Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[emesde]

Sorry everyone, I've found I'm turning into a cynic. Never was,. But I think I have heard so much cr*p  coming from politicians in the last year or two on so many subjects that it's difficult for me not to be. 

I promise to try and  improve. 🙄

[Non-Believer]

PAC are already tasked with investigating this farrago I believe? One would hope that no stone would be left unturned but IoMG whitewash has always had wonderful, exclusive qualities too.

What doesn't ever seem to be discussed is how this spend is actually going to be recouped and what the running costs going forward will be?

[Kopek]

A review is of little use now? Except, of course, to lay the blame? What was needed was a preview of all the possible problems and unanticipated cost over runs that could be factored in.

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Kopek said:

A review is of little use now? Except, of course, to lay the blame? What was needed was a preview of all the possible problems and unanticipated cost over runs that could be factored in.

It needed to be done a step before that. A review of our transport needs and whether Liverpool should figure at all.

I sort of get why DoI have gone down the own and develop route rather than rely on Peel. We’ve paid the capital costs of the last two floating landing stages, even though they belonged to others, MDHB and then Peel, and been royally charged to use them, and then thrown off. This does give long term security, but at a price. 

[emesde]

As you said earlier John, the           ongoing running costs and maintenance will be significant annual amounts. The steam Packet carries around 600,000 passengers per year. People can do their own sums based on that as to the effect it might have on fares. But it does seem a high cost to me in terms of usage. Maybe they can lease out restaurant,/shop facilities to lessen the load, but I'm not convinced they have the commercial knowhow to turn this into a commercial success. 

[Gladys]

I said ages ago, I think when the £70m vote was discussed, that we should cut our losses and get out.   Poo, pooed as I didn't understand contracts.  But I do, and often when you cancel a contract it is not without cost, but you have capped the loss.  Not a graceful exit, but a less costly one. 

[Kopek]

I too questioned the need for Liverpool at all.

Tho I think that the majority of Manx residents would have been broadly in favour? Most of the outcry seems to be about the cost, not the necessity.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Kopek said:

I too questioned the need for Liverpool at all.

Tho I think that the majority of Manx residents would have been broadly in favour? Most of the outcry seems to be about the cost, not the necessity.

Yes, a service to Liverpool is desired (not needed) but at what cost so people can have a day trip, go and see a football match, shopping etc? They are great, of course, but there must have been another option. 

Let us not forget, this started as a no cost option which looked great.  The point there should have been a rethink was when the no cost option turned into a cost option, even at £1.  Then, when costs escalated the whistle should have been called for a rethink of the strategy and a 'suck it up' option given serious consideration to stop. 

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

It needed to be done a step before that. A review of our transport needs and whether Liverpool should figure at all.

I sort of get why DoI have gone down the own and develop route rather than rely on Peel. We’ve paid the capital costs of the last two floating landing stages, even though they belonged to others, MDHB and then Peel, and been royally charged to use them, and then thrown off. This does give long term security, but at a price. 

a price we can ill afford in this current climate John

[Passing Time]

22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, a service to Liverpool is desired (not needed) but at what cost so people can have a day trip, go and see a football match, shopping etc? They are great, of course, but there must have been another option. 

Let us not forget, this started as a no cost option which looked great.  The point there should have been a rethink was when the no cost option turned into a cost option, even at £1.  Then, when costs escalated the whistle should have been called for a rethink of the strategy and a 'suck it up' option given serious consideration to stop. 

Fully agree Gladys but we have been blessed with successive government with absolutely no business acumen

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

Fully agree Gladys but we have been blessed with successive government with absolutely no business acumen

What I still don't understand is how contracts were entered into which exposed IOMG to greater liability than Tynwald had approved. 

So, you enter into a contact costing x, and there is a contingency of y, then you get approval for the x and the contingency and the terms of the contract should reflect that with no liability beyond x and y. Otherwise you have contracted beyond your approval. 

I just don't get it, unless the original contract was not certain or the number of amendments really meant that the contract was continually being renegotiated, but at each renegotiation no one thought, 'before this is approved we had better increase our approval from Tynwald' so we were already contractually obliged before Tynwald gave approval. 

 

[Passing Time]

19 minutes ago, Gladys said:

What I still don't understand is how contracts were entered into which exposed IOMG to greater liability than Tynwald had approved. 

So, you enter into a contact costing x, and there is a contingency of y, then you get approval for the x and the contingency and the terms of the contract should reflect that with no liability beyond x and y. Otherwise you have contracted beyond your approval. 

I just don't get it, unless the original contract was not certain or the number of amendments really meant that the contract was continually being renegotiated, but at each renegotiation no one thought, 'before this is approved we had better increase our approval from Tynwald' so we were already contractually obliged before Tynwald gave approval. 

 

You can bet your last penny that it's a contract that will never see the light of day

[Kopek]

There can't be ''commercial confidentiality' on this contract because, what other contracts in Liverpool are we likely to enter into?

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

What I still don't understand is how contracts were entered into which exposed IOMG to greater liability than Tynwald had approved. 

So, you enter into a contact costing x, and there is a contingency of y, then you get approval for the x and the contingency and the terms of the contract should reflect that with no liability beyond x and y. Otherwise you have contracted beyond your approval. 

I just don't get it, unless the original contract was not certain or the number of amendments really meant that the contract was continually being renegotiated, but at each renegotiation no one thought, 'before this is approved we had better increase our approval from Tynwald' so we were already contractually obliged before Tynwald gave approval. 

 

I think that when the site was found to be difficult, those responsible decided to push on as we had already bought it. The information was withheld, and the fact that we should have walked away early on in the game.  

[Gladys]

28 minutes ago, Kopek said:

There can't be ''commercial confidentiality' on this contract because, what other contracts in Liverpool are we likely to enter into?

You are missing what commercial confidentiality is about.  It is about disclosing commercially sensitive information about a private sector contractor that would prejudice their wider commercial position.  But  there again it is often misused to shroud government contracts when it is really only protecting government.