The post you are reporting:
Alex, please pay attention, your question has been answered on previous threads on this subject, in the newspapers, maritime and port trade press, financial publications, on TV and Radio.
Your second paragraph clearly demonstrates that you have no understanding of the purchase process or that the Treasury ALWAYS gets the money, nothing to do with Charlie.
As you fail to understand the legislation and the process, haven't read, or haven't paid attention properly to any of the actual information that is available with regard to how much money is paid initially and how much is left owing at the end of the process, you had best read the various Acts of Parliament which apply and learn your brief properly before making further comment about how the purchase money is allocated. All the information that you need is already in the public domain and I suggest that you read it and learn to understand it before making yourself look foolish.
Just quickly though because you don't pay sufficient attention to a subject that you say you feel strongly about and purport to be an expert on:
DPPT proposes no such toll...the sort of toll that you propose has been tried elsewhere in the UK, challenged and defeated in the law courts and withdrawn.
DHB has been generating a cash surplus of approx. £10m per annum for the six years previous to accounts to 2010, this has been, according to DHB, surplus to their pension provision and what has been spent by them on maintenance. That's just for starters.
Tariff price path will be negotiated with the port's users under 5 year framework agreements, underwritten by Key Performance indicators from both users and port and, in case of dispute, adjudicated by an independent arbitrator mutually agreed on in advance. Tariff price path will be set so as to allow the port to service the bonds, maintain and update the port's infrastructure in line with market and user expectations for development and also deliver an agreed, allowable, profit margin, in the same way as the formal regulation process allows utility companies to make a certain percentage profit.
DPPT will not be financing the Town of Dover. An agreed amount of the 'allowable' profit will be transferred to the DPPT regeneration vehicle to provide an ongoing revenue stream to a large variety of regeneration projects, both in the built environment and in other areas. The businesss model estimates that this sum could be around £1m per annum initially and would increase after the first 5 years.
T2....T2 forms no part of the sale proposal by DHB.
The Market indicators, the Ferry operators and a host of industry and port experts maintain that T2 in the form proposed by DHB in their Masterplan will NOT be required. Just as an example...2011 traffic figures, in terms of absolute vehicle numbers handled showed that the port handled 545,000 vehicles less than it did in 1997....and another example...the number of vessel calls at the port has dropped by 21% over the last three years. Traffic would have to expand at 6% per annum compound for the next 10-15 years before Bob's vaunted doubling of throughput is reached and T2 as proposed by DHB becomes financially viable. The last 3 years, in a market that has been rising steadily, DHB has presided over declining volumes.
I have said this before, many times in many different fora, DPPT will review the Masterplan produced by the consultants employed by DHB once we have been successful and will make revisions as required to ensure that as much of the Port Estate as possible is economically active at the earliest possible time. Some developments on the Western side of the harbour can be brought to fruition relatively cheaply and relatively quickly and will bring economic activity and profitability back to areas of the port that have been left under utilised and derelict for far to long.