|
Post by JohnV on May 21, 2017 6:05:46 GMT
Yes but the real cost of a tow to anywhere in the UK would (providing CRT were not in charge) be only about 10% of the estimated scrap value
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 21, 2017 7:25:43 GMT
No, . . . 'gross tonnage' is a figure based, nowadays, on the moulded volume of all enclosed spaces - 100 cubic feet = 1 (gross) ton , scrap value of the hull, decks and upperworks is based on the displacement tonnage minus the calculated/estimated weight of machinery, outfit, fittings and gear. The estimated scrap value is, as I said above, the value of the ship to be sold as seen and where lying for breaking . I am probably being dense Tony but unless it can be broken where it lies, labour FOC then surely considerable costs must be incurred and set against any nominal scrap valuation arrived at. I'm no expert but whilst I can (almost) deal with the concept of craning out a scrap narrow boat hull straight onto Mr Scrappies low loader at negligible cost, or even cutting it up on the hard and filling a skip or starting a pop-up foundry, scrapping a lightship must several orders of magnitude more complex. Mean draught was 10' at Survey, so my estimate of displacement tonnage from overall length (133') and breadth (26' 6'') reduced to an estimated waterline length and breadth would be - l x b x 10 x 0.8 (Cb) which comes out at around 650 - 700 tons. Different breakers have varying ways of valuing a ship for breaking (ie nominal scrap value), but one generally accepted and common method is to base it on displacement tonnage with every ton reckoned at a modest margin below current scrap heavy iron/steel prices. The profit/bunce then comes from the proportion of the displacement tonnage that's worth a hell of a lot more per ton than heavy iron/steel. At the time of the Survey in Liverpool, and assuming that there will still be a breaker somewhere close by on the Mersey so moving costs would be minimal, heavy iron/steel was fetching around Β£100/ton with non-ferrous fittings and castings at Β£2000 - Β£2500/ton, and copper (generator windings, wiring, cable etc.) at Β£3000 (+)/ton. Labour isn't necessarily always the biggest cost in taking the ship apart, it can be the gases (oxygen and propane) used for cutting, which is why shipbreakers yards have nowadays equipped themselves with hydraulic jaws, capable of chomping through hull and deckplating and frames, on big 360 degree machines - not only does this reduce gas costs by a huge amount, but it also does away with the need for a wire rope crane to lift away the sections as they're cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 7:45:33 GMT
If CRT have saved the vessel from the scrap man then this could be seen as a good thing. Would the owner have been willing to sell to an enthusiast cheaply or would he just take the best scrap offer, resulting in complete loss of the vessel...
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 21, 2017 7:51:21 GMT
If CRT have saved the vessel from the scrap man then this could be seen as a good thing. Would the owner have been willing to sell to an enthusiast cheaply or would he just take the best scrap offer, resulting in complete loss of the vessel... Er, he'd have kept it, he'd paid his poxy Β£5k rent arrears!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 21, 2017 7:53:49 GMT
If CRT have saved the vessel from the scrap man then this could be seen as a good thing. Would the owner have been willing to sell to an enthusiast cheaply or would he just take the best scrap offer, resulting in complete loss of the vessel... Well, . . . you're sort of standing things on their head here, aren't you . . . the only people who were ever prepared to see "Planet" scrapped were Parry and his disfunctional and malevolent entourage. The only thing C&RT are in a position to save the ship from is themselves !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 8:00:48 GMT
If CRT have saved the vessel from the scrap man then this could be seen as a good thing. Would the owner have been willing to sell to an enthusiast cheaply or would he just take the best scrap offer, resulting in complete loss of the vessel... Well, . . . you're sort of standing things on their head here, aren't you . . . Β the only people who were ever prepared to see "Planet" scrapped were Parry and his disfunctional and malevolent entourage. The only thing C&RT are in a position to save the ship from is themselves !! I realise that but once the vessel had been moved by CRT (arguably a mistake) it placed a debt on the owner which he -might- have chosen to pay off by scrapping the boat if he were given the opportunity. Obviously it is CRT who are at fault but once the boat had been moved something had to be done about it and IF it has been saved from the scrap man then it can be spun into a good news story. Specially if it then reappears where it was before but in better condition. I don't know what it was like when it was in Liverpool originally but if the owner was not keeping up with berthing fees perhaps it would have become an at risk vessel at some point?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 21, 2017 8:19:13 GMT
Well, . . . you're sort of standing things on their head here, aren't you . . . the only people who were ever prepared to see "Planet" scrapped were Parry and his disfunctional and malevolent entourage. The only thing C&RT are in a position to save the ship from is themselves !! I realise that but once the vessel had been moved by CRT (arguably a mistake) it placed a debt on the owner which he -might- have chosen to pay off by scrapping the boat if he were given the opportunity. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ No, . . it most certainly did NOT result in the owner incurring any debt over and above the reasonable cost of towing the ship out of Canning Dock to the nearest safe berth or anchorage on the Mersey - a matter of a few hundred pounds at most. As for moving the ship out of Canning Dock, that was unarguably the first big mistake that C&RT made. By doing so they relinquished the right to sell the ship, in situ, that they had gained via the much quoted clause 10.1.2 of the 2014 Berthing Agreement, and through Alan Roberts' failure to either pay his Berthing fees or move the ship out himself.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 21, 2017 8:29:46 GMT
I imagine CRT intend to argue that the decision to sell was made while it was berthed under the mooring agreement and subsequently towing it away elsewhere to persue the sale is not relevant?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 21, 2017 9:14:39 GMT
I imagine CRT intend to argue that the decision to sell was made while it was berthed under the mooring agreement and subsequently towing it away elsewhere to persue the sale is not relevant? I think that is precisely how their minds are working, although it can't and won't do them any good because in relying on clause 10.1.2, which is to be more precise a sub-clause, they are ignoring the fact that the preceding sub-clause 10.1.1 conditions and limits the entitlement to sell derived from 10.1.2 by way of the inclusion of the wording " until removal of the Licensee's property from the Estate", and being linked to 10.1.2 by way of having the word "and" appended - the 'Licensee' in this instance being Alan Roberts, and the 'Estate' being the South Docks in Liverpool now under C&RT control. C&RT are, and have been, relying on (sub) clause 10.1.2 in isolation and out of context, and when considered in that way it can be argued, albeit somewhat perversely, that it confers upon them an enduring, contractual entitlement to sell the vessel which is the subject of the Agreement. They got away with this argument at the Injunction hearing last December by persuading the Judge to treat (sub) clause 10.1.2 as a 'stand alone' clause unaffected by what precedes it.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 21, 2017 13:16:53 GMT
I don't see that the cost of the towing is anything to do with Mr Roberts, i was under the impression the law states that seized property must be sold according to certain rules to minimise the costs, to prevent exactly what CRT appear to have done, manufacturing costs to punish or rip off defaulters , so I don't see how CRT can demand payment for this towage without giving a valid reason why they absolutely had to do it.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on May 21, 2017 19:30:52 GMT
I wonder how much asbestos the boat has on it? If its substantial the cost of removing it could easily be more than the value of the ship! It would appear the CRT complied, and didnt sell the ship until after march as per what the courts asked. So what is happening in the courts at the moment? is the appeal due to be heard any time soon and what is the likely outcome now the ship is sold? A lot of questions I know but it is all getting very serious now
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 22, 2017 15:35:33 GMT
Sorry I seem to have missed a post, planet has been sold? For how much? Sorry. I've had no internet for a while.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 15:39:09 GMT
Sorry I seem to have missed a post, plante has been sold? For how much? Sorry. I've had no internet for a while. Β£12.5k apparently which is approx 1/5 of its scrap value. At least the boat still exists.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 22, 2017 15:42:39 GMT
Sorry I seem to have missed a post, plante has been sold? For how much? Sorry. I've had no internet for a while. Β£12.5k apparently which is approx 1/5 of its scrap value. At least the boat still exists. The big question is who has it been sold too? Commercial boat services, maybe? Or a friend of there's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2017 15:50:46 GMT
My guess is CRT are looking to turn this into a Good News story by bringing the vessel back to Liverpool having been restored, so they may have sold it to one of their mates.
|
|