Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Non-Believer]

22 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

I wonder if the sensible thing to do right now is to mothballl the site. Take the hit on the on costs and wait and see if the world is ever actually going to get back to normal?

Can anybody remember if IoMG have ever previously got knowingly immersed in a project on what is now a completely open-ended basis as regards cost and timescale? Indeed, any Govt or organisation anywhere?

I'd suggest that if this was proposed within any private sector operation somebody would not be working in that field again fairly sharpish.

The "£40M get out" is only a figure that Tim Crookall was supplied with to recite to Tynwald so far. Has anybody seen any evidence or contractuals to support it?

[hissingsid]

No offence was intended I spoke the truth about the ITIP.  I do think you will you will get offended quiet a bit if you post on this forum especially if you have just joined to rant and vent your spleen at everyone and anyone you perceive as the enemy when they were trying to do their best in the most difficult of circumstances.    Grow a pair and smell the coffee.

[James Blonde]

11 minutes ago, Petefella said:

I’m sorry but thoroughly incompetent civil servants are destroying the IOM as the £70m demonstrates. I actually find that comment about businesses totally offensive. We didn’t ask to be shut down for the best part of a year by moronic civil servants (who still all got paid btw). I’ve paid full taxes for 30 years and the support still has not been enough to keep me above water. The only saving grace was the salary scheme which at least took wages off your books for a few months. 

The island is being destroyed by the Civil Service. Their incompetence and zero accountability is destroying one part.

The public sector pension blackhole is a ticking timebomb all on it's own which could realistically hole the economy below the waterline. Projections used to make it look 'ok' when they start to rob £40m+ a year are no longer realistic. 

[Petefella]

Just now, hissingsid said:

Grow a pair and smell the coffee.

You’re clearly an idiot mate. Again no offense intended but anyone who supports the blowing of £70m on this has the IQ of a carrot. Try living in the real world every once and a while. The only person who needs to grow a pair is you. 

[The Voice of Reason]

6 minutes ago, Petefella said:

You’re clearly an idiot mate. Again no offense intended but anyone who supports the blowing of £70m on this has the IQ of a carrot. Try living in the real world every once and a while. The only person who needs to grow a pair is you. 

And you are losing sympathy for your initial posts by the minute.

Edited December 19, 2021 by The Voice of Reason

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Can anybody remember if IoMG have ever previously got knowingly immersed in a project on what is now a completely open-ended basis as regards cost and timescale? Indeed, any Govt or organisation anywhere?

I'd suggest that if this was proposed within any private sector operation somebody would not be working in that field again fairly sharpish.

The "£40M get out" is only a figure that Tim Crookall was supplied with to recite to Tynwald so far. Has anybody seen any evidence or contractuals to support it?

Quite so.  I am guessing that the £40m is the work that we have committed to.  Nobody has actually said this is how much if we down tools tomorrow.  Certainly we have to pay for the work already done, but what about the penalty for cancelling future work? 

[Boris Johnson]

In contracts of this work type it is usual that the contractors can claim their profit on any works that are still to be completed if the client stops the works.

At say 10% of another 40mill to finish 4 mill sounds like not a lot of money to stop and take our time deciding if it should be completed. Mothball as Derek says. There would be no requirement to employ the same design team etc.

This assumes it was tendered with a standard type engineering contract for all parties, if our AGs department wrote it we are in a world of hurt judging by the some of the tenders on the govs tender portal.

[Non-Believer]

8 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Quite so.  I am guessing that the £40m is the work that we have committed to.  Nobody has actually said this is how much if we down tools tomorrow.  Certainly we have to pay for the work already done, but what about the penalty for cancelling future work? 

It wouldn't be the first time that a Minister has been given "misleading" (being diplomatic) figures to spout to the Court of Tynwald in order to justify something or other - not by a long chalk. 2M passengers through the airport pa to justify the spending down there. Huge, incredible numbers of passengers on the heritage railways and buses. Allinson proposing 500k visitors by 2032.

Time somebody came up with some figures and real supporting evidence for the costs of calling a halt to this farce until we get some proper costings and timescales to make judgements as to whether or not it's economically viable.

Then again  if Liverpool One shoppers want it so badly they won't mind paying for it with some notable surcharges on their boat tickets.

[ManxTaxPayer]

On 12/18/2021 at 12:59 PM, Petefella said:

It needs investigating. I've just written to my MHK on this. I don't think its fair that the briefing was a private briefing and I've sent an email as I want him to explain to me in very clear terms why he voted for this disaster.

Good luck with that. He took one look at your mail and then shredded his laptop. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Can anybody remember if IoMG have ever previously got knowingly immersed in a project on what is now a completely open-ended basis as regards cost and timescale? Indeed, any Govt or organisation anywhere?

I'd suggest that if this was proposed within any private sector operation somebody would not be working in that field again fairly sharpish.

The "£40M get out" is only a figure that Tim Crookall was supplied with to recite to Tynwald so far. Has anybody seen any evidence or contractuals to support it?

Its an off the shelf, standard contract. Doesn't matter whether it's public sector or private sector. Same standard form of contract. 

The only difference is that perhaps a private organisation would have made better preparation and risk mitigation before embarking on the project and signing up. Once you are in it though, signed on the dotted line, there is no palatable way out.

[Lost Login]

6 hours ago, Petefella said:

He’s been my MHK for over 5 years now and has proven himself to be totally useless at everything he’s done. The letter is the last straw really. If he can’t be bothered answering why he’s backing what is basically gross incompetent he might as well not bother as he’s already proven himself to be incompetent at every other opportunity before this. 

Have you listened or read what he said in the debate in Tynwald as I would have thought that would have explained his position?

[The Voice of Reason]

41 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

 

Then again  if Liverpool One shoppers want it so badly they won't mind paying for it with some notable surcharges on their boat tickets.

What is this obsession with shopping and football in Liverpool? Yes it has both but it also has a lot of cultural attractions and is a hub for onward travel.

If it was handy for the IOMSPCo to sail up the Thames should Oxford Street shoppers and Arsenal or Chelsea supporters say, be surcharged?

Should someone who wants to visit the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool have a notable surcharge on their tickets ? , as maybe a Morecambe FC fan taking the boat to Heysham should?

Load of nonsense if you ask me 

[James Blonde]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Quite so.  I am guessing that the £40m is the work that we have committed to.  Nobody has actually said this is how much if we down tools tomorrow.  Certainly we have to pay for the work already done, but what about the penalty for cancelling future work? 

I tried an FOI to ask what the cost would be to Government for cancellation of the contract. They used the usual commercial confidentiality cover. 

[finlo]

When they're giving away houses in Liverpool for a pound someone's been stitched up like a kipper!

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

What is this obsession with shopping and football in Liverpool? Yes it has both but it also has a lot of cultural attractions and is a hub for onward travel.

If it was handy for the IOMSPCo to sail up the Thames should Oxford Street shoppers and Arsenal or Chelsea supporters say, be surcharged?

Should someone who wants to visit the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool have a notable surcharge on their tickets ? , as maybe a Morecambe FC fan taking the boat to Heysham should?

Load of nonsense if you ask me 

How many Manxies travel to Liverpool for its "cultural attractions"? As regards the Thames, it depends if you are proposing building a @£100M Dock in the Thames. Who is going to pay for it, as in where is the money going to be recovered from?

Where is the money going to be recovered from for Liverpool? Or do you think that IoMG will gift this to IoM residents for little or nothing and write off the expense as "one of those things"?

Suppose it's not £70M<£100M. Suppose it starts edging towards £130M<. Will it still be worthwhile? To proceed with this under the current criteria is a ludicrous proposition for the IoMG finances. The fact that they appear to be willingly doing it on the grounds of an unsubstantiated £40M pull out figure makes it even worse.

But from the same organisation who landed us with a £350M bill for a power station, it's hardly surprising.