may come as a surprise to you but the airfaires are fairly high around those dates as well Fair assumption but not correct. I tried 2 days either side of the above and srtill the same price. IOMSPCo don't operate their fares like airlines. It's take it or leave it job.

I hope that I have made a few positive suggestions as to how the company could improve its profitability without major hikes in prices. Acorn forgetting the 'race to the bottom' what are your positive recommendations for achieving an improvement in the current situation? Simple Nationalisation is the obvious answer, run by a government owned company, note I say a government owned company, not a government run service. Though a govenrment run service would still be a massive improvement on the current rip off merchants in charge. It's a highly profitable service, currently being milked at our expense. Why shouldn't the profits from the service be ploughed back into the Manx economy? The inevitable objections are going to arise, borne out of neo-conservative (race to the bottom) dogma. The question I'd ask, before the rightard indoctrinated bleating starts, is why should a lifeline service not be run wholly for the benefit of the community it serves? This simple answer for IOMSPCo is to fill the vessels with cars & bodies, bums on seats. The below will probably give an indication as why they're in the current position: 1 car + two passengers Journey dates: Outbound to Heysham 22 December 2010 Return to IOM 5 January 2011 Daytime sailings IOMSCO cost: 330.00 Same dates and terms P&O cost: LPL-DUB-LPL 239.00 Irish Ferries: Holyhead-DUB-Holyhead 349.00 cabin as standard Norfolkline: LPL-DUB-LPL 198.00 What they need right now is revenue, any revenue until they get the freight business back but given the current managements' inability to think outside the box that's unlikely to happen.

Tugger, the interest repayments are made to Macquarie, which err... owns the Racket. Go figure! Not quite... The financing is through Spanish an Portugese banks. So who are the shareholders? With IOMSPCo being registered as a NMV the AR's doesn't show that information.

Meaning?

You're easily flattered, aren't you!

They've written off the value of the investment?? Unlikely. But it's interesting in the respect that the current IOMSPCo is a NMV entity, the M&A's of which might reveal the true intention of the owners. IMO, FWIW the company is what it is, a shell company. In other words the company is a cash cow for the Macquarie empire. This is underscored by the Macquarie European Infrastructure Fund 2 opening statement in their introduction to the Fund: Macquarie European Infrastructure Fund 2 (MEIF 2) was launched following the success of MEIF 1, to take advantage of the growing number of infrastructure investment opportunities within the expanding European Union. MEIF 2 is a €4.6bn wholesale fund that invests in businesses which: * provide an essential service to the community * have a strong competitive position * generate stable cashflows over the long term. Let's be clear, this is most definitely not the IOMSPCo that we may think or want to believe it is. They have IOM Government over a barrel because it's an "essential service" and of course their "strong competitive position" is supported by the UA and, as far as cashflows are concerned, it's more or less a licence to print money, a cash cow with no intention of putting reserves aside for future investment. No wonder the management, employees and unions are squealing like stuck pigs in equal measure. I'm probably only repeating what has been mentioned before on this subject so apologies if you've read it before! f the Government doesn't learn any lessons from this episode then it never will. I say let the market decide what happens next.

Why don't you purchase it from the Companies Registry? If no one comes forward then I will..... Within the last couple of days IOMSCPCo's name has been removed from the Macquarie European Infrastructure Fund 2 list of investments. Anybody have any idea why?

Why don't you purchase it from the Companies Registry? If no one comes forward then I will.....

Does anyone on this forum have a copy of the last AR for IOMSOCo or at least had sight of same?

Good afternoon My first time on this forum and some interesting comments (past & present). Is there a suggestion that IOMSPCo would not be able to meet it's financial obligations under any circumstances? Are there no reserves? If so why does IOM Government allow the UA to continue?