Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#21
barryw
a number of questioned remained unanswered from some time ago
and yep on this issue im totally unbiased.
not going to rehash all that again.
but to be clear where i am on it
Concerned if peoples port is capable to do the job it sets out to do for all the reasons set out before.
D.H.B. They are poor at getting there message across, and of course they llook like they are fighting for survival at the moment.
The problem we now have is, if we disagree with either proposal we have no other alternative
and thats sad for dover.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#22
As you will have noticed Keef DHB have made a much improved effort recently in getting their message across with a series of meetings, press releases and so on...this press release below is about a just released VIDEO on YOUTUBE.
Click on the link below.
Its an interesting few minutes so worth a peruse...It's good quality so watch it full screen...
********************
The Port of Dover has released a YouTube video so you can find out more about privatisation and the Port of Dover Community Trust (PDCT).
The new film, contains interviews with Chairman Roger Mountford, Chief Executive Bob Goldfield and representatives from the British Ports Association, Road Haulage Association and local community. The film explains the background to and nature of our privatisation scheme, including the PDCT and Employee Share Ownership Scheme
You can watch it here:
[URL] [/URL]
#23
Good PR does not make good policies and practices. It just makes good PR.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#24
The p/port,sorry but it will never come about.
Going back to last night nights meeting apart from the Chairman of D.H.B. and Bob Goldfield the presentations were at their very best poor.
I also went on to tell the DHB,"Well done in doing more U-Turns than the Goverment."I also aske them if they think like I do that the Growth of the port could turn downwards as we are going to see less HGV on our road,with the new rail fright service about to happen,and the new P/Tax and fuel cost going up.And the DHB. members want out with making a few bob for themself out of it.
They did not agree with this pointing out that the Growth of the Port points to a upward turn. I still do not agree that is true.
I also went on to aske the Port of Dover Community Trust(PDCT) could have been set up years ago ,they did not disgree or agree over over this one they did not give a stright answer.
As I see it nothing was said that could not be done within a updated Royal Charter that way the port would stay a royal port which could not be sold overseas or to anyone.As the DHB said them selfs last night most of the development over the last 50years has been done with their own funding within the port,I can not see why that can not still be the case,there is no rush at this time to see it all done overnight.
The DHB went on to say that the port does not make any money out of the Marina.I "The port might not make money out of it. I said" But the town does because the boat owners use the shops etc in the town so we need to see a bigger Marina than the one we got".
The meeting was still going on when I left, but I had a council meeting at 1930, so I do not know what was said after I went. thank you for reading this post,I know some of you will not agree in what I said or the way I think.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#25
some good points raised by vic there.
surely if everything is geared to benefitting the town then it matters not if the port makes nothing out of the marina?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#26
That is what I said if it makes funds for the town than it must be a winner.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#27
There is more on funding in the video so worthwhile taking a look at it..see post 22. Of course it is only five or so minutes long so no great detail but interesting nonetheless.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#28
The video certainly puts the case well, wonder why the Board have been told they will not be allowed to lend money in the future, surely they have been allowed in the past?
Audere est facere.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#29
Martin, That is just words,If the Port goes the P/P way,and hopfully it does NOT that company will be lending some £300million or more not a good way to start anew company,so I think that the port could get loans if the need be by still staying a Royal port. You have just seen and heard up till now 90% of any new development done over the last 50years and there have been alot, was done within the port own funding made up of the trade that use the port,there has not been lot of lending done.. So why start now there is no rush as I said ,the port can handel any of the trade it gets +most of the ships are not full up on all crossing there is room for lots more yet without any major development done over the next few years,T2 as we all know is not needed now.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#30
the video hardly showed the town in a good light. i suppose that was the main aim.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#31
While on the subject of DHB being unhelpful towards the town, can anyone relate the history of the decline and disappearance of Dover's once famous fishing fleet?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#32
I was at the meeting, very slick PR, the board came across as very pompous and condescending.
Their legal rep seemed poorly briefed, two ladies were there representing CASE (a charity set up to advise charities!!!)
The People's Port presentation at the town hall seemed sincere and well intentioned, last night smacked of self interest by a couple of people.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#33
spoken to a couple of people who attended and they were of the same opinion as david.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
#34
At a previous public meeting, concerning T2, I did ask if DHB would consider applying for a Harbour Revision Order to allow them to invest in the town. At that time the answer from Bob Goldfield was that "the stakeholders wouldn't like it". Last night they worked hard to give the impression that they have been chomping at the bit to do so for years.
It was actually a member of the public who said that those boat owners in the marina spend in the town and the panel stated that it was DDC who sought agreement on the new marina being included in the T2 plans. From the previous presentations given by DHB the moved, and streamlined, marina has always been on the plans but in such a way as to present more problems down the line, both for the town and its seafront and for shipping. DHB have always maintained that the marina runs at a loss for them.
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
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#35
DHB debate about PDCT....hmmm, well attended..well if you call less than a third of the seats laid out in the centre section of the hall occupied at the beginning and at 1900 a large number of DHB employees getting up and leaving even though the meeting was unfinished, then yes, well attended it was. My own view is that given the amount of PR and advertising that DHB did Dover and District wide, they wasted the money.
DPPT is definitely and very much still around, continuing the task of trying to ensure that Dover and the other stakeholders get the best outcome possible.
If DHB are successful, then when the port is re-sold after a few years (and it will be) PDCT will die from lack of funds and no protection, the ferry companies will be ripped off, the Marina berth holders will find their fees escalated exponentially and Dover will continue to suffer with no more come backs. It is absolutely vital therefore that the port ownership and governance is kept fully accountable to the peoples and communities of Dover and the surrounding area, the port users and the other stakeholders, that is what DPPT is all about.
I apologise if I have not actually answered every question that has been posed with regard to DPPT. I was sure that I had, but reading some posts who say that there are many questions unanswered, then perhaps I haven't. Most of the time recently I simply have not had the time to raed all the posts on the forum or keep up to date with the latest conversations, I've been too busy working to try and ensure that the DHB are not successful in privatising the port, but that the port does get the access to the capital requirements that it will need in the future if it is to prosper and help the town to prosper.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#36
I am sure that the reason there were so many empty seats is that DHB have left it too late to try and convince the town they are interested in it. They have never shown any interest past the harbour boundaries before so I doubt if they will in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#37
apart from what jan has said bob goldfinger is a bit a pompous self centerd git,with a self intrest in lining his pockets.
ok rant over.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#38
thanks to neil for his input, the questions unanswered i believe relate to who the investors would be.
commercial sensitivity precludes this information being made public.
whatever the outcome the sooner the procrastinates in government make a decision the better it will be for the town.
whilst the uncertainty continues potential investors will give us a wide berth.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#39
Howard - I think that has been answered. City institutions, pension and insurance companies in particular. Remember this is about the issuing of bond stock that does not convey equity ownership or management control. Such stock for the PPT has already been assessed as being investment grade, in other words high quality low risk stock for which a low interest rate would be paid.
Worth noting that such stock gets traded on the market and can the holders of the stock can change hands. The holders of the stock can be many and different at different times.
if you have a private pension, managed funds, with-profit funds or corporate bond funds in pensions/ISAs or other investments you could end up benefitting from the PPT stock.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#40
I see that in the Dover Express today a report on the meeting and also some of the publics remarks about the sell off of our royal port.
At this time I have nothing to add to that report. Thank You.
