Cable: Liverpool must obey the law in cruise cash row

Vince Cable was in Southampton to open a new £7.5m car terminal at the port

Vince Cable was in Southampton to open a new £7.5m car terminal at the port

First published in Business Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

THE Business Secretary has said Liverpool must obey European state funding rules in a row with Southampton over the repayment of taxpayer handouts for its £21m Mersey cruise terminal.

Southampton MPs and Euro MPs have accused Liverpool of “illegally” launching its first “turnaround” cruise at its Pier Head terminal before EU chiefs have given the go ahead.

Mr Cable refused to directly criticise Liverpool for jumping the gun before the European Commission has ruled on a £8.6m grant used to build it, but he said fair competition rules must be adhered to.

Shipping minister Mike Penning last month announced he would lift a calling cruise only restriction on the City of Liverpool Terminal if the council agrees to pay back £8.8m of UK funding. He added the deal was subject to EU state aid clearance.

Southampton and other UK ports that have built their cruise operations on private funding have called for all public handouts to be repaid.

Speaking on a visit to Southampton to open a new £7.5m car terminal at the port, Mr Cable said it had become a “legal matter” for the EU to adjudicate but said “Liverpool will have to respond to the law”.

He said: “We have to have discipline over state aids, whether its ports or manufacturing or anything else, otherwise the whole of Europe just becomes a free for all.

“I'm not making any judgements as to whether Liverpool is acting rightly or wrongly, the matter is for the European Commission to decide and act.”

But Mr Cable added: “The principle of having state aid rules is right. There has to be discipline and there has to be a level playing field. But how this particular dispute is handled I think we will just have to wait and see how the legal process unfolds. The Government is trying to observe the proper process and fair outcome will result.”

Liverpool City Council has not offered to pay back any EU funding claiming it was not a “condition upon the terminal solely being used as a call-in facility”.

Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month.

However, she suffered an engine breakdown hours after her send-off, due to an electrical fault which left her without power for three hours.

The ship had to be diverted for checks to be carried out.

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:37am Fri 8 Jun 12

Linesman says...

If he visits Liverpool, I wonder what he will say to them.
If he visits Liverpool, I wonder what he will say to them. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:53am Fri 8 Jun 12

The Salv says...

Why cant they just repay back ALL of the money and that is the arguement over with?
Why cant they just repay back ALL of the money and that is the arguement over with? The Salv
  • Score: 0

10:57am Fri 8 Jun 12

good-gosh says...

It all seems a bit grey and unpredictable - like the weather
It all seems a bit grey and unpredictable - like the weather good-gosh
  • Score: 0

11:00am Fri 8 Jun 12

Shoong says...

Just remember to hold the notes up to a light before accepting.
Just remember to hold the notes up to a light before accepting. Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:31am Fri 8 Jun 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Vince Cable ..... the only minister with a brain cell in Government and they basically demote him
Vince Cable ..... the only minister with a brain cell in Government and they basically demote him Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Fri 8 Jun 12

loosehead says...

look If he believed what Liverpool did was illegal then why not say so?
look If he believed what Liverpool did was illegal then why not say so? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Fri 8 Jun 12

ronn12 says...

People of Southampton , Please give it a rest, The people of Liverpool don't care about what southampton say , you just cant stop thinking about us!!!
People of Southampton , Please give it a rest, The people of Liverpool don't care about what southampton say , you just cant stop thinking about us!!! ronn12
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Fri 8 Jun 12

ohec says...

ronn12 wrote:
People of Southampton , Please give it a rest, The people of Liverpool don't care about what southampton say , you just cant stop thinking about us!!!
Thats the whole problem scousers don't care about anything especially the law but not to worry somebody will explain it to you before long.
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: People of Southampton , Please give it a rest, The people of Liverpool don't care about what southampton say , you just cant stop thinking about us!!![/p][/quote]Thats the whole problem scousers don't care about anything especially the law but not to worry somebody will explain it to you before long. ohec
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Fri 8 Jun 12

ronn12 says...

ohec wrote:
ronn12 wrote:
People of Southampton , Please give it a rest, The people of Liverpool don't care about what southampton say , you just cant stop thinking about us!!!
Thats the whole problem scousers don't care about anything especially the law but not to worry somebody will explain it to you before long.
why don't you just give it a rest and wind your kneck in!!!because you are all becoming very boring, it is very clear you are all stuck in the 80's judging by your comments and the look of your town lol - we already had turnaround status??? so read up stupid, now its just moved to the pier head, and why not !..... the ships chose to come here, so what is the problem...just plain scared of competition, and rightly so.Liverpool is in discussion now with peel for another cruise terminal ...and our mayor has promised to biuld a terminal that will be the envy of all ports . you will all swallow your words if you came and seen our fantastic modern vibrant city...
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: People of Southampton , Please give it a rest, The people of Liverpool don't care about what southampton say , you just cant stop thinking about us!!![/p][/quote]Thats the whole problem scousers don't care about anything especially the law but not to worry somebody will explain it to you before long.[/p][/quote]why don't you just give it a rest and wind your kneck in!!!because you are all becoming very boring, it is very clear you are all stuck in the 80's judging by your comments and the look of your town lol - we already had turnaround status??? so read up stupid, now its just moved to the pier head, and why not !..... the ships chose to come here, so what is the problem...just plain scared of competition, and rightly so.Liverpool is in discussion now with peel for another cruise terminal ...and our mayor has promised to biuld a terminal that will be the envy of all ports . you will all swallow your words if you came and seen our fantastic modern vibrant city... ronn12
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Fri 8 Jun 12

gerrylans says...

Although I live in Hampshire this "dialogue" is getting puerile.
Consider the following points.
1. Vince Cable represents all business interests in UK.
2. Using derogatory terms for the good citizens of Liverpool is
'semi-racist'.
3. Network Rail has spent upto £75m of tax payers money improving access for freight trains to Soton Docks
Although I live in Hampshire this "dialogue" is getting puerile. Consider the following points. 1. Vince Cable represents all business interests in UK. 2. Using derogatory terms for the good citizens of Liverpool is 'semi-racist'. 3. Network Rail has spent upto £75m of tax payers money improving access for freight trains to Soton Docks gerrylans
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Fri 8 Jun 12

MrWW says...

What is Liverpool doing as Southampton whines, as Southampton wallows in self pity, and makes jokes based on stereotypes.

They are planning their second turn around terminal, courting Chinese investment and planning more world class museums. As well as spending billions updating their industrial docks.

Liverpool’s competitor retail cities made similar Jokes while the Liverpool one shopping district was being developed. What did Liverpool do? They carried on building, redeveloping and jumped from the 16th most popular shopping destination in the UK to the 5th place.

Carry on whining while Liverpool carries on winning.
What is Liverpool doing as Southampton whines, as Southampton wallows in self pity, and makes jokes based on stereotypes. They are planning their second turn around terminal, courting Chinese investment and planning more world class museums. As well as spending billions updating their industrial docks. Liverpool’s competitor retail cities made similar Jokes while the Liverpool one shopping district was being developed. What did Liverpool do? They carried on building, redeveloping and jumped from the 16th most popular shopping destination in the UK to the 5th place. Carry on whining while Liverpool carries on winning. MrWW
  • Score: 1

9:08pm Fri 8 Jun 12

loosehead says...

MrWW wrote:
What is Liverpool doing as Southampton whines, as Southampton wallows in self pity, and makes jokes based on stereotypes.

They are planning their second turn around terminal, courting Chinese investment and planning more world class museums. As well as spending billions updating their industrial docks.

Liverpool’s competitor retail cities made similar Jokes while the Liverpool one shopping district was being developed. What did Liverpool do? They carried on building, redeveloping and jumped from the 16th most popular shopping destination in the UK to the 5th place.

Carry on whining while Liverpool carries on winning.
Well if Liverpools that great & attractive to new businesses they must have 100% employment?
If so why do so many come down here looking for work & to live in sunnier climates & in easy reach of Europe?
Not Whining just wondering if your cities that great why are they leaving & why you had to lie to get that terminal when the Chinese are queuing up to invest in your city?
Please tell me WHY?
[quote][p][bold]MrWW[/bold] wrote: What is Liverpool doing as Southampton whines, as Southampton wallows in self pity, and makes jokes based on stereotypes. They are planning their second turn around terminal, courting Chinese investment and planning more world class museums. As well as spending billions updating their industrial docks. Liverpool’s competitor retail cities made similar Jokes while the Liverpool one shopping district was being developed. What did Liverpool do? They carried on building, redeveloping and jumped from the 16th most popular shopping destination in the UK to the 5th place. Carry on whining while Liverpool carries on winning.[/p][/quote]Well if Liverpools that great & attractive to new businesses they must have 100% employment? If so why do so many come down here looking for work & to live in sunnier climates & in easy reach of Europe? Not Whining just wondering if your cities that great why are they leaving & why you had to lie to get that terminal when the Chinese are queuing up to invest in your city? Please tell me WHY? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Fri 8 Jun 12

arizonan says...

Southampton has had the 3 Queens, a double digit increase in cruise passengers in 2011, 65% of the UK market and they are still trying to scupper a change of point of departure/arrival in another port?
What is the problem with you people?
The Southern Echo still printing lies about the figures.
Once again, it is 17.8m, NOT 21M.
Got It!
Southampton has had the 3 Queens, a double digit increase in cruise passengers in 2011, 65% of the UK market and they are still trying to scupper a change of point of departure/arrival in another port? What is the problem with you people? The Southern Echo still printing lies about the figures. Once again, it is 17.8m, NOT 21M. Got It! arizonan
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Fri 8 Jun 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
Southampton has had the 3 Queens, a double digit increase in cruise passengers in 2011, 65% of the UK market and they are still trying to scupper a change of point of departure/arrival in another port?
What is the problem with you people?
The Southern Echo still printing lies about the figures.
Once again, it is 17.8m, NOT 21M.
Got It!
If you felt you were so in the right & we are so wrong why do you need to come on here to defend your council so much?
If you were being honest with us as well as yourself you would admit that your council breached the rules allowing you to start turnarounds & wouldn't use the Langton terminal as an excuse,
This cruise was planned to leave from exactly where it left from so come on be honest with us & yourself!
Who are you going to blame if Penning rescinds his permission because of this? US?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: Southampton has had the 3 Queens, a double digit increase in cruise passengers in 2011, 65% of the UK market and they are still trying to scupper a change of point of departure/arrival in another port? What is the problem with you people? The Southern Echo still printing lies about the figures. Once again, it is 17.8m, NOT 21M. Got It![/p][/quote]If you felt you were so in the right & we are so wrong why do you need to come on here to defend your council so much? If you were being honest with us as well as yourself you would admit that your council breached the rules allowing you to start turnarounds & wouldn't use the Langton terminal as an excuse, This cruise was planned to leave from exactly where it left from so come on be honest with us & yourself! Who are you going to blame if Penning rescinds his permission because of this? US? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Fri 8 Jun 12

good-gosh says...

The cruise business seems to be growing very rapidly year on year and so there need be no loss to Southampton from by Liverpool expansion. Both ports have the opportunity to expand together.
The cruise business seems to be growing very rapidly year on year and so there need be no loss to Southampton from by Liverpool expansion. Both ports have the opportunity to expand together. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Fri 8 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

Quote by this paper.

" Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. "

WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!!

This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head.
It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years.
If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.
Quote by this paper. " Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. " WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!! This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head. It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years. If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

12:04am Sat 9 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

MrWW wrote:
What is Liverpool doing as Southampton whines, as Southampton wallows in self pity, and makes jokes based on stereotypes.

They are planning their second turn around terminal, courting Chinese investment and planning more world class museums. As well as spending billions updating their industrial docks.

Liverpool’s competitor retail cities made similar Jokes while the Liverpool one shopping district was being developed. What did Liverpool do? They carried on building, redeveloping and jumped from the 16th most popular shopping destination in the UK to the 5th place.

Carry on whining while Liverpool carries on winning.
We don't court chinese investment , WE GET IT.

" A MULTIMILLION pound deal to local the UK's first international trade centre in Wirral has been signed in Beijing. The signing ceremony was the culmination of a 10-day trip by Wirral Council's political leaders to support Peel Holdings, who are behind the venture planned for the Birkenhead dockland.
Get Your Free Copy of Investment Times

Labour Council leader Phil Davies led the council's delegation, including Tory leader Jeff Green and Lib Dem Tom Harney to present a show of political unity to the Chinese investors.

Cllr Davies said the signing 'is a milestone in the development of the international trade centre.'

Speaking from China yesterday, he said: "This afternoon I spoke to over 100 Chinese businesses who are already demonstrating real commitment to locating in Wirral. This demonstrates our ambitions for proactively pursuing Chinese investment and will yield direct benefits for our local economy and the people of Wirral."

The £200m ITC project will be a 50-50 equity partnership between Peel Holdings and Sam Wa Minerals and is thought to be the biggest Chinese investment in a scheme of this type in the UK. "
[quote][p][bold]MrWW[/bold] wrote: What is Liverpool doing as Southampton whines, as Southampton wallows in self pity, and makes jokes based on stereotypes. They are planning their second turn around terminal, courting Chinese investment and planning more world class museums. As well as spending billions updating their industrial docks. Liverpool’s competitor retail cities made similar Jokes while the Liverpool one shopping district was being developed. What did Liverpool do? They carried on building, redeveloping and jumped from the 16th most popular shopping destination in the UK to the 5th place. Carry on whining while Liverpool carries on winning.[/p][/quote]We don't court chinese investment , WE GET IT. " A MULTIMILLION pound deal to local the UK's first international trade centre in Wirral has been signed in Beijing. The signing ceremony was the culmination of a 10-day trip by Wirral Council's political leaders to support Peel Holdings, who are behind the venture planned for the Birkenhead dockland. Get Your Free Copy of Investment Times Labour Council leader Phil Davies led the council's delegation, including Tory leader Jeff Green and Lib Dem Tom Harney to present a show of political unity to the Chinese investors. Cllr Davies said the signing 'is a milestone in the development of the international trade centre.' Speaking from China yesterday, he said: "This afternoon I spoke to over 100 Chinese businesses who are already demonstrating real commitment to locating in Wirral. This demonstrates our ambitions for proactively pursuing Chinese investment and will yield direct benefits for our local economy and the people of Wirral." The £200m ITC project will be a 50-50 equity partnership between Peel Holdings and Sam Wa Minerals and is thought to be the biggest Chinese investment in a scheme of this type in the UK. " Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

12:47am Sat 9 Jun 12

arizonan says...

To loosehead, please point out where I defend the council?
The UK Goverment has lifted the restriction, its employees are on duty at the Liverpool Cruise Terminal.
What more of an OK do you think is required.
Read the statement and comments from Mr.Penning, the endorsements continue.
To loosehead, please point out where I defend the council? The UK Goverment has lifted the restriction, its employees are on duty at the Liverpool Cruise Terminal. What more of an OK do you think is required. Read the statement and comments from Mr.Penning, the endorsements continue. arizonan
  • Score: 0

12:57am Sat 9 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

arizonan wrote:
To loosehead, please point out where I defend the council?
The UK Goverment has lifted the restriction, its employees are on duty at the Liverpool Cruise Terminal.
What more of an OK do you think is required.
Read the statement and comments from Mr.Penning, the endorsements continue.
I wholeheartedly agree with Arizonan.
The UK border agency are manning the terminal, if the council where doing anything illegal I'm sure the government would not allow them to do this.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: To loosehead, please point out where I defend the council? The UK Goverment has lifted the restriction, its employees are on duty at the Liverpool Cruise Terminal. What more of an OK do you think is required. Read the statement and comments from Mr.Penning, the endorsements continue.[/p][/quote]I wholeheartedly agree with Arizonan. The UK border agency are manning the terminal, if the council where doing anything illegal I'm sure the government would not allow them to do this. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Sat 9 Jun 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
To loosehead, please point out where I defend the council?
The UK Goverment has lifted the restriction, its employees are on duty at the Liverpool Cruise Terminal.
What more of an OK do you think is required.
Read the statement and comments from Mr.Penning, the endorsements continue.
Mr Penning said as Long as you paid one amounbt right out or agreed to pay a higher amount over a period of years & the EU were okay with it you could start turnarounds.
The EU hadn't said if they were okay & you've started cruises from that terminal.
Or are you saying this wasn't the case it should have gone from Langton ?
If so are your council deliberately stirring it up with other ports & if so why all the abuse from Liverpool posters aimed at Southampton? surely you should be aiming that abuse at your own council?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: To loosehead, please point out where I defend the council? The UK Goverment has lifted the restriction, its employees are on duty at the Liverpool Cruise Terminal. What more of an OK do you think is required. Read the statement and comments from Mr.Penning, the endorsements continue.[/p][/quote]Mr Penning said as Long as you paid one amounbt right out or agreed to pay a higher amount over a period of years & the EU were okay with it you could start turnarounds. The EU hadn't said if they were okay & you've started cruises from that terminal. Or are you saying this wasn't the case it should have gone from Langton ? If so are your council deliberately stirring it up with other ports & if so why all the abuse from Liverpool posters aimed at Southampton? surely you should be aiming that abuse at your own council? loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Sat 9 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Quote by this paper.

" Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. "

WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!!

This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head.
It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years.
If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.
Proud
preumably you dont live on Merseyside or, at least don't read the Liverpool Echo (see May 30th) or Daily Post (see May 23rd)
The quote by the Soton Echo actually reflects the headlines in the Liverpool press!!!!
Perhaps a word in the ear of your 'local' media may not go amiss
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Quote by this paper. " Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. " WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!! This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head. It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years. If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.[/p][/quote]Proud preumably you dont live on Merseyside or, at least don't read the Liverpool Echo (see May 30th) or Daily Post (see May 23rd) The quote by the Soton Echo actually reflects the headlines in the Liverpool press!!!! Perhaps a word in the ear of your 'local' media may not go amiss phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Sat 9 Jun 12

arizonan says...

loosehead, what about the Government employees?.
loosehead, what about the Government employees?. arizonan
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Sat 9 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Quote by this paper.

" Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. "

WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!!

This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head.
It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years.
If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.
Proud
preumably you dont live on Merseyside or, at least don't read the Liverpool Echo (see May 30th) or Daily Post (see May 23rd)
The quote by the Soton Echo actually reflects the headlines in the Liverpool press!!!!
Perhaps a word in the ear of your 'local' media may not go amiss
Actually I was born in Broadgreen which is a suburb of Liverpool and now live in Wallasey which is
on the other side of the River Mersey.
I have no ill feelings towards Southampton but I do get a little bit fed up of journalistic innacuracies regarding the Ocean Countess and it's sailing from the new cruise terminal. I don't care where the innacuracies originated from , I will however defend Liverpools right to saend this existing turn-around cruise from the new terminal.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Quote by this paper. " Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. " WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!! This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head. It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years. If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.[/p][/quote]Proud preumably you dont live on Merseyside or, at least don't read the Liverpool Echo (see May 30th) or Daily Post (see May 23rd) The quote by the Soton Echo actually reflects the headlines in the Liverpool press!!!! Perhaps a word in the ear of your 'local' media may not go amiss[/p][/quote]Actually I was born in Broadgreen which is a suburb of Liverpool and now live in Wallasey which is on the other side of the River Mersey. I have no ill feelings towards Southampton but I do get a little bit fed up of journalistic innacuracies regarding the Ocean Countess and it's sailing from the new cruise terminal. I don't care where the innacuracies originated from , I will however defend Liverpools right to saend this existing turn-around cruise from the new terminal. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Sun 10 Jun 12

Chris storey says...

Shoong wrote:
Just remember to hold the notes up to a light before accepting.
If we held your head up to a light i'm certain we could see right through it, FOOL!

This also applies to a lot of posters on here, all of them from Whingehampton.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: Just remember to hold the notes up to a light before accepting.[/p][/quote]If we held your head up to a light i'm certain we could see right through it, FOOL! This also applies to a lot of posters on here, all of them from Whingehampton. Chris storey
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Sun 10 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

Chris storey wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Just remember to hold the notes up to a light before accepting.
If we held your head up to a light i'm certain we could see right through it, FOOL!

This also applies to a lot of posters on here, all of them from Whingehampton.
Chris
There are 'whingers', as you describe them, everywhere.
Plenty of people in Liverpool were up in arms when Granada pulled out of their palatial Albert Dock Offices to concentrate activity in Manchester and even more so (the upset goes on to this day) about the Liverpool Echo printing presses being transferred to Oldham!!
And there were no duplicitous grant funding issues to discuss on these occasions
[quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: Just remember to hold the notes up to a light before accepting.[/p][/quote]If we held your head up to a light i'm certain we could see right through it, FOOL! This also applies to a lot of posters on here, all of them from Whingehampton.[/p][/quote]Chris There are 'whingers', as you describe them, everywhere. Plenty of people in Liverpool were up in arms when Granada pulled out of their palatial Albert Dock Offices to concentrate activity in Manchester and even more so (the upset goes on to this day) about the Liverpool Echo printing presses being transferred to Oldham!! And there were no duplicitous grant funding issues to discuss on these occasions phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Sun 10 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Quote by this paper.

" Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. "

WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!!

This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head.
It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years.
If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.
Proud
preumably you dont live on Merseyside or, at least don't read the Liverpool Echo (see May 30th) or Daily Post (see May 23rd)
The quote by the Soton Echo actually reflects the headlines in the Liverpool press!!!!
Perhaps a word in the ear of your 'local' media may not go amiss
Actually I was born in Broadgreen which is a suburb of Liverpool and now live in Wallasey which is
on the other side of the River Mersey.
I have no ill feelings towards Southampton but I do get a little bit fed up of journalistic innacuracies regarding the Ocean Countess and it's sailing from the new cruise terminal. I don't care where the innacuracies originated from , I will however defend Liverpools right to saend this existing turn-around cruise from the new terminal.
My father Lived in Wallasey & Birkenhead & I have cousins in Bootle Kirby & elsewhere in the Liverpool area & my father called himself a scouser & was proud of Liverpool I feel some pride in Liverpool even though I've never lived there it's just my roots.
On any other subject I could praise you ( Ellesmere Port Cars) but on this occasion your council have acted underhand & I feel nothing but contempt for them does this make me a whiner?
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Quote by this paper. " Ocean Countess became the first turnaround cruise to be launched from the Mersey in 40 years at the end of last month. " WRONG AGAIN, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT PLEASE !!!!!!! This cruise ship and other cruise ships as I have told you before operated from LANGTON DOCK which had safety problems . All that has happened is this ship has sailed from the new cruise liner terminal at the Pier Head. It is not the first cruise ship to have turn around status in the last 40 years. If you continue to publish this appalling lie whenever you mention my home city , then I will be forced to post this information to defend LIVERPOOL. For goodness sake grow-up and at least get your facts right.[/p][/quote]Proud preumably you dont live on Merseyside or, at least don't read the Liverpool Echo (see May 30th) or Daily Post (see May 23rd) The quote by the Soton Echo actually reflects the headlines in the Liverpool press!!!! Perhaps a word in the ear of your 'local' media may not go amiss[/p][/quote]Actually I was born in Broadgreen which is a suburb of Liverpool and now live in Wallasey which is on the other side of the River Mersey. I have no ill feelings towards Southampton but I do get a little bit fed up of journalistic innacuracies regarding the Ocean Countess and it's sailing from the new cruise terminal. I don't care where the innacuracies originated from , I will however defend Liverpools right to saend this existing turn-around cruise from the new terminal.[/p][/quote]My father Lived in Wallasey & Birkenhead & I have cousins in Bootle Kirby & elsewhere in the Liverpool area & my father called himself a scouser & was proud of Liverpool I feel some pride in Liverpool even though I've never lived there it's just my roots. On any other subject I could praise you ( Ellesmere Port Cars) but on this occasion your council have acted underhand & I feel nothing but contempt for them does this make me a whiner? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Sun 10 Jun 12

MerseyMart says...

If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool.

Just read again the header article.

Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure.

The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true.

The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded.

The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there.

The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned.

To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all.

No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.
If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool. Just read again the header article. Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure. The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true. The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded. The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there. The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned. To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all. No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Sun 10 Jun 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool.

Just read again the header article.

Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure.

The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true.

The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded.

The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there.

The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned.

To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all.

No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.
i commented on the break dow but it was tongue in cheek.
I know that ships for whatever reasons break down after leaving port.
But merseymart I only respond to articles written by people supporting Liverpool who are saying they've won this is the first of many to leave this terminal.
I know that the Echo doesn't tell both sides to a story I only have to look at the local elections & how they printed Pro Labour & Union letters & articles.
they were even accused of wrongful reporting by the Labour Leader even though it was his statement & they never came out & printed the full statement so I don't believe every thing they say.
But I do believe your council have fuelled the Liverpool Southampton argument & never seemingly referring to Dover & the other Ports that oppose this change of use ,
Why oh Why didn't they approach ports that were already doing turnaround cruises & see if there was a niche in the market they could have which would bring no opposition from any one else & giving you what you wanted?
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool. Just read again the header article. Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure. The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true. The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded. The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there. The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned. To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all. No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.[/p][/quote]i commented on the break dow but it was tongue in cheek. I know that ships for whatever reasons break down after leaving port. But merseymart I only respond to articles written by people supporting Liverpool who are saying they've won this is the first of many to leave this terminal. I know that the Echo doesn't tell both sides to a story I only have to look at the local elections & how they printed Pro Labour & Union letters & articles. they were even accused of wrongful reporting by the Labour Leader even though it was his statement & they never came out & printed the full statement so I don't believe every thing they say. But I do believe your council have fuelled the Liverpool Southampton argument & never seemingly referring to Dover & the other Ports that oppose this change of use , Why oh Why didn't they approach ports that were already doing turnaround cruises & see if there was a niche in the market they could have which would bring no opposition from any one else & giving you what you wanted? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Mon 11 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid.
Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well.
Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues.
The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices.
Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse'
Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.
The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid. Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well. Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues. The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices. Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse' Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Mon 11 Jun 12

Merseywaters says...

As a Scouser who has had to wade through endless years of oh so hilarious original southern 'wit' about my home town every time it was negatively reported on in the southern media (which it always was) let me just return the compliment to certain people in Southampton with that most timeless and rib tickling pieces of advice that we would always get back if we dared complain about the injustices we were being put through.

CALM DOWN! CALM DOWN!

Not so funny the other way round, is it?
As a Scouser who has had to wade through endless years of oh so hilarious original southern 'wit' about my home town every time it was negatively reported on in the southern media (which it always was) let me just return the compliment to certain people in Southampton with that most timeless and rib tickling pieces of advice that we would always get back if we dared complain about the injustices we were being put through. CALM DOWN! CALM DOWN! Not so funny the other way round, is it? Merseywaters
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Mon 11 Jun 12

arizonan says...

I suppose you think that paying back the grant is a, 'manipulation of the system'
And of course, Liverpool was the reason the boat show failed.
Liverpool has nothing on your friends in London as regards the largesse of public finances.
I suppose you think that paying back the grant is a, 'manipulation of the system' And of course, Liverpool was the reason the boat show failed. Liverpool has nothing on your friends in London as regards the largesse of public finances. arizonan
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Mon 11 Jun 12

ronn12 says...

Southampton you are really looking stupid now .....just give it a rest!!!
If Liverpool you think is that bad , then why is it the cruise ships over the moon and want to come here??? Why is it we are number one city in the tourism industry in the uk , why is it we are still receiving plenty of private investment . Exspanding docks , endless shops more hotels on one street than in the whole of Southampton , land rover , vauxall , cammell lairds , museums , endless grade A buildings , restaurants , garden centre now bad to original glory , the new migrant centre planed for waterfront to sister the one on Ellis island new York , Wirral waters , Liverpool waters , new cruise terminal plan, new trade centre deal just signed with Chinese private Investerment starts next year biggest in Europe , and that's just a fraction what is going on.... It's not that bad ... Infancy looking rather good if you ask me !!!!!!! Not just a pipe dream... Reality , unlike your town ...
Southampton you are really looking stupid now .....just give it a rest!!! If Liverpool you think is that bad , then why is it the cruise ships over the moon and want to come here??? Why is it we are number one city in the tourism industry in the uk , why is it we are still receiving plenty of private investment . Exspanding docks , endless shops more hotels on one street than in the whole of Southampton , land rover , vauxall , cammell lairds , museums , endless grade A buildings , restaurants , garden centre now bad to original glory , the new migrant centre planed for waterfront to sister the one on Ellis island new York , Wirral waters , Liverpool waters , new cruise terminal plan, new trade centre deal just signed with Chinese private Investerment starts next year biggest in Europe , and that's just a fraction what is going on.... It's not that bad ... Infancy looking rather good if you ask me !!!!!!! Not just a pipe dream... Reality , unlike your town ... ronn12
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Mon 11 Jun 12

ronn12 says...

So just zip it any do someone positive .....Like organise the next village fete ....
So just zip it any do someone positive .....Like organise the next village fete .... ronn12
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Mon 11 Jun 12

ronn12 says...

Something positive , I meant , and am fully aware there may be few minor spelling mistakes as on iPad on bus , just before someone in southampton runs the library or gets there speak and spell out , and corrects me .. Lol
Something positive , I meant , and am fully aware there may be few minor spelling mistakes as on iPad on bus , just before someone in southampton runs the library or gets there speak and spell out , and corrects me .. Lol ronn12
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Mon 11 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
I suppose you think that paying back the grant is a, 'manipulation of the system'
And of course, Liverpool was the reason the boat show failed.
Liverpool has nothing on your friends in London as regards the largesse of public finances.
Paying back part of the grant (and that from public funds ie Liverpool Tax payers) to aid the main recipient ie Peel Ports, but only after the Govt demanded repayment.
The Liverpool Boat Show failed because it wasnt a robust enough business case even though over £500k of public money had been used to help set it up!!
Why bring London into the argument?
As far as I am aware their two cruise terminals and the third planned have not been underwritten by Govt or EC grants
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: I suppose you think that paying back the grant is a, 'manipulation of the system' And of course, Liverpool was the reason the boat show failed. Liverpool has nothing on your friends in London as regards the largesse of public finances.[/p][/quote]Paying back part of the grant (and that from public funds ie Liverpool Tax payers) to aid the main recipient ie Peel Ports, but only after the Govt demanded repayment. The Liverpool Boat Show failed because it wasnt a robust enough business case even though over £500k of public money had been used to help set it up!! Why bring London into the argument? As far as I am aware their two cruise terminals and the third planned have not been underwritten by Govt or EC grants phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Mon 11 Jun 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool.

Just read again the header article.

Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure.

The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true.

The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded.

The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there.

The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned.

To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all.

No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.
Merseymart take a look at ronns post & realise that both sides of this argument/debate have their idiots.
If you believe his post you don't need the cruise ships as you are number1 for tourism? Thought that was London?
You have people queuing up to invest in your city so you must have 100% employment which I know you don't so I know that as with our Echo there's a lot of exaggeration taking place.
He then goes on to say village?
I can never understand how anyone can be so anti Southampton unless he's a Skate ( portsmouth) pretending to be from Liverpool.
I also can't believe idiots believing all the comedians jokes about scousers as being true.
I do believe your council & in particular your council leader have been & are out of order over the way they've acted on this subject.
I actually cheered when I heard the news on Ellesmere Port as I thought it was a great bit of news for your city
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool. Just read again the header article. Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure. The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true. The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded. The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there. The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned. To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all. No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.[/p][/quote]Merseymart take a look at ronns post & realise that both sides of this argument/debate have their idiots. If you believe his post you don't need the cruise ships as you are number1 for tourism? Thought that was London? You have people queuing up to invest in your city so you must have 100% employment which I know you don't so I know that as with our Echo there's a lot of exaggeration taking place. He then goes on to say village? I can never understand how anyone can be so anti Southampton unless he's a Skate ( portsmouth) pretending to be from Liverpool. I also can't believe idiots believing all the comedians jokes about scousers as being true. I do believe your council & in particular your council leader have been & are out of order over the way they've acted on this subject. I actually cheered when I heard the news on Ellesmere Port as I thought it was a great bit of news for your city loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Mon 11 Jun 12

arizonan says...

You seem to have a problem with grants etc, so I thought you may like to check the figures that have been lavished on London, the dirty little secret of the UK.
Plenty of examples of public money aiding business in the capital. How about the Olympic Stadium being made available for the use of West Ham United Football Club, a recent member of the Championship league. The last time I looked, football is a business.
Plenty of exhibitors ready to go at the Liverpool Boat Show, the exhibitors who did not pay their deposits, after making a commitment to attend, sank the show. As far as I know, none of these exhibitors based in Liverpool.
You seem to have a problem with grants etc, so I thought you may like to check the figures that have been lavished on London, the dirty little secret of the UK. Plenty of examples of public money aiding business in the capital. How about the Olympic Stadium being made available for the use of West Ham United Football Club, a recent member of the Championship league. The last time I looked, football is a business. Plenty of exhibitors ready to go at the Liverpool Boat Show, the exhibitors who did not pay their deposits, after making a commitment to attend, sank the show. As far as I know, none of these exhibitors based in Liverpool. arizonan
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Mon 11 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

I have to confess that you appear to know far more about London than I do.
However you mention football and, if West Ham, as a commercial organisation, benefit from state funding then that is wrong.
However people in glass houses should not throw stones. How much money have LiverpoolFC/Liverpoo
l City Council received from EU funding to spend on the proposed new stadium at Stanley Park where not a brick has been laid?
Even your big buddies from the now defunct NWDA have expressed concern!!
I guess that from your comfortable residence a few hundred miles away from Liverpool you are not too fussed about the poor living conditions/low life expectancy in certain areas of Liverpool.
You are quite happy to see money wasted on failed Boat Shows, Cruise Terminals, Mersey Travel HQ buildings, unnecessary canal extensions, Concert Arenas, Ferry Terminal upgrade, Fourth Grace building plans, training of 200 hairdressers for 2 jobs etc etc etc.
Fortunately there are people who actually live in the Liverpool area prepared to question the deployment of the £2billion of grant aid given to Merseyside in recent times.
According to local campaigning group 'Regeneration Watch' virtually 'every promise of regeneration has either been broken or hardy benefitted the people of Liverpool'
I reckon you actually see Liverpool from a distance using rose tinted specs rather than from the perspective of disadvantaged people from Toxteth, Kirkdale. Norris Green, Kirkby etc
I have to confess that you appear to know far more about London than I do. However you mention football and, if West Ham, as a commercial organisation, benefit from state funding then that is wrong. However people in glass houses should not throw stones. How much money have LiverpoolFC/Liverpoo l City Council received from EU funding to spend on the proposed new stadium at Stanley Park where not a brick has been laid? Even your big buddies from the now defunct NWDA have expressed concern!! I guess that from your comfortable residence a few hundred miles away from Liverpool you are not too fussed about the poor living conditions/low life expectancy in certain areas of Liverpool. You are quite happy to see money wasted on failed Boat Shows, Cruise Terminals, Mersey Travel HQ buildings, unnecessary canal extensions, Concert Arenas, Ferry Terminal upgrade, Fourth Grace building plans, training of 200 hairdressers for 2 jobs etc etc etc. Fortunately there are people who actually live in the Liverpool area prepared to question the deployment of the £2billion of grant aid given to Merseyside in recent times. According to local campaigning group 'Regeneration Watch' virtually 'every promise of regeneration has either been broken or hardy benefitted the people of Liverpool' I reckon you actually see Liverpool from a distance using rose tinted specs rather than from the perspective of disadvantaged people from Toxteth, Kirkdale. Norris Green, Kirkby etc phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Mon 11 Jun 12

arizonan says...

It is a far, far bigger greenhouse in London sunshine than Liverpool.
I suggest you investigate London and its HUGE investments as you seem adept at finding all the minutia about Liverpool.
My location is of no relevance to my point of view.
It does however show that it is your way of attacking the messenger, the message must be starting to niggle.
It is a far, far bigger greenhouse in London sunshine than Liverpool. I suggest you investigate London and its HUGE investments as you seem adept at finding all the minutia about Liverpool. My location is of no relevance to my point of view. It does however show that it is your way of attacking the messenger, the message must be starting to niggle. arizonan
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Mon 11 Jun 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
You seem to have a problem with grants etc, so I thought you may like to check the figures that have been lavished on London, the dirty little secret of the UK.
Plenty of examples of public money aiding business in the capital. How about the Olympic Stadium being made available for the use of West Ham United Football Club, a recent member of the Championship league. The last time I looked, football is a business.
Plenty of exhibitors ready to go at the Liverpool Boat Show, the exhibitors who did not pay their deposits, after making a commitment to attend, sank the show. As far as I know, none of these exhibitors based in Liverpool.
I for one am totally opposed to it becoming a Football Stadium. Wasp Rugby Club are looking for a New home & would fit into this Stadia staying for Athletics as well as other sports as the nature of Rugby needs space around the playing area.
you could have Rugby League Cup finals there as well.
But west Ham offered to leave the athletics facilities Tottenham stopped them from buying the Stadia I think they're leasing it now as Tottenham wanted it purely for Football.
But didn't this exact same thing happen to Man.City & Sale Rugby's ground wasn't it for the commonwealth games?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: You seem to have a problem with grants etc, so I thought you may like to check the figures that have been lavished on London, the dirty little secret of the UK. Plenty of examples of public money aiding business in the capital. How about the Olympic Stadium being made available for the use of West Ham United Football Club, a recent member of the Championship league. The last time I looked, football is a business. Plenty of exhibitors ready to go at the Liverpool Boat Show, the exhibitors who did not pay their deposits, after making a commitment to attend, sank the show. As far as I know, none of these exhibitors based in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]I for one am totally opposed to it becoming a Football Stadium. Wasp Rugby Club are looking for a New home & would fit into this Stadia staying for Athletics as well as other sports as the nature of Rugby needs space around the playing area. you could have Rugby League Cup finals there as well. But west Ham offered to leave the athletics facilities Tottenham stopped them from buying the Stadia I think they're leasing it now as Tottenham wanted it purely for Football. But didn't this exact same thing happen to Man.City & Sale Rugby's ground wasn't it for the commonwealth games? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Mon 11 Jun 12

MerseyMart says...

loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool.

Just read again the header article.

Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure.

The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true.

The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded.

The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there.

The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned.

To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all.

No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.
i commented on the break dow but it was tongue in cheek.
I know that ships for whatever reasons break down after leaving port.
But merseymart I only respond to articles written by people supporting Liverpool who are saying they've won this is the first of many to leave this terminal.
I know that the Echo doesn't tell both sides to a story I only have to look at the local elections & how they printed Pro Labour & Union letters & articles.
they were even accused of wrongful reporting by the Labour Leader even though it was his statement & they never came out & printed the full statement so I don't believe every thing they say.
But I do believe your council have fuelled the Liverpool Southampton argument & never seemingly referring to Dover & the other Ports that oppose this change of use ,
Why oh Why didn't they approach ports that were already doing turnaround cruises & see if there was a niche in the market they could have which would bring no opposition from any one else & giving you what you wanted?
Loosehead, I am not saying that you follow the Southern Echo slavishly. Just that the attitude of the paper is encouraging an attitude of hostility toward Liverpool.
I don't really see how Liverpool can be said to have won when all it ever sought was to establish a cruise liner Terminal not enter into some battle with Southampton.
As for Liverpool approaching other ports to get their permission to operate services - is that how ports are expected to conduct their business?

This is that other oft-repeated accusation of the Southern Echo - that Liverpool is 'muscling in' on Southampton's business - as if Southampton has some god-given right to every cruise liner passenger in the UK.

One day, someone will actually come up with some proof that Liverpool's cruise liner terminal has damaged Southampton's trade - then you will have a real argument.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool. Just read again the header article. Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure. The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true. The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded. The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there. The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned. To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all. No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.[/p][/quote]i commented on the break dow but it was tongue in cheek. I know that ships for whatever reasons break down after leaving port. But merseymart I only respond to articles written by people supporting Liverpool who are saying they've won this is the first of many to leave this terminal. I know that the Echo doesn't tell both sides to a story I only have to look at the local elections & how they printed Pro Labour & Union letters & articles. they were even accused of wrongful reporting by the Labour Leader even though it was his statement & they never came out & printed the full statement so I don't believe every thing they say. But I do believe your council have fuelled the Liverpool Southampton argument & never seemingly referring to Dover & the other Ports that oppose this change of use , Why oh Why didn't they approach ports that were already doing turnaround cruises & see if there was a niche in the market they could have which would bring no opposition from any one else & giving you what you wanted?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, I am not saying that you follow the Southern Echo slavishly. Just that the attitude of the paper is encouraging an attitude of hostility toward Liverpool. I don't really see how Liverpool can be said to have won when all it ever sought was to establish a cruise liner Terminal not enter into some battle with Southampton. As for Liverpool approaching other ports to get their permission to operate services - is that how ports are expected to conduct their business? This is that other oft-repeated accusation of the Southern Echo - that Liverpool is 'muscling in' on Southampton's business - as if Southampton has some god-given right to every cruise liner passenger in the UK. One day, someone will actually come up with some proof that Liverpool's cruise liner terminal has damaged Southampton's trade - then you will have a real argument. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

10:08pm Mon 11 Jun 12

MerseyMart says...

phil maccavity wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid.
Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well.
Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues.
The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices.
Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse'
Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.
Phil,

You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way.

As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping.

The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council.

The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid. Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well. Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues. The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices. Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse' Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.[/p][/quote]Phil, You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way. As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping. The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council. The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

7:18am Tue 12 Jun 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool.

Just read again the header article.

Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure.

The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true.

The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded.

The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there.

The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned.

To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all.

No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.
i commented on the break dow but it was tongue in cheek.
I know that ships for whatever reasons break down after leaving port.
But merseymart I only respond to articles written by people supporting Liverpool who are saying they've won this is the first of many to leave this terminal.
I know that the Echo doesn't tell both sides to a story I only have to look at the local elections & how they printed Pro Labour & Union letters & articles.
they were even accused of wrongful reporting by the Labour Leader even though it was his statement & they never came out & printed the full statement so I don't believe every thing they say.
But I do believe your council have fuelled the Liverpool Southampton argument & never seemingly referring to Dover & the other Ports that oppose this change of use ,
Why oh Why didn't they approach ports that were already doing turnaround cruises & see if there was a niche in the market they could have which would bring no opposition from any one else & giving you what you wanted?
Loosehead, I am not saying that you follow the Southern Echo slavishly. Just that the attitude of the paper is encouraging an attitude of hostility toward Liverpool.
I don't really see how Liverpool can be said to have won when all it ever sought was to establish a cruise liner Terminal not enter into some battle with Southampton.
As for Liverpool approaching other ports to get their permission to operate services - is that how ports are expected to conduct their business?

This is that other oft-repeated accusation of the Southern Echo - that Liverpool is 'muscling in' on Southampton's business - as if Southampton has some god-given right to every cruise liner passenger in the UK.

One day, someone will actually come up with some proof that Liverpool's cruise liner terminal has damaged Southampton's trade - then you will have a real argument.
Any new business/company look for a gap/niche in the market develops a product & then promotes it.
We don't have Any right to claim the cruise ships as ours & to say no one should compete for them but any good businessman wouldn't look to take on established companies(cruise ports) they would look for a unique product.
As for banging on about the past? When you really want to nit pick in the past Liverpool,London you name it had some sort of grant to aid their recovery or future development but that was in the past your grants are being used to enter a market where private money has been spent so giving you an unfair advantage & that's this cities argument.
I wish Liverpool all the best in attracting new businesses but will always feel you've acted wrongly on this matter.
Now all you need is to get a good rugby Union team ( premiership) & I will keep an eye out for them
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If I were you Loosehead, I would have contempt for this daily paper of yours which seems to be doing its utmost to curry bad favour between Southampton and Liverpool. Just read again the header article. Despite many corrections, the £21m figure is still being used in place of the correct £17.8m figure. The article states that this is the first turnaround cruise from Liverpool in 40 years. Not true. The article states that Liverpool built a cruise liner terminal with the government and EU money. Not true. The money was used to build a landing stage, required at Liverpool due to its high tidal range. There is no privately funded equivalent at Southampton. The cruise liner terminal is a temporary facility that is locally funded. The statement that Southampton built its cruise line operations on private funding is highly dubious given the history of the port and the massive investment provided by the Southern Railway just after the rail grouping in 1923. Almost certainly government funding will have been provided there. The £millions of government money used to upgrade Southampton's road and rail links is never mentioned. To cap it all, once again, the breakdown of the Ocean Countess shortly after it left Liverpool is mentioned although it has no bearing on the issue at all. No wonder we get these comments about thieving Scousers when your paper has such low journalistic standards.[/p][/quote]i commented on the break dow but it was tongue in cheek. I know that ships for whatever reasons break down after leaving port. But merseymart I only respond to articles written by people supporting Liverpool who are saying they've won this is the first of many to leave this terminal. I know that the Echo doesn't tell both sides to a story I only have to look at the local elections & how they printed Pro Labour & Union letters & articles. they were even accused of wrongful reporting by the Labour Leader even though it was his statement & they never came out & printed the full statement so I don't believe every thing they say. But I do believe your council have fuelled the Liverpool Southampton argument & never seemingly referring to Dover & the other Ports that oppose this change of use , Why oh Why didn't they approach ports that were already doing turnaround cruises & see if there was a niche in the market they could have which would bring no opposition from any one else & giving you what you wanted?[/p][/quote]Loosehead, I am not saying that you follow the Southern Echo slavishly. Just that the attitude of the paper is encouraging an attitude of hostility toward Liverpool. I don't really see how Liverpool can be said to have won when all it ever sought was to establish a cruise liner Terminal not enter into some battle with Southampton. As for Liverpool approaching other ports to get their permission to operate services - is that how ports are expected to conduct their business? This is that other oft-repeated accusation of the Southern Echo - that Liverpool is 'muscling in' on Southampton's business - as if Southampton has some god-given right to every cruise liner passenger in the UK. One day, someone will actually come up with some proof that Liverpool's cruise liner terminal has damaged Southampton's trade - then you will have a real argument.[/p][/quote]Any new business/company look for a gap/niche in the market develops a product & then promotes it. We don't have Any right to claim the cruise ships as ours & to say no one should compete for them but any good businessman wouldn't look to take on established companies(cruise ports) they would look for a unique product. As for banging on about the past? When you really want to nit pick in the past Liverpool,London you name it had some sort of grant to aid their recovery or future development but that was in the past your grants are being used to enter a market where private money has been spent so giving you an unfair advantage & that's this cities argument. I wish Liverpool all the best in attracting new businesses but will always feel you've acted wrongly on this matter. Now all you need is to get a good rugby Union team ( premiership) & I will keep an eye out for them loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:54am Tue 12 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage.

11/06/2012

A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault.

Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”
Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage. 11/06/2012 A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault. Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.” Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

8:03am Tue 12 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage.

11/06/2012

A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault.

Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”
The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault.

You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage. 11/06/2012 A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault. Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”[/p][/quote]The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault. You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

10:04am Tue 12 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage.

11/06/2012

A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault.

Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”
The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault.

You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.
Do you honestly believe one of us would sabotage a ship?
No repair yards down here to work on it so maybe you should be asking the yard that took out the overhaul if they were guilty?
Please try reading my posts before you reply.
I have stated that there are ships that leave this port to have to turn around as they've developed a fault okay!
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage. 11/06/2012 A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault. Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”[/p][/quote]The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault. You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.[/p][/quote]Do you honestly believe one of us would sabotage a ship? No repair yards down here to work on it so maybe you should be asking the yard that took out the overhaul if they were guilty? Please try reading my posts before you reply. I have stated that there are ships that leave this port to have to turn around as they've developed a fault okay! loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:20am Tue 12 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid.
Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well.
Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues.
The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices.
Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse'
Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.
Phil,

You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way.

As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping.

The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council.

The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.
MM,
Re proof you ask for.
have a look through the DOT's letter of 7 July 2011 from which I quote, as follows..
'At present the CLCT is subject to a grant condition which precludes its use for 'turnround' operations: that is, the beginning and/or end of cruise voyages. It is thus limited to use for port of call cruises only.
This condition was set at the request of the DOT in order to safeguard fair competition with other terminals that had not benefitted from public subsidy, either at all, or at least in recent years. Previous requests to remove this condition )or more strictly, for DfT to remove its objection to doing so) without any offer of grant repayment, have been declined'..........
As an aside Liverpool's original application for the money to set up a calling cruise operation was based on a business plan which called for 50 CALLING CRUISES within 4 years of operation. It has never got anywhere near that figure. It also costs the Liverpool Tax payer £500k to operate as most of the direct cruise ship revenue goes to the port authority.
As for Merseytravel I never said this was a LCC issue. Like the failed Boat Show (note that London and Soton Boat shows still seem to do Ok without subsidy!!) it was a waste of tax payers money.
btw I have no particular problems with Merseyside obtaining grants, provided the money is used wisely and for the particular purpose it was intended and within existing competition rules
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid. Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well. Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues. The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices. Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse' Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.[/p][/quote]Phil, You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way. As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping. The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council. The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.[/p][/quote]MM, Re proof you ask for. have a look through the DOT's letter of 7 July 2011 from which I quote, as follows.. 'At present the CLCT is subject to a grant condition which precludes its use for 'turnround' operations: that is, the beginning and/or end of cruise voyages. It is thus limited to use for port of call cruises only. This condition was set at the request of the DOT in order to safeguard fair competition with other terminals that had not benefitted from public subsidy, either at all, or at least in recent years. Previous requests to remove this condition )or more strictly, for DfT to remove its objection to doing so) without any offer of grant repayment, have been declined'.......... As an aside Liverpool's original application for the money to set up a calling cruise operation was based on a business plan which called for 50 CALLING CRUISES within 4 years of operation. It has never got anywhere near that figure. It also costs the Liverpool Tax payer £500k to operate as most of the direct cruise ship revenue goes to the port authority. As for Merseytravel I never said this was a LCC issue. Like the failed Boat Show (note that London and Soton Boat shows still seem to do Ok without subsidy!!) it was a waste of tax payers money. btw I have no particular problems with Merseyside obtaining grants, provided the money is used wisely and for the particular purpose it was intended and within existing competition rules phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

10:40am Tue 12 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage.

11/06/2012

A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault.

Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”
The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault.

You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.
Do you honestly believe one of us would sabotage a ship?
No repair yards down here to work on it so maybe you should be asking the yard that took out the overhaul if they were guilty?
Please try reading my posts before you reply.
I have stated that there are ships that leave this port to have to turn around as they've developed a fault okay!
It's so sad that when I say something tongue in cheek about Southampton you get so upset, but whenever you say something about the breakdown of the Ocean Countess after leaving Liverpool it's a joke.
You are totally devoid of a sense of humour and are in real danger of becoming a grumpy old man.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage. 11/06/2012 A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault. Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”[/p][/quote]The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault. You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.[/p][/quote]Do you honestly believe one of us would sabotage a ship? No repair yards down here to work on it so maybe you should be asking the yard that took out the overhaul if they were guilty? Please try reading my posts before you reply. I have stated that there are ships that leave this port to have to turn around as they've developed a fault okay![/p][/quote]It's so sad that when I say something tongue in cheek about Southampton you get so upset, but whenever you say something about the breakdown of the Ocean Countess after leaving Liverpool it's a joke. You are totally devoid of a sense of humour and are in real danger of becoming a grumpy old man. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

I estimate that the passengers on board the cruise liner " Caribbean Princess " are fully justified in claiming a refund since the problems on bopard the ship have mean't that their cruise has been ruined, as they will not have the opportunity of visiting Liverpool.
I estimate that the passengers on board the cruise liner " Caribbean Princess " are fully justified in claiming a refund since the problems on bopard the ship have mean't that their cruise has been ruined, as they will not have the opportunity of visiting Liverpool. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Tue 12 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage.

11/06/2012

A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault.

Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”
The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault.

You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.
Do you honestly believe one of us would sabotage a ship?
No repair yards down here to work on it so maybe you should be asking the yard that took out the overhaul if they were guilty?
Please try reading my posts before you reply.
I have stated that there are ships that leave this port to have to turn around as they've developed a fault okay!
It's so sad that when I say something tongue in cheek about Southampton you get so upset, but whenever you say something about the breakdown of the Ocean Countess after leaving Liverpool it's a joke.
You are totally devoid of a sense of humour and are in real danger of becoming a grumpy old man.
Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind?
Take at look at your posts after my original post !
proud you can be that but come on admit your council were out of order over this!
You were not trying to be humorous over your post if you had said it in that fashion I would have joined you in having a laugh
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: Tell me Loosehead, are you responsible for this sabotage. 11/06/2012 A PLANNED visit to Liverpool by the cruise liner Caribbean Princess had to be cancelled after the ship developed a technical fault. Cruise and operations manager Angie Redhead said: “Due to an engineering fault on the ship while she was in Southampton she was delayed in leaving port which resulted in a reshuffle of their itinerary and Liverpool could not be incorporated.”[/p][/quote]The important point about this headline is that your local rag " Southern Echo " did not mention it at all. When the Ocean Countess broke down after leaving Liverpool you all childishly had a go at Liverpool as if it were our fault. You can't have it both ways, for heaven's sake grow-up and stop twisting facts when it pleases your argument.[/p][/quote]Do you honestly believe one of us would sabotage a ship? No repair yards down here to work on it so maybe you should be asking the yard that took out the overhaul if they were guilty? Please try reading my posts before you reply. I have stated that there are ships that leave this port to have to turn around as they've developed a fault okay![/p][/quote]It's so sad that when I say something tongue in cheek about Southampton you get so upset, but whenever you say something about the breakdown of the Ocean Countess after leaving Liverpool it's a joke. You are totally devoid of a sense of humour and are in real danger of becoming a grumpy old man.[/p][/quote]Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind? Take at look at your posts after my original post ! proud you can be that but come on admit your council were out of order over this! You were not trying to be humorous over your post if you had said it in that fashion I would have joined you in having a laugh loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:49am Wed 13 Jun 12

arizonan says...

The London and Southampton Boat Shows are run by an organisation owned by the boat show exhibitors.
This organisation looked at running a Liverpool Boat Show and inevitably, rejected the idea.
An employee of said organisation, decided to set up his own exhibition company to launch a Liverpool Boat Show.
How interesting that the Liverpool Boat Show had to be cancelled by exhibitors not paying their deposits, after making a commitment to attend.
I wonder if these same exhibitors attend the London and Southampton Boat Shows?.
The London and Southampton Boat Shows are run by an organisation owned by the boat show exhibitors. This organisation looked at running a Liverpool Boat Show and inevitably, rejected the idea. An employee of said organisation, decided to set up his own exhibition company to launch a Liverpool Boat Show. How interesting that the Liverpool Boat Show had to be cancelled by exhibitors not paying their deposits, after making a commitment to attend. I wonder if these same exhibitors attend the London and Southampton Boat Shows?. arizonan
  • Score: 0

6:31am Wed 13 Jun 12

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
The London and Southampton Boat Shows are run by an organisation owned by the boat show exhibitors.
This organisation looked at running a Liverpool Boat Show and inevitably, rejected the idea.
An employee of said organisation, decided to set up his own exhibition company to launch a Liverpool Boat Show.
How interesting that the Liverpool Boat Show had to be cancelled by exhibitors not paying their deposits, after making a commitment to attend.
I wonder if these same exhibitors attend the London and Southampton Boat Shows?.
Don't know & I've never been to it as Yachting isn't my scene & cabin cruisers are out of my price range ( can't swim so I avoid the sea)
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: The London and Southampton Boat Shows are run by an organisation owned by the boat show exhibitors. This organisation looked at running a Liverpool Boat Show and inevitably, rejected the idea. An employee of said organisation, decided to set up his own exhibition company to launch a Liverpool Boat Show. How interesting that the Liverpool Boat Show had to be cancelled by exhibitors not paying their deposits, after making a commitment to attend. I wonder if these same exhibitors attend the London and Southampton Boat Shows?.[/p][/quote]Don't know & I've never been to it as Yachting isn't my scene & cabin cruisers are out of my price range ( can't swim so I avoid the sea) loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:27am Wed 13 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
The London and Southampton Boat Shows are run by an organisation owned by the boat show exhibitors.
This organisation looked at running a Liverpool Boat Show and inevitably, rejected the idea.
An employee of said organisation, decided to set up his own exhibition company to launch a Liverpool Boat Show.
How interesting that the Liverpool Boat Show had to be cancelled by exhibitors not paying their deposits, after making a commitment to attend.
I wonder if these same exhibitors attend the London and Southampton Boat Shows?.
In a respected Marine magazine the organiser (Mr Gower) said that 48 contracts were cancelled in one day..'10 weeks prior to the show opening'...
If this is correct it seems strange that Liverpool Council committed a further tranche of public money (£125k) four weeks before the organisers cancelled.
A local councillor (Cllr Clucas) was quoted as saying ..'At a time when the City Council is saying it does not have enough money, it ought to have been more careful'..
In addition to the LCC largesse,. the British Waterways Board shelled out £500k on pontoons to support the failed event.
I guess when public money is so easily obtained it is considerd no big deal, by some people, when it all goes wrong.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: The London and Southampton Boat Shows are run by an organisation owned by the boat show exhibitors. This organisation looked at running a Liverpool Boat Show and inevitably, rejected the idea. An employee of said organisation, decided to set up his own exhibition company to launch a Liverpool Boat Show. How interesting that the Liverpool Boat Show had to be cancelled by exhibitors not paying their deposits, after making a commitment to attend. I wonder if these same exhibitors attend the London and Southampton Boat Shows?.[/p][/quote]In a respected Marine magazine the organiser (Mr Gower) said that 48 contracts were cancelled in one day..'10 weeks prior to the show opening'... If this is correct it seems strange that Liverpool Council committed a further tranche of public money (£125k) four weeks before the organisers cancelled. A local councillor (Cllr Clucas) was quoted as saying ..'At a time when the City Council is saying it does not have enough money, it ought to have been more careful'.. In addition to the LCC largesse,. the British Waterways Board shelled out £500k on pontoons to support the failed event. I guess when public money is so easily obtained it is considerd no big deal, by some people, when it all goes wrong. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Wed 13 Jun 12

arizonan says...

I wonder how many of the 48 contracts that pulled out were members of the London/Southampton Boat Show Co-operative?
Market research has shown that boat shows are the most important part of the boat selling process. Strange then that companies would abandon the chance at sales, especially in a totally ignored market place.
Adding credence to this are the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com on 14th February 2011.
He stated that, ' The excuse that this is all about economic slowdown is very surprising and completely goes against what we, as the World's biggest yacht brokerage business, are experiencing!'
He went on to say,' With its maritime tradition and great location, Liverpool is a superb venue for a successful nautical event.'
So with a member of the industry stating that this was an, 'excuse', is it any wonder that there is speculation of other possible reasons for the cancellation.
I wonder how many of the 48 contracts that pulled out were members of the London/Southampton Boat Show Co-operative? Market research has shown that boat shows are the most important part of the boat selling process. Strange then that companies would abandon the chance at sales, especially in a totally ignored market place. Adding credence to this are the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com on 14th February 2011. He stated that, ' The excuse that this is all about economic slowdown is very surprising and completely goes against what we, as the World's biggest yacht brokerage business, are experiencing!' He went on to say,' With its maritime tradition and great location, Liverpool is a superb venue for a successful nautical event.' So with a member of the industry stating that this was an, 'excuse', is it any wonder that there is speculation of other possible reasons for the cancellation. arizonan
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Wed 13 Jun 12

MerseyMart says...

phil maccavity wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid.
Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well.
Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues.
The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices.
Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse'
Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.
Phil,

You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way.

As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping.

The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council.

The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.
MM,
Re proof you ask for.
have a look through the DOT's letter of 7 July 2011 from which I quote, as follows..
'At present the CLCT is subject to a grant condition which precludes its use for 'turnround' operations: that is, the beginning and/or end of cruise voyages. It is thus limited to use for port of call cruises only.
This condition was set at the request of the DOT in order to safeguard fair competition with other terminals that had not benefitted from public subsidy, either at all, or at least in recent years. Previous requests to remove this condition )or more strictly, for DfT to remove its objection to doing so) without any offer of grant repayment, have been declined'..........
As an aside Liverpool's original application for the money to set up a calling cruise operation was based on a business plan which called for 50 CALLING CRUISES within 4 years of operation. It has never got anywhere near that figure. It also costs the Liverpool Tax payer £500k to operate as most of the direct cruise ship revenue goes to the port authority.
As for Merseytravel I never said this was a LCC issue. Like the failed Boat Show (note that London and Soton Boat shows still seem to do Ok without subsidy!!) it was a waste of tax payers money.
btw I have no particular problems with Merseyside obtaining grants, provided the money is used wisely and for the particular purpose it was intended and within existing competition rules
Phil, this 'proof' of yours actually confirms what the Liverpool contributors have said all along.

Right from the beginning, Liverpool was seeking to have the 'no turnarounds' condition removed and so, clearly, no assurance was given that the city would never aim to use the landing stage for turnarounds.

The condition was that an offer of grant repayment had to be made for the condition to be removed - and that has now been done. So where is all of this dishonesty that you accuse Liverpool of?

As for the 50 calling cruises, well you may have heard of the credit crunch, the banking crisis and the Eurozone crisis - all of these must have made an impact on the market and not made it easy for a newcomer to the cruise industry.

The cruise landing stage may run at a loss (though obviously this will decrease with the addition of turnarounds) but the input to the wider city economy will exceed this figure by several times.

You love to point out the number of grants that we have had in Liverpool. I wonder though what the difference is between grants and investment.

Quite clearly, the £60m spent on improving Soton's road and rail networks is 'investment', as is the billions of pounds spent on London transport projects. However, when it comes to places such as Liverpool, the money converts to being a grant.

I actually am looking out now on the pontoons built for the Liverpool Boat Show and they are always full of boats, so the council money spent clearly wasn't completely wasted.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid. Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well. Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues. The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices. Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse' Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.[/p][/quote]Phil, You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way. As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping. The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council. The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.[/p][/quote]MM, Re proof you ask for. have a look through the DOT's letter of 7 July 2011 from which I quote, as follows.. 'At present the CLCT is subject to a grant condition which precludes its use for 'turnround' operations: that is, the beginning and/or end of cruise voyages. It is thus limited to use for port of call cruises only. This condition was set at the request of the DOT in order to safeguard fair competition with other terminals that had not benefitted from public subsidy, either at all, or at least in recent years. Previous requests to remove this condition )or more strictly, for DfT to remove its objection to doing so) without any offer of grant repayment, have been declined'.......... As an aside Liverpool's original application for the money to set up a calling cruise operation was based on a business plan which called for 50 CALLING CRUISES within 4 years of operation. It has never got anywhere near that figure. It also costs the Liverpool Tax payer £500k to operate as most of the direct cruise ship revenue goes to the port authority. As for Merseytravel I never said this was a LCC issue. Like the failed Boat Show (note that London and Soton Boat shows still seem to do Ok without subsidy!!) it was a waste of tax payers money. btw I have no particular problems with Merseyside obtaining grants, provided the money is used wisely and for the particular purpose it was intended and within existing competition rules[/p][/quote]Phil, this 'proof' of yours actually confirms what the Liverpool contributors have said all along. Right from the beginning, Liverpool was seeking to have the 'no turnarounds' condition removed and so, clearly, no assurance was given that the city would never aim to use the landing stage for turnarounds. The condition was that an offer of grant repayment had to be made for the condition to be removed - and that has now been done. So where is all of this dishonesty that you accuse Liverpool of? As for the 50 calling cruises, well you may have heard of the credit crunch, the banking crisis and the Eurozone crisis - all of these must have made an impact on the market and not made it easy for a newcomer to the cruise industry. The cruise landing stage may run at a loss (though obviously this will decrease with the addition of turnarounds) but the input to the wider city economy will exceed this figure by several times. You love to point out the number of grants that we have had in Liverpool. I wonder though what the difference is between grants and investment. Quite clearly, the £60m spent on improving Soton's road and rail networks is 'investment', as is the billions of pounds spent on London transport projects. However, when it comes to places such as Liverpool, the money converts to being a grant. I actually am looking out now on the pontoons built for the Liverpool Boat Show and they are always full of boats, so the council money spent clearly wasn't completely wasted. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Wed 13 Jun 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid.
Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well.
Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues.
The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices.
Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse'
Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.
Phil,

You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way.

As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping.

The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council.

The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.
MM,
Re proof you ask for.
have a look through the DOT's letter of 7 July 2011 from which I quote, as follows..
'At present the CLCT is subject to a grant condition which precludes its use for 'turnround' operations: that is, the beginning and/or end of cruise voyages. It is thus limited to use for port of call cruises only.
This condition was set at the request of the DOT in order to safeguard fair competition with other terminals that had not benefitted from public subsidy, either at all, or at least in recent years. Previous requests to remove this condition )or more strictly, for DfT to remove its objection to doing so) without any offer of grant repayment, have been declined'..........
As an aside Liverpool's original application for the money to set up a calling cruise operation was based on a business plan which called for 50 CALLING CRUISES within 4 years of operation. It has never got anywhere near that figure. It also costs the Liverpool Tax payer £500k to operate as most of the direct cruise ship revenue goes to the port authority.
As for Merseytravel I never said this was a LCC issue. Like the failed Boat Show (note that London and Soton Boat shows still seem to do Ok without subsidy!!) it was a waste of tax payers money.
btw I have no particular problems with Merseyside obtaining grants, provided the money is used wisely and for the particular purpose it was intended and within existing competition rules
Phil, this 'proof' of yours actually confirms what the Liverpool contributors have said all along.

Right from the beginning, Liverpool was seeking to have the 'no turnarounds' condition removed and so, clearly, no assurance was given that the city would never aim to use the landing stage for turnarounds.

The condition was that an offer of grant repayment had to be made for the condition to be removed - and that has now been done. So where is all of this dishonesty that you accuse Liverpool of?

As for the 50 calling cruises, well you may have heard of the credit crunch, the banking crisis and the Eurozone crisis - all of these must have made an impact on the market and not made it easy for a newcomer to the cruise industry.

The cruise landing stage may run at a loss (though obviously this will decrease with the addition of turnarounds) but the input to the wider city economy will exceed this figure by several times.

You love to point out the number of grants that we have had in Liverpool. I wonder though what the difference is between grants and investment.

Quite clearly, the £60m spent on improving Soton's road and rail networks is 'investment', as is the billions of pounds spent on London transport projects. However, when it comes to places such as Liverpool, the money converts to being a grant.

I actually am looking out now on the pontoons built for the Liverpool Boat Show and they are always full of boats, so the council money spent clearly wasn't completely wasted.
Let's get it right! we haven't had £60million spent on our roads & rail it was the South coast Line & motorways & around the Felixstowe area,
In that area you would have to include Portsmouth,Brighton, Bournemouth, Winchester, Basingstoke.Reading do I need to go on?
our docks have had to put a surcharge on containers to pay for their bit of railway did you?
In the beginning your council asked for a grant(s) for a terminal/pontoon for visiting ships all along knowing & having a request ready to change it to turnaround.
false figures were put forward as you never met them this is/was the deceit by your council.
then to start before the EU decision & say it was because Langton wasn't safe is looked upon as another deceit .
Now we have to wait & hear the EU's decision on this unfair competition ruling so have fun whilst I'm bored as there's only boring Football on
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The fact of the matter is that Liverpool would never have received the original grant money in the first place if they had been honest about their intentions of using the money for turnrounds as there would have been outcry from all the UK ports who have provided such facilities without State Aid. Rather grudgingly I have to tip my hat to Joe Andersen in being able to manipulate the system so well. Still I suppose there is a great deal of experience up on Merseyside in knowing how to deal with grant funding issues. The latest debacle involves Merseytravel who have just handed over £1m of taxpayers money to canned fish producer John West to help cut losses on iMerseytravels swanky new waterfront offices. Fair play to former Liverpool Council leader Lord Storey who was quoted as saying..'This is the economics of the madhouse' Add this to loss of public funds on the failed Liverpool Boat Show, Leeds Liverpool Canal extension and numerous other inappropriate use of public funds.[/p][/quote]Phil, You have been asked to come up with some proof that Liverpool made some assurance that they would never seek to use the landing stage for turnarounds and consistently failed. It was quite clear from the start that turnaround operations were the ultimate goal and it is nonsense to state that the city would make an agreement that never over the lifetime of the stage would they seek to use it in that way. As I have constantly reminded you, Southampton has not provided a landing stage without state aid as it has never needed to. The original port facilities provided were paid for by the Southern Railway following grouping. The Merseytravel issue is nothing to do with Liverpool City Council. The failure of the Boat Show was due to the private sector sponsors dropping out at the last moment due to the state of the market - as you well know.[/p][/quote]MM, Re proof you ask for. have a look through the DOT's letter of 7 July 2011 from which I quote, as follows.. 'At present the CLCT is subject to a grant condition which precludes its use for 'turnround' operations: that is, the beginning and/or end of cruise voyages. It is thus limited to use for port of call cruises only. This condition was set at the request of the DOT in order to safeguard fair competition with other terminals that had not benefitted from public subsidy, either at all, or at least in recent years. Previous requests to remove this condition )or more strictly, for DfT to remove its objection to doing so) without any offer of grant repayment, have been declined'.......... As an aside Liverpool's original application for the money to set up a calling cruise operation was based on a business plan which called for 50 CALLING CRUISES within 4 years of operation. It has never got anywhere near that figure. It also costs the Liverpool Tax payer £500k to operate as most of the direct cruise ship revenue goes to the port authority. As for Merseytravel I never said this was a LCC issue. Like the failed Boat Show (note that London and Soton Boat shows still seem to do Ok without subsidy!!) it was a waste of tax payers money. btw I have no particular problems with Merseyside obtaining grants, provided the money is used wisely and for the particular purpose it was intended and within existing competition rules[/p][/quote]Phil, this 'proof' of yours actually confirms what the Liverpool contributors have said all along. Right from the beginning, Liverpool was seeking to have the 'no turnarounds' condition removed and so, clearly, no assurance was given that the city would never aim to use the landing stage for turnarounds. The condition was that an offer of grant repayment had to be made for the condition to be removed - and that has now been done. So where is all of this dishonesty that you accuse Liverpool of? As for the 50 calling cruises, well you may have heard of the credit crunch, the banking crisis and the Eurozone crisis - all of these must have made an impact on the market and not made it easy for a newcomer to the cruise industry. The cruise landing stage may run at a loss (though obviously this will decrease with the addition of turnarounds) but the input to the wider city economy will exceed this figure by several times. You love to point out the number of grants that we have had in Liverpool. I wonder though what the difference is between grants and investment. Quite clearly, the £60m spent on improving Soton's road and rail networks is 'investment', as is the billions of pounds spent on London transport projects. However, when it comes to places such as Liverpool, the money converts to being a grant. I actually am looking out now on the pontoons built for the Liverpool Boat Show and they are always full of boats, so the council money spent clearly wasn't completely wasted.[/p][/quote]Let's get it right! we haven't had £60million spent on our roads & rail it was the South coast Line & motorways & around the Felixstowe area, In that area you would have to include Portsmouth,Brighton, Bournemouth, Winchester, Basingstoke.Reading do I need to go on? our docks have had to put a surcharge on containers to pay for their bit of railway did you? In the beginning your council asked for a grant(s) for a terminal/pontoon for visiting ships all along knowing & having a request ready to change it to turnaround. false figures were put forward as you never met them this is/was the deceit by your council. then to start before the EU decision & say it was because Langton wasn't safe is looked upon as another deceit . Now we have to wait & hear the EU's decision on this unfair competition ruling so have fun whilst I'm bored as there's only boring Football on loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Wed 13 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
I wonder how many of the 48 contracts that pulled out were members of the London/Southampton Boat Show Co-operative?
Market research has shown that boat shows are the most important part of the boat selling process. Strange then that companies would abandon the chance at sales, especially in a totally ignored market place.
Adding credence to this are the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com on 14th February 2011.
He stated that, ' The excuse that this is all about economic slowdown is very surprising and completely goes against what we, as the World's biggest yacht brokerage business, are experiencing!'
He went on to say,' With its maritime tradition and great location, Liverpool is a superb venue for a successful nautical event.'
So with a member of the industry stating that this was an, 'excuse', is it any wonder that there is speculation of other possible reasons for the cancellation.
I have to credit you with a wonderfully creative argument.
The Liverpool Boat Show organisers fail to deliver, tax payers money gets wasted, some exhibitors don't get their money repaid and you suggest that it is all to do with a London/Southampton conspiracy.
I am pleased to say that not everyone in Liverpool shares your blinkered view and there are people who actually live up there willing to question the wastefulness of some of the grant funding largesse.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of the 48 contracts that pulled out were members of the London/Southampton Boat Show Co-operative? Market research has shown that boat shows are the most important part of the boat selling process. Strange then that companies would abandon the chance at sales, especially in a totally ignored market place. Adding credence to this are the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com on 14th February 2011. He stated that, ' The excuse that this is all about economic slowdown is very surprising and completely goes against what we, as the World's biggest yacht brokerage business, are experiencing!' He went on to say,' With its maritime tradition and great location, Liverpool is a superb venue for a successful nautical event.' So with a member of the industry stating that this was an, 'excuse', is it any wonder that there is speculation of other possible reasons for the cancellation.[/p][/quote]I have to credit you with a wonderfully creative argument. The Liverpool Boat Show organisers fail to deliver, tax payers money gets wasted, some exhibitors don't get their money repaid and you suggest that it is all to do with a London/Southampton conspiracy. I am pleased to say that not everyone in Liverpool shares your blinkered view and there are people who actually live up there willing to question the wastefulness of some of the grant funding largesse. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Wed 13 Jun 12

arizonan says...

Of course, I cunningly created the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com.
If the Liverpool Boat Show had gone ahead, it would have been a success.
The organisers of the London/Southampton shows would have been proved wrong, and they would have had a rival to their closed shop set-up to contend with.
Of course, I cunningly created the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com. If the Liverpool Boat Show had gone ahead, it would have been a success. The organisers of the London/Southampton shows would have been proved wrong, and they would have had a rival to their closed shop set-up to contend with. arizonan
  • Score: 0

12:31am Thu 14 Jun 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

For the benefit of Loosehead and others, further details following the signing of the International Trade Centre deal in China recently.

******************

We don't court chinese investment , WE GET IT.

" A MULTIMILLION pound deal to local the UK's first international trade centre in Wirral has been signed in Beijing. The signing ceremony was the culmination of a 10-day trip by Wirral Council's political leaders to support Peel Holdings, who are behind the venture planned for the Birkenhead dockland.

Work on clearing the dockside site is progressing well and it is estimated that phase one of this development will open in late 2013.

***************

The facility will include showroom spaces, warehousing/ storage and assembly facilities, and will benefit from excellent transport connectivity via road, rail, water and air.

The Northwest is emerging as a “Super Region” and is now accepted as a preferred alternative location to London for investment and for new businesses and existing business expansion.

Occupiers of Peel International Trade Centre will themselves benefit from Peel’s massive development programme around its other adjacent projects such as Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters. These two projects are the largest proposed in the UK, offering a total floor space in excess of 30 million square feet (3 million square metres) of mixed use high rise buildings which will be constructed over a 20 to 30 year period. Occupiers would also benefit from our exposure and relationship with thousands of retailers as we are co-owners of some of the largest and most prestigious shopping centres in the United Kingdom.

Companies who took space within Peel International Trade Centre, to exhibit, assemble or store their goods, would also have immediate access to all UK, Irish and European markets in less than a two hour direct flight from and to Liverpool John Lennon Airport or Manchester International Airport.

At present, a single container arriving in the UK at Felixstowe, then being transported to the Port of Liverpool and the north of England via rail or road, is currently the most expensive option.

By making use of a simple feeder service into Liverpool and then using a barge service to connect to either of the two Peel sites, the savings will be in excess of £200 per container compared to the traditional solution of a south coast port plus road.

However, the Port of Liverpool is so close to both the Peel sites that final transportation of goods by road is a very acceptable and convenient option.
For the benefit of Loosehead and others, further details following the signing of the International Trade Centre deal in China recently. ****************** We don't court chinese investment , WE GET IT. " A MULTIMILLION pound deal to local the UK's first international trade centre in Wirral has been signed in Beijing. The signing ceremony was the culmination of a 10-day trip by Wirral Council's political leaders to support Peel Holdings, who are behind the venture planned for the Birkenhead dockland. Work on clearing the dockside site is progressing well and it is estimated that phase one of this development will open in late 2013. *************** The facility will include showroom spaces, warehousing/ storage and assembly facilities, and will benefit from excellent transport connectivity via road, rail, water and air. The Northwest is emerging as a “Super Region” and is now accepted as a preferred alternative location to London for investment and for new businesses and existing business expansion. Occupiers of Peel International Trade Centre will themselves benefit from Peel’s massive development programme around its other adjacent projects such as Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters. These two projects are the largest proposed in the UK, offering a total floor space in excess of 30 million square feet (3 million square metres) of mixed use high rise buildings which will be constructed over a 20 to 30 year period. Occupiers would also benefit from our exposure and relationship with thousands of retailers as we are co-owners of some of the largest and most prestigious shopping centres in the United Kingdom. Companies who took space within Peel International Trade Centre, to exhibit, assemble or store their goods, would also have immediate access to all UK, Irish and European markets in less than a two hour direct flight from and to Liverpool John Lennon Airport or Manchester International Airport. At present, a single container arriving in the UK at Felixstowe, then being transported to the Port of Liverpool and the north of England via rail or road, is currently the most expensive option. By making use of a simple feeder service into Liverpool and then using a barge service to connect to either of the two Peel sites, the savings will be in excess of £200 per container compared to the traditional solution of a south coast port plus road. However, the Port of Liverpool is so close to both the Peel sites that final transportation of goods by road is a very acceptable and convenient option. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

6:47am Thu 14 Jun 12

loosehead says...

Proud from LIVERPOOL wrote:
For the benefit of Loosehead and others, further details following the signing of the International Trade Centre deal in China recently.

******************

We don't court chinese investment , WE GET IT.

" A MULTIMILLION pound deal to local the UK's first international trade centre in Wirral has been signed in Beijing. The signing ceremony was the culmination of a 10-day trip by Wirral Council's political leaders to support Peel Holdings, who are behind the venture planned for the Birkenhead dockland.

Work on clearing the dockside site is progressing well and it is estimated that phase one of this development will open in late 2013.

***************

The facility will include showroom spaces, warehousing/ storage and assembly facilities, and will benefit from excellent transport connectivity via road, rail, water and air.

The Northwest is emerging as a “Super Region” and is now accepted as a preferred alternative location to London for investment and for new businesses and existing business expansion.

Occupiers of Peel International Trade Centre will themselves benefit from Peel’s massive development programme around its other adjacent projects such as Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters. These two projects are the largest proposed in the UK, offering a total floor space in excess of 30 million square feet (3 million square metres) of mixed use high rise buildings which will be constructed over a 20 to 30 year period. Occupiers would also benefit from our exposure and relationship with thousands of retailers as we are co-owners of some of the largest and most prestigious shopping centres in the United Kingdom.

Companies who took space within Peel International Trade Centre, to exhibit, assemble or store their goods, would also have immediate access to all UK, Irish and European markets in less than a two hour direct flight from and to Liverpool John Lennon Airport or Manchester International Airport.

At present, a single container arriving in the UK at Felixstowe, then being transported to the Port of Liverpool and the north of England via rail or road, is currently the most expensive option.

By making use of a simple feeder service into Liverpool and then using a barge service to connect to either of the two Peel sites, the savings will be in excess of £200 per container compared to the traditional solution of a south coast port plus road.

However, the Port of Liverpool is so close to both the Peel sites that final transportation of goods by road is a very acceptable and convenient option.
Yet again you show us how well you as a city are doing?
You tell us about you being number 1 for tourism?
You show & tell us about all this investment from China & elsewhere?
Yet the unemployment figures show a different picture?
A city like Liverpool needs help, you've lost a large portion of your population due to the lack of work.
but if we & the government believe what your saying you don't need help so kiss goodbye to any future grants or government aid.
Please get back to reality! in this country instead of trying to take successful companies from another area why don't we look for a product which will bring employment & not compete with each other?
there will always be another port another city willing to offer services cheaper than you ( in general) in this present way of attracting companies/businesses .
[quote][p][bold]Proud from LIVERPOOL[/bold] wrote: For the benefit of Loosehead and others, further details following the signing of the International Trade Centre deal in China recently. ****************** We don't court chinese investment , WE GET IT. " A MULTIMILLION pound deal to local the UK's first international trade centre in Wirral has been signed in Beijing. The signing ceremony was the culmination of a 10-day trip by Wirral Council's political leaders to support Peel Holdings, who are behind the venture planned for the Birkenhead dockland. Work on clearing the dockside site is progressing well and it is estimated that phase one of this development will open in late 2013. *************** The facility will include showroom spaces, warehousing/ storage and assembly facilities, and will benefit from excellent transport connectivity via road, rail, water and air. The Northwest is emerging as a “Super Region” and is now accepted as a preferred alternative location to London for investment and for new businesses and existing business expansion. Occupiers of Peel International Trade Centre will themselves benefit from Peel’s massive development programme around its other adjacent projects such as Wirral Waters and Liverpool Waters. These two projects are the largest proposed in the UK, offering a total floor space in excess of 30 million square feet (3 million square metres) of mixed use high rise buildings which will be constructed over a 20 to 30 year period. Occupiers would also benefit from our exposure and relationship with thousands of retailers as we are co-owners of some of the largest and most prestigious shopping centres in the United Kingdom. Companies who took space within Peel International Trade Centre, to exhibit, assemble or store their goods, would also have immediate access to all UK, Irish and European markets in less than a two hour direct flight from and to Liverpool John Lennon Airport or Manchester International Airport. At present, a single container arriving in the UK at Felixstowe, then being transported to the Port of Liverpool and the north of England via rail or road, is currently the most expensive option. By making use of a simple feeder service into Liverpool and then using a barge service to connect to either of the two Peel sites, the savings will be in excess of £200 per container compared to the traditional solution of a south coast port plus road. However, the Port of Liverpool is so close to both the Peel sites that final transportation of goods by road is a very acceptable and convenient option.[/p][/quote]Yet again you show us how well you as a city are doing? You tell us about you being number 1 for tourism? You show & tell us about all this investment from China & elsewhere? Yet the unemployment figures show a different picture? A city like Liverpool needs help, you've lost a large portion of your population due to the lack of work. but if we & the government believe what your saying you don't need help so kiss goodbye to any future grants or government aid. Please get back to reality! in this country instead of trying to take successful companies from another area why don't we look for a product which will bring employment & not compete with each other? there will always be another port another city willing to offer services cheaper than you ( in general) in this present way of attracting companies/businesses . loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Fri 15 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
Of course, I cunningly created the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com.
If the Liverpool Boat Show had gone ahead, it would have been a success.
The organisers of the London/Southampton shows would have been proved wrong, and they would have had a rival to their closed shop set-up to contend with.
You will note that Neil Chapman headlined his piece with..
'Did Liverpool Boat Show get it wrong?'
He then went on to say ...'The organisers have cited the damaging effects of the economic climate impacting on exhibitor take up....the 'excuse' that this is all about economic slowdown ai very surprising and completely against what we are experiencing.
By use of the word 'excuse' he obviously did not believe the MIE press statement about economic downturn hitting the marine industry.
Also it became evident that the major boat sales companies did not, in fact, pull out and it may only have been some minor marine suppliers who decided not to proceed when it became evident that LCC had to apply a substantial six figure sticking plaster sum at the 11th hour in a failed attempt to keep the event afloat.
Yo seem very confident that the Liverpool Boat Show would have been an outstanding success.
Maybe it would have been.
Fact is it sunk without much trace and costing the tax payer well over £600k.
Another waste of tax payers money which could have gone to much better use on Merseyside than trying to chase grandiose schemes without the necessary business case.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: Of course, I cunningly created the comments of Neil Chapman, founder of Boatshed.com. If the Liverpool Boat Show had gone ahead, it would have been a success. The organisers of the London/Southampton shows would have been proved wrong, and they would have had a rival to their closed shop set-up to contend with.[/p][/quote]You will note that Neil Chapman headlined his piece with.. 'Did Liverpool Boat Show get it wrong?' He then went on to say ...'The organisers have cited the damaging effects of the economic climate impacting on exhibitor take up....the 'excuse' that this is all about economic slowdown ai very surprising and completely against what we are experiencing. By use of the word 'excuse' he obviously did not believe the MIE press statement about economic downturn hitting the marine industry. Also it became evident that the major boat sales companies did not, in fact, pull out and it may only have been some minor marine suppliers who decided not to proceed when it became evident that LCC had to apply a substantial six figure sticking plaster sum at the 11th hour in a failed attempt to keep the event afloat. Yo seem very confident that the Liverpool Boat Show would have been an outstanding success. Maybe it would have been. Fact is it sunk without much trace and costing the tax payer well over £600k. Another waste of tax payers money which could have gone to much better use on Merseyside than trying to chase grandiose schemes without the necessary business case. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree