|
Post by Andyberg on Sept 22, 2016 8:01:54 GMT
Surprised no one has mentioned this yesterday? Stood and watched as it was dragged out of Canning Dock out into the Mersey. got 3 separated 'where to' destinations, 1 from CRT officials, Gloucester Docks & also Bristol Docks (from the actual tug captain) plus one report from a irate woman going round the crowds saying they were all lying and it's actually heading for Sheerness to be cut up!
Just read on another site it was too big for CRT's holding site at Chester so was Fleetwood bound!
So will this great ship ever be seen again?
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/echo-readers-torn-over-decision-11920452
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 9:02:53 GMT
He should have sorted something out. He's known for 12 months that he owed mooring fees. However, the trust are pretty useless when it comes to dealing with issues like this. Its a pretty pathetic scenario at the end of the day, and will hardly do the trust any favours.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 22, 2016 10:19:17 GMT
It's ridiculous that a managment company has to resort to towing a ship away(a costly exercise, that just adds exspense to both parties.) it points to break down in communications, these issues should be sorted out without to recourse to such drastic measures.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Sept 22, 2016 11:29:41 GMT
It's ridiculous that a managment company has to resort to towing a ship away(a costly exercise, that just adds exspense to both parties.) it points to break down in communications, these issues should be sorted out without to recourse to such drastic measures. That is possibly the "finger on the point" however there has to be good will on both sides. If the guy was running it as a business and wasn't paying his bills then there must have been other things that CRT could have done ...... it is a heck of a long time since I was in the Port of Liverpool but I would have thought CRT could have found somewhere in the port where they could have borrowed or rented at peppercorn rates, a jetty from the port authorities (on a you scratch my back agreement) where it could have been impounded without any access for the owner. If the owner was just genuinely trying to save an iconic ship for the city then he should have been out raising public support and trying to convert it to charity status, especially if it is correct that he had a year to do something about it. You may remember the thread that I started about the Queen Mary being returned to the Clyde. That ship had been stuck in Tilbury docks for years, building up a massive mooring bill for the owner. Eventually, by negotiation a solution was found ..... as I understand it the owner was pressured into selling the ship to a charity for a nominal sum, the PLA waived a large proportion of the outstanding on the understanding that the charity removed the ship. Win, win, The ship was saved, the PLA got rid of an eyesore that was sooner or later going to cost them an unrecoverable fortune and the owner avoided court action and probable bankruptcy plus still losing the ship.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 22, 2016 11:39:25 GMT
You would have thought Crt and the owner could have found the middle ground and come to an understanding. I suppose we don't know the full details, but it does look like Crt have gone for the nuclear option as usual. The enforcement dept are stuck in government department days. Even if they are in the right, I would have thought the negative publicity would far outweigh any funds accrued through debt recovery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 13:49:50 GMT
You would have thought Crt and the owner could have found the middle ground and come to an understanding. I suppose we don't know the full details, but it does look like Crt have gone for the nuclear option as usual. The enforcement dept are stuck in government department days. Even if they are in the right, I would have thought the negative publicity would far outweigh any funds accrued through debt recovery. There is a real need for an arbitration service with these issues. Both sides can be stubborn, and the costs are mounting up. It's thousands of pounds, and in many cases, an unnecessary outlay. The trust are totally useless on this stuff, they are not capable of dealing with anything like it. It's no better than having bouncers on the door of some pub.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 22, 2016 19:27:46 GMT
You would have thought Crt and the owner could have found the middle ground and come to an understanding. I suppose we don't know the full details, but it does look like Crt have gone for the nuclear option as usual. The enforcement dept are stuck in government department days. Even if they are in the right, I would have thought the negative publicity would far outweigh any funds accrued through debt recovery. There is a real need for an arbitration service with these issues. Both sides can be stubborn, and the costs are mounting up. It's thousands of pounds, and in many cases, an unnecessary outlay. The trust are totally useless on this stuff, they are not capable of dealing with anything like it. It's no better than having bouncers on the door of some pub. i agree some sort of arbitration would seem the sensible solution. Rather than ending up in exspensive legal proceedings all the time. I suppose the problem is it would have to have some legal standing so be supported by the government or at least have a mandate In law.
|
|
|
Post by alex on Sept 24, 2016 11:51:31 GMT
Surprised no one has mentioned this yesterday? Stood and watched as it was dragged out of Canning Dock out into the Mersey. got 3 separated 'where to' destinations, 1 from CRT officials, Gloucester Docks & also Bristol Docks (from the actual tug captain) plus one report from a irate woman going round the crowds saying they were all lying and it's actually heading for Sheerness to be cut up! Just read on another site it was too big for CRT's holding site at Chester so was Fleetwood bound! So will this great ship ever be seen again? www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/echo-readers-torn-over-decision-11920452Not in the south docks it won,t ,CRT have already stated that even if monies were paid they want it gone and gone for good , no further mooring agreement for Planet. Truth be known I don't think it was ever truly welcome over the years , it was once in Albert dock and some bar owners / traders claimed its mooring ropes were going to pull the quay side wall down and the buildings with it .
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Sept 24, 2016 14:46:34 GMT
Hi Alex ...... Was there any reality to those claims or was it a case of sour grapes from other bars?. I suppose if those companies are paying CRT then CRT would have good financial reason to get rid of it in order to keep the businesses that were actually paying sweet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2016 13:20:46 GMT
I see Paul c is getting his nappy wet again, having a go at Tony about the circumstances. For someone who has never owned a boat, he doesn't half come out with some crap. I suppose his silly power struggle with Dan, and eventual dismissal over the forum has left him a little bitter. 😂
|
|
|
Post by alex on Sept 26, 2016 14:43:32 GMT
Hi Alex ...... Was there any reality to those claims or was it a case of sour grapes from other bars?. I suppose if those companies are paying CRT then CRT would have good financial reason to get rid of it in order to keep the businesses that were actually paying sweet. At the time it was moored in Albert dock I don't think Planet operated as a bar or business , maybe they , the bar owners wanted the customers on outside tables to be able to have a view across the dock.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Sept 26, 2016 16:13:29 GMT
thanks for that info Alex
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Sept 27, 2016 16:13:44 GMT
I have had a look on the other channel as as always they are ripping each other to pieces over it!! At the end if the owner had paid his bills none of this would be happening would it?
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Sept 27, 2016 18:47:06 GMT
Yes, I struggle to understand the negative view towards CRT over this? I was there as it was dragged out and there wasn't much negativity about it going! After talking to locals, Mersey marina people etc the consensus was that the alledged owner was a pissed up tosser who bought cheap cans from tesco over the road, charged people to go onboard then charged nightclub prices for canned beer...all without licenses, insurance etc.. .Why the vigorous defence of it?
I've had zero hassle, bullying or intimidation from CRT, but then again, I pay my way as outlined in my T & C's with them...
Think some people just like to find any minute problem / T not crossed to try and enhance their reputation!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 18:50:13 GMT
I have had a look on the other channel as as always they are ripping each other to pieces over it!! At the end if the owner had paid his bills none of this would be happening would it? It's a yes and no sort of thing, neither Nigel nor Tony have excused the owner for non payment of bills. What is mind boggling is the demand 'gerrof my land(water)' then towing it to Sharpness straight back onto 'my land(water)' surley, arrangements made to keep the vessel at Birkenhead or wherever more local to Liverpool to be paid at the owners expense or deducted from the sale of vessel if money was not forthcoming would have been better than this cluster fuck of an exercise? Tony doesn't strike me as the sort to support lost causes, on the face of it C&RT look to have made an utter balls of this one.
|
|