=^..^= Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Perhaps it might be me remembering this incorrectly - but I'm sure the answer 20 odd years ago to all our troubles was "to build another linkspan" (there was only one at the time) so the government did. I'm pretty sure it was paid for by tax payers money but I could be wrong so I stand to be corrected. Along those lines would I be correct in thinking that the entire infrastructure down there is owned by the DHPP ? Anyone know for sure ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 the new one (ie the one nearer South Quay) is def Gov owned - it is possible the Racket own the ramp on the old pier but I'm not sure as they sold their offices to Gov about a year ago and maybe all other land was included. I would like to see a copy of the full agreement and what cancellation clauses there are - I presume the Racket have both to pay Gov and keep up a certain service (unspecified ? but looks at least a weekly Liverpool boat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insomniac Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Theres a summery of the user agrement on http://www.merseyshipping.co.uk/minfo/spus...eragreement.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Don't know 100%, but I'm failry confident that the Packet have contributed significantly to the construction costs with some form of staged payments. This is not just port fees (which are paid for every passenger / vehicle / freight unit), but charges on top of those specifically to do with the construction and use of the new linkspan. The company still own and maintain the one on Victoria Pier, although of course, they don't own the land / seabed it is sited on. So, theoretically, they could be asked to move it. Although I believe there is a clause in the agreement allowing them to site their own span there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 The summary leaves out the key finacial and service clauses which should be public for anyone else to make a considered judgement - until it is published in FULL I'll continue to believe that yet again Gov either were either hoodwinked or didn't have the courage to call out the monopoly supplier (it wouldn't be the first time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.