Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So the question is, how does a charity LTD bring in dividends to Dover town, pay off a pension pot and finance a T2, while maintaining the present port structures?
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
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sort of toll that you propose has been tried elsewhere in the UK, challenged and defeated in the law courts and withdrawn.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.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex, this is quite impossible. You do not know your brief, you have no more than a passing familiarity with the governing legislation, you appear to know little about the ports industry in the UK or internationally and less about freight by rail in the UK. I have continuously tried to engage with you constructively through this and other threads because I had hoped that your questions were a genuine attempt to get answers to questions that you were unable to find elsewhere.
You say that things have not been explained when they have been. You say that questions have not been answered when they have been, most times several times over. You part quote, misinterpret and continuously misinform on this subject. You say that you have provided details for the financing of your proposals, yet there is little evidence of that and one of your key proposals has already been found to have no validity in law having been successfully challenged by the freight industry in court in the UK. Your post #80 describes equity shares in private equity companies....do you still not understand that DPPT is not a private equity company and is not equity financed?
DPPT is an IPS limited company, its members are its owners. People become members by buying a share...simples.
OK, so you don't agree with what DPPT wishes to achieve...I and everyone else gets it, you think you know best.
Instead of continuously misinforming, misrepresenting and misunderstanding others views and answers on this forum, spend some time to get a proper hold of your brief, do the hard work, learn the legislation, learn about the industries that you pontificate on, become better acquainted with how the unwritten British Constitution works, how consultations work, how much sheer bloody hard work is involved in ensuring that no measure, no meeting, no part of a process is allowed to slip by un-noticed. Then get on with campaigning for your ideas and proposals, subject them to the same sort of scrutiny by government (local, district, county and national), opposition front and back bench politicians, coalition back benchers, lawyers, accountants, port consultants, bankers, the general public, the port's other stakeholders, national and international think tanks and the media (print, radio and TV). When you have rigorously proved your ideas and proposals for the future of the port, we can converse sensibly.
Until such time, I suggest that you direct your attentions to your campaign, your complaints about DPPT to the DfT and that you use the information that is already in the public domain and do some research to answer any further questions that you have about DPPT and our proposals, you haven't asked a single question that has not already been answered throughout our recent exchanges.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I'd appreciate the brick wall now Paul
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
OK Neil, I have some answers there.
DPPT could allocate - could - 1 million pounds a year to Dover regeneration for 5 years.
This would increase after 5 years. By how much, though?
I do not agree with your next point:
"T2....T2 forms no part of the sale proposal by DHB. "
It does, Neil! Dover Express clearly published this fact, quoting DHB's official statements, in 2010. T2 is the sole reason presented by DHB for their request for privatisation.
I note that, after the £1 million pounds a year - could - be given to Dover Town, nothing would be left over for Dover District.
What about KCC's requests to the Government for a port toll to KCC in order to finance the maintenance of Kent's roads? Have you not heard of this? It was in a local paper.
KCC have contacted me on this fact and given me some insight to their idea, after I wrote to them.
Perhaps I am not so behind as you think, Neil, on what is going on with regards to the Port of Dover.
Now with your could and would, I am not too sure people would want to pay £10 in return for that.
Of that - could - £1 million pounds a year to Dover town, did you explain that to the Deal residents, and those of the villages, when sending out requests for membership?
The reason I've been putting these questions over to you, Neil, is to get a perspective of what DPPT would offer.
Now it has become all so clearer, and I think my case is proven.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex - T2 is specificly, explicitly excluded from any and all undertakings by any purchaser of the port under the DHB plan. It forms no part of the sales process. Read the DHB documentation properly. DHB may have given it as the reason, but they specifically excluded it from the process and from all undertakings by any buyer.
The amount per annum allocated to the DPPT regeneration vehicle after 5 years will rise in line with revenue and profitability at the port...if you can tell me what will happen in the global economy in 10 years time, I'll be happy to calculate and detail the allocation.
DPPT constitution is plain and clear on where monies will and can be spent. Everyone has access to that constitution and so there are no secrets. Read the DPPT constution.
I am well aware of the KCC proposal. have been for quite a long time, certainly before it appeared in the papers or on the news. KCC actually propose that this toll will be for foreign lorries and vehicles who do not pay UK Road Tax and that any such funds raised will be ring fenced for use on the road network only. Similar tolls have been applied at other ports on freight traffic in other parts of the country and were successfully challenged in the courts by the freight industry. KCC will have a fight on their hands to be successful and they have a chance at success purely because the toll will be levied in lieu of road tax for foreign vehicles who currently do not pay a penny to use UK roads and ringfenced to be used for road maintenance and improvement only.
With every post Alex, you demonstrate your poor grasp of the brief. As usual you have proved your own case to yourself alone. Enjoy.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,894
Thank you Neil and Peter, I have a problem fully understanding the stocks and shares system and hope my previous comment has not made things more difficult for some to understand what is happening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
neil,nice to see you yesterday,and i wish you good luck on your project in making the port of dover a peoples port,dispite peoples negative comments.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
I didn't get a real answer to my question, but have no axe to grind with the peoples port proposal or D.H.B. at this time, thus my comments that im one of many of the wait and see brigade.
I'm no lawyer alexander but you realy do need to get your head round the issue before spouting off about legal challenges, that's another ball game completely
and i do question your grasp of thre situation when you speak on legal challenges, but whilst you mention it, could i ask how you think you will finance such a legal challenge? they don't come cheap these days.
I have tried to put my point of view across in a reasonable manner,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
as far as i can see there are no plans for terminal 2 in dppt proposals, traffic is likely to increase in the long term.
bad news for those in aycliffe and townwall st.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
oh gawd howard you have opened another can of worms which i was going to put up earlier but thought better of it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, if you had followed the thread "good luck Charlie", you would have read that I later wrote my intention to contact the Department for Transport again for further clarification instead of taking a path of legal action regards the local MP.
This I did, and it is my third letter to them since November 2011.
The Department has never informed me, and to date has not informed me, that I am NOT a part of the public consultation, nor that my representation is NOT being taken into account.
This should contradict Neil's claims that I "ignored" a public consultation and am not part of it. Personally I believe Neil should consider this, as we are talking here of an official consultation started by the Government in 2010, and official replies I received confirming my participation.
I am sure the Department for T. would have officially replied to me and informed me that I am no longer participating if Neil's claims were correct, having received three letters from me since Nov. last year on the issue of the Port of Dover.
One member of the pub. consultation cannot tell another "you are no longer part of it", without legal confirmation, which Neil does not have. Therefore, as his claim is not proven officially, I see no need to take legal action against the MP.
The other point of possible legal action which I mentioned, was in the eventuality the Government went ahead with plans for a transport strategy for a future T2 in Western Docks based solely on road traffic, notwithstanding my representation that suggests a rail link to Western Docks based on the carbon emissions law.
Such action would be directed at a such a government decision, it would cost nothing other than postage stamps, be COMPLETELY within democratic law, and would imply contacting an official office designated to deal with a case put forward by one or more members of the public challenging the legality of a government decision.
In this case, my legal challenge would be that the carbon emission laws cannot allow for a future T2 to be built to cater for road traffic only.
Keith, you should realise that democracy allows this, otherwise ours would not be a democratic Country with constitutional laws and rights.
At the moment, the Government have not made any such decision, the consultation process is on-going, I am a member of it unless OFFICIALLY proven not to be.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Maybe Alexander I misunderstood you.
you are not taking legal action.
you are just giving a view
quite different
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no worce than it is now howard.there again it might inprove things in genaral.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Quite right, Keith.
Being officially part of the pub. consultation process, my campaign is on-going, and this week I will be contacting a potential stake-holder.
Last night, in fact, during a research, I came across some astonishing information that should further the case in my representation.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
a.exander;
so we can now forget any terms towards 'any legal challenge'
more just a persons point of view
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Goodness Keith!
This whole episode was just a misunderstanding: Neil suggested I was not part of the official process regards the Port of Dover, I was upset, gave official proof on the Forum that I am taking part, but then it dawned on me Neil was just promoting his own stance as sole alternative to the DHB plan. The issue has been amply solved.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander;
if yourself and niel are all buddys now thats fantastic.
of course he gives out his own slant on the issue thats his job with the job hes in on the people port proposal.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Alex you don't appear on this list of people and organisations who took the DfT up on their invitation to discussions with officials and the Ports Minister.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/stories/dft-news-2011113/I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Howard, development of the Western side of the Port and its return to economic activity does form part of the DPPT plans, please see my post #82 and numerous other postings that I've made on the subject of T2.
"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."
Economic development and port facilities in the West of the port will be different to the DHB plan, full details of what this will be awaits a full review of the DHB Masterplan. We cannot conduct this review until DPPT is the owner of the port.