Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
28 February 2011
00:5894542One of my photography students started a business as a professional in social photography when he took early retirement from his first career.
He wrote in a magazine article about the problems of running a business in Dover - paraphrasing him, if you stick a pin in the centre of Dover and draw a circle within 20 miles around that point, 75% of your potential customers within that circle have got gills and eat lugworms.
So the port is vital for making up that deficiency. I have no experience of working there but others have explained how the changes in working practices have led to many ferry workers taking their wages to spend away from this area to where they live, and the peoples port plan seems to me a good way to redress this problem and get some of the port profits back into the town and district.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
28 February 2011
01:0094543Alright, what I meant was: who would be responsible for any liabilities? Supposing a ferry-operator had some problems of any sort, from a strike to a mechanical failure, and couldn't pay Dover Port the usual amount in a certain period, what would an indebted Port do to pay back its own debits in time?
Borrowing money and paying it back by relying on the ferry-operators to shoulder the costs - which is in effect what Charlie proposes - is full of small print, but my view is that we still haven't undestood the large print.
Ross, was it not you who wrote on the Forum that the sum proposed by Charlie to be borrowed in his port plan is 400 million £ and not 200?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 February 2011
09:5794555Try this link, which is the formal offer document.
http://peoplesport.org.uk/our-bid/the-offer
This explains the mechanism. If you want more information I suggest you look ul the various sections of the Ports Act 1991.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
28 February 2011
12:0894562Year after year, money that should have gone to Dover has been wasted by DHB on different projects which were nothing more than the usual custom and practice's used by government and councils for years.
I believe T2 was never more than a route to selling off the Port. T2 will never materialize even if the port is sold off. Even if I am wrong, everything now is against T2, the recession, fuel costs etc, it will never happen.
The Trust runs the Port producing big profits that should be directed into Dover/Deal instead of being wasted. That is all that needs to be changed. It does not need to be sold off. The last Labour Gov was to blame and now this Con-Dem Gov is to blame.
Instead of supporting a selloff, we should be lobbying to change Trust rules to benefit Dover/Deal.
"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 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
28 February 2011
12:3094564Gary, I agree; in fact all we need is a modification of the existing Trust rules so that a part of the profits from the Port come to the local area.
Charlie's 'people's port' offer to 10 Downing Street expired in December 2010, Gov. didn't accept it, and therefore there is no answer to Charlie's question on the part of Parliament if 200 million pounds would need be paid to the Treasury as part of the proposed transaction. The link supplied by Peter is quite informative.
In a referendum on the p/p plan, no-one would even know, therefore, if the sum that would form a Port-debt is 200 or 400 million pounds, as the Government has not accepted Charlie's offer in any of its versions, date expiring Dec. 2010.
Under such circumstances, to have a referendum on the p/p plan would be irresponsible! It has already been rejected by 10 Downing Street with all its ifs and conditions.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 February 2011
12:5294565It has not been rejected.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
28 February 2011
13:0694566i noticed that expiry date, i just assumed that it had been extended.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 February 2011
13:1694567Yes and discussions are ongoing.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
28 February 2011
15:2794571Peter, it surprises me that with discussions still ongoing on the p/p plan, the people of Dover should have a referendum on it! The authors of the project haven't even brought the discussions to a conclusion, so what are people supposed to vote on?
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
28 February 2011
15:2894573UKIP is all for local referendums and that is in our Manifesto, but the wording on the Petition to the Town council is only to consider a motion to transfer the power to the Dover Port and Harbour ,to the Dover people port Trust Limited,take it from me this just a cover for selling it off,just like the DHB. A real local referendum on the port should just have on it ,Do the Public of Dover support a Motion to sell the Port of Dover off.
Or Stay a Royal Charter port as it is today. YES OR NO.
A yes vote for selling the port.
A No vote for keeping it as a Royal Charter Port.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
28 February 2011
15:4494579VIC
I share your passion, but feel we have to achieve the best possible for the people of Dover and the port, and so i come at this ftom a different angle.
There are concerns that the project of charlies is flawed before it starts on the financial front.
believe me, if it were better costed it would get better support.
What we don't want to do is jump from one sinking ship to another (excuse the pun)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 February 2011
15:5394581Wait until the town meeting.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
28 February 2011
15:5694582i never thought when i started this thread that there would be such a response, after all it is just about a meeting at the town hall to discuss the possibility of a referendum locally.
one thing i have noticed about the people's port issue is that people are totally in favour of the idea or totally against, no half measures.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 February 2011
15:5794583Wrong question Vic. the question will be about support for The People's Port, yes or no. Remember it is a referendum organised by TPP Trust.
Keith - just because most people on here do not fully understand the funding, partly because some details may not be revealed due to commercial reasons and partly because most lack the financial knowledge/expertese to grasp the issues, does not mean that the costsing are flawed. Funding will only be achieved if the funder sees a viable and well costed scheme, if not it wont happen.
I will leave the 'antis' to speculate wildly over the details and viability. The fact is that the forum members who are either most in a position to understand the funding details, or have some more detailed technical knowledge about how it might work are not among those casting aspertions.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
28 February 2011
16:0694585Barryw
you seem to be under the impression that when ever people don't share your view that they habn't grsped the debate when in fact thats far from the truth.
And maybe if those keeping secrets came out in the open a lot more people would support charlies scheme
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
28 February 2011
16:2494587Some things have to stay confidentail for commercial reasons Keith.
In the above post I am only reflecting on what I have observed and read here in the speculation about financing matters. These can be very complex and it is no insult to suggest that most people will not have the knowledge to grasp these things and that is apparent from what I have read.
I have no inside information or details myself on the funding, but I do have a lot of knowledge about how such matters work and will not, at this stage, engage in any speculation on the matter. I know only what has been revealed publically in the past and that may have changed since tehn.
If considered viable by the institutions the funding will arise, if not then it wont. Quite simple really.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
28 February 2011
16:3894588keith is right on the subject of the scheme not being understood by many.
on the launch day someone explained to me in under 5 minutes the mechanics of the scheme in such a way that all was made clear to me.
considering that he turned out to be the managing director of sea france he must have been used to high level talks, yet could still make himself clear at another level.
the funding bit, i see as a red herring.
people talk about the port remaining in british hands, there can be no guarantees on this, the initial shareholders could all be"diamond geezers" from the square mile. shares can change hands at any time.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
28 February 2011
16:5194589I think barryw, there lies the problem, we are being asked to support something that at moment in short in detail, and not funded
I fully appreciate the confidentiality, then why rush to push for the referendum
look at how much support could be gained with all the information in place
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 February 2011
16:5294590Your last paragraph is wrong, Howard. Only voters in the Dover constituency and DDC area are eligible to be shareholders, plus people who own or work in a business paying business rates to DDC. Shares cannot be sold. If a holder dies his/her share is cancelled. Nobody can own more than one share. Shares confer voting rights only and no entitlement to dividend.
The only people who can vary the trust deed are the shareholders, i.e. People of Dover. Therefore the only people who will in the future be able to sell it off abroad will be the people of Dover.
These are the safeguards which have been put in place to ensure the port stays in local hands in perpetuity.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
28 February 2011
16:5594591Keith it IS funded. If we disclose confidential information the lenders are likely to back out and it will no longer be funded so we shall have to go back to the drawing board.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson