Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
2 September 2010
16:0268471#1
According to the latest information available, it sems that people in Dover will be required to first pay money in order for Dover to receive any revenues from the Port. It is not clear if the people who would pay money for bonds will be the sole beneficiaries of future revenues, and if Dovorians who do not pay up will be excluded from any future revenue, nor is it clear whether this kind of 'pay-up first' scheme will bring in any revenue to Dover as a town for project-funding.
It is all quite unclear, hence the possibility that even this thread might seem unclear.
I would also add that DHB has in the past asked for people's coments on the proposal to sell Dover Port, but seemed to make it clear that they will sell the Port anyway, but again, even here I could be mistaken.
May-be some clarification from the authorities concerned, including DHB, on this topic, could help.
Do the forumites have any cleaer information at present?
Added: To the best of my knowledge, this thread is not offensive, and attempts to seek clarification of unclear informaton coming from many parts concerning the future of Dover Port
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
2 September 2010
16:2168473#2
Alexander its normal for new major projects to go to the stockmarket to raise money. Im one of those guys for example who when living in London all those years ago, invested in the Channel Tunnel before it was built, they raised vast amounts of money and gave you little bits of paper in return saying you were a shareholder in Eurotunnel. Sadly the channel tunnel was too big and there was never enough money raised by the shareholders as the company had to keep going back to the market and the banks.
Like you Im not entirely sure how all this will work, but I would imagine in order for Dover to get a return from the Dover People's Port...Dover people will need to invest.
If general shareholders invest from say Manchester then Manchester would get the returns. This is how the stockmarket works but whather Charlie has managed to find a way to circumnavigate this basic procedure I dont know
Also and I think Chris Precious was trying to make this point at the recent Extraordinary Town Council meeting when he was cut short by the mayor...it is very difficult to see how private investors would care for anything but their own investment, why would they care about the town, any more so than say the current DHB. The only way to secure Dover itself having a huge say, is for Dover to invest en masse. But is there enough loose cash trawling around here to raise the necessary guestimated £300.000.000.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 September 2010
16:4768474#3
PaulB - This would not be a stockmarket listing remember. This would be a Trust, established by Charlie, governed by Trustees who are local (selection procedures need to be clarified), that raises cash by offering Dover Bonds to local people and in that way this can be a controlled capitalisation. Bonds could, for instance, be offered in a number of 'tranches'.
First to local residents of Dover District (about 80,000 adults), in say multiples of £10 enabling anyone who wishes to to buy in with no upper limit.
Then a second tranche to Port employees, not just DHB but also those working for companies associated with the Port. A clear definition needs to be drawn up for these and maybe a maximum investment might be set per person but stuill with the £10 minimum. This would widen the catchment as all those who qualify would not necessarily be Dover residents.
Another, third traunche, could be for Corporate investors, specifically for Port related companies. For this a minimum and maximum value might be set (£1,000 - £500,000 maybe).
You could then do a third tranche for general investors who are resident in East Kent - say a minimum in this case of £100 and a maximum of, say £50,000 or £100,000.
Any balance of monies required might then be raised as corporate borrowing from the City by the Trust on commercial terms. There are several ways that could be done.
Bond holders would get a dividend in the form of an interest payment that might be used towards the purchase of more bonds or as a fixed income. The bonds themselves can be traded as they would have a capital value. I am not sure if it is possible for the Trust to require first refusal to buy any bonds back before being subject to the open market but that would be desirable.
Can I just say here that I have no inside knowledge of what Charlie plans or what will actually happen. I am speculating here and suggesting only what might happen.
The Trust would get a revenue income from the Port operators and possible other sources (there might be one Port operator and some revenue earning property might not be placed at the disposal of such operators).
That revenue would go to pay those who lent the Trust money including commercial lenders and bond holders with any surplus being used for regeneration projects.
How that regeneration money would be handled and spent is something that would need to be determined. Personally I would not like it to simply be handed to DDC or any other local authority, though local authorities might be 'bidders' for regeneration cash to the Trustees. We dont want millions spent on consultants and endless feasability studies in the manner that councils tend to do.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 September 2010
17:4068479#4
according to the last census the population of dover was around 28,000, no idea how many of them were adults.
i doubt whether the people that live in the outer reaches of the district will have anything like the same emotional attachment to the port.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 September 2010
17:4268480#5
Dover District is a good catchment and would be my suggestion. I have to disagree with you on that Howard, many born and bred Dovorians live in the broader District.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
2 September 2010
18:3868483#6
hope dover people are to benefit
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
2 September 2010
19:4268501#7
if my calculations are right it wouldnt raise much,ie,28000 x 10 =280,000 quid providing that the 28000 dover people brought 1 10 pound each.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 September 2010
19:4368502#8
Brian - most people will buy a lot more than that. As I pointed out the catchment can be a lot bigger than 28,000 as well.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
2 September 2010
19:4968504#9
barryw,just sermizing that people are sceptics.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
2 September 2010
20:1768508#10
I would have thought a lot of people from all over the country would be interested in buying into the port rather than see it sold to foreigners.
That is so long as they know about the sale to start with, .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
2 September 2010
20:3068509#11
The presented views here of PaulB and Barry certainly illuminate the prospectus, and I think the subject should be continued to clarify a few more points, which seem quite interesting;
If a sum of money were collected through selling bonds, who does this money go to in the first place? And would it be invsted in the Port, for example in building up Western Docks, or could it be used in any other project?
I do remember DHB stating early this year that a private Dover Port could be investing even abroad!
I am sure this would be contrary to the idea of investing in Dover.
Still, one more point that immediately enters my mind: the ferry operators do state that they are loosing out on the market as they cannot increase the price of tickets without losing business to the Chanel Tunnel, so it would be hard to work out how a revenue could come in without increasing the fares, and considering that the same operators are closing down some lines or laying off staff, or are on the verge of doing so, there are quite a few questions to be hammered out and solutions found.
I personally think that an increase in fares to cover a revenue income for Dover Port should also be applied to the Chanel Tunnel, so that people won't be avoidung Dover Port and using the Chanel Tunnel in order to avoid this added fee. This of-course would be of benefit to Dover Port and to the Channel Tunnel, that is, to the destinataries of said added fee, and would not damage the ferry operators.
Without an increase in the fares, I can't see how a future Dover Port operating in bonds cold bting in a revenue.
Lastly, I note from PaulB's statement that the whole question of Dover regeneration from Port revenues is left open to doubt, so on the whole this thread has been quite illuminative.
2 September 2010
23:1068543#12
Alexander, you ask a lot of pertinent questions but my view on one, that of income generation, is this. PePoD (Peoples Port of Dover), makes a simple £1 entry fee for every passenger (regardless of tourist or freight). Not sure how many came through last year, but it will be millions and therefore quite a sum raised over and above what is already being made. This is not a new idea.
We might ask what stops DHB doing this now in order to raise the revenues they need.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
3 September 2010
22:5568730#13
BarryW wrote in post #8: "Brian - most people will buy a lot more than that. As I pointed out the catchment can be a lot bigger than 28,000 as well."
I quite agree. Even on my meagre salary I would be prepared to put up more than a tenner if I thought it would stop the port being sold to a foreigner.
I also get the impression that time is running out for a decision to be made one way or the other but the biggest fly in the ointment seems to be the somewhat unfair competition from the Channel Tunnel.
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Unregistered User
4 September 2010
08:2368744#14
You sum it up well Phil.
It was always unfair since its inception and gets unfairer as it gets its debts virtually written off.
There is too much shipping capacity with bigger ships to come and presumably bigger financial support for SeaFrance..
Watty
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 September 2010
08:5468745#15
Alexander - receipts from the issues of bonds (which are a loan stock rather than conveying share ownership) would go towards the purchase of the Port by the bond issuer, the local Trust, not investing elsewhere.
The Port in local Trust ownership is a very different beast that a purely privatised Port. Whether the Trustees are able to invest elsewhere other than Dover in the longer term would depend on the Trust provisions - but if any such outside investment produced profits that could go towards Dover town regeneration...... Diversification may reap huge benefits for the town but I suspect that wont be a runner.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 September 2010
08:5868747#16
paul
i doubt that sea france will get much more government help.
mr sarkozy is making spending cuts, he would be hard pressed to convince the french public that helping the ferry company was a good way of spending their taxes.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
4 September 2010
09:1768750#17
To simplify this even further, the difference between the two schemes is that with the Peoples Port local people will have the chance to buy in and, hopefully, get a say in how investment is made (and the current DHB board go away with a years salary). Under DHB's proposal any investor can buy up the port and decide how they will invest (and the current board go away with large 'golden handshakes).
Bob Goldfield has tried to claim that a trust will be set up for the town with millions being poured into it every year, he spoke of an initial payment of 20 mill. It has not been made clear if even this figure has any guarentee to it nor if it could ever be certain that any payments would follow the initial one. Unfortunately I was not able to question Bob on this.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 September 2010
10:5568758#18
interesting appraisal chris, cannot think why bobby did not allow you to take the matter further.
the way that he rubbished charlie's proposal could give the impression to those of a cynical bent to conclude that the board would benefit more from selling to an outside investor.
we all know that is not the case though, don't we?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
4 September 2010
11:3368763#19
But I do think, Barry, that if it were so easy to reap a profit with huge benefits somewhere outside Dover through investing, some bank or company would already have done so! Investing like that can also be very risky, and more than one company in the past has gone bankrupt or almost, and left the creditors dry.
But I could not see people of Dover welcoming the idea of buying bonds for a share in the Port and then seeing this money be invested anywhere but in Dover and District, as Dover would become poorer and not better off.
But the question of investing Port incomes in Dover regenration projects does seem to have been the main original idea behind the whole issue from the start, and the bonds issue seems to add a mill=stone to all this, as Dover Port selling bonds would imply being liable o the bond-holders and having to pay them interest or dividends, but then how would they find the income to invest in regeneration for Dover? Too many obligations would make the whole scheme precarious.
Add to that the sums that are estimated to build up Western Docks, and the whole scheme would fall into the sea!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
4 September 2010
11:3668764#20
In which case, the Docks would remain, but the invested money could float away! It could be potentially very risky. So I believe that people here really want to see factive results, projects caried out in Dover and District, through Port revenues.