Albert Tatlock Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 3 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said: ...the Scottish knucklehead... 🤣 He sure looks and sounds the part. Though I'll let you tell him that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 15 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said: Like Bus Vannin… (I’ll just lob that little grenade and grab my popcorn) Now you're getting it. Public transport is indeed a public service, yes. Not a particularly well run one in recent years (like the SP in that respect too) but a public service nonetheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 27 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said: 1. Yes they are, they should be there to serve our need though, not to restrict them. That's the tail wagging the dog. 2. The whims of the free market would be the SP being sold to foreign venture capatalist who cared not a jot for the IOM or it's people. The government were obviously concerned enough about them to part with £120M. 3. Would any other owner be satisfied with the limited access you mention? No, why then should we? 4. However you define a public service, I'm pretty sure a nation's lifeline would fit the bill. It should make sufficient profit to invest in new ships etc when necessary, the need for any more is open to debate, it doesn't stop it being a public service though, regardless. 5. Returns may have been considered when purchasing it, I would say the lifeline thing was the major factor though(quite rightly) we could have bought a lot of very profitable businesses for £120m, we didn't. 6. Explain. I've already mentioned its importance to our tourist and other industries and how it could be used more imaginatively to further this. Not sure how else you could export the SP other than leasing spare vessels. We are miles apart, so I will respond to 3 as I think that epitomises your issue. IOMG is the party to those arrangements and are entitled to whatever information and consultation is due under them and will be receiving it. IOMG is not 'we'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said: There you go again getting caught up in legal technicalities. It was bought because it's a lifeline, too important to be left to the whims of the free market. Ask yourself the spirit of that decision. Was it taken because we thought it was a nice little earner? Or was it taken because it's an essential public service for the people of the IOM? It is a public service, the fact that it is being run as a commercial operation with no influence or transparency for its ultimate owners is a nonsense. It is a public service and should be run as one. TBH...as a purely personal opinion, I think the purchase was driven by SP being an extremely profitable operation just as much as it being the Island's lifeline. Under the previous ownership those handsome profits were extracted and shipped out whilst the company was run into the ground. It's assets values were minimal yet we still paid a fortune for it. Govt's eyes were full of £ symbols at the thought of owning all those profits to help pay off its liabilities. Yes it's the Island's lifeline; but that may not have been the primary consideration. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Boat going early tomorrow morning 'cos of the tide at Heysham. Good communication from the steamy! Really, they kept us well informed sice we booked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 minutes ago, doc.fixit said: Boat going early tomorrow morning 'cos of the tide at Heysham. Good communication from the steamy! Really, they kept us well informed sice we booked. Weather looking bad for weekend though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 Just now, Albert Tatlock said: Weather looking bad for weekend though. I wonder how many souls came ashore off that cruise ship today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 (edited) Yes Alby, that's why we changed from the cat on Friday to the Big boat on Thursday. Edited April 3 by doc.fixit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 31 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: extremely profitable operation I'm not so sure about that. Not when you have 2 new boats to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 28 minutes ago, Happier diner said: I'm not so sure about that. Not when you have 2 new boats to buy. Was. Especially if you weren't intending to buy 2 new boats. Incidentally, I was watching a programme covering the current (no pun intended) furore over sewage discharge in England's waterways and the focus turned to Thames Water which is reportedly one of the worst offenders having exported billions in profits in dividends to institutional and other shareholders whilst its water infrastructure crumbled and failed to meet standards by allowing raw sewage to pollute rivers. A number of those shareholder's names came up and one was very familiar. McQuarie. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Was. Especially if you weren't intending to buy 2 new boats. Incidentally, I was watching a programme covering the current (no pun intended) furore over sewage discharge in England's waterways and the focus turned to Thames Water which is reportedly one of the worst offenders having exported billions in profits in dividends to institutional and other shareholders whilst its water infrastructure crumbled and failed to meet standards by allowing raw sewage to pollute rivers. A number of those shareholder's names came up and one was very familiar. McQuarie. Well if McQuarie are shareholders of Thames water they won't be making any money anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 1 hour ago, Gladys said: We are miles apart, so I will respond to 3 as I think that epitomises your issue. IOMG is the party to those arrangements and are entitled to whatever information and consultation is due under them and will be receiving it. IOMG is not 'we'. That's true, but the money they spend is ours and they are (somewhat) democratically accountable to us. I fail to see why the SP shouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 2 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said: 1. Yes they are, they should be there to serve our need though, not to restrict them. That's the tail wagging the dog. 2. The whims of the free market would be the SP being sold to foreign venture capatalist who cared not a jot for the IOM or it's people. The government were obviously concerned enough about them to part with £120M. 3. Would any other owner be satisfied with the limited access you mention? No, why then should we? 4. However you define a public service, I'm pretty sure a nation's lifeline would fit the bill. It should make sufficient profit to invest in new ships etc when necessary, the need for any more is open to debate, it doesn't stop it being a public service though, regardless. 5. Returns may have been considered when purchasing it, I would say the lifeline thing was the major factor though(quite rightly) we could have bought a lot of very profitable businesses for £120m, we didn't. 6. Explain. I've already mentioned its importance to our tourist and other industries and how it could be used more imaginatively to further this. Not sure how else you could export the SP other than leasing spare vessels. It’s idiots like you who would turn the company from profitable to loss making in a few years 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: TBH...as a purely personal opinion, I think the purchase was driven by SP being an extremely profitable operation just as much as it being the Island's lifeline. Under the previous ownership those handsome profits were extracted and shipped out whilst the company was run into the ground. It's assets values were minimal yet we still paid a fortune for it. Govt's eyes were full of £ symbols at the thought of owning all those profits to help pay off its liabilities. Yes it's the Island's lifeline; but that may not have been the primary consideration. Fair enough, I've never heard anyone say that, but you may well be right. I've got to admit to being very surprised when the bunch of Thatherite half-wits decided to buy it as "the island's life-line" in the first place, and it would certainly explain why they continue with this arms length bollocks. You may well have something there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 7 minutes ago, Banker said: It’s idiots like you who would turn the company from profitable to loss making in a few years It's idiots like you that do not understand why it was so profitable in the first place, and why a greedy foreign investor would sell such a profitable business. 1 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.