Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[asitis]

I believe the figures said 52 million turnover with 9.35 million pre tax profit. This would tie in with what my friend, a ships master, said about it being a very profitable, in transport terms, sea route !

[hillshepherd]

 

They don't make that much profit. Plus why would they invest serious money in their boats or a new boat when the user agreement has such a short time to run?

 

at the end of the day they signed up to their current contract. therefore they should have the boats serviceable or be in a position to get replacements up to the end of the contract, not years earlier and come running to government and cry they can't afford new boats unless they get a new contract early?? reason being they pay into foreign pensions with the profits. give them a new contract early and how many years short of the new contracts expiration date will they be back crying again? I heard from a reliable source the racket make around 15 - 16% profit in a service/business that usually does well to get 5% profit. sure they don't have the huge turnover of P&O but as already said the profits don't get put back into the company. for any other contractor that can't fulfil their contract in the real world they get fucked off and the whole process goes out to tender. if a company was in place that didn't have so much debt round its neck reliable boats and a decent service could be provided.

Food for the numbskulls (MHK's) tiny fucking peabrains

[manxman8180]

I would not renew the user agreement due to the debt problems.

I would put a contract out to tender for 5 years to supply a twice daily service with extra sailings in the summer s etc for a fixed fee performance etc would be written in. Lots of these in the shipping world nice and simple.

 

I would then market the seats on the sailings through a separate company, agent etc this would allow the total flexibility in the fare structure and we could offer very cheap sailings to encourage visitors to come in off peak times etc and allow the locals to have better rates at the weekend and half term etc. As there would be no huge capital debt involved it would be cheaper than allowing the steam packet to renew the user agreement.

So you expect someone to make all the capital investment, crew the ships, maintain them, cover the costs of loading / unloading etc....... And then let someone else just collect the cash??

 

Yeah, I can see operators crawling all over that concept.

 

They have just carried out an expressions of interest. Would be good to see who exactly threw their hat in the ring......as I've said before I'd take a bet that none of the other established Irish Sea operators were among them ( other than the SP of course)......

[woolley]

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

[Tempus Fugit]

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

it may also be cheaper for the SPCo to pay fishermen to not go fishing, and save on repairs and disruption

[notwell]

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

Exactly.

 

The problem on here is that companies are not allowed to make a profit.

 

You get people moaning about the air routes which have closed. They close because they are not profitable. People then moan about the routes that are profitable.

 

The IOM SPC should me profitable. I think some deluded people believe the government should run it. Could you imagine? Jesus.......................

Or even worse - the IOMSPC were losing lots of money and the tax payer was subsidising the company as is the case in other remote places.

 

I think it is in everyone's interest to get the user agreement sorted out asap. I agree that we need to ensure investment into the fleet but we need to be careful what we wish for in terms of assuming there is a plethora of operators waiting to swoop in. There isn't.

[Batmans Mate]

Here we go again http://147-5433bc3297b05.radiocms.com/news/isle-of-man-news/ben-heads-back-to-drydock/

[Rhumsaa]

Here we go again http://147-5433bc3297b05.radiocms.com/news/isle-of-man-news/ben-heads-back-to-drydock/

 

Not ideal but better now than in TT week

[Andy Onchan]

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

 

GBP80-100 million will buy you a lot of boat these days.

[Barrie Stevens]

I would not renew the user agreement due to the debt problems.

I would put a contract out to tender for 5 years to supply a twice daily service with extra sailings in the summer s etc for a fixed fee performance etc would be written in. Lots of these in the shipping world nice and simple.

 

I would then market the seats on the sailings through a separate company, agent etc this would allow the total flexibility in the fare structure and we could offer very cheap sailings to encourage visitors to come in off peak times etc and allow the locals to have better rates at the weekend and half term etc. As there would be no huge capital debt involved it would be cheaper than allowing the steam packet to renew the user agreement.

 

I think that the poster is making an oblique reference to what is known as "period time charter"...You enter the market and find an Owner who will charter to you for as you suggest five years at a daily hire rate usually priced in US Dollars. (So you gotta get the Dollars!)

 

When you time charter a ship you become as it were the "Owner by proxy"...This is known as "the Disponent Owner"...

 

As Disponent Owner you give the orders and requirements as agreed by the terms of the charter party and thus providing you and they fulfil the terms of the charter you can sub-let as it were and sell tickets, determine schedules etc.

 

Depending on the charter hire you may earn a good profit...Of course the market can go down as well as up during the charter...If it goes up you have made a bargain as the ship is contracted to you for five years...If it goes down you are stuck with the charter and the Shipowner laughs at having five year period time charter cover in a falling market.

 

As Disponent Owner you can usually have the funnel painted in your logo to go along with the ticketing, uniforms that sort of thing it is all negotiation.

 

As Charterer you will pay the daily costs of fuel oil, diesel etc and such as light charges and harbour dues. The Shipowner pays for all that is needed to run and maintain the ship. This usually means crewing, engineering work, maintenance and regular dry docking etc. So there will be times when the ship goes in for dry docking and survey just like "the Ben"...And then you have to enter the market and get another ship in a hurry if there is one and at whatever price the market demands...In other words, just like the Steampacket you will have to run a ship, a spare one and at times charter in another one.

 

So there you are you have to play the market.

 

I am sure there are charter party forms used in the liner trades and which cover time chartering ships which involve passengers, catering, uniformed crew, cabins, services etc..I have never used one as in the main when you charter you have the crew that the Shipowner provides so that is scope for yet more complications if you time charter..If I were the the Owner in normal circumstances I would not want my Disponent Owner's crew...But charters can be amended to fit at a price! (And custom of the trade as lawyers say!)

 

So contracting a ship for five years as opposed to having a User Agreement does bring its own complications. The Isle of Man side as Disponent Owners will have to have passenger ship expertise...or bring in sub-contractors.

 

What you have at the moment is in effect period time chartering the Linkspan to the Shipowner subject to terms and conditions of service and in time bringing in new tonnage (a new ship)...This means that the Shipowner or the Steampacket has all the headaches of running a scheduled passenger/ferry service....It is far simpler than the IOM learning how to be a Disponent Owner.

 

Another way is to Bareboat or Demise Charter which I will simplify as leasing as opposed to chartering akin to leasing an aircraft but that is enough for now as Bareboating too requires even more local input to the service and so the bottom line is that you are better off keeping to the User Agreement.

 

Anyway, there are very few modern ships small enough to get into Douglas Harbour so an Owner would want a long term period charter in excess of five years to support a costly newbuild specially for the trade and that really brings you back in a full circle to the existing User Agreement because it is much the same thing in effect.

[woolley]

 

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

 

GBP80-100 million will buy you a lot of boat these days.

 

How much do you reckon for a couple of new Ben replicas?

[Barrie Stevens]

 

 

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

 

GBP80-100 million will buy you a lot of boat these days.

 

How much do you reckon for a couple of new Ben replicas?

 

 

This is hard to work out accurately without putting out feelers. Ship "Sale and Purchase" brokers ("SNP") jealously guard their market information and are a very tight circle of people usually in the City of London...

 

You can Google about a bit but a ship like "the Ben" was a cut down version of an off the peg design...

 

A lot of ships are standard designs bit like buying a cheap suit getting it altered to fit.. And "the Ben" is not ideal for the job and was not "built for trade"...Do that and you are talking serious long term money!

 

You can try Googling ship sale and purchase brokers as some publish a market report of sorts...There are also ships for sale websites...But once again Douglas Harbour is very small and it really needs something made for the job...And that brings you back to making it worthwhile for the Owner ie a near monopoly linkspan agreement!

[woolley]

I still don't think the profits are out of line. Sure we are the customers so we want it as cheap as possible, but it must be a total ball ache of a business.

[Barrie Stevens]

 

Jeez, there is some crap on the last couple of pages. The profits do not go to foreign pension funds. They got badly burned on the deal after buying the company from Macquarie at an inflated price. Macquarie in turn overpaid from Montagu at the top of the market. Pension funds are out of the picture and profits are now going to the owners by default, Banco Espirito Santo who had advanced a lot of the debt for the earlier deals and would like some of their money back. The debt has since been restructured to about half of its former level.

 

So we are told there is a £10 million pre-tax profit. That comes mainly from the high freight charges which subsidise the passenger operations. I appreciate we contribute to those charges in the goods that we buy here. Don't forget that we also need probably £80-£100 million pounds investment in new bespoke vessels in the not too distant future. That is going to make a mighty dent in those profits for a lot of years.

 

Yes it is a profitable company and maybe a harder bargain could be driven, but it isn't all easy street for the SPCo or its owners.

 

GBP80-100 million will buy you a lot of boat these days.

 

 

Google "RoPax for sale" there are a few plus one or two designers and builders advertising. A lot seem the same vintage as "the Ben" from a quick glance and may not be suitable for Douglas...The Ben My Chree was laid down in 1997 at a cost of £24 million...However once you get to 15-20 years you are looking at an old ship and that is what "the Ben" now is although like a human body you can do something to put off the evil day!!

[Barrie Stevens]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjIl6OKqdTMAhXLAMAKHXgTCMsQFghlMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.norshipsale.com%2Fropax-vessels-for-sale%2F&usg=AFQjCNGgAvE55-jHUx54hNVu08IF-EfHJA

 

The above link to a broker will give you some idea of the state of the market for RoPax and ferry type tonnage...Looks like most of it is clapped out and with a big demand for the very few modern ones available and I dare say most of those will be too big for Douglas! There are other on-line brokers and builders..