Cruise campaigners in warning to Government (From Daily Echo)

Time to go on the offensive, commercially speaking. Yes we can sit on the side carping on and hoping that politicians will sort out the 'unfairness' here. But its not going to happen, and we would do better to make the case and support our cruise industry as much as possible. Even if there were intervention, the long term winner will be the port who can appeal to the cruise companies and appeal to the passengers.

I'm imagining an ad campaign with a cruise-ship propped up bricks in dry dock in Liverpool with the propellers nicked....

Lies!

The figure is just over £17M, which is on the official government consultation paper and only part of that requires repayment, should you wish to look it up, talk about shoddy journalism.

BTW, the UK's trade doesn't 'belong' to Southampton.

No amount of money spent will indefinitely guarantee that the shipping companies will always and only use Southampton port, business doesn't work like that.

The cruise companies will use which ever port they think gives the best customer experience - putting the CUSTOMER first?

Something Southampton Port owners are obviously a stranger to, if they wish to carry on with this pathetic mud-slinging campaign, which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to hold on the 70% hold on the cruise market, and ensure everyone north of Birmingham has to make the horrendous journey down to the South Coast to embark on a cruise.

AlwynM wrote:
Lies! The figure is just over £17M, which is on the official government consultation paper and only part of that requires repayment, should you wish to look it up, talk about shoddy journalism. BTW, the UK's trade doesn't 'belong' to Southampton. No amount of money spent will indefinitely guarantee that the shipping companies will always and only use Southampton port, business doesn't work like that. The cruise companies will use which ever port they think gives the best customer experience - putting the CUSTOMER first? Something Southampton Port owners are obviously a stranger to, if they wish to carry on with this pathetic mud-slinging campaign, which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to hold on the 70% hold on the cruise market, and ensure everyone north of Birmingham has to make the horrendous journey down to the South Coast to embark on a cruise.

Sorry but you are missing the point. People have invested alot of money in Southampton and Liverpool take away the trade by grant from taxpayers.

That is unfair. If it wants to compete it can pay back all the grants. THEN its fair competition.

It would be like a marathon race and Liverpool get to join half way through.

I'm sure you all ready understand but think it best to avoidand just say"somethampton has no right" rubbish.

joenice1 wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Lies! The figure is just over £17M, which is on the official government consultation paper and only part of that requires repayment, should you wish to look it up, talk about shoddy journalism. BTW, the UK's trade doesn't 'belong' to Southampton. No amount of money spent will indefinitely guarantee that the shipping companies will always and only use Southampton port, business doesn't work like that. The cruise companies will use which ever port they think gives the best customer experience - putting the CUSTOMER first? Something Southampton Port owners are obviously a stranger to, if they wish to carry on with this pathetic mud-slinging campaign, which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to hold on the 70% hold on the cruise market, and ensure everyone north of Birmingham has to make the horrendous journey down to the South Coast to embark on a cruise.

Sorry but you are missing the point. People have invested alot of money in Southampton and Liverpool take away the trade by grant from taxpayers.

That is unfair. If it wants to compete it can pay back all the grants. THEN its fair competition.

It would be like a marathon race and Liverpool get to join half way through.

I'm sure you all ready understand but think it best to avoidand just say"somethampto
n has no right" rubbish.

Southampton Port has also received EU money that may be seen as going towards providing an unfair advantage towards it's competitors.

Should we now look at all the ports in the UK, see what EU money they have received and ask them to pay that back also, in case it might have gone towards providing an unfair advantage?

Ridiculous, as I'm sure you'd agree.

I'm sure the Southampton port owners ABP, which owns a lot of the UK ports, will be able to provide us with the information. Although seeing as they are willing to accept EU money whilst at the same time not pay tax on any of their earnings in this country, I hardly think they would be too forthcoming.

Liverpool council is just trying to maintain the

.....

AlwynM wrote:
Lies!

The figure is just over £17M, which is on the official government consultation paper and only part of that requires repayment, should you wish to look it up, talk about shoddy journalism.

BTW, the UK's trade doesn't 'belong' to Southampton.

No amount of money spent will indefinitely guarantee that the shipping companies will always and only use Southampton port, business doesn't work like that.

The cruise companies will use which ever port they think gives the best customer experience - putting the CUSTOMER first?

Something Southampton Port owners are obviously a stranger to, if they wish to carry on with this pathetic mud-slinging campaign, which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to hold on the 70% hold on the cruise market, and ensure everyone north of Birmingham has to make the horrendous journey down to the South Coast to embark on a cruise.

Alwyn M why the full out attack on Southampton?
Surely the group that's gone on the attack on this subject is made up of many ports which it seems Southampton is just one of them.
Dovers another but I see no attacks by the people of Merseyside who post on here on that port?
is it just an anti Southampton thing?
as to the horrendous journey to the south coast how many people do you think from the midlands & the South would venture up through spaghetti junction to get a ship in Liverpool?
I can tell you this unless they continue with a Southern presence these shipping lines won't be staying long in this country,
many people would rather go across the channel & join up with the ships & they would see a dramatic drop off of passengers.
Can't you see what Cunard/Carnival line are doing? by putting hope in your hearts they can try & screw the prices down in every other port by threatening to go to Liverpool. if they did go to Liverpool the prices your city would have to charge would mean you would be running your port at a loss.
Hasn't the outright lie that Cunard/Carnival has just made about weddings on ships just to pull out of paying registration fees to this country to save a bit of money taught you lot anything?
I wouldn't trust this American firm not for all the tea in China so please stop your attacks on this city & pay back all the grants as the EU are now saying they are looking into the grant you applied for with a possibility of recalling it.if you paid it all back no one could would have an argument against you

AlwynM wrote:

joenice1 wrote:

AlwynM wrote:
Lies! The figure is just over £17M, which is on the official government consultation paper and only part of that requires repayment, should you wish to look it up, talk about shoddy journalism. BTW, the UK's trade doesn't 'belong' to Southampton. No amount of money spent will indefinitely guarantee that the shipping companies will always and only use Southampton port, business doesn't work like that. The cruise companies will use which ever port they think gives the best customer experience - putting the CUSTOMER first? Something Southampton Port owners are obviously a stranger to, if they wish to carry on with this pathetic mud-slinging campaign, which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to hold on the 70% hold on the cruise market, and ensure everyone north of Birmingham has to make the horrendous journey down to the South Coast to embark on a cruise.

Sorry but you are missing the point. People have invested alot of money in Southampton and Liverpool take away the trade by grant from taxpayers.

That is unfair. If it wants to compete it can pay back all the grants. THEN its fair competition.

It would be like a marathon race and Liverpool get to join half way through.

I'm sure you all ready understand but think it best to avoidand just say"somethampto

n has no right" rubbish.

Southampton Port has also received EU money that may be seen as going towards providing an unfair advantage towards it's competitors.

Should we now look at all the ports in the UK, see what EU money they have received and ask them to pay that back also, in case it might have gone towards providing an unfair advantage?

Ridiculous, as I'm sure you'd agree.

I'm sure the Southampton port owners ABP, which owns a lot of the UK ports, will be able to provide us with the information. Although seeing as they are willing to accept EU money whilst at the same time not pay tax on any of their earnings in this country, I hardly think they would be too forthcoming.

Liverpool council is just trying to maintain the

Please inform us on what money to build new docks for one purpose while all the time wanting it for another have we been given recently in EU grants?

In reply to loosehaed, the UK port alliance was born and bred in Southampton and no where else, the spokesman, a Mr. Chestnutt, is an ex employee of ABP.
Liverpool would attract customers from other parts of the UK, not London.
What do you think this is all about loosehead?
It is about Southampton stopping Liverpool getting turnaround cruises.
Why?, because they know Liverpool has a vastly superior product and 20 million plus catchment area.
IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, WHY WOULD A PORT WITH 70 PER CENT OF THE MARKET, 4 TERMINALS BE SCARED ****LESS OF A PORT WITH NO TERMINALS AND 0 PER CENT OF THE MARKET???.
And BTW, a local MEP spouting in the Southern Echo, does not constitute an inquiry by the EU into the awarding of EU grants.

In reply to loosehaed, the UK port alliance was born and bred in Southampton and no where else, the spokesman, a Mr. Chestnutt, is an ex employee of ABP.
Liverpool would attract customers from other parts of the UK, not London.
What do you think this is all about loosehead?
It is about Southampton stopping Liverpool getting turnaround cruises.
Why?, because they know Liverpool has a vastly superior product and 20 million plus catchment area.
IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, WHY WOULD A PORT WITH 70 PER CENT OF THE MARKET, 4 TERMINALS BE SCARED ****LESS OF A PORT WITH NO TERMINALS AND 0 PER CENT OF THE MARKET???.
And BTW, a local MEP spouting in the Southern Echo, does not constitute an inquiry by the EU into the awarding of EU grants.

In reply to loosehaed, the UK port alliance was born and bred in Southampton and no where else, the spokesman, a Mr. Chestnutt, is an ex employee of ABP.
Liverpool would attract customers from other parts of the UK, not London.
What do you think this is all about loosehead?
It is about Southampton stopping Liverpool getting turnaround cruises.
Why?, because they know Liverpool has a vastly superior product and 20 million plus catchment area.
IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, WHY WOULD A PORT WITH 70 PER CENT OF THE MARKET, 4 TERMINALS BE SCARED ****LESS OF A PORT WITH NO TERMINALS AND 0 PER CENT OF THE MARKET???.
And BTW, a local MEP spouting in the Southern Echo, does not constitute an inquiry by the EU into the awarding of EU grants.

arizonan wrote:
In reply to loosehaed, the UK port alliance was born and bred in Southampton and no where else, the spokesman, a Mr. Chestnutt, is an ex employee of ABP.
Liverpool would attract customers from other parts of the UK, not London.
What do you think this is all about loosehead?
It is about Southampton stopping Liverpool getting turnaround cruises.
Why?, because they know Liverpool has a vastly superior product and 20 million plus catchment area.
IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, WHY WOULD A PORT WITH 70 PER CENT OF THE MARKET, 4 TERMINALS BE SCARED ****LESS OF A PORT WITH NO TERMINALS AND 0 PER CENT OF THE MARKET???.
And BTW, a local MEP spouting in the Southern Echo, does not constitute an inquiry by the EU into the awarding of EU grants.

Sorry even when you say it three times the truth is if you / Liverpool hadn't lied in the very beginning this wouldn't be an issue so for you & the others from Liverpool to go on about Southampton as being greedy & feeling threatened is a joke.
if Liverpool had applied for grants for a start/finish terminal & had got the permission from government to do this we & any other port would not have any right to cry foul but you know even though you had no intentions of the facilities being for turnaround thats what you applied for.
whatever way you look at it Liverpool lied to get the grants so yes we have a right to oppose liars.this would be the authorities who applied for the grants not the people of liverpool!

Liverpool did not lie, they have been operating as a day call port since the opening of the landing stage.
They have applied for turnaround status and offered to repay the UK grant, less depreciation.
Therefore, the UK Government cannot stop Liverpool operating cruises that start and finish in that fair city.
The site had a tech prob, that is the reason I had three entries.
Breaking News:- Massive redevelopment of Stanley Dock and Tobacco warehouse, the World's largest brick structure, not a million miles from Liverpool cruise terminal.

Warn the Government !. The arrogance of Jimmy etc is unbelievable. Unlike Dibden Jimbo, it's happening. Deal with it

Looks like more 'economic engineering' by the Tories aimed at buying some votes up north! Forget a level playing field or fair competition where there's political grandstanding to be done. The Tories / Libs need to remember they can lose scores of seats down here just as easily as they can buy a couple around Liverpool! All today's successful cruise businesses grew their businesses in Southampton, which is why they moved from Liverpool in the 60s! (I know his as my Dad worked for Cunard for decades in both locations.) Lets not repeat the same old cycle of decay by exporting jobs up North under the assumption that 'jobs grow on trees down South'. They don't, they are built on decades and decades of hard and dedicated work and effort. Trying to economically egineer a 'quick-fix' for the feckless will drive the industry back into the decline it saw in the 60s before it moved to more viable locations.

Silktrohy, if there was no market,'Up North,' please tell us all why the Southern Echo, ABP, Southampton City and Hampshire Chamber of Commerce, have mounted such a heated campaign to stop Liverpool.
Your argument does seem stuck in the 60's, the World has moved on since then.

Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to.
The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination.
If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.