Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[Albert Tatlock]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But the freeholder hasn't built anything, IOMG has hasn't it? 

Yes. But there will still be big fees.

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But the freeholder hasn't built anything, IOMG has hasn't it? 

ETA it is a very long lease with, you would imagine,  nothing or very little  provided by the freeholder by way of services, so why would you expect a service charge?  There may be ground rent which may be a peppercorn fixed for the life of the lease or a cash amount subject to rent review (with strict parameters,  eg inflation only, you would hope),  but you wouldn't expect (hope) that to be a substantial sum.  It depends on the terms of the lease. 

@Albert Tatlock see my ETA.  

[Two-lane]

1 hour ago, hoopsaa said:

Well, essentially it's one government cost centre charging another government cost centre.

Steam Packet passengers have to pay to use the facility. Airline passenger also pay, via Air Passenger Duty and car park fees etc.

[hoopsaa]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

But the freeholder hasn't built anything, IOMG has hasn't it? 

Yeah, with our money. And now we are paying to rent it off them. 

Steampacket, Manxman, terminal, are we up to £500m yet, £500um we put in the coffers, and in return we get an expensive and unreliable ferry service 👍

[hoopsaa]

2 minutes ago, Two-lane said:

Steam Packet passengers have to pay to use the facility. Airline passenger also pay, via Air Passenger Duty and car park fees etc.

Don't start me on the car park fees...🤨

We haven't paid for easyjet and logan air...well,  logan air got a subsidy....

[Albert Tatlock]

5 minutes ago, Gladys said:

@Albert Tatlock see my ETA.  

Road access contracts (see past Hansards), utility provision and rental. Prime land.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, hoopsaa said:

Yeah, with our money. And now we are paying to rent it off them. 

Steampacket, Manxman, terminal, are we up to £500m yet, £500um we put in the coffers, and in return we get an expensive and unreliable ferry service 👍

How else do you expect it to work? 

So, for example, there should be no charges for the NSC because we paid for its construction, or mooring and harbour charges at ports on the IOM because they were built by govt, and so on? 

They will have to pay no matter where they Dock in Liverpool, better it goes into our coffers than someone elses.  The only question is how much.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Road access contracts (see past Hansards), utility provision and rental. Prime land.

Road access possibly, but what utilities does the freeholder provide that shouldn't be provided by the usual utility companies?  On rent, see my ETA. 

 

[Albert Tatlock]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

Road access possibly, but what utilities does the freeholder provide that shouldn't be provided by the usual utility companies?  On rent, see my ETA. 

 

Dunno...none of us public are privy to the detail. I'm still betting on £3m to £5m a year though.

[Gladys]

Just now, Albert Tatlock said:

Dunno...none of us public are privy to the detail. I'm still betting on £3m to £5m a year though.

It may well be, but that is not because of the freeholder's charges, but the cost that has been sunk into making the plot suitable for use (much of it under water) and we have all criticised that.  

However, you also have to acknowledge the point made above  - what if the Steammie says, "Stick your facility, way too expensive" and stay put where they are, which IIRC, is still a possibility?  

[Albert Tatlock]

15 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It may well be, but that is not because of the freeholder's charges, but the cost that has been sunk into making the plot suitable for use (much of it under water) and we have all criticised that.  

However, you also have to acknowledge the point made above  - what if the Steammie says, "Stick your facility, way too expensive" and stay put where they are, which IIRC, is still a possibility?  

Government will fold and subsidise before that happens.

Which is probably the reason for the delay IMO.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Government will fold and subsidise before that happens.

Which is probably the reason for the delay IMO.

Could be, but would that be a bad thing?  What the government don't get in rent, you would think, will be in the dividend.  

[Mercenary]

28 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It may well be, but that is not because of the freeholder's charges, but the cost that has been sunk into making the plot suitable for use (much of it under water) and we have all criticised that.  

However, you also have to acknowledge the point made above  - what if the Steammie says, "Stick your facility, way too expensive" and stay put where they are, which IIRC, is still a possibility?  

In one of previous articles Treasury talked about having to use their powers (as shareholder), which at least implicitly suggests Steam Packet would be overruled

[John Wright]

32 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Dunno...none of us public are privy to the detail. I'm still betting on £3m to £5m a year though.

The lease is registered in the English Land Registry. All of its terms are public. Including the purchase price and annual charges. The roadway, Triskellion Way, is owned, and was paid for by the local authority.

[Cambon]

31 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Road access possibly, but what utilities does the freeholder provide that shouldn't be provided by the usual utility companies?  On rent, see my ETA. 

 

iOMG are leaseholders, the land is owned by Peel Holdings. IOMG built the shed, but Peel still own the dock (1) and require docking / mooring fees as well as the leasehold rent. Steam packet passengers pay to use the shed facility and link span as part of the fares. There are other costs involved, but that is the basis of it. 
 

(1) During the build and dock renovations, paid for by us, Peel insisted in extra reinforcement of the dock due to concerns of the Manxmans powerful bow thrusters. This work alone cost a mint!