Happier diner Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: No....Revenue as in incoming taxation and charges. The reserves are at least partially earmarked for "other priorities", shall we say? A spend of this magnitude was never anticipated, even if it was initially to come out of reserves. The shortfall will have to be made up from somewhere. I would think its comes out of reserves as capital spend but you seem to know more about it than me so I am not sure why you are asking me Here is a handy guide which makes perfect sense to me https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021115/what-difference-between-capital-expenditure-and-revenue-expenditure.asp Edited November 22, 2023 by Happier diner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 22, 2023 Author Share Posted November 22, 2023 33 minutes ago, Happier diner said: I would think its comes out of reserves as capital spend but you seem to know more about it than me so I am not sure why you are asking me Here is a handy guide which makes perfect sense to me https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021115/what-difference-between-capital-expenditure-and-revenue-expenditure.asp Well, you seemed to be posting with some authority as you said that it would be coming out of reserves to fund capex. What I am saying is that this initial spend forecast and its ludicrous associated overspend will have to be recouped. Even if some of that is levelled as charges to the Steamie for using the facility as a tenant or whatever, given the projected limited use of the facility, the rest of that recouping is going to have to come from somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 14 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Well, you seemed to be posting with some authority as you said that it would be coming out of reserves to fund capex. What I am saying is that this initial spend forecast and its ludicrous associated overspend will have to be recouped. Even if some of that is levelled as charges to the Steamie for using the facility as a tenant or whatever, given the projected limited use of the facility, the rest of that recouping is going to have to come from somewhere. In the (real) commercial world IOMG would have to raise invoices to IOMSPCo for use of the facility. Now whether those charges will be enough to cover the capital costs of the build/construction (plus any interest) during say, the length of the lease, remains to be seen. And..... presumably on top of that will be Peel Ports charges to IOMG for maintenance such as dredging etc. There might even be separate charges for storage of fuel and water. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 22, 2023 Author Share Posted November 22, 2023 1 minute ago, Andy Onchan said: In the (real) commercial world IOMG would have to raise invoices to IOMSPCo for use of the facility. Now whether those charges will be enough to cover the capital costs of the build/construction (plus any interest) during say, the length of the lease, remains to be seen. And..... presumably on top of that will be Peel Ports charges to IOMG for maintenance such as dredging etc. There might even be separate charges for storage of fuel and water. Indeed, and running costs are something that seem to have been kept out of the debate to date. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 1 minute ago, Non-Believer said: Indeed, and running costs are something that seem to have been kept out of the debate to date. Don’t the IOMG have to pay a yearly charge (rental) on top of the the utilities and no doubt council tax/business rates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 5 hours ago, Non-Believer said: A figure of £53M at the time was "spurious" and a "misquote". The only things that have been spurious have been competence and honesty by those involved and those overseeing. I tried to dig out what was happening here. The quote about the £53 million being wrong came from Baker in a reply to a supplementary question from Caine in the House of Keys 27 April 2021, he blustered: [...] that was a pure error. I think, as far as I understand it, there has been a response from the Minister for Policy and Reform to clarify the situation. That was human error in the compilation of that data, which was part of a wider answer around green energy initiatives. So the £53 million is completely spurious. That has absolutely no significance in the scheme, £53 million. So just nail that one once and for all. Obviously it was regrettable that error did happen in that process, but it was purely down to human and process errors What had happened was that Barber had asked: What green energy solutions were considered for the 10 largest approved Government infrastructure building projects in each year since 2016 and as the start of the answer it was (and still is) stated: The below table lists the top 10 Government infrastructure projects by spend since 2016. [my bold] The £53 million appeared there. They then realised they had let the cat out of the bag about what they had actually spent and so changed to amounts so they matched "Amount approved by Tynwald as per 21/22 Pink Book" which at that stage was only £38,054,000. Of course we now know that the £53 million was far too low and they probably knew that then as well. But the only 'error' they made was telling the truth for once. And now we're in exactly the same situation where more money must have been spent and those in charge of the scheme are lying to us all again, hopeful that the politicians will be too lazy and timid to challenge them. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: And now we're in exactly the same situation where more money must have been spent and those in charge of the scheme are lying to us all again, hopeful that the politicians will be too lazy and timid to challenge them. And we all know they won’t be challenging as predominately all are under Cannan’s umbrella . It’s very soul destroying that we all know what’s going to happen ,one day soon the bad news will be broken , and we will have to suck it up. They are probably working on the press release as we speak. Any bets between Xmas and New Year . That’s a joke but you get what I’m saying. I’m the wrong age for it really to matter but for many it will have lasting effects. Wait till the 40 plus million a year from the public sector pensions starts to bite and has to be found. Edited November 22, 2023 by Numbnuts Wrong grammar , probably still wrong but hey ho 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebushy Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 I'm convinced this project is going to come in on time and under budget. You heard it here first. Just wait for the government announcement! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 22, 2023 Author Share Posted November 22, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: those in charge of the scheme are lying to us all again, hopeful that the politicians will be too lazy and timid to challenge them. They won't challenge it because they've all voted for it at one time or another. As Juan Turner points out, they've all hit the green button; that makes them all culpable. Ultimately, this is the sort of thing that happens when you have a "democratic system" (🤭) with no organised political opposition to scrutinise and object and elected representatives that go straight into the pockets of the civil service. Edited November 22, 2023 by Non-Believer Extra bit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted December 7, 2023 Share Posted December 7, 2023 2 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 On 11/22/2023 at 1:35 PM, littlebushy said: I'm convinced this project is going to come in on time and under budget. You heard it here first. Just wait for the government announcement! Has it been? https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-infrastructure-minister-confident-liverpool-ferry-terminal-will-be-complete-by-new-years-day/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KERED Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 1 hour ago, monasqueen said: Has it been? https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-infrastructure-minister-confident-liverpool-ferry-terminal-will-be-complete-by-new-years-day/ Wahay! I can't believe it is finally open! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 1 hour ago, KERED said: Wahay! I can't believe it is finally open! It is. I'm on the Manxman there now. It has crashed into it and both have sunk into the Mersey. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Was Chris Thomas just being mischievous when he said it would be open today??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Published 19 May 2023: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/isle-man-ferry-terminal-wont-26949257 "The new Isle of Man Ferry terminal is now scheduled to be completed by the autumn but wont start passenger services until March 2024 at the earliest. " It was not finished in autumn, but the in-service date has not changed. [https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-infrastructure-minister-confident-liverpool-ferry-terminal-will-be-complete-by-new-years-day/ In the radio interview Thomas said that it is value because although it is £80 million, it is over 236 years. So he believes that the building and the ramp will last 236 years. Another Manx miracle]. 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.