Gladys Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Sorry Rog, I don't get your point. We know we are paying for power here way over the amounts in the UK, but we have to understand that you cannot directly compare the two. Its a bit like comparing the amount paid in the UK for petrol with that paid in the US; so many different factors influencing prices in both that a comparison is almost meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Thanks Billy. I couldn't agree with you more! I am not trying to excuse the recent debacles: they are serious and concerning. What I am trying to do is provide some balance to the doom mongers that post on this site! Butterfly Maiden was making the point that there are downsides but there are also upsides and we should ensure a balance. It all reminds me of Mec Vannin in the late 70s and 80s. A slogan was FSFO or "Financial Sector F*** Off". I wonder what would have happened had that particular crusade suceeded! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 The MEA are losing about £20 million pa on contracts alone due to not being able to use the cable, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 We pay a dam sight less than £09,95 per kWh for electricity here in Norfolk and a LOT less for gas than is shown. Someone is spinning something. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thus speaks someone with an inate talent for producing his own 'natural' gas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 The MEA are losing about £20 million pa on contracts alone due to not being able to use the cable, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi FCMR .. how do you know that ? .. if true it would make sense of the MEA business strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 The MEA are losing about £20 million pa on contracts alone due to not being able to use the cable, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi FCMR .. how do you know that ? .. if true it would make sense of the MEA business strategy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well lets see if time tells you Im wrong. Its my opinion NOW that the MEA are or could be in a very strong finacial position if the Governemt alow them to light the cable up. It would be political suicide for the Government to allow a bank to have control of such an important bit of cable. Remember this name BOWING, it could answer a lot of questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Lisner, No one is steering me!! I am quite capable of steering myself!I was suggesting that YOU were trying to steer the debate away from the main issue. The fact that some capital project runs over budget, in itself, is not a cause for a wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Yes it is a cause for wringing of hands etc. And it is projects with a rather large 's'. You obviously weren't here when it happened, but one day you will hear all about The Hospital. Many, many such projects in the UK run way beyond their budget.So it's all alright then, is it? A country of 70 million people manage to lose £billions so a community of 70,000 can 'vanish' away a few hundred £million. I really do see the logic. Just because the same happens here does not indicate to me the gross mismanagement, incompetence and even dishonesty that many contributors allude to.It does to me. Average person, average intelligence, average wage earner and tax payer. And as for giving it time until my rose tinted specs drop off, I have been back three years and, if anything, they have grown rosier and rosier! Now find a way to knock that!!Sounds like "The Roses Tinted Spectacles" by Hans Christian Anderson to me. Or am I thinking of the Emperor's New Clothes? Edit typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Touche! Now another parry! My point was that instead of riding off in a lynch mob to find someone to blame, which would go no way to remedying the situation, the matter has to be managed to limit the damage. An overspend, in itself, is not of fundamental concern if the overrun can be financed. What is of concern, however, is what changed between the loans being taken out and the sudden inability to service them? It has to be assumed that a major bank would have undertaken full due diligence on the MEA subsidiaries' ability to service these loans as would the board of MEA in signing up for the loans. FCMR has alluded to the "lighting of the cable" as have a number of other contributors. Is that the nub of the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisner Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 It has to be assumed that a major bank would have undertaken full due diligence on the MEA subsidiaries' ability to service these loans as would the board of MEA in signing up for the loans.What a good point this is. It either makes me think "what is all the fuss about" . . . . Anyway, what exactly was all that Enron business about? Or am I muddying the waters? I'll best shaddup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Payments to BOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Yet again Lisner, instead of trying to find a solution you are firing off in all directions. My point re the role of the bank is that there must have been a fairly sound commercial basis for giving the loans. There may have been certain assumptions that proved incorrect, but these asuumptions would, I imagine, have been fully tested by the bank. I also doubt that the lending at that level would have been approved at local level. So you could expect that the bank would have gone over the proposition with a fairly fine tooth comb and at a high level, yet something unanticipated must have changed between taking the loan and the sh** later hitting the fan. Find that and we may be a good way to finding hte solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 glad to be back in my opinion you are spot on. There is no way as I have stated previously that the Board would have taken on a loan that they had no chance of servicing and as you have said the bank would not have offered the loan if they did not believe that the Capital and Interest could not be repayed. The original buisness plan must have either had a massive fundamental flaw or some major interference. Maybe the blanked out section of the PKF report would shed some light on the whole affair ??????? All we should have to do is to find out what went wrong with the original buisness plan and try and put back what has possibly been removed from the same and the loan should be able to be serviced without recourse to Government. (simple terms) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Sorry Rog, I don't get your point. We know we are paying for power here way over the amounts in the UK, but we have to understand that you cannot directly compare the two. Its a bit like comparing the amount paid in the UK for petrol with that paid in the US; so many different factors influencing prices in both that a comparison is almost meaningless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> By overstating the price paid by Joe Public for electricity on the Mainland it reduces the percentage difference of the higher prices charged on the Island. What’s more it is entirely proper to make an apples and apples comparison between what is paid over here and what is charged on the Island. It allows a true picture to emerge of the impact of the dam fool independent electricity generation capability on the island when a duplicated or triplicated cable tie-up would have resulted in a far lower cost per kWh for Manx consumers. To suggest that such a comparison is akin to comparing petrol costs at the pump between the US and the UK is untrue in spades. The taxation position between the US and the UK alone makes such a comparison meaningless whereas a comparison between electricity costs between the Mainland and the Island really is as near to an apples and apples comparison as makes no difference. You guys are being screwed not only as a result of The Loan but by the very strategy regarding electricity supply on the Island. Whoever decided to build a replacement power station as opposed to a tie-in to the UK national grid should be publicly identified, then vilified, and then steps taken to ensure that he never holds public office again as he is obviously an incompetent fool. Anyone know who the final decision maker was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 glad to be back in my opinion you are spot on. There is no way as I have stated previously that the Board would have taken on a loan that they had no chance of servicing and as you have said the bank would not have offered the loan if they did not believe that the Capital and Interest could not be repayed.The original buisness plan must have either had a massive fundamental flaw or some major interference. Maybe the blanked out section of the PKF report would shed some light on the whole affair ??????? All we should have to do is to find out what went wrong with the original buisness plan and try and put back what has possibly been removed from the same and the loan should be able to be serviced without recourse to Government. (simple terms) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup. That sums it up for me too. No way that Barclays would have loaned the money unless it was a viable prospect. Also inconceivable that nobody in Govt knew about the loan IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 The other possibility is that the bank lent the money on the basis that it was backed (to a degree) by the government. In a similar way that the day-time TV loan companies (Ocean finance etc) will lend you money regardless of your financial situation as long as your own a property. Just a thought. Also inconceivable that nobody in Govt knew about the loan IMO. It's also inconceivable that no-one in Joe Public knew about the loan. Its the Isle of Man and people talk, you'd expect someone in either the MEA, Cains, Barclays, government or the accountants to have talked to someone. I don't buy the fact that it was some kind of uber CIA-secret loan that no one knew about. If it was, then the treasury weren't doing their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.