Non-Believer Posted April 11, 2021 Author Share Posted April 11, 2021 There are any amount of subsequent posts generated by the posting of the document, "publication error" or not, that refer to the £53M that it showed. Are there any releases accessible by link to indicate that, that figure has been retracted or amended? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: There are any amount of subsequent posts generated by the posting of the document, "publication error" or not, that refer to the £53M that it showed. Are there any releases accessible by link to indicate that, that figure has been retracted or amended? I thought I heard it on the radio. I can't find anything but I'm almost certain that I heard them say it was simply a type error and that the original 38m had not changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said: I thought I heard it on the radio. I can't find anything but I'm almost certain that I heard them say it was simply a type error and that the original 38m had not changed. The original was £FOC and then £9m. What level of incompetence took us to £38m and then allowed a typo of £53m? It really is quite frightening and I can only imagine that our elected tame monkeys have been silenced? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Max Power said: The original was £FOC and then £9m. What level of incompetence took us to £38m and then allowed a typo of £53m? It really is quite frightening and I can only imagine that our elected tame monkeys have been silenced? Perhaps they have been silenced by COMIN. Horses head? I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse .......... Im surprised HRH The Chief Minister’ Rebuttal Unit hasn’t been swinging into action on this one. Edited April 11, 2021 by 2112 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 11, 2021 Author Share Posted April 11, 2021 I can't find any reference in any of the local media archives (3 radio stations and iomtoday) that indicate any retraction or amendment although that's not to say that there hasn't been one. One update from MR was this from November last, similar to the previous iomtoday release from the February Budget, in which Baker indicated that there would be rises on the £38M figure. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 19 minutes ago, Max Power said: The original was £FOC and then £9m. What level of incompetence took us to £38m and then allowed a typo of £53m? It really is quite frightening and I can only imagine that our elected tame monkeys have been silenced? To be fair Max you're not that stupid. The only time it was "free" was if it was supplied and built and owned at someone else's expense. The long term cheaper alternative is to take control yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 8 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said: To be fair Max you're not that stupid. The only time it was "free" was if it was supplied and built and owned at someone else's expense. The long term cheaper alternative is to take control yourself. The original announcement was that it would be built at no cost to the taxpayer, it then moved to £9m, that's acceptable and I agree with what you're saying. It's now running amok and nobody seems to be in control at all! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, Max Power said: The original announcement was that it would be built at no cost to the taxpayer, it then moved to £9m, that's acceptable and I agree with what you're saying. It's now running amok and nobody seems to be in control at all! What might be more helpful is to explain the numbers you quote. It's clearly a different proposition than at outset. I suspect there may have been a change in appetite from Peel Ports to fund it. They've been selling assets i think so perhaps they don't have the liquidity and it ended up the way it has. It's usually cheaper over the long term to do what is being done. Might take 20 years to get there but it's a facility that will be around a lot longer than that. Plus the potential to sub let it to other users too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 19 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said: What might be more helpful is to explain the numbers you quote. It's clearly a different proposition than at outset. I suspect there may have been a change in appetite from Peel Ports to fund it. They've been selling assets i think so perhaps they don't have the liquidity and it ended up the way it has. It's usually cheaper over the long term to do what is being done. Might take 20 years to get there but it's a facility that will be around a lot longer than that. Plus the potential to sub let it to other users too? I'm not really disagreeing with you, rather the cost escalation following this being given the green light. It would appear that our side didn't have costs bolted down and simply ploughed ahead without any consideration as to how the extra cash would be found? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted April 11, 2021 Share Posted April 11, 2021 27 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said: What might be more helpful is to explain the numbers you quote. It's clearly a different proposition than at outset. I suspect there may have been a change in appetite from Peel Ports to fund it. They've been selling assets i think so perhaps they don't have the liquidity and it ended up the way it has. It's usually cheaper over the long term to do what is being done. Might take 20 years to get there but it's a facility that will be around a lot longer than that. Plus the potential to sub let it to other users too? Sub let? Jeez with IOMG track record of commercial deals, we will end subsidising another ferry company. We are stuck with a white elephant thanks to it totally inept, supine and possibly corrupt regime. If the costs keep rising, what’s the betting it’s going rise to at least £60million+. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 No doubt all the historical commerciality of this deal will be commercially confidential, it would however be interesting to see at what point the deal changed and why. Peel Ports have a track record of building things with other peoples money and if ever there was an organisation prime for being taken for a ride well it is IOMG. The Steam Packet acquisition I have always thought was too costly, even though I am told a good move. However at the eye watering costs, top loaded at the moment, it will be some time before we reach the sunlit uplands! 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twitch Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 15 hours ago, Max Power said: The original was £FOC and then £9m. What level of incompetence took us to £38m and then allowed a typo of £53m? It really is quite frightening and I can only imagine that our elected tame monkeys have been silenced? Agree Max, if it had been a typo on an official answer to a Tynwald question then surely the 'error' should have been publicly acknowledged and corrected at the earliest opportunity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 Why should we be surprised that the cost doubles every time anyone looks at it? It is in Liverpool, and Peel Ports (and their various contractors etc.) are building it. Any guesses as to when it will be finished? (And what the final cost will be?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 Serious question , what sort of a contract do Government sign, that allows the costs to rise at unheard of rates. I have seen contracts where the price is subject to a defined variation within specified limits and for laid out reasons, surely we don't just sign something that doesn't define any costs or reasons why, do we ?. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 12, 2021 Share Posted April 12, 2021 34 minutes ago, asitis said: Serious question , what sort of a contract do Government sign, that allows the costs to rise at unheard of rates. I have seen contracts where the price is subject to a defined variation within specified limits and for laid out reasons, surely we don't just sign something that doesn't define any costs or reasons why, do we ?. That's what the UK government have been asking in Liverpool 3 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.