RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Having to hire a ferry company with no travel routes, staff or boats in the name of appearing to do something nicely sums up the government's approach to brexit in 2018

The irony will be strong with this one of those ferries are needed, as in all likelihood, they will have to subcontract to European ferry companies operating with European crews.

Digby wrote:Having to hire a ferry company with no travel routes, staff or boats in the name of appearing to do something nicely sums up the government's approach to brexit in 2018

No boats, but plenty of links to Conservative ministers, donors and relatives of such, and now with a £14m contract. Sums up this whole Conservative regime.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Having to hire a ferry company with no travel routes, staff or boats in the name of appearing to do something nicely sums up the government's approach to brexit in 2018

No boats, but plenty of links to Conservative ministers, donors and relatives of such, and now with a £14m contract. Sums up this whole Conservative regime.

Puja

It does on the face of it look alarmingly corrupt, was Liam got form for this Fox involved?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Having to hire a ferry company with no travel routes, staff or boats in the name of appearing to do something nicely sums up the government's approach to brexit in 2018

No boats, but plenty of links to Conservative ministers, donors and relatives of such, and now with a £14m contract. Sums up this whole Conservative regime.

Puja

It does on the face of it look alarmingly corrupt, was Liam got form for this Fox involved?

Grayling sticking to the line he's pleased to be supporting a British startup and not simply offering public money to the big providers. Still one would have to think not having any boats is an issue, one can only hope when they say payment is performance related it means actually providing a service and not for vague endeavours which ultimately fail to do so

I really hope this isn’t a contract award based on not wanting to contract a foreign company for fear of the Daily Mail backlash.

Its mad.
The fact that a contract is awarded at all shows how unhinged our Govt has become.
Millions of pounds is being wasted to try and mitigate the effects of a course of action that anyone with a functioning brain would completely rule out.

Sandydragon wrote:I really hope this isn’t a contract award based on not wanting to contract a foreign company for fear of the Daily Mail backlash.

It's one of three contracts awarded. The other two, of significantly higher value, are:
- Brittany Ferries (£46.6m)
- DFDS (£47.3m)

A cynic might suggest that the attention focussed on the £14m Seaborne Freight contract might actually have been a deliberate attempt to pop smoke on the other two "foreign" contracts.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ver-pizzas

It's like Trump, you can't make a satire on it

Digby wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ver-pizzas

It's like Trump, you can't make a satire on it

Apparently, all their accounts show is around £85k in consultation fees that the directors have paid themselves. On as a debt until the government money comes in I guess

Do they get 14 million in the event of no no-deal, or only if there is no-deal?

Also agree, looks like corruption on the face of it to me.

Zhivago wrote:Do they get 14 million in the event of no no-deal, or only if there is no-deal?

Also agree, looks like corruption on the face of it to me.

It’s not entirely clear. The services are described as being required only in the event of a no deal, but the companies will incur considerable expense preparing, so I would think it reasonable for there to be some funds paid in advance.

canta_brian wrote:

Different Mark Bamford, or so I understand.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Do they get 14 million in the event of no no-deal, or only if there is no-deal?

Also agree, looks like corruption on the face of it to me.

It’s not entirely clear. The services are described as being required only in the event of a no deal, but the companies will incur considerable expense preparing, so I would think it reasonable for there to be some funds paid in advance.

Yes, but only if they reasonably could provide a service. Whereas it doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how hard this lot work when they're shy boats, crew, capital, shipping routes and so on

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Do they get 14 million in the event of no no-deal, or only if there is no-deal?

Also agree, looks like corruption on the face of it to me.

It’s not entirely clear. The services are described as being required only in the event of a no deal, but the companies will incur considerable expense preparing, so I would think it reasonable for there to be some funds paid in advance.

Yes, but only if they reasonably could provide a service. Whereas it doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how hard this lot work when they're shy boats, crew, capital, shipping routes and so on

I'm not an expert on shipping by any means, but I understand that it is feasible for them to subcontract operations on a turnkey basis to companies with crewed ships, and it seems like the route (Folkestone - Ostend) is already agreed. No idea how much working capital they would need, though. From what I've read, the company principals are genuinely old hands in the shipping business, so either it is a very carefully crafted scam or someone genuinely thinks they can make a business out of brexit.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: It’s not entirely clear. The services are described as being required only in the event of a no deal, but the companies will incur considerable expense preparing, so I would think it reasonable for there to be some funds paid in advance.

Yes, but only if they reasonably could provide a service. Whereas it doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how hard this lot work when they're shy boats, crew, capital, shipping routes and so on

I'm not an expert on shipping by any means, but I understand that it is feasible for them to subcontract operations on a turnkey basis to companies with crewed ships, and it seems like the route (Folkestone - Ostend) is already agreed. No idea how much working capital they would need, though. From what I've read, the company principals are genuinely old hands in the shipping business, so either it is a very carefully crafted scam or someone genuinely thinks they can make a business out of brexit.

I think it’s Ramsgate and dredging to allow for the larger ships has begun.
The company are claiming that they’ve been working on this for two years, but who knows. I know nothing about the industry (other than after last year’s ferry trip to* and from France I will now always cough up for the Chunnel) but I can’t imagine there are too many roll on roll off ferries kicking around just waiting to be hired.

*the only plus side was getting to queue next to Anna Keay on the way back to my car.

A bit more info here:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/new ... on-196233/

Love the fact that it is Thanet Council who own the port. There is a glorious symmetry there.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: It’s not entirely clear. The services are described as being required only in the event of a no deal, but the companies will incur considerable expense preparing, so I would think it reasonable for there to be some funds paid in advance.

Yes, but only if they reasonably could provide a service. Whereas it doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how hard this lot work when they're shy boats, crew, capital, shipping routes and so on

I'm not an expert on shipping by any means, but I understand that it is feasible for them to subcontract operations on a turnkey basis to companies with crewed ships, and it seems like the route (Folkestone - Ostend) is already agreed. No idea how much working capital they would need, though. From what I've read, the company principals are genuinely old hands in the shipping business, so either it is a very carefully crafted scam or someone genuinely thinks they can make a business out of brexit.

They are old hands in the sense they've contracted out for boats across the world, and then declared bankruptcy to avoid full payment owed on the boats, a solid, strong and stable bunch

And they're negotiating with one port and have an agreement with the other, but even the agreed deal can't be signed as they can't evidence the guaranteed capital required

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yes, but only if they reasonably could provide a service. Whereas it doesn’t seem reasonable no matter how hard this lot work when they're shy boats, crew, capital, shipping routes and so on

I'm not an expert on shipping by any means, but I understand that it is feasible for them to subcontract operations on a turnkey basis to companies with crewed ships, and it seems like the route (Folkestone - Ostend) is already agreed. No idea how much working capital they would need, though. From what I've read, the company principals are genuinely old hands in the shipping business, so either it is a very carefully crafted scam or someone genuinely thinks they can make a business out of brexit.

They are old hands in the sense they've contracted out for boats across the world, and then declared bankruptcy to avoid full payment owed on the boats, a solid, strong and stable bunch

And they're negotiating with one port and have an agreement with the other, but even the agreed deal can't be signed as they can't evidence the guaranteed capital required

Is all this for real? I thought that Grayling had claimed that all the due diligence had been done?

Digby wrote: They are old hands in the sense they've contracted out for boats across the world, and then declared bankruptcy to avoid full payment owed on the boats, a solid, strong and stable bunch

And they're negotiating with one port and have an agreement with the other, but even the agreed deal can't be signed as they can't evidence the guaranteed capital required

Having looked into this some more, I'm not sure that this is correct. As far as I can see, most of the principals were involved with running cross channel freight ferries for Eurotunnel with MyFerryLink. The downfall of this operation was the UK Competition and Markets Authority who ruled that Eurotunnel couldn't operate cross-channel services and it all went downhill from there.
Do you have any specific information to the effect that they have declared bankruptcy to avoid payments?

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I'm not an expert on shipping by any means, but I understand that it is feasible for them to subcontract operations on a turnkey basis to companies with crewed ships, and it seems like the route (Folkestone - Ostend) is already agreed. No idea how much working capital they would need, though. From what I've read, the company principals are genuinely old hands in the shipping business, so either it is a very carefully crafted scam or someone genuinely thinks they can make a business out of brexit.

They are old hands in the sense they've contracted out for boats across the world, and then declared bankruptcy to avoid full payment owed on the boats, a solid, strong and stable bunch

And they're negotiating with one port and have an agreement with the other, but even the agreed deal can't be signed as they can't evidence the guaranteed capital required

Is all this for real? I thought that Grayling had claimed that all the due diligence had been done?

Channel 4 news have been doing research into them, which is how I came across the previous problems encountered

Some answers to all this will be asked for in the House next week by the Labour shadow transport minister who followed the article and enjoyed himself immensely until having to explain Labour's brexit position. Anyway, one would hope the truth will out in the Commons

Oh, and Channel 4 news were delighted to run the tape of Grayling saying he'd done or had done due diligence, if even part of the story is true Grayling would I'd suggest have just committed political suicide, then again Grayling is so outstandingly bad he might be kept to make others look good by default

"We'll still have food, says a senior Leaver MP: “We won’t be able to get certain foods like bananas or tomatoes but it’s not like we won’t be able to eat. And we’ll be leaving at a time when British produce is beginning to come into season so it’s the best possible time to leave.”

Sounds perfectly sensible to me. Who needs "certain foods" after all.......

fivepointer wrote:"We'll still have food, says a senior Leaver MP: “We won’t be able to get certain foods like bananas or tomatoes but it’s not like we won’t be able to eat. And we’ll be leaving at a time when British produce is beginning to come into season so it’s the best possible time to leave.”

Sounds perfectly sensible to me. Who needs "certain foods" after all.......

I'm sensing that a 'Dig for Victory' campaign is just around the corner.

On another note, are people still stupid enough to think that voting Labour would mean that we might remain. The Labour membership might want a second referendum, but Corbyn and his team are consistent in avoiding any policy that would contradict Brexit.

People who wanted to be better off were stupid enough to vote brexit, so not only will there be people voting Labour in the expectation of remaining there almost have to be people planning to vote ukip who hope for that