Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Jarndyce]

56 minutes ago, cissolt said:

No government project can begin without proper costing in place.  Why is it such a secret? Is it because it's been an absolute cluster fuck?

Well, yes - obviously.

[Jarndyce]

4 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Try parking at an airport in the UK and see how much it costs. This is how much it costs to buy a mute in Dubrovnik

Have you ever bought a mute in Dubrovnik?   I didn’t even know that you played the trumpet…

[Gladys]

When this project was at the inception stage, was there a Director of Ports and did it fall within their area of responsibility? 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

When this project was at the inception stage, was there a Director of Ports and did it fall within their area of responsibility? 

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. You would have thought that they would have at least been consulted. 

Are Heysham and Pier head part of their current responsibility ? 

It's a good question.

[asitis]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

When this project was at the inception stage, was there a Director of Ports and did it fall within their area of responsibility? 

Well the airport is knackered so it wouldn't surprise me !

[woolley]

On 8/4/2023 at 9:10 PM, Roger Mexico said:

But it was originally supposed to finished late 2020, so most of the spending should have been done (or at least contracted) before Covid hit in that case.  And the Manxman was specified before the Terminal was, so there was no excuse for not getting it designed correctly.

I think I've tumbled to what's going to happen in the end. I had a dream that Mr Whittaker is going to purchase the new Liverpool Terminal and present it to the nation. What a lovely gesture.

[asitis]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

I think I've tumbled to what's going to happen in the end. I had a dream that Mr Whittaker is going to purchase the new Liverpool Terminal and present it to the nation. What a lovely gesture.

A large pink thing just flew by my window !

[code99]

18 hours ago, joebean said:

Having just listened to Chris Thomas on Manx Radio and his bumbling defence of the Liverpool terminal project, he leaves me (as usual) flabbergasted. He may be disappointed with the CM and his comments that nobody would have agreed to the terminal, had they known the final cost but does he not see that the rest of us are even more disappointed with DoI that the risks and potential costs were not understood before project commencement? This is not just additional costs resulting from unforeseen developments; it is an incredible escalation in costs resulting from dreadful project planning, which his £5m contingency comes nowhere near covering. It’s a fraction of the total escalation. Even now, he seems to have little concept of the final cost (“£90 million, or whatever”). I think he and the rest of the fools we elect need to start accepting that this performance is simply not good enough. I suspect his prediction of income (£1m a year) for 230 years is based on little appreciation or understanding of the future dredging or maintenance liabilities. £1 million income could soon disappear into an annual deficit and there will be few of us who expect, given past experience, that any income will accrue at all. It’s time these feeble excuses of politicians were interrogated properly by our media and not just given opportunities to express their pathetic excuses on air, but given that danger we would probably never hear from them at all and they would further scuttle into the dark corners. I despair, yet again. 

IMHO, the audio clip of his interview on Manx Radio is bonkers (his comparison of the Liverpool Terminal/ Landing Stage project to the opening of KFC on Peel Road is not the only bizarre idea). Remember, he is supposed to be a someone with professional financial background.

A few things that grabbed my attention.

1. Apparently, in a few years’ time, when the Terminal is fully up and running, his expectation is that the public will not care less whether ‘we’ stumped-up £25m, £90m or “whatever”. Instead of focussing on how much has been spent, the public will be thankful for the new “quiet room” that IOM hospital transfer-patients will enjoy before and after their 3-hour crossing (that room will make a huge amount of difference about how people feel about the Terminal…):  

1. a. It seems to me that this is the type of self-justifying, criticism-deflecting bluster that got the Island in a financial mess that we are in;

1. b. The Treasury Minister recently warned the public about potential future scaling back (cutting) of public services. The Health Minister has told the public that the budgetary pressures are putting strain on the provision of health services. Yet the ex-DOI Minister, who has only left his post a short time ago, seems to think that paying extra £60m (c£90m minus £25m) will soon become a non-issue;

2. The £1m annual income for the next 236 years (the duration of the lease):

2.a. That the new Terminal will make any money, let alone exactly £1m annually and perpetually, is nothing but hypothetical bunk. If nobody knows what the current costs (capital and operating) of this project are, how can anyone possibly say with any confidence how much future profit it’s operations will make? Even if the £1m was guaranteed by a written contract, changed economic circumstances like a Recession could change this completely;

2.b. Anyone who ever has worked on business cases will be familiar with the concepts of Discounted Cash Flow and Return on Investment. A key assumption behind these concepts is that over time Inflation erodes the value of money. After 200 years a pound will be worth less than one of todays’ pennies. It is true that public investments have generally much longer perspective than private enterprise, but for a small country with limited financial resources, excluding the National Insurance Fund, these days estimating the value of any investment with a horizon beyond 20 years is plainly laughable. Without the final costs and no certainly about future operational profitability any attempt to generate a Return on Investment figure will simply be pie in the sky;

3. Have we not been here before...? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/jun/30/11

Edited August 6, 2023 by code99
clarification

[english zloty]

I can’t believe our great great great grandchildren will be sitting in a shed on the Mersey thinking fuck me this is right up there with the New York Railway Station. Thanks to our forefathers for such an architectural vision.  😂😂

I give it 30 years tops and they’ll probably still be sitting on the same seats as we do now in the existing portakabin 
 

[Zarley]

37 minutes ago, english zloty said:

I can’t believe our great great great grandchildren will be sitting in a shed on the Mersey thinking fuck me this is right up there with the New York Railway Station. Thanks to our forefathers for such an architectural vision.  😂😂

I give it 30 years tops and they’ll probably still be sitting on the same seats as we do now in the existing portakabin 
 

Grand Central on the Mersey.

You could even sing about it to the tune of than old song concerning ferries and that particular river.

[Two-lane]

Thomas says that Cannan has set him up to be the fall guy - a scapegoat  - a person who is blamed for the mistakes of others. The mistake is presumably the monumental screw-up that is the Liverpool landing stage.

He then goes on to say what a wonderful project the Liverpool landing stage is, and how we can all enjoy the quiet room for the next 236 years.

Signed

Confused of Ramsey

 

[P.K.]

18 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

If he wasn't in charge long enough to take any responsibility for what's gone on then he hasn't been in charge for long enough to have any in-depth understanding of what's gone on either IMHO. He can't have it both ways.

His purpose was served in as much as not only did he simply unquestioningly regurgitate what he was being told (as did those before him), he also embellished it as well, as is his forte. DOI heaven.

I beg to differ.

The assumption that he hasn't been there long enough to understand the issues is just that, an assumption.

What could he do? There were only ever two choices this far down track.

Abandon the project, learn the lessons (I wish!) and take the financial hit or

Throw good money after bad in the hope that something good comes out of it.

Of course, being parish pump politicians they will add a third factor which is "Never mind the best option for the good of the island and it's people what option makes me look the least stupid...?"

Have to say the crass grandstanding delay by Watterson looks petty. Claiming they will be "better informed" to make a "proper" decision on the next £10m tranche is a nonsense. If it takes £10m to finish it then that's what it costs so pay up and shut up...

[Hmmmm]

2 hours ago, code99 said:

IMHO, the audio clip of his interview on Manx Radio is bonkers (his comparison of the Liverpool Terminal/ Landing Stage project to the opening of KFC on Peel Road is not the only bizarre idea). Remember, he is supposed to be a someone with professional financial background.

A few things that grabbed my attention.

1. Apparently, in a few years’ time, when the Terminal is fully up and running, his expectation is that the public will not care less whether ‘we’ stumped-up £25m, £90m or “whatever”. Instead of focussing on how much has been spent, the public will be thankful for the new “quiet room” that IOM hospital transfer-patients will enjoy before and after their 3-hour crossing (that room will make a huge amount of difference about how people feel about the Terminal…):  

1. a. It seems to me that this is the type of self-justifying, criticism-deflecting bluster that got the Island in a financial mess that we are in;

1. b. The Treasury Minister recently warned the public about potential future scaling back (cutting) of public services. The Health Minister has told the public that the budgetary pressures are putting strain on the provision of health services. Yet the ex-DOI Minister, who has only left his post a short time ago, seems to think that paying extra £60m (c£90m minus £25m) will soon become a non-issue;

2. The £1m annual income for the next 236 years (the duration of the lease):

2.a. That the new Terminal will make any money, let alone exactly £1m annually and perpetually, is nothing but hypothetical bunk. If nobody knows what the current costs (capital and operating) of this project are, how can anyone possibly say with any confidence how much future profit it’s operations will make? Even if the £1m was guaranteed by a written contract, changed economic circumstances like a Recession could change this completely;

2.b. Anyone who ever has worked on business cases will be familiar with the concepts of Discounted Cash Flow and Return on Investment. A key assumption behind these concepts is that over time Inflation erodes the value of money. After 200 years a pound will be worth less than one of todays’ pennies. It is true that public investments have generally much longer perspective than private enterprise, but for a small country with limited financial resources, excluding the National Insurance Fund, these days estimating the value of any investment with a horizon beyond 20 years is plainly laughable. Without the final costs and no certainly about future operational profitability any attempt to generate a Return on Investment figure will simply be pie in the sky;

3. Have we not been here before...? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/jun/30/11

A somewhat strange rationale by Mr Thomas.  Voted for him twice, albeit after much thought at the last election, I shall not be voting for him next time.  He displays a curious attitude to the public purse.  The liverpool landing stage will be a albatross for generations similar to the MEAdebt pile, Thomas is deluded if he thinks otherwise.

[asitis]

3 minutes ago, Hmmmm said:

He displays a curious attitude to the public purse.

Don't they all !

[Two-lane]

How many MHKs have asked for a copy of the accounts for the landing stage project?