Non-Believer Posted November 15, 2023 Author Share Posted November 15, 2023 Is it just me or does anybody else think that the committee are being a bit "light" in "only" quoting £70M for the project...? 🤔 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 41 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Is it just me or does anybody else think that the committee are being a bit "light" in "only" quoting £70M for the project...? 🤔 That's probably the outrage figure, beyond which it becomes politically damaging. There may be some "accountancy" required. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 did anybody seriously think people would be held accountable/sacked for this debacle? 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 5 hours ago, Two-lane said: The full length version: https://www.tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2023-PP-0123.pdf It seems to come down to this area really: "The point in time financial overview, above, shows that in the February 2019 development budget, there was no provision against the risk register item .... The HM Treasury Green Book suggests that a 66% optimism bias contingency should be applied to non-standard civil engineering projects .... If a 66% optimism bias had been applied to the Stage 4 gateway projected cost of construction of £28,060,000 the projected possible cost would have been £46,579,600 which is actually very close to the forecast outturn reported in late 2021. It would have given a clear indication of the risks associated with such a complex project and would also have had the effect of significantly managing expectations around the possible total cost." This would seem to be a systematic flaw in the way Treasury/Tynwald progress projects. As Happier Diner has alluded to in the past, once the contract is signed IOMG is on the hook for £10s of millions regardless of successful or unsuccessful delivery. Providing more Tynwald briefings during project delivery is long after the horse has bolted and is only going to provide the politicians with a series of bad choices. In my view the report is relatively light in this area Item 188 - 191 show areas of naivety from the DOI CEO (especially when combined with the likes of item 205) which had a subsequent significant impact. Part of this may come from the novelty of IOMG being a smaller partner (rather than the consenting body) in negotiating consents with Peel & Liverpool Council - with the quayside walls asset protection having a significant impact on costs, and the planning restrictions having a significant impact on flexibility of the port operations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuffolkNGoode Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 Sold a pig in a poke. Furthermore, upon realising how easily they (Peel, Liv Ccl et al) got away with it, they quickly realised they could bend us over and up. up, up the charges/costs. As for the report - surprise surprise. LESSONS COULD BE LEARNED! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted November 15, 2023 Share Posted November 15, 2023 7 hours ago, Two-lane said: The full length version: https://www.tynwald.org.im/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2023-PP-0123.pdf The project was "inadequately planned." No shit Sherlock! I see COVID is being cited as a factor, along with an honourable mention for Brexit. It's a shame about the timing of the war in Ukraine, otherwise they could have gone for the full house. I guess it gave the committee members something to do in between trips to the subsided canteen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 4 hours ago, Passing Time said: did anybody seriously think people would be held accountable/sacked for this debacle? Yes. They are already sacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 16, 2023 Author Share Posted November 16, 2023 6 hours ago, Happier diner said: Yes. They are already sacked. Names or link please? Genuine request. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 6 hours ago, Happier diner said: Yes. They are already sacked. Did you mean sacked or left with gold plated pensions and lump sums ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 2 hours ago, Non-Believer said: Names or link please? Genuine request. The former CEO of the DOI. Walked before fired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 1 hour ago, asitis said: Did you mean sacked or left with gold plated pensions and lump sums ? You cant tale people's pensions even if they are fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 13 hours ago, asitis said: That's probably the outrage figure, beyond which it becomes politically damaging. There may be some "creative accountancy" required. Amended..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 16, 2023 Author Share Posted November 16, 2023 12 minutes ago, Happier diner said: The former CEO of the DOI. Walked before fired? Black? Fired by Alf 2 years ago, £200k+ payoff, one or two other sweeteners (allegedly), and a bus driving job to help make ends meet in the meantime. Others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted November 16, 2023 Share Posted November 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: Black? Fired by Alf 2 years ago, £200k+ payoff, one or two other sweeteners (allegedly), and a bus driving job to help make ends meet in the meantime. Others? Others? He was accountable. As for all the other criticisms it seems it's pretty much all down to unrealistic budget and poor preparation. I have been saying that for months now so it's no surprise that that was the outcome of the report. The politicians that are to blame for that are also gone. The main one now being a DJ on Manx radio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 16, 2023 Author Share Posted November 16, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: Others? He was accountable. As for all the other criticisms it seems it's pretty much all down to unrealistic budget and poor preparation. I have been saying that for months now so it's no surprise that that was the outcome of the report. The politicians that are to blame for that are also gone. The main one now being a DJ on Manx radio. So that's just two people who have been held to any sort of account for this debacle, Black, arguably directly, and Gawne who failed at re-election for what could also have been a myriad of other reasons. So two years ago and at election in 2016(?), whilst this was still developing and both well before the full scale of this became known. What I am getting at here is that unless sackings follow this report then nobody has been dismissed or accountable for this, anybody else who was involved then is squeaky-clean and is away, scot-free? ETA.. just a few thoughts from iomtoday FB comments. Has the report touched on any of this? Edited November 16, 2023 by Non-Believer Extra bit 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.