howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would think that it is because scotland has it's own parliament, wales only has an assembly for the moment.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Why on earth would we want to channel money all over the country? The whole point of this is to benefit the Dover district.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Peter - this is an example of how opponents will use any little loophope that they perceive to create doubt and to cloud the issue. Of course you will not be spending profits from the Port anywhere but the local area but unless you are more precise iin the documentation they will use it, however illogical it is, against you. Its the day and age we live in. This is why an amendment needs to be in writing to stop them.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
rather paranoid of you barry, most of us were taught to read the small print at an early age.
the subject being discussed is a major issue judging by the comments here.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
All,
Just reading the string on where the money is to be spent.....Peter has been trying to help understanding I see.
The objects of the Trust in this regard are written in such a way that charitable status can be gained and maintained. No messing. The clear aim is that Dover Town will be the chief beneficiary as it is Dover Town that has to live with the inconvenience of having a major port, however well managed, at its heart and it is Dover Town that appears to have least investment in successful regeneration and war repair. However, we would be total idiots to restrict spending to a very narrow range in our main objects or try and ignore the National interest. Say in 6 years time there is a project that would directly benefit the people of Dover but which lies outside the narrow range defined in our objects....we would be stymied by the limits of our objects and the people here would not get the benefits that would otherwise arise if we were not so restricted.
Perhaps if members here were a little less inclined to cynicism the reasons for the objects being laid out in the way that they are would be recognised as just plain good sense and the application of a logical vision.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
blimey alexander/garyc
glad i sat back on this one
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Roger, Your post 353...Long term finance is, in outline, built around 3 bond tranches, each tranche paid down over a different number of years. With the investment grading on the bonds and the consequent very low interest rates that we will have to pay, our modelling to date shows that we will be able to pay down at least one tranche over a relatively short period of time. We will then be able to "re-sell" this first tranche to the markets when new large scale investment in port infrastructure is required. Sorry that I cannot give you exact numbers at this time, not because I don't have them but because this is detailed future planning and the DHB seems to regard a proposed buyout by its main stakeholders as a hostile bid. Suffice to say that the bond re-issue in plan would generate sufficient funding to finance major port infrastructure developments.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
You're a fine one to be damming loopholes.
A constitution has to be broad enough not to restrict its governing body, so I see no problem with including England & Wales( not sure why no Scotland) but although not strictly necessary, I do believe and I think Peter believes too, that Deal should be named.
If shareholders & stakeholders ( £10.00's) get required information and a vote on things such as, where the benefits will be distributed, then i feel it would be a true peoples port.
Not day to day running, not all financial dealings but at the very least the £10 stakeholders of Dover/Deal and surrounding neighbourhoods, should get a say and a vote in where the benefits are spent.
If this is not the case, then it should be indicated and should stop being called a Peoples Port. I my opinion.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
GaryC, Members of the Trust (everyone in Dover district who has signed up and paid their £10) will get the required info and a say on whcih projects the benefits will be spent on. Projects will be identified through consultation with all stakeholders (Dover Town, Community Groups, District, County, etc.), this is to ensure that the Trust is not operating in a silo mentality and that we work in harmony with all of our stakeholders. Projects so identified will be put to the membership either directly or via the board of directors, who will have been nominated by and elected to the board by the membership.
Sorry to all if I have not kept fully up to date with the forum and have not answered every question...my eldest daughter has been in hospital the last couple of days and I've been without her assistance in my business a little earlier than planned (she'll make me a grandad in the next month) as she wasn't due to go on maternity leave until Friday.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Neil.
Thank you for your answer and I hope your daughter gets well soon, I'm sure you will be a doting granddad.
Your answer has probably given all the sceptics on here, much to think about. It has answered my concerns and I will have to go and give it some thought.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - the word is cynical and that cynisism is based on the posts I have seen and is well justified by them.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Thanks Neil. Happy grandfatherhood.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Hi Neil - we haven't met, but happy grandfatherhood!!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, your clarification should be a clear answer that Dover Town would be the main beneficiary, before Deal, or any outlying villages, including Whitfield and River.
I do however see in your words, based on the small print, that the intentions of the p/p is to be carrying out major port developments, as you have stated here, as well as investing money into Dover Town, and to a much lesser extent in Deal and elsewhere in the district.
One would imagine that a substantial part of this money going to Dover and - to a much lesser extent to Deal and villages - is invested free of any financial return, and not on a lending bases. Can you confirm this, that it would not be owed back to the p/p of MP Charlie Elphicke?
But it would transpire from your statements that some money would be invested elsewhere in England and Wales. As I cannot see this being given for nought, I assume it would be investments aimed at gaining a return of the invested money plus a lucrative interest.
Could you confirm if I have understood this correctly?
Adding to these questions, I gather from your posts here that the p/p has many grand plans of major port developments, handing big sums of money to Dover, smaller sums to Deal and villages, and still finding the resources to invest in England and Wales.
All this does not fit in my excel pie sheet, as the input data does not show so much money rolling into the port in the first place, once the turnover is reduced to profit, and the pensions fund is calculated.
It seems more like a Babylonian tower going to heaven, too fantastic to be realistic!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Your go Neil. See you in the Hanging Gardens!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander,
You have managed to read into what I've written things that I didn't write. However, I thank you for the opportunity to further promote the programme and plans of the People's Port.
The monies from regeneration funding are not money for nothing, who invests money that way and expects to stay in business? Regeneration money will be leveraged with JV partners (in regeneration projects), businesses, educational establishments, etc. GB£50 million would not get much on its own and is just a seed fund. No one has ever said that any money will be just tipped into the town willy nilly, that would be wasteful and would fail to get maximum value. Neither have I or anyone else suggested that there is any plan to spend money elsewhere in England or Wales, our objects are worded in that way so that we can maintain charity status and are not restricted as to where a beneficial project may occur, what will be on the horizon in 20 years? We are here for the long haul and it would be a poor show if having saved the port for our children and grandchildren we make it so that they cannot extract optimal benefit because we have limited the geographic scope within which the Trust can invest and grow too narrowly.
Within the financial model that has been done are the following items which are shown to be affordable even after significant stress testing of the model:
GB£50 million as initial seed funding for regeneration projects
GB£100 million over the next 5 years for investment in port infrastructure and development
For the next 7 years sufficient profitability after all deductions to gift aid more than GB£1 million per annum to the Trust for ongoing regeneration work.
It is also anticipated that regeneration works and successful projects will generate additional income which in turn will be re-invested in additional works.
All of the above detailed sums are the subject to full due diligence and appear in the business plan that has been viewed by the banks and on which they (the banks) have based their backing of the Peoples Port Trust.
Kindly also remember that the DHB has set a mere £10 million aside for their PDCT which will not even be based in Dover but up in Whitfield. Furthermore DHB has said that it will inject approx GB£20million in shares and equivalents into the PDCT which will give an ongoing income in the future from dividends. Doing the sums here and with full knowledge of what happens to less than welcome minority share holders when it comes time to distribute dividends, the income from said shares would be significantly less than a million, very significantly.
I'm afraid that you may not have been following things properly, because you refer to the PP as if it belongs to Charlie Elphicke. It is not Charlie Elphicke's Peoples Port, it is Dover's Peoples Port. Charlie is one stakeholder among many and the ideas and concepts around the Peoples Port predate Charlie's tenure as MP, the overall port governance structure from which the P/P's current structure is entirely derived was being discussed with Gwyn Prosser when he was MP. Our current MP has certainly been our most prominent proponent and is also one of the architects of this globally significant innovation in port governance and ownership.
The People's Port Trust has made no promises that have not been costed and has certainly not promulgated any plans upon which we are not fairly certain that we can deliver. I've seen what locally owned port complexes with excellent stakeholder relationships can achieve both locally and internationally and also the sort of prosperity that can be brought into port towns and cities by port operations and value add logistics services. At least a couple of these places have a turnover similar to Dover, but a much smaller profit margin. Firmly believe that The People's Port is all about service, how we can serve our community and each other, bring more harmony to our stakeholder relationships and ensure that we have a vibrant and growing port business benefiting its local owners in perpetuity. No towers to heaven being built by us, you read more money into what has been written than anyone from the People's Port has ever mentioned. As to the longer term port infrastructure development, I refer you to my earlier post where I clearly explained how such new development would be financed.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, Dover Harbour Board was created by royal charter; royal charters have perpetual effect.
Charlie has gone and challenged the royal charter of Dover Harbour Board by setting up a trust.
A royal charter may be amended only by government approval, where-as Charlie is trying to abolish it!
His trust has no legal effect, and is void of any existence other than on his own paper!
Charlie has also tried to extinguish the public consultation process which the Government set up with the public by way of representations to the Secretary of State for Transport, and I take this very badly!
He has tried to destroy democracy by applying his own unconventional ways to impose by brute force his own trust!
He made his representation to the Secretary of State for Transport, and should have remained at that, as everyone else who made a representation diid!
Constitution and Democracy are two valid ideals I believe in and have operated within, including my representation to the Secretary of State for Transport, made and sent according to the requirements established by the Government in 2010, with ulterior comments when requested.
I would also show you the replies I received from the Secretary of State's office to prove to you that this is the case, and that I do not appreciate Charlie trying to destroy public consultation which has been fair and open to all who had a right to participate in it.
As I have already noted, the Constitution of Dover Harbour Board does not recognise Charlie's self-proclaimed trust. A royal charter may be amended by the Government, it is not known to me that it may be abolished and replaced with atrust set up by private people.
I do not believe that big people's society, which Charlie so often bandies about as a magical key-word, was meant to stamp out constitution and democracy, and public consultation.
I accepted these ideals and believe in them, and followed them.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, I am disappointed that you take this line. As previously stated, DPPT no more belongs solely to Charlie Elphicke than it belongs to me or any other member, present or future.
The Royal Charter is not challenged by Dover People's Port Trust, nor are consultation and democracy subverted by it. In fact DPPT is being open and democratic in a way that no other organisation has been in this entire process.
No attempt by DPPT is being made to abolish the Royal Charter. DHB, having already undermined the intentions and protections of the Charter, now seeks to have the remaining legal protections that the Charter offers its stakeholders removed altogether by privatising with government approval. DPPT seeks to not only retain the full meaning of the stakeholder relationship as envisaged by the Royal Charter, as amended by successive governments, but to entrench these rights so that they cannot be threatened again at the whim of government or port executive.
DPPT is a legally constituted body. It exists aside from paper and belongs to its members, not to any one person.
I and others also made representations to the Secretary of State as did Charlie. I have since used the laws and constitution of this country to do everything that I can to make sure that our port stays as ours and not some remote private equity owner. I'm afraid that writing a representation as an individual and then sitting back to wait for the vested interests to do as they wished to do all along is not a recipe for protecting our rights or our port and that we need to use the democratic rights that we have under UK law to their fullest degree.
I agree that the public consultations conducted by DHB were open to all persons and organisations who had a right to participate, but believe that they were not meaningful and cannot be meaningful so long as DHB maintain that their plan is the only option. DPPT is following democratic principal and full and meaningful consultation processes.
DHB's constitution does not need to recognise DPPT. DHB is seeking to close itself down and re-open as a private equity company limited by shares (where incidentally the Royal Charter will hold no sway). Without a viable alternative to stand against this plan, DHB will achieve its aim.
I also accept the same ideals of constitution, democracy and public consultation and am ensuring that DPPT observes and follows them to an extent that make it a benchmark for good practice in this regard.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Neil
Firstly thank you to you and Peter for the clear, comprehensive and informative response, they are very helpful in understanding the meat on the bones of the DPPT proposal.
Secondly, as you are gathering there are certain members who no matter what you say will not accept it as it challenges their personal perceptions of the way the world is.
"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
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Despite of all the debating that is going on about the details of the Peoples Port I will still give my £10 quite happily just to stop the French getting their grubby little paws on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------