Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#1
Been nice knowing you :)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
i always thought that the propose privatisation was to provide funding for the building of terminal 2.
on the face of it, the ferry operators have every right to feel aggrieved.
#3
Sounds more like DHB have been caught with their pants down. If they already have an agreement for up-front payments towards the cost of building T2 what are they negotiating now? If they already have £60m in the kitty why is there no sign of activity on the project. I do realise T2 will cost a lot more than £60m but surely the finance must be in place as DHB are making public announcments about the development.
Of course, if DHB has been somwhat premature then senior heads should roll.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#4
Well, well, well. DHB in hot water over this one; seems as though DHB have caught a virus in their spin office. Too much to expect Bob Goldfield to be straight with us about it, though. The port must be privatised at all costs.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#5
I just do not know yet what to say on this one,where is the 60millon gone now.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#6
The T2 development will cost in the region of £300 to £400 million.
The plans are just that, plans.
They won't be able to get the money for development until they are privatised and that money (£400 to £500 million) will go into the government's coffers (minus 10% for Dover, if DDC get their request).
The loan(s) for the development will come from the private sector; globally, there are many millions "out there", but can't be taken up until the Port is privatised.
Roger
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#7
Seriously, Roger? No T2 unless they're privatised?
Whatever happened to investment banks? Even it's current Trust Port status, if DHB went cap in hand to any merchant bank, they'd have no problem in getting that kind of money together from any venture capital specialist.....DHB has an excellent profit & loss account history, and they'd be given the nod within just a few days of any initial enquiry.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#8
I understand Andy, that being a Trust Port they can only borrow from the Government, which would add to the Governments borrowing (PSBR), so that is a no no for funding.
If you know otherwise, have a word in Bob's ear.
Roger
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#9
Thanks Roger.
Makes no sense to me - how can they borrow from a Government that's as skint as this one? Borrowing from a Government that would in turn have to borrow the money from the greedy buggers in the City - no wonder this country's screwed.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#10
Surely the point is that DHB have screwed the ferry companies out of £60M under false pretenses. That is tantamount to theft in my book. No wonder the ferry companies are kicking up a stink (or creating waves perhaps?
)
At least GP seems to be on the case and demanding answers from Government. I wonder if he'll actually get any?
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#11
phil,i wouldnt hold my breath on it,could end up with fatal concicences.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
well said phil, it does look like a stitch up of the ferry companies.
Unregistered User
#13
Andy, Roger it is not the case that can't borrow from the private sector. It is that the borrowing is counted as public debt because of the Trust status classification by the ONS [office of National Statistics]. They don't appear to be able to get past that hurdle. Hence both Treasury and DfT will prevent the port expansion, in a nut shell.
Not to Dover's advantage that one. I think virtually everyone agrees that the expansion should go ahead.
I think virtually everyone agrees that the community should obtain benefits from any change of status.
Watty
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
#14
I don't see the need to sell off the port in order to achieve the expansion though. Surely private investment in a public project is nothing new. Don't they do that with hospital projects?
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#15
Mr West.You are right about that one,the expansion of the port has been going on now from the 1950s,and can still go ahead with out the sell off.They are saying that it will take some 30to 35years for this expansion to achieve,they said the port at this time makes about 50million per year,times that by 35 and you have done it,with alot left over,no need for the sell off.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#16
Sorry Paul (W) I thought I had said what you have stated - that any money would be against the PSBR so wouldn't be allowed and only by being a privatised company, would allow for the borrowing and hence the expansion.
Roger
Unregistered User
#17
Roger, I think people may have taken your posting to imply it was public money being used as opposed to private money which is would be classified as public debt.
Private money into public services is not new and comes off balance sheet as a PFI.
DHB have ruled out PFI ,I presume bcause of management implications and examples of rip offs identified with existing schemes particularly NHS.
The reality is that there are two schemes.
1. The terminlal two proposal.
2. The regeneration scheme.
Both have to be financed but are separate projects but are interlinked because of roads, access etc.
Terminal two could happen but the regeneration scheme needs elements of terminal two instructure to go ahead and be commercially viable.
Both are exciting national and regional projects that are caught up with general election politics and commercial breast beating.
I don't know where the ferry operators think DHB pension shortfalls are to be met from, if not them and their customers?
How do they meet their own company shortfalls?
From the punter/us of course.
Red herrings here, but makes a good story and plays into the general election agenda.
Give six months and see what has happened?
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#18
paul
the issue is that the ferry companies are saying that the money they paid was earmarked for terminal 2, a facility that benefits them not just DHB.
Unregistered User
#19
Surely , Howard they will pay anyway whether now or in the future under a private company or as Trust status.
Clever timing by them though. Well done the PR bods.
They have known about this for months, why now? Nudge, nudge etc.
It is the unspoken element, the public ought to think about before jumping aboard this one.
I'll leave it at that and won't elaborate further.
Watty
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#20
Paul
Thanks for your explanation re PSBR borrowing, it's cleared up a misunderstanding of mine, but I'd like to ask you about your last post (#19) if I may.
Your post seems a little cryptic for me - how can the public think about unspoken elements if they're unspoken? It's the unspoken element I don't like, it leads to rumours, counter rumours and chinese whispers. Why can't the issue be discussed openly so that those in the dark (ie myself) can judge for themselves who's being fair about this. Your post implies that the ferry companies are at fault for objecting to the £60m they invested for a specific project having been raised under seemingly false pretences. If it's not the case, please enlighten us.....
True friends stab you in the front.
