Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Now where have I heard something like that before...along the lines of...
This may not be the end, it may not be the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning... the great WSC - must look up the actual words...
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Quite so Barry. Why would anyone not want to support DPPT. ..and why would anyone want to be cynical about Charlie Elphick's involvement. I expect that criticsm would be forthcoming if he DIDN'T get involved. Damned if he does,damned if he doesn't. Incidentally what the harbour board are offering in the way of community involvement is on a par with a government tax-cut, ie worthless.
Good cheer DPPT supporters-victory is on the horizon.
Never give up...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It seems that Gov. hasn't mentioned the p/p port, probably because they couldn't find it, and found the DHB one instead.
It seems that any offer to purchase it would have to be a price that goes well beyond an under-valuation. But the higher the purchase price, the more likely a buyer - who would also have to have a substantial investment sum for future development for a sale to go ahead - would try to increase tarifs to get the invested sums back.
That's where the ferry operators are worried, as they stated in the local press.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
Richard. I think that Dovorians are justified in being cynical about Charlie's involvement with the WigginsPort proposal because he campaigned for election on the basis that Dover should remain a Trust Port. Do you not recall such statements as "Labour want to sell our port", "Not on my watch," etc?
Meanwhile, the Guardian has published another article on the privatisation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/17/dover-cliffs-speculators-people-takeover?INTCMP=SRCHKeith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Richard
you are the question, why wouldnt anyone want to be part of the peoples port, well i think some of us on here have highlighted why not.
Not because of the principle of the peoples port, but more of the unanswered questions, and unclear future.
costs etc.
there are a number of people just opposed to any sale
there are those who support the peoples port
there are even thos that support DHB to remain as is it and secure the bid
and there are those like myself who still unsure of privatising the port to be the best option for Dover, plus all those unanswered questions
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I read that Ed and although the article is O.K. apart from not enough detail on the DPPT itself, the DHB's proposals or the position taken by DDC.
The comments section threw up a couple of really bad comments about Dover - so bad in fact, I didn't want to give them any oxygen of further publicity.
Roger
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Roger, I have reproduced the paragraph that I think you are referring to, because it is important to understand how outsiders view the town.
"Should you stray much beyond the ferry terminal, however, the enjoyment will not last long. Dover is Europe's largest ferry port, with annual profits of over £10m, but the place is pinched and shabby. Look into the town's relationship with its biggest money-spinner, and you quickly detect tension and mistrust: the harbour board is widely seen as a distant, complacent presence - a case study of how supposed public ownership often doesn't feel very public at all."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
there seems to be a change of tune from the ferry operators who were initially in favour of the wiggins port proposal.
maybe i am reading the situation wrong but they seem to think that under both of the two plans currently under discussion they would be financing improvements in the town.
the bit that jan has reproduced here is actually how outsiders view the town, to think otherwise would mean that we are in denial.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, exactly this is what I've been trying to explain all along regards the privatisation proposals: Almost all the money that comes out of the port as income, comes by way of the ferry operators.
Under the present DHB and p/p proposals, to finance all that needs to be paid for: T2, works at Estern Docks, a pension fund, the wages of DHB workers, regeneration money for Dover, the port administration will have to depend on tariffs coming from the ferry companies - and to a lesser extent cruise-liners - which use the port.
DHB's annual profit is quoted at about £10 million, which is evidently quite insufficent to fund all these obligations.
No matter who owned the Port, be it DHB, a private owner, p/p, the result would always be the same: it wouldn't function without substantially increasing the tariffs that ferry operators pay.
A private owner would also have to get back the invested sum of purchase, adding an extra penny's worth to their ambitions to make the port profitable (for themselves) as well as meeting all the above-mentioned obligations.
Hence what I stated all along:
1) to privatise the Port in any way is not in the Port's favour, as whoever runs the Port should not be someone who aims at recuperating an invested sum of money needed to buy it in the first place.
2) that the only way to increase profits without increasing tariffs on ferry operators is to introduce a port-levy in all British ports that would be divided among the local Councils (Town, District, Council), who would each invest this port-income in their local budget (leavin ample space for regeneration).
If all British ports would have the same levy for port-service, then this would not affect ferry operators in Dover, as the same levy would be in place at the Channel Tunnel.
As stated many times, this levy would be an equivalent to European road-tolls which we do not have in Britain, and therefore would not be considered unfair towards European countries which don't have a port-levy.
I think Gov. will realise that this is the best option.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - I am not going to bother to go all the way through your post, by the third paragraph you lost all credability.
I copy and paste:
"""Under the present DHB and p/p proposals, to finance all that needs to be paid for: T2, works at Estern Docks, a pension fund, the wages of DHB workers, regeneration money for Dover, the port administration will have to depend on tariffs coming from the ferry companies - and to a lesser extent cruise-liners - which use the port.
DHB's annual profit is quoted at about £10 million, which is evidently quite insufficent to fund all these obligations."""
Not worth going beyond that because it shows how you are simply way out.
'all these obligations' those you list above those words, wages, administration, the costs of funding regeneration, pension funds, T2 works etc do not come out of your quoted £10m profit - it comes out of turnover. Look up the difference between profit and turnover.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Oh dear havent we been through all of this before?
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Quite right Ross....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
You are right, Barry, that the fundings of the DHB workers and the maintenance of the Port come from the turnover, I skipped a logical link in my paragraph there.
But up to now, the annual profit, quoted at £10 million, is not considered enough to supplement a pension scheme, a participation of the DHB workers in some share scheme, T2 and Dover regeneration, all of which are part of the public consultation process, as you probably know if you have seen the representations (I have).
My other point was, that a purchaser would not only have to see to all these obligations, but also try to get their invested money back and on top of it all make some profit for their own return, this being the logic of a private investor in any business.
My point is, that if the tariffs of the ferry operators were to be increased to cope with all this, they would probably have to stop operating, as they would be likely to lose business.
So to leave DHB as owner of the Port would be the best solution, as they wouldn't have to get back a purchase sum.
The port-levy to the local Councils, including KCC, would cover generation in Dover, road maintenance (which is necessary for a port to fumction), and even some regeneration in Dover District.
Sorry that I missed that logical link in my previous post about the turnover, my apologies!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - the pension scheme is an issue that needs resolving whoever gets the port, it is an issue with any business that has such a scheme. That though is not in any way a deal breaker for the PPT and there are well established regulations and procedures for dealing with funding shortfalls and the PPT will be well aware of that, I am sure they will have seen the last publically available funding statement, if not the current position.
In fact nothing in what you say is a deal breaker. We just have to wait to see what the decision is and make any submissions to the consultation.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
DHB have excellent pension advisors and the deficit is now only around £5m. Those who stayed awake during the pensions presentation last Monday will be satisfied with that.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Unregistered User
Totally agree with your posting Peter.
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Hopefully you were one of the few who stayed awake, Paul?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Unregistered User
Every second Peter. Took away some interesting pointers.
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Yes, I am sure. Perhaps more interesting than what was said, was what was not said.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought the chap that did the speech on pensions was the best speaker of the evening by far, he tried to explain things as best he could to a lay audience.
just a pity the subject matter was so uninspiring, he did manage to gloss over a few things i thought though.