> > > CRT DEATH TRAP FACILITIES < < <

[john6767]

I know there are what I would call mooring basins that have pontoons that are operated by CRT as long term moorings, and of course a few for short term mooring ones as well, but are there actual marinas that are operated by CRT, and is this thread talking about one such (unnamed?) marina?

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, john6767 said:

I know there are what I would call mooring basins that have pontoons that are operated by CRT as long term moorings, and of course a few for short term mooring ones as well, but are there actual marinas that are operated by CRT, and is this thread talking about one such (unnamed?) marina?

As far as I know, they retain the old British Waterways name and trade as British Waterways Marinas Limited. Sawley is one of theirs, is it not?

[Jerra]

25 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I'm pointing out that legally the CEO still has a responsibility with regard to any H&S issues despite hiding behind layers of sub contractors. However in reality if anything actually happened it would harder to bring any claim against them due to the extra complexity. 

It's one of the advantages to using contractors. It's not my fault guv!

The point I am making and you appear to be unable to understand is that CRT have absolutely no responsibility for the H & S.  The marina going by what has is the been posted is leased, therefore the person/company has written in the lease what maintenance responsibility of whom.  Unless you have seen that lease you have no knowledge as to who is responsible for what.

For example when we leased shops it was common for the landlord to be responsible for the outside of the building and the tenant for the inside.  However I have seen leases where the whole building was the tenants responsibility.

If I am reading this thread correctly it seems that CRT have leased the property to a company who are using a sub contractor to handle maintenance.  If you have documentary proof in the form of a copy of the lease that this is not the case then by all means try to blame CRT.  If not it looks as if you are another of those boaters who want to blame CRT whether it is their fault or not.

[john6767]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

As far as I know, they retain the old British Waterways name and trade as British Waterways Marinas Limited. Sawley is one of theirs, is it not?

Yes quite BWML, but not CRT.  This thread seems to be suggesting a CRT Marina.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, adam1uk said:

Has everyone on this thread blocked tree monkey or something?  Because he's shown several times that the marina is privately owned, and no-one seems to be taking a blind bit of notice.

I believe him.

[Athy]

10 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Yes quite BWML, but not CRT.  This thread seems to be suggesting a CRT Marina.

But surely it's the same parent company - CART owns the marinas but uses the BW "brand" name? So a BW marina is a CART marina in all but name.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I believe him.

It appears the OP is the main person who is not able/willing to get their head round the fact that the problem is not CRT's.  Assuming of course that TM is correct and why wouldn't he be.

[WotEver]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

For example when we leased shops it was common for the landlord to be responsible for the outside of the building and the tenant for the inside.  However I have seen leases where the whole building was the tenants responsibility.

Kinda OT to the thread but I have had involvement in two leases in recent years, both of which were "Full maintenance and repair" leases. The first thing the tenants did in both cases (I was one of the tenants on one of the leases) was to thoroughly photograph the building inside and out because we certainly weren't responsible for 'betterment'. 

So getting back to the thread it is entirely possible that even if CaRT own the marina that they have zero responsibility for it. 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

Kinda OT to the thread but I have had involvement in two leases in recent years, both of which were "Full maintenance and repair" leases. The first thing the tenants did in both cases (I was one of the tenants on one of the leases) was to thoroughly photograph the building inside and out because we certainly weren't responsible for 'betterment'. 

This of course is true and any sensible person taking on the lease would act in a similar fashion.  However the point doesn't seem to be getting over to the OP that even if CRT do own the marina (and going by TM this isn't the case) they may not be to blame or responsible for the state of things.

[rowland al]

48 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But surely it would be the CEO of this privately owned marina, not Mr Parry, who might be hiding behind your imaginary layers of subcontractors.

I based my response on the information supplied by the OP, not a 5 year old link to an article about Crick golf complex.

If someone can actually show CRT aren't the primary owners then of course the CEO of CRT would have no responsibility. That's pretty obvious!

[john6767]

9 minutes ago, Athy said:

But surely it's the same parent company - CART owns the marinas but uses the BW "brand" name? So a BW marina is a CART marina in all but name.

No sure of the exact company structure, but why would you call a BWML marina a CRT marina, that does not make sense.  Anyway if that is the case which marina is this then or is it secret?

[Graham Davis]

10 hours ago, rowland al said:

I'm sure Mr Parry is relying on that.

What a stupid comment, without an explanation.

Or is it just another excuse from a previously registered member to have a moan about CaRT and air the chip on their shoulder?

[tree monkey]

6 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I based my response on the information supplied by the OP, not a 5 year old link to an article about Crick golf complex.

If someone can actually show CRT aren't the primary owners then of course the CEO of CRT would have no responsibility. That's pretty obvious!

God sake, google marine services chirk, this will bring up a companys house web link which shows the marina is privately owned, for some reason i am unable to copy the link over.

I think the Middleton family have an intrest in the place but all that information is available via google

[rowland al]

6 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

What a stupid comment, without an explanation.

Or is it just another excuse from a previously registered member to have a moan about CaRT and air the chip on their shoulder?

It was a flippant post I agree, but there is no need to insult me. If you read my later post I did attempt to explain what I meant.

Maybe you are the one with a chip on the shoulder. Your posts do seem to be unnecessarily aggressive. I wonder if you are like that in person? Or is it just your keyboard persona?

[Athy]

35 minutes ago, john6767 said:

No sure of the exact company structure, but why would you call a BWML marina a CRT marina, that does not make sense. 

Yes it would, if they're both the same company, because BWML (we suspect) belongs to CART. After all, quite a few people still refer to CART as "Waterways".

That siad, I have know idea who owns the marina under discussion.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes it would, if they're both the same company, because BWML (we suspect) belongs to CART. After all, quite a few people still refer to CART as "Waterways".

That siad, I have know idea who owns the marina under discussion.

 

Y'know sometimes I find your naïvety rather quaint. The whole point of companies is that they are separate legal entities.

If company A 'owns' company B, that does absolutely does not make them the same company.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes it would, if they're both the same company, because BWML (we suspect) belongs to CART. After all, quite a few people still refer to CART as "Waterways".

That siad, I have know idea who owns the marina under discussion.

They are separate limited companies.

BWML are nothing to do with the 'charity'

BWML and C&RT submit separate account to companies house.

C&RT show an income from BWML and charge BWML a management fee for central services.

C&RT do not operate BWML marinas.

 

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Y'know sometimes I find your naïvety rather quaint

I suppose if your background is not 'business orientated' then you don't know these sort of things.

You only know what you know.

Do you know the structures of 'academia' for example ?

[Athy]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Y'know sometimes I find your naïvety rather quaint. The whole point of companies is that they are separate legal entities.

If company A 'owns' company B, that does absolutely does not make them the same company.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The same could possibly be said about your condescension, though of course I would never stoop to making such an accusation. Anyroad, there's nowt wrong with quaint.

To use an analogy from a milieu with which I'm more familiar, I'm currently listening to a CD set of old Trojan music. The original 45s were issued variously on Trojan, Duke, Big Shot and Amalgamated etc., but all these labels belonged to Trojan and were therefore part of the same company.

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

They are separate limited companies.

BWML are nothing to do with the 'charity'

BWML and C&RT submit separate account to companies house.

C&RT show an income from BWML and charge BWML a management fee for central services.

C&RT do not operate BWML marinas.

 

 

So what you're saying is that they're both part of the same company, are linked but use two trading names for tax purposes (such as avoiding paying too much of). Yes, that's what I thought.

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I suppose if your background is not 'business orientated' then you don't know these sort of things.

You only know what you know.

Do you know the structures of 'academia' for example ?

 

Yes this is my point. I should really have said I find the naivety of teachers rather quaint. My apologies Mr Athy.

Spending one's whole life in academia seems so often to have meant missing out on the University of Life.

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes this is my point. I should really have said I find the naivety of teachers rather quaint. My apologies Mr Athy.

 

Perhaps you don't know many teachers. I'm sure that some are "naive" in some respects, just as members of any occupation will be "naive" in others, though perhaps "uninformed" would be a more pertinent adjective.

[Athy]

12 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

 

Spending one's whole life in academia seems so often to have meant missing out on the University of Life.

Do you know many people who have done this? I certainly didn't: I last taught about 15 years ago! At various times over the years (before, during and since my teaching career) I've worked s a barman, a waiter, a drayman's mate, a disc jockey, an office clerk, a record trader and a writer, and probably a few more jobs which I can't remember (oh yes, property landlord, though that doesn't involve much actual work). Two of those jobs I have done in foreign countries. So I reckon that I have followed several courses in the University of Life, but business studies wasn't one of them.

[tree monkey]

4 hours ago, rowland al said:

I based my response on the information supplied by the OP, not a 5 year old link to an article about Crick golf complex.

If someone can actually show CRT aren't the primary owners then of course the CEO of CRT would have no responsibility. That's pretty obvious!

Hope this works

http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=Marine+services+chirk%2C+companies+house

[cuthound]

21 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Hope this works

http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=Marine+services+chirk%2C+companies+house

Yup, that works for those who are "googley challenged" 

[rowland al]

11 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Yup, that works for those who are "googley challenged" 

Agreed. Much better than providing a link to something which is 5 years out of date. Must have taken ages to to come up with that bit of cynicism though lol.

Anyway, so does this prove that the OP is incorrect then? I mean lots of boat yard businesses lease land off CRT. Cosgrove is one I think.

[tree monkey]

3 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Agreed. Much better than providing a link to something which is 5 years out of date. Must have taken ages to to come up with that bit of cynicism though lol.

Anyway, so does this prove that the OP is incorrect then? I mean lots of boat yard businesses lease land off CRT. Cosgrove is one I think.

I admit the original link was out of date but added because it contained some useful information.

Maybe I should have provided a more specific and appropriate link but I honestly thought if anyone had any real intrest they could easily used google themselves,  at that point I hadn't looked at the company's house link myself.

I lived not far from there for a good few years and the marina was private and owned by the Middletons or at least they had a financial intrest ( the family who used to own chirk castle and still live there) and I think it was one of the historic anomalies that didn't need a boat licence to use.

All of the above could have changed since I left but as far as I understand the place is private and has no link with CRT.

Anyway I've learned a lot more about Chirk marina than I ever wanted to