Lxxx Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 So where does the estimated £50m cost come into it? FIFTY MILLION POUNDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 So where does the estimated £50m cost come into it? FIFTY MILLION POUNDS. Or just under half a new hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I can see the pier at the bottom of Broadway being reinstated yet, shouldn't have got rid of it in 1896. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 So where does the estimated £50m cost come into it? FIFTY MILLION POUNDS. Or just under half a new hospital. Irrelevant comparison. We don't need a new hospital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 The private sector may be driving this but they are expecting tax payers to fund it! If it's such a good idea they would want to keep all the Returns for themselves. They don't want to - they want Govt to share the risk. That should tell you all you need to know..... To be fair, you do need the government onboard for something like this - you don't want them fighting it every step of the way, it'd be a bollocks I agree Govt would have to be involved for approvals and planning etc but not financing or financial return guarantees. The more usual way for this sort of thing is for the interested parties to form a consortium and then they work together to produce a plan so that the shipowning/cruiser operator/holiday bookings/and tourism coordinate...And then they not government invest hard cash so that brings in the bankers from the start as well. I do not see this on the table yet so beware! An example is mining when the mine interests work along with the exporters/shippers who work with long term shipowning interests and the ultimate receivers of the mine's production who work with the commodity brokers and of course those who design and build harbours which brings in all the civil engineers etc... Same goes for long term oil or long term cruise ship terminals, container parks, grain, sugar and coal trades. The interests work together and usually if it is not all private the host nation/state or government facilitates it by progressing permission or often leasing the land or site. The name of the game is "What's in it for us?" ie not what do we get out of giving you a buckshee £50 million for "guestimated" tourists but what do we get out of letting you building a deep water berth? So, you let them do it with their money. You give some form of land usage but the spin off is a deep water berth for the Island that can be used for other purposes...And this is written into the deal.. It is a bit like the Linkspan in reverse...You finance it but its our as well... This on a small scale is the stock in trade of town planning consultants and I believe has a precedent on the Island. ie M&S get to knock down a chunk of Douglas and build a big shop but they also have to put up a car park..(Which I think I am right in saying became property of the "Government"... Now by coincidence I used to be the cleaner at Manchester town planning consultants Robert Turley and Associates then in Withington...Now known as "Turley" (the firm)...had in the office models and plans of the Villa Marina, the incinerator etc I asked questions and they basically said that they strike deals getting planning permission in return for something in return for the local community...I am not saying that they arranged the M&S Car Park deal but that is the sort of thing they they were in to..Seems a maritime equivalent is the way ahead for deep water berths... Of course if you want a deepwater berth for your own ships you first you try and con the local turnip bashers into voting you £50 million and then what? Ahh! Mmmm? A totally irrelevant obit of Rob Turley is linked below https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtwaqEgc_RAhVMIcAKHeHJCr8QFgg3MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rtpi.org.uk%2Fmedia%2F1861106%2Frob_turley_obituary.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHd8zbbrhjZYiATVIp8wsc-5zUyzw&bvm=bv.144224172,d.bGs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 interesting Barrie, until I read about "planning being a godly process" , not a dry seat in this house.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham_N_Eggs Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I see over on IOM Politics page Juan Turner has been rather vocal on this matter. Buster is convinced and has lined up two devolpers already... In theory this is a good idea as long as it is funded privately, doesn't undermine the current breakwater, and doesn't sink (other places that have this berth seem to have it running next to land or in line with the bay not jutting straight out into the sea exposed to the elements of the irish sea. Everyone seems convinced on IOM Politics the new MHK's will put this through more rigorous scrutiny than the last administration but given the rate they are racing through sittings with virtually no debating on anything makes me think the expenditure for this, if it comes before Tynwald, will just sail through on the back of one presentation. Hell if it uses the £50 development fund it doesn't even need Tynwald approval. So in summary this is going to happen whether we want it to or not. Up next...monorail... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Irrelevant comparison. We don't need a new hospital. I didn't say that we did. What I meant was you seem to get a lot more for your £50 million with all of the infrastructure of a hospital, than what really amounts to with this berth being a load of concrete in the sea. I'm questioning the £50 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 They want £50 million because £50 million has been offered 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 I see over on IOM Politics page Juan Turner has been rather vocal on this matter. Buster is convinced and has lined up two devolpers already... In theory this is a good idea as long as it is funded privately, doesn't undermine the current breakwater, and doesn't sink (other places that have this berth seem to have it running next to land or in line with the bay not jutting straight out into the sea exposed to the elements of the irish sea. Everyone seems convinced on IOM Politics the new MHK's will put this through more rigorous scrutiny than the last administration but given the rate they are racing through sittings with virtually no debating on anything makes me think the expenditure for this, if it comes before Tynwald, will just sail through on the back of one presentation. Hell if it uses the £50 development fund it doesn't even need Tynwald approval. So in summary this is going to happen whether we want it to or not. Up next...monorail... Totally agree, they appear to be suggesting putting a 360 odd metre floating pontoon smack in the middle of the tidal flow running down the back of Douglas head and in very close proximity to gas storage facilities .Love to see how that stacks up in the middle of winter with severe easterly gales . You just could not make this shit up!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 (edited) To understand what is really going on here, cast your minds back to the heady days of fifteen or so years ago when we were told that the lights would go out unless we go a new power station We got a new power station to go with the three we already had plus an undersea cable and some nonsense generation from the oversized incinerator ( which was also crucial to our needs) One result was an electricity supply some five times greater than the Island was likely to need Another result was that dozens of contractors, consultants, assorted crooks politicians & hangers-on got a very nice earner out of the fiasco. Which we all pay for every month through our water & electric bills The deepwater cruise terminal project is simply another money spinner for this generation's aformentioned contractors, crooks etc. Coachloads of ship-borne pensioners spending £5 on tea & a bun are not going to payback the investment needed for this project, which is why no private interests will put any money up without bucketloads of government cash thrown in The dwindling reserves are burning a hole in the pocket of the new administration, like a ten year old rushing down the shops with his birthday money Edited January 20, 2017 by cheeky boy 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 The Isle of Man saw 5,400 visitors on 17 cruise ships last year, generating £3 a head in harbour dues. Ports director Ann Reynolds said: ‘It’s an interesting concept but the business case has to stack up.’ Read more at: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/floating-idea-of-cruise-ship-berth-in-isle-of-man-1-8342417 I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read this, Jesus, the concept must be flawed for Reynolds to say the business case has to add up, this is the woman who went for the business case at the airport where we now should be drowning in 1.75 million passengers ! heading for 2.5 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Do wish our politicos would start saving money & not squander it What is it with them that they just can't help themselves wasting other peoples money? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 The Isle of Man saw 5,400 visitors on 17 cruise ships last year, generating £3 a head in harbour dues. Ports director Ann Reynolds said: ‘It’s an interesting concept but the business case has to stack up.’ Read more at: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/floating-idea-of-cruise-ship-berth-in-isle-of-man-1-8342417 I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I read this, Jesus, the concept must be flawed for Reynolds to say the business case has to add up, this is the woman who went for the business case at the airport where we now should be drowning in 1.75 million passengers ! heading for 2.5 ! So the harbour dues from the cruise liner industry generated a massive £16, 200 last year. That should cover the cost of one harbour policeman for 6 months 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 Do wish our politicos would start saving money & not squander it What is it with them that they just can't help themselves wasting other peoples money? When there is no penalty for ballsing it up it's unsurprising how intellectually challenged individuals run amok like a kid in a sweet shop. 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.