homarus Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 The Isle of Man saw 5,400 visitors on 17 cruise ships last year, generating £3 a head in harbour dues any on island spend is guesswork, most spend nothing Ok actual quantifiable fact's 16k harbour dues and accepting hboy's tenner a head spend on island making a total of 70 grand for the year! So how does any sane person square that with Mr Ugland's statement that "potentially" (I love that word!) 60000 passengers per year spending 60 quid each " could" add 36million a year to the Manx economy! By the way the 2010 TT brought 19 million into the Manx economy in the fortnight according to IOM Govs figures, yet people complain that it's loss making!! So setting aside the fact that the proposed location looks to have been chosen purely for the fact that the water is deep enough and no account taken of tidal conditions and added to the lack of any credible business case being put forward you have to say that this saga äppears" to have the "potential to exceed the Bendybus and Choo Choo fiascos fiasco by a very long margin !! F*cking great entertainment though!! How do you know that IOMSA haven't taken account of the tidal conditions? If the IOMSA have taken account of tidal conditions and the state of the sea in that area and still tink they could successfully berth a ship there, then they shouldn't really be in a business that concerns anything maritime Money talks and bullshit walks!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 This is the proposed location for the terminal The swell in this shot is around 3 metres, It can comfortably double that even in summer Offshore gas platforms are constructed to deal with swells 4 times that, so construction is not the issue. It's the impossibility of safely bringing alongside a vessel without damaging it or the pontoon Even if this were possible the strains on the mooring lines as the vessel rises and falls out of sync with the pontoon would be too much Some of you must have seen the motion of the seacat alongside the berth on the Mersey, bear in mind that is several miles from open sea and with a swell of around one metre on a bad day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 The Isle of Man saw 5,400 visitors on 17 cruise ships last year, generating £3 a head in harbour dues any on island spend is guesswork, most spend nothing Ok actual quantifiable fact's 16k harbour dues and accepting hboy's tenner a head spend on island making a total of 70 grand for the year! So how does any sane person square that with Mr Ugland's statement that "potentially" (I love that word!) 60000 passengers per year spending 60 quid each " could" add 36million a year to the Manx economy! By the way the 2010 TT brought 19 million into the Manx economy in the fortnight according to IOM Govs figures, yet people complain that it's loss making!! So setting aside the fact that the proposed location looks to have been chosen purely for the fact that the water is deep enough and no account taken of tidal conditions and added to the lack of any credible business case being put forward you have to say that this saga äppears" to have the "potential to exceed the Bendybus and Choo Choo fiascos fiasco by a very long margin !! F*cking great entertainment though!! I can't keep up with this shit !! Different media reports different figures quoted ,obviously not the fault of IOMSA but just need to clarify that according to Octopus Media(Whoever they are ) Mr Ugland quoted a potential 6000 extra visitors at 60 quid not 60000. This being the case if he were correct (Which is unquantifiable) extra projected revenue = 3.6 million per year overall spend not 36 mill. If hboy is correct(Which is unquantifiable) it's 6000 x10quid = 60 grand a year overall spend . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 So, time for my interest to be declared. I am Treasurer for the Isle of Man Shipping Association and happy to share the below facts about the proposals from my direct personal involvement. Last Tuesday we invited two speakers to a networking event for our members (which was also open to non-members) to speak on the benefits the Cruise Sector has brought to their respective local. Angela Redhead (Head of Cruise Britain, and Director of Operations Liverpool Cruise Terminal) Michael Morrison (Business Development Manager, Marine Services, Orkney Islands Council) About 80/90 people attended. The same presentations were made to Tynwald earlier in the day. Let’s be absolutely clear, there are no hidden agendas here in terms of who stands to gain from this project, and no-one is being paid huge consultancy fees for these opinions. There is a wealth of maritime experience within our membership, and IOMSA wishes to work collaboratively with Government to share that experience for the benefit of the whole Island. IOMSA invited these guests to provide a flavour of what can be achieved given the right attitude and backing. Within 3 hours of being on the Island, Michael Morrison freely stated that our tourist offering in terms of attractions and day excursions is far superior to Orkney’s and that there is a fantastic opportunity to capitalise on the cruise industry for the Island. If Government wishes to take this opportunity, it cannot be done half-heartedly. IOMSA have been looking at the issue for a couple of years and have contributed to a feasibility study for a 350m floating deep water berth located outside of Alexandra Pier. Technically, we are being told it is entirely possible. Our waters are nowhere near as challenging as North Sea conditions in terms of wind/wave heights and there, oil/gas platforms don’t move in these conditions. To cater for the biggest cruise liners (currently 362m long and approx. 6,500 passengers, and 2,000crew, draft 10m), the only real possible location (prevailing weather and draft) and type of berth (floating, not fixed pier, and 350m length) is what we are proposing in Douglas. fbwposition.png This is our proposal for where a floating deep water cruise berth should be located based on the feasibility study from the engineers that designed the Monaco floating breakwater, which is similar in size, but moored in considerably deeper waters. architectvision.png In terms of the cruise berth, above picture is nonsense, drawn up by architects without any consideration of the practicalities or costs of putting a berth there. This is NOT what our proposal is. With regards to the projected cost £50m, this is an estimate of all associated costs of construction, linking to shore and landside ground/ infrastructure amendments (highway & remodelling). Let me be also clear, the press erroneously have picked up on a “5 year payback period” which clearly is also nonsense for a £50m project. As has been pointed out, private sector funding would be all over it if that was the case. We are talking more like 20-30 years. The 5 years, I think, was a quote from Angie in relation to the payback of the £16m Liverpool terminal. I do stand to be corrected on that though. Clearly the financing is an area that needs a lot more work in terms of the transference of risk to the private sector, so that the taxpayer doesn’t sit on the hook for the whole lot. We have mooted the possibility of an infrastructure bond as a method, but this would need to be addressed in much greater detail by producing a business case for the idea, once the political will to explore the project was there. For cost comparison, Orkney berth and supporting infrastructure cost a total of £29m (it was built 2002 then extended 2014). However, their berth is semi-sheltered, and has approx. 2m tidal range, where as ours is more like 7m. The current economic benefit to their local economy is estimated at £7m p.a. Our conservative projections for the project would be 60,000 cruise visitors per annum (this is 50% of current Orkney level, and 50% of an industry report commissioned by Government in 2014), and the industry standard calculation for economic benefit of a cruise passenger is £70 per head. Also please be clear, economic benefit is very difficult to quantify and cannot be taken as direct cash benefit. Again, these figures would be thrashed out in the business case. Our heritage sites and attractions are crying out for visitors to stem their losses, cruise is the only quick fix for that as they are ideal for day trips. Cruise is an international market and is big business, the opportunity is there, is the willingness and the business case? Let’s see. Go big or not at all. To build something that would not be able to cater for the biggest ships would be a waste of time, effort and money. It is a proposal, and one that the IOMSA believes should be looked at seriously, if we want to capitalise on the sector. Clearly if the business case doesn’t stack up, then it’s a non-starter, but we wanted to get the debate out there, and so far, feedback has been mostly positive. PM if you would like further information or have further feedback, don’t really want to get into a forum debate on the issue. <edit few typos/vessel parameters> Something seriously wrong here with the scales being shown?? A simple comparison with google earth using their own measurements would put that cruise liner literally sitting alongside the stabits on Alexandria Pier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Unquantifiable ! Christ Eddies buzzword for we haven't a .......... clue ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Unquantifiable ! Christ Eddies buzzword for we haven't a .......... clue ! Or, "We'd rather not say..."? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 The Isle of Man saw 5,400 visitors on 17 cruise ships last year, generating £3 a head in harbour dues any on island spend is guesswork, most spend nothing Ok actual quantifiable fact's 16k harbour dues and accepting hboy's tenner a head spend on island making a total of 70 grand for the year! So how does any sane person square that with Mr Ugland's statement that "potentially" (I love that word!) 60000 passengers per year spending 60 quid each " could" add 36million a year to the Manx economy! By the way the 2010 TT brought 19 million into the Manx economy in the fortnight according to IOM Govs figures, yet people complain that it's loss making!! So setting aside the fact that the proposed location looks to have been chosen purely for the fact that the water is deep enough and no account taken of tidal conditions and added to the lack of any credible business case being put forward you have to say that this saga äppears" to have the "potential to exceed the Bendybus and Choo Choo fiascos fiasco by a very long margin !! F*cking great entertainment though!! How do you know that IOMSA haven't taken account of the tidal conditions? IOMSA has already posted on here so is obviously keeping abreast of feelings on this issue, so if he could come back on and clarify yes or no would be great !! I'll have a grand bet with you now Andy ,that I and most Douglas Butties know more about the Area behind Douglas Head and it's tides than Mark Robershaw .Lars Ugland and Terry Toohey combined !! Why would I take a bet with you when neither you or I know if IOMSA have done their technical due diligence? Hence my question. And yes, it would be useful if IOMSA can at least confirm that some technical due diligence has been carried out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well they're angling to clean out the 50 mill development fund so you'd think so ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well they're angling to clean out the 50 mill development fund so you'd think so ? I think you're jumping the gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Well they're angling to clean out the 50 mill development fund so you'd think so ? That's nonsense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Really!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 The Isle of Man saw 5,400 visitors on 17 cruise ships last year, generating £3 a head in harbour dues any on island spend is guesswork, most spend nothing Ok actual quantifiable fact's 16k harbour dues and accepting hboy's tenner a head spend on island making a total of 70 grand for the year! So how does any sane person square that with Mr Ugland's statement that "potentially" (I love that word!) 60000 passengers per year spending 60 quid each " could" add 36million a year to the Manx economy! By the way the 2010 TT brought 19 million into the Manx economy in the fortnight according to IOM Govs figures, yet people complain that it's loss making!! So setting aside the fact that the proposed location looks to have been chosen purely for the fact that the water is deep enough and no account taken of tidal conditions and added to the lack of any credible business case being put forward you have to say that this saga äppears" to have the "potential to exceed the Bendybus and Choo Choo fiascos fiasco by a very long margin !! F*cking great entertainment though!! I can't keep up with this shit !! Different media reports different figures quoted ,obviously not the fault of IOMSA but just need to clarify that according to Octopus Media(Whoever they are ) Mr Ugland quoted a potential 6000 extra visitors at 60 quid not 60000. This being the case if he were correct (Which is unquantifiable) extra projected revenue = 3.6 million per year overall spend not 36 mill. If hboy is correct(Which is unquantifiable) it's 6000 x10quid = 60 grand a year overall spend . so the same amount of visitors but with a £50m raft + staffing costs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 You could buy one of these for 5 mill , get rid of a few non jobs from IOM Gov, and use the wage savings to pay crew for it , winner!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 If hboy is correct(Which is unquantifiable) it's 6000 x10quid = 60 grand a year overall spend . I think the "business case" is based on usual made up IOMG numbers. I had heard that under the previous VAT agreement they could claim £50 per head for every tourist who landed as a VAT claim. Of course with Brexit who the hell knows whether the customs union will stand, or whether the arrangement with the UK won't be re-written? Based on actual spend (which will be next to fuck all) the numbers can't possibly stack up at all. If it's being topped up by an agreement that might well change post Brexit it's even stupider. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trueblood Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) http://www.fdn-engineering.nl/floating-breakwater-in-monaco This is the sort of thing they have in mind I believe. Edited January 27, 2017 by Trueblood 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.