Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

I can't agree that C&RT can afford to take a "pragmatic" view, without setting a very dangerous precedent. How many other marina management teams would look at this and decide that they also could just withhold the NAA payments? And as regards their income stream, they can perfectly legitimately re-instate the online moorings which were removed when the marina opened.

 

 

Do you really feel that all marina owners will/should be tarred with the same brush? This furore may instigate discussions about the NAA which, in my opinion would be a good thing, but I can't see other people just "withholding" payment. My guess is that the majority of marinas are better run than the one in question, with more, shall we say, straightforward management. I also think that, so far as slow payers are concerned, the C&RT might just be a tad more watchful now than they appear to have been in the past.

Yes, they can reinstate moorings, but that takes time, effort and might possibly be unproductive.

Why shouldn't the C&RT do a fresh deal with the current lot? As many have already said here, it's just business and, IF they can get a watertight agreement, there's no reason why they shouldn't. I also think that the individuals involved here will be desperate to do so, and will be much more inclined to behave themselves in the future. A vain hope, some will say, and they may be right, but surely this is a case of gross incompetence that has taken place, rather than one of overtly criminal behaviour?

Edited by johnthebridge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will CaRT enter into a new NAA agreement with any business concern backed/owned by Steadman and

P Lillie ?

 

From the Notes to the Abbreviated Accounts of Quorn Marina Properties 30th June 2012:-

 

Quote

"1.2 Going Concern

The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis on an understanding that the parent company, other group company and M Steadman will continue to financially support the company until sufficient future rental income is received to repay them. "

 

A new agreement would not be worth the paper it was written on.

 

 

 

Ark Right. I'd read that before but there is an implication in this qualification which I missed first time around. It does seem to imply that the "other group company and M Steadman" will receive their repayments only at the point at which income renders QMP self-sufficient. It has been suggested that Mr Steadman may have been receiving monthly payments well before that point and during that time QMP has, of course, managed to somehow run up a £1.6million debt to PLM although whether any payments to PLM were made by QMP is unknown. Maybe my interpretation is wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes they did. The list of actual moorings removed has been published in this thread several times.

 

MtB

 

So they were, I was using the wrong key words in a topic search - sorry.

 

It has only just occurred that not only are CRT looking at a £185,000 write-off in respect of the unpaid bill with QMP but have also lost the revenue for the 30 or so moorings they abolished as part of that NAA. Quite what these moorings would have earned in terms of revenue but over five years the sum is not inconsiderable and could well exceed £100,000.

 

Although those participating in this forum do not in any way constitute a scientific sample, it does seem that sympathy for the invidious position in which CRT find themselves, and for those moorers caught up in a situation not of their making is rather more marked than any notion that CRT represent, t quote the article recently referenced, "the Devil Incarnate".

 

I one supplier is permitted to ignore their legal obligations then a precedent is created which will not only engender a willingness in others to "try their hand" but may also result in an additional burden on the boating community, myself included, of whom many will regard a refusal to meet an obligation freely entered into as rather less than honourable.

 

Isn't the £185,000 mentioned above the same monies as would have been paid by on-line moorers had they not been taken out? So there isn't a "double whammy" as such.

Edited by Swallowman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you really feel that all marina owners will/should be tarred with the same brush? This furore may instigate discussions about the NAA which, in my opinion would be a good thing, but I can't see other people just "withholding" payment. My guess is that the majority of marinas are better run than the one in question, with more, shall we say, straightforward management. I also think that the C&RT might just be a tad more watchful now about slow payers than they appear to have been.

Yes, they can reinstate moorings, but that takes time, effort and might possibly be unproductive.

Why shouldn't the C&RT do a fresh deal with the current lot? As many have already said here, it's just business, and if they can get a watertight agreement, there's no reason why they shouldn't. I also think that the individuals involved here will be desperate to do so, and will be much more inclined to behave themselves in the future. A vain hope, some will say, and they may be right, but surely this is a case of gross incompetence that has taken place, rather than one of overtly criminal behaviour?

 

The IP is currently conducting his/her investigation in the affairs of QMP and from Mr Spencer's statement it appears that this is examining, as indeed it must, the role of the management team of that company whether holding office explicitly or not. That investigation will, one hopes, establish whether that management team have been responsible or irresponsible in their managing the company. In the latter case, of course, irresponsibility does not automatically imply criminal misbehaviour

 

Under these circumstances, there is every reason not to "do a fresh deal with the current lot". A successful business relationship does not just depend on contracts (as the present situation amply demonstrates) but on the parties concerned being able to establish a mutual trust. From CRT's point of view, trust in the other party is not likely to be enhanced if the other party, having exhausted a formal dispute process which has apparently lasted some years, then embarks on a highly public campaign against CRT's right to enforce a ruling by the High Court to recover a dishonoured debt. If, despite this, CRT were willing to just "roll over" then there would be many who wold criticise them for being a soft touch for every chancer who felt that contracts were to be disregarded at will.

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, whether their planned action to sever the marina from the national network plays well in the "publicity stakes" rather depends on whether the articles are factual or not. Everyone to whom I have spoken who has followed what has been happening is singularly unimpressed by claims that CRT are some kind of "boogie man" in all of this. In fact, many, whilst sympathetic to those innocent parties caught up in the dispute, have expressed a similar view to one or two who have posted here that if CRT wants any help then they would be willing volunteers. Such views do suggest that, whilst CRT may not always be regarded as the boater's best friend, anyone trying to argue that this is some kind of "David and Goliath" struggle is not going to enjoy unqualified support particularly when there is a strong possibility that those same individuals might be asked to put their hand in their pocket to cover a dishonoured debt.

 

Well, isn't it said that all publicity is good publicity!

"Boogie man"? Assuming you mean bogeyman, I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention this as it is certainly not a view I share or have expressed with regard to this particular case.

You also say "everyone", but I would implore you not to consider some of the opinions expressed on here to be either representative of the real world, or of the majority of boaters. Most boaters are, I would guess, are likely to be either utterly disinterested in what gets said here, or couldn't care less about Pilling's Marina and its doings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So they were, I was using the wrong key words in a topic search - sorry.

 

Isn't the £185,000 mentioned above the same monies as would have been paid by on-line moorers had they not been taken out? So there isn't a "double whammy" as such.

 

CRT, when they concluded the NAA agreement, abolished the moorings pretty much immediately and for the first year of that agreement would have expected no income from QMP to compensate. In the second year, QMP were expected to pay 50% of the charge relating to the capacity of the marina at that time although, as we know, little or no monies were forthcoming which left CRT uncompensated for the 30 or so lost moorings. Since then, QMP seems to have continued its unwillingness to pay in any significant way and the loss to CRT of revenue for the moorings they abolished would have grown. How close the figures might be is anyone's guess but CRT would, had the marina not been built, be benefitting from the income from those moorings instead of which they are sitting on top of a debt of £185,000 and have had to devote, one suspects, considerable management time in attempts at dispute resolution. I am unaware of just how much those mooring would each be worth to CRT in terms of revenue but, even assuming a figure of, say £1000 each, 30 CRT moorings would have earned £150,000 in five years against the sum outstanding from QMP of around £160,000. The figure quoted in the recent article claims that CRT were now expecting around £9,500 per quarter which equates to some £38,000 per year. This is not substantially higher than the £30,000 per year CRT might have continued to earn from the abolished moorings and has been accompanied with all the hassle of trying to get a recalcitrant customer to honour their commitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, isn't it said that all publicity is good publicity!

"Boogie man"? Assuming you mean bogeyman, I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention this as it is certainly not a view I share or have expressed with regard to this particular case.

You also say "everyone", but I would implore you not to consider some of the opinions expressed on here to be either representative of the real world, or of the majority of boaters. Most boaters are, I would guess, are likely to be either utterly disinterested in what gets said here, or couldn't care less about Pilling's Marina and its doings.

 

My use of the term "boogie man", or as you prefer, "bogeyman", was to describe my interpretation of the quotes from the recent article referenced some pages back. The term "Devil Incarnate" was reportedly used and my own term seems rather less emotive in comparison. My post clearly indicated that my use of the term "everyone" referred only to those with whom I had discussions and had some awareness of the matter and not, as you seem to believe, to the boating community at large whose majority view is unknown to us both.

 

I do not pursue my leisure activity on the basis that I need to take an interest in the doings of every marina and its management. Given the high profile of the dispute concerning Pilings Lock, the fact that this thread is dealing with just that, and that any shortfall in income CRT suffer as a result of a customer failing to pay might require me to "divvy up" a sum, no matter how small, to plug that funding gap does entitle me to a view as to the culpability of the parties concerned. I might also have a notion that justice is rather important.

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone concur that, in days pre-Internet, this would have been known about by half a dozen people, swept under the carpet and forgotten about?

 

I find it fascinating how much interest has been attracted to a company going bust and owing money.

 

Certainly the power of public opinion is having an effect on all sides of the dispute.

 

Ps I think it's a good thing not a bad thing btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BWML?

 

It seems that another thread on this site demonstrates that BMWL is a wholly owned subsidiary of CRT in which case CRT are already in the marina business and could, should they be successful in purchasing the site, add it to their portfolio. Whether they would consider it a viable proposition or whether they would wish to expose themselves to accusations, no matter how bogus, of having a hidden agenda to bankrupt a private company in favour of their own interests is a moot point.

Does anyone concur that, in days pre-Internet, this would have been known about by half a dozen people, swept under the carpet and forgotten about?

 

I find it fascinating how much interest has been attracted to a company going bust and owing money.

 

Certainly the power of public opinion is having an effect on all sides of the dispute.

 

Ps I think it's a good thing not a bad thing btw

 

You are completely correct although I always try and remember that the internet contains as much, if not more, disinformation as fact. There is no doubt, however, that the matter is reaching a far larger audience than in those long-ago days although whether the power of public opinion is having much of an effect on the parties concerned is a matter about which I have my doubts.

 

The wider audience does at least have the opportunity to arrive at a decision informed by rather more than the photogenic nature or seductive language of the parties involved.

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My use of the term "boogie man", or as you prefer, "bogeyman", was to describe my interpretation of the quotes from the recent article referenced some pages back. The term "Devil Incarnate" was reportedly used and my own term seems rather less emotive in comparison. My post clearly indicated that my use of the term "everyone" referred only to those with whom I had discussions and had some awareness of the matter and not, as you seem to believe, to the boating community at large whose majority view is unknown to us both.

 

I do not pursue my leisure activity on the basis that I need to take an interest in the doings of every marina and its management. Given the high profile of the dispute concerning Pilings Lock, the fact that this thread is dealing with just that, and that any shortfall in income CRT suffer as a result of a customer failing to pay might require me to "divvy up" a sum, no matter how small, to plug that funding gap does entitle me to a view as to the culpability of the parties concerned. I might also have a notion that justice is rather important.

Firstly, I do admire your calm and rational approach to this topic.

 

Secondly, thank you for an abiding image of Mr Spencer gettin' it on down in his office whilst dictating those letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems that another thread on this site demonstrates that BMWL is a wholly owned subsidiary of CRT in which case CRT are already in the marina business and could, should they be successful in purchasing the site, add it to their portfolio. Whether they would consider it a viable proposition or whether they would wish to expose themselves to accusations, no matter how bogus, of having a hidden agenda to bankrupt a private company in favour of their own interests is a moot point.

 

You are completely correct although I always try and remember that the internet contains as much, if not more, disinformation as fact. There is no doubt, however, that the matter is reaching a far larger audience than in those long-ago days although whether the power of public opinion is having much of an effect on the parties concerned is a matter about which I have my doubts.

 

The wider audience does at least have the opportunity to arrive at a decision informed by rather more than the photogenic nature or seductive language of the parties involved.

did they not go into voluntary liquidation , they made themselves insolvent ,bankrupt or whatever other description you would like to give the situation they are in , a CHARITY is left out of pocket end of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Spencer getting it on down in the office.!

 

That is what i like about this thread despite all the debate of expert opinions of business matters regarding the issue you can count on a degree of humour here and now..

 

As for me now i might do a Dean and just wait for a few weeks and hope that the GOOD berth holders of PLM get rescued and the BADDY gets his dues!

 

BMWL might be classed as saviours of PLM not mooted as scavangers..Icertainly think it is the way forward.

 

If anything crops up from my intelligence (good humoured comments welcome) network i will come straight back

Edited by Dangerous Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if during the course of the analysis of the voluntary liquidation of QMP by the IP, he has concerns that the trading relationship of QMP to the daughter and mother companies of PLM and QMH may have been carried out in a fraudulent manner.

 

Does he have a duty to inform the police or other relevant authorities that the law may have been broken? Would that action put any further discussions from CRT on hold as they may be uncertain as to the veracity of any potential new owner with which to conclude a new NAA.

 

Just a thought once the money trail gets more deeply investigated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if during the course of the analysis of the voluntary liquidation of QMP by the IP, he has concerns that the trading relationship of QMP to the daughter and mother companies of PLM and QMH may have been carried out in a fraudulent manner.

 

Does he have a duty to inform the police or other relevant authorities that the law may have been broken? Would that action put any further discussions from CRT on hold as they may be uncertain as to the veracity of any potential new owner with which to conclude a new NAA.

 

Just a thought once the money trail gets more deeply investigated

 

 

Ironic that the Steadmans have Bentleys registered in your location -Switzerland!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I do admire your calm and rational approach to this topic.

 

Secondly, thank you for an abiding image of Mr Spencer gettin' it on down in his office whilst dictating those letters.

 

Many thanks for your kind words although Mrs Tupperware might struggle to agree.

 

My (mis)use of the term which does seem to a have raised a titter or two was entirely accidental.

did they not go into voluntary liquidation , they made themselves insolvent ,bankrupt or whatever other description you would like to give the situation they are in , a CHARITY is left out of pocket end of.

 

Indeed they did and left CRT contemplating a substantial financial loss. That did not, of course, prevent CRT being described as the "Devil Incarnate" in the recently referenced article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems that another thread on this site demonstrates that BMWL is a wholly owned subsidiary of CRT in which case CRT are already in the marina business and could, should they be successful in purchasing the site, add it to their portfolio. Whether they would consider it a viable proposition or whether they would wish to expose themselves to accusations, no matter how bogus, of having a hidden agenda to bankrupt a private company in favour of their own interests is a moot point.

CaRT's Simon Salem is on record as saying that BWML will not acquire Pillings.

 

That is not to say that they did not attempt to do so in 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if during the course of the analysis of the voluntary liquidation of QMP by the IP, he has concerns that the trading relationship of QMP to the daughter and mother companies of PLM and QMH may have been carried out in a fraudulent manner.

 

Does he have a duty to inform the police or other relevant authorities that the law may have been broken? Would that action put any further discussions from CRT on hold as they may be uncertain as to the veracity of any potential new owner with which to conclude a new NAA.

 

Just a thought once the money trail gets more deeply investigated

 

An IP can find that a member of the management team of a company which has entered liquidation can have been "irresponsible" in their behaviour without that behaviour transgressing criminal law, so it is very important not to regard the former as in any way implying the latter as the document at http://www.ts-p.co.uk/uploaded/publications/information_sheets/Corporate_Commercial/directors_responsibilities_avoiding_the_wrongful_trading_trap.pdf makes clear.

 

At this point there is absolutely no evidence that any such irresponsibility has occurred although CRT's last statement does suggest that they consider the management team may not have consisted of its only director. I am sure that the IP will be acutely aware of the need for he/she to examine the circumstances of the liquidation in close detail.

CaRT's Simon Salem is on record as saying that BWML will not acquire Pillings.

 

That is not to say that they did not attempt to do so in 2011.

 

Do you have a link for the article where Mr Salem makes this statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, its a private communication to a third party.

 

I don't think it is admissible as evidence then (even to this board!) unless you can tell the board how you came to know this.

 

E.g. tell us you saw a copy of this private communication, or you overheard the conversation yourself.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think it is admissible as evidence then (even to this board!) unless you can tell the board how you came to know this.

 

E.g. tell us you saw a copy of this private communication, or you overheard the conversation yourself.

 

MtB

Neither of the above.

 

I was discussing with someone the possibility that BWML had attempted to acquire Pillings in 2011 and why such an acquisition not now get CaRT board approval.

 

They asked Simon Salem in an email and were told that BWML had no intention of acquiring it.

 

In which case should you be broadcasting it on the Internet ?

 

I better make sure I never tell you anything 'in confidence'

It was not told to me in confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of the above.

 

I was discussing with someone the possibility that BWML had attempted to acquire Pillings in 2011 and why such an acquisition not now get CaRT board approval.

 

They asked Simon Salem in an email and were told that BWML had no intention of acquiring it.

 

It was not told to me in confidence.

 

 

Give the guy a break! He is only trying to add matter of interest to the thread.

 

Aim any wrong doing to the source of "dispute at Pillings"

Edited by Dangerous Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dangerous Dave, on 04 Mar 2014 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

 

Give the guy a break! He is only trying to add matter of interest to the thread.

 

Aim any wrong doing to the source of "dispute at Pillings"

 

But I have seen an email from C&RT saying they are actively looking at acquiring PLM, and, in fact one of their representatives had a meeting recently with PL at a Pub,

They are apparenly looking to pay 'market valuation' less £185,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit - of course I have no such email, but it just goes to show that anybody can claim anything - thats how rumours start - hence the request for clarification / evidence is not unreasonable.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.