asitis Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 3 minutes ago, Mann O Mann said: What utter Rubbish. The handful of local CSP directors you may have spoken to ( aka administrators ) have no clue . An investor would bite your hand off to purchase a ferry company that has a monopoly to an island with a proven long term profitability . I would add if the IOMSPC decide to list it would attract a great deal of interest from potential shareholders providing regular reliable returns ( as long as the IOMGOV stay out of running it !) If the IOM Government wanted to sell the IOMSPC tomorrow ( which they should not ) they would be able to sell to many interested ship owners at a considerable mark up to the original purchase price / operators in this space such as Grimaldi / DFDS etc would snap it up. Which begs the question why did Gawne make sure they couldn't express an interest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mann O Mann Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 9 minutes ago, asitis said: Which begs the question why did Gawne make sure they couldn't express an interest. Because given the strategic importance to the IOM it makes unquestionable sense to ensure the Government has control of this asset and not controlled via outside Isle of Man interests 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 33 minutes ago, asitis said: Which begs the question why did Gawne make sure they couldn't express an interest. I think he remembered the Sea Containers and Jim Sherwood debacle, which took the SPCo out of Manx ownership for the first time and heralded all sorts of service issues, which we still live with today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Max Power said: I think he remembered the Sea Containers and Jim Sherwood debacle, which took the SPCo out of Manx ownership for the first time and heralded all sorts of service issues, which we still live with today! Having originally said he was going to make it the hub of a network of premium services around the Irish Sea. Talked a good game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 hour ago, Max Power said: I think he remembered the Sea Containers and Jim Sherwood debacle, which took the SPCo out of Manx ownership for the first time and heralded all sorts of service issues, which we still live with today! 14 minutes ago, woolley said: Having originally said he was going to make it the hub of a network of premium services around the Irish Sea. Talked a good game. It wasn’t actually Sherwood/Sea Containers that caused the problems. They ran the SPCo well. The problems were caused by McQuarrie and the infrastructure funds, which overpaid, asset stripped and loaded all the debt on SPCo over several changes in ownership structure. Something they did with Condor, WhiteLink ( or Red Funnel - can’t remember which ) and others. Then they shifted the borrowing out to Spiritos Santos, which post 2008 became a zombie bank with a non performing loan they couldn’t do anything about, and then had to foreclose and take share ownership. So we got a bank running a shipping line it didn’t want to own. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 On 2/14/2024 at 11:47 AM, John Wright said: My understanding is that Ben runs on marine diesel fuel, one of the heaviest, most polluting, refinery fractions. Lots of sulphur, nitrogen oxides and carbon particulates. There’s a thing called IOPP ( International Oil Pollution Prevention ) which applies to ships by international convention, MARPOL under IMO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80bcae40f0b62305b8cdd7/Pt_A_Ch12_IOPP_Final_Feb_16.pdf Ben is old, and whilst our sole year round life line vessel she had temporary exemptions pending works to comply, scrubbers to take out Sulphur, NOx and carbon particulates. Expensive to retrofit. BF intended doing it to many of their older ferries, but after a couple they decided to order 5 new e-flexers on charter from Stena. Mx is compliant. Youll recall that under the sea services agreement Ben was to be kept as back up, but SPCo has recently sought to get rid of Ben and use Arrow ( which it has bought since the agreement was signed ). That gives no resilience for passengers in winter when Manannan cannot sail. The Ben is not currently capable of covering any freight or passenger back up duties as she is currently under a temporary extension to her IOPP certification, this means she has a power restriction placed on her (except for manoeuvring in port) until full certification is granted. Hence the 7kts speed. The new rules started to come into force 2 years ago after a long notice period of statuary obligations that were to be met. Steam Packet have gambled. Not complied. Problem is that with a boat as old as the Ben, with limited life, cost of compliance May have become prohibitive. Steam packet have dragged their heels on this and the implication is clear, they must think they can sell the vessel and it would be someone else’s problem. Hope that helps. What it does indicate is that when SPCo said they were readying the Ben when Mx was recently unable to sail for technical ( not weather ) reasons, they were at best being economical with the truth. I know you said "it is my understanding", which can mean anything, but is this inside information or just a flying leap in the dark by putting regulations and hearsay together? Because to me it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to keep the Ben fully crewed, as she is, and putting out statements that she is the standby vessel ready to take over at 12 hours notice, as was done in Keys by Allinson as recently as this Tuesday if it isn't true. Why would they do that? There is no upside in maintaining such a fallacy, and a huge amount of downside if Manxman goes tech and Ben cannot step up. Egg on face all round. It seems too Machiavellian even for here. Surely, they'd just come out and tell it like it is. They don't make rules of the sea. I don't know the intricacies of those maritime regulations, but perhaps there is something around the grandfather rights that means if she is once again our de facto lifeline (in the absence of Manxman) then she can sail. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/future-plans-for-the-isle-of-man-steam-packets-ben-my-chree-confirmed-during-meeting-666262 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 minute ago, John Wright said: It wasn’t actually Sherwood/Sea Containers that caused the problems. They ran the SPCo well. The problems were caused by McQuarrie and the infrastructure funds, overpaid, which asset stripped and loaded all the debt on SPCo over several changes in ownership structure. Something they did with Condor, WhiteLink ( or Red Funnel - can’t remember which ) and others. Then they shifted the borrowing out to Spiritos Santos, which post 2008 became a zombie bank with a non performing loan they couldn’t do anything about, and then had to foreclose and take share ownership. So we got a bank running a shipping line it didn’t want to own. and now with no assets left to sell IOMG sticks us with loans instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 1 minute ago, John Wright said: It wasn’t actually Sherwood/Sea Containers that caused the problems. They ran the SPCo well. The problems were caused by McQuarrie and the infrastructure funds, which overpaid, asset stripped and loaded all the debt on SPCo over several changes in ownership structure. Something they did with Condor, WhiteLink ( or Red Funnel - can’t remember which ) and others. Then they shifted the borrowing out to Spiritos Santos, which post 2008 became a zombie bank with a non performing loan they couldn’t do anything about, and then had to foreclose and take share ownership. So we got a bank running a shipping line it didn’t want to own. I know, but Sherwood promised far more than they delivered. The Ben, for instance, was very utilitarian. Facilities basic to say the least, especially as delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 15 minutes ago, woolley said: I know you said "it is my understanding", which can mean anything, but is this inside information or just a flying leap in the dark by putting regulations and hearsay together? Because to me it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to keep the Ben fully crewed, as she is, and putting out statements that she is the standby vessel ready to take over at 12 hours notice, as was done in Keys by Allinson as recently as this Tuesday if it isn't true. Why would they do that? There is no upside in maintaining such a fallacy, and a huge amount of downside if Manxman goes tech and Ben cannot step up. Egg on face all round. It seems too Machiavellian even for here. Surely, they'd just come out and tell it like it is. They don't make rules of the sea. I don't know the intricacies of those maritime regulations, but perhaps there is something around the grandfather rights that means if she is once again our de facto lifeline (in the absence of Manxman) then she can sail. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/future-plans-for-the-isle-of-man-steam-packets-ben-my-chree-confirmed-during-meeting-666262 No, it’s not a leap in the dark. Then you have the 7kts limitation on speed also mentioned. I agree, there’s all sorts that don’t add up, but the iOPP and IMO requirement to stop using Marine Diesel is long known, debated previously on here, and was a known requirement for the Ben before IoMG bought SPCo. SPCo have history of not telling as is. They only myth bust when it suits. Nothing about this, or the unexpectedly heavy fuel use or the battery inadequacy. Unless they’ve had a huge recruitment campaign since September I don’t think that Ben is fully crewed, live on board or not, that’d mean 4 full crews, plus leave, plus sick cover, plus Arrow, and a skeleton crew near at hand to Manannan. Do you remember, recently, it didn’t sail due to staffing issue when an officer had to take time off unexpectedly and, because of the Nautilus work to rule, Mx reserve crew wouldn’t swap in. If there’d been a full Ben crew management would have been able to specify Mx as the workplace, and swap someone, already on duty, over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 10 minutes ago, WTF said: and now with no assets left to sell IOMG sticks us with loans instead. I think that the SPCo took out loans for each and every new build boat ( with possible exception of the current Ben ) from after WW2, certainly for the sisters and side loaders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 4 minutes ago, John Wright said: Unless they’ve had a huge recruitment campaign since September I don’t think that Ben is fully crewed, live on board or not, that’d mean 4 full crews, plus leave, plus sick cover, plus Arrow, and a skeleton crew near at hand to Manannan. At least that bit wouldn't surprise me. Anything the govt gets its hands on is almost inevitably going to be overmanned. For the rest, as I said, I just cannot see the advantage to anyone of perpetuating such a falsehood - i.e, that the Ben is on standby, ready to sail at 12 hours notice if it isn't true. It's fraught with risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 10 minutes ago, woolley said: At least that bit wouldn't surprise me. Anything the govt gets its hands on is almost inevitably going to be overmanned. For the rest, as I said, I just cannot see the advantage to anyone of perpetuating such a falsehood - i.e, that the Ben is on standby, ready to sail at 12 hours notice if it isn't true. It's fraught with risk. So why was Thomas told about the speed restriction in one of the answers to questions? I agree it makes no sense. But one or other of the statements Ben is available at 12 hours notice Ben is limited to 7 kts Is a falsehood Unless SPCo are going to send her out on a 12 hour journey with passengers and then be unable to return as the crew would be out of hours? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 10 minutes ago, John Wright said: So why was Thomas told about the speed restriction in one of the answers to questions? I agree it makes no sense. But one or other of the statements Ben is available at 12 hours notice Ben is limited to 7 kts Is a falsehood Unless SPCo are going to send her out on a 12 hour journey with passengers and then be unable to return as the crew would be out of hours? I agree. UNLESS, there is something in my theory about grandfather rights being reinstated if her former status as our go to lifeline is restored due to incapacity of the Manxman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 3 minutes ago, woolley said: I agree. UNLESS, there is something in my theory about grandfather rights being reinstated if her former status as our go to lifeline is restored due to incapacity of the Manxman? But the problem would be that there might be grandfather rights in the Isle of Man but there wouldn't be in the UK or UK waters. I suppose the UK government could have some sort of emergency override, but it would have to be applied for and would necessarily be public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 4 minutes ago, woolley said: I agree. UNLESS, there is something in my theory about grandfather rights being reinstated if her former status as our go to lifeline is restored due to incapacity of the Manxman? The inspection/certification was described in a link above. There are no grandfather rights I’m aware of. Think exemptions are 12 months at a time. But I’d have to research. She either has an exemption and 7kts doesn’t apply, or she doesn’t and 7kts does apply. Inspection and recertification won’t be done at the drop of a hat or at no expense. The only way out of this is to get the Ben compliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.