Cunard quashes rumours of transatlantic cruises from Liverpool

Daily Echo: Queen Mary 2 Queen Mary 2

Southampton-based Cunard has categorically denied new reports that the company is to operate transatlantic voyages from the Mersey.

Cunard, which operates Queen Mary 2, Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria from Southampton, is angry over what it says is totally false information.

In a terse statement the company said: “Cunard Line would like to clarify that they have no plans for transatlantic voyages from Liverpool to New York in 2012, 2013 or in the future.

“Cunard will continue to operate its successful transatlantic voyages from its home port of Southampton.’’

Many believe the reports are just another element of Liverpool’s campaign to persuade the Government that the northern port should be allowed to become a “turn-around’’ base for cruise ships.

It is now also being claimed in Liverpool this long-standing row has been “resolved’’, opening the way for cruise ships to operate from the city.

In fact the Government has made no decision and the EU, which supplied part of the public funding, is also taking a close look at Liverpool’s plans.

The long running wrangle centres around Liverpool’s attempts to use a multi-million pound handout of public money to develop and expand dockside facilities.

Related links

Southampton and other UK docks, which rely purely on private investment, are demanding Liverpool pay back all of the public funding so competition between the ports is on a “level playing field’’.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:29pm Fri 17 Feb 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Bring back Ken Dodd and the Diddy men from Knotty Ash!
Bring back Ken Dodd and the Diddy men from Knotty Ash! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Fri 17 Feb 12

Dasal says...

"Bill Shankley, John.Paul, George, Ringo, Ian Rush, Kenny Dalgleish , Jimmy Tarbuck, Cilla Black, Ken Dodd, The Liver Birds...............
............
Your guys took a hell of a hiding !!!!
"Bill Shankley, John.Paul, George, Ringo, Ian Rush, Kenny Dalgleish , Jimmy Tarbuck, Cilla Black, Ken Dodd, The Liver Birds............... ............ Your guys took a hell of a hiding !!!! Dasal
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Fri 17 Feb 12

southy says...

"Cunard quashes rumours of transatlantic cruises from Liverpool"
Oh that sounds like they have been thinking about it in the pass, and probley will do again in the future.
"Cunard quashes rumours of transatlantic cruises from Liverpool" Oh that sounds like they have been thinking about it in the pass, and probley will do again in the future. southy
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Fri 17 Feb 12

arizonan says...

Correct me if I am wrong, but the boss of Cunard, on a visit to Liverpool last year, stated that Cunard would operate the occasional cruises from Liverpool, as demand from Cunard's guests dictated.
That is all the story in the Liverpool Daily Post stated, with names and quotes from Cunard and Carnival UK management.
Also, the statements from the cruise travel agency side was ecstatic at the idea, saying that the tickets would,'Fly off the shelf!,' for a Liverpool to New York cruise.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the boss of Cunard, on a visit to Liverpool last year, stated that Cunard would operate the occasional cruises from Liverpool, as demand from Cunard's guests dictated. That is all the story in the Liverpool Daily Post stated, with names and quotes from Cunard and Carnival UK management. Also, the statements from the cruise travel agency side was ecstatic at the idea, saying that the tickets would,'Fly off the shelf!,' for a Liverpool to New York cruise. arizonan
  • Score: 1

5:43pm Fri 17 Feb 12

arizonan says...

Correct me if I am wrong, but the boss of Cunard, on a visit to Liverpool last year, stated that Cunard would operate the occasional cruises from Liverpool, as demand from Cunard's guests dictated.
That is all the story in the Liverpool Daily Post stated, with names and quotes from Cunard and Carnival UK management.
Also, the statements from the cruise travel agency side was ecstatic at the idea, saying that the tickets would,'Fly off the shelf!,' for a Liverpool to New York cruise.
I am sure that other cruise lines will take note if Cunard want to cow tow to Southampton, but businesses must give the customer what it wants.
Cunard is, I understand, pretty independent of Carnival, but if Carnival see business from Liverpool taking-off, that independence may be short lived.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the boss of Cunard, on a visit to Liverpool last year, stated that Cunard would operate the occasional cruises from Liverpool, as demand from Cunard's guests dictated. That is all the story in the Liverpool Daily Post stated, with names and quotes from Cunard and Carnival UK management. Also, the statements from the cruise travel agency side was ecstatic at the idea, saying that the tickets would,'Fly off the shelf!,' for a Liverpool to New York cruise. I am sure that other cruise lines will take note if Cunard want to cow tow to Southampton, but businesses must give the customer what it wants. Cunard is, I understand, pretty independent of Carnival, but if Carnival see business from Liverpool taking-off, that independence may be short lived. arizonan
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Fri 17 Feb 12

MerseyMart says...

This is the article from the Liverpool Daily Post, written by Peter Elson. It gives sources for the story:

CUNARD Line is set to start transatlantic crossings from Liverpool now the city’s cruise terminal turnaround row is resolved.
It will be the first such sailing in 47 years and a triumphant end to the Post’s Get On Board campaign to allow cruises to start and finish at the Pier Head.
It could mean the world’s largest-ever ocean liner – the 151,400 gross tons RMS Queen Mary 2 – making the six-day voyage from Liverpool to New York carrying 3,000 passengers.
This new era of Liverpool transatlantic voyages would be unlikely to begin until summer 2013 because the current Cunard brochure runs up to next April.
The QM2, or her fleetmates Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria, would follow in the wake of the first scheduled UK-US sailings by Samuel Cunard’s steamer RMS Britannia in 1840.
Peter Shanks, Cunard Line president, said: “These will be one-off events, rather than a continuous service. We are committed to Southampton as our main base, but Liverpool is our spiritual home.
“If Liverpool invests in its facilities and has the opportunity for turnaround, it is quite possible voyages could start in Liverpool. I think that would be very popular with our guests.”
Travel agents do not doubt Liverpool transatlantic sailings would be a sure-fire success.
John Cooper, Liverpool Cruise Club marketing manager, said: “This is fantastic news. Tickets will fly off the shelves.
“Liverpool is an iconic place to sail from and New York is the iconic place to go to. It is just what the city and port needs.
“Although Cunard has been long-based at Southampton, everyone thinks of Liverpool as its real home.
“There was talk about this opportunity in the cruise industry for a long time.
“Cunard’s initiative will put the seal on Liverpool as the great northern cruise departure port.
“We know cruise lines are really keen to do business with the city and vice versa.”
Jean Merry, Simply Cruising groups manager, said: “The revival of Cunard’s Liverpool transatlantic sailings is like rewriting history.
“It is superb for the city’s prosperity and will be great for everybody who lives from the Midlands up to Scotland.
“Northerners want to cruise from their home port or the nearest one and not spend hours travelling to Southampton or Dover.
“Once Cunard starts turnaround voyages from Liverpool, I believe the floodgates will open for other cruise lines. I am certain Holland America Line, Princess Cruises and Thomson Cruises will base ships here.”
In the meantime, with the Pier Head embarkation ban lifted passengers could possibly join a Cunard round-UK cruise and stay onboard for the next transatlantic trip from Southampton. In the longer term, mini-cruises could be offered as the liners reposition between Southampton and Liverpool.
THAT would appeal to first-time passengers who wanted to try the experience or those who wanted a shorter or cheaper trip rather than the full transatlantic passage.
Passengers on mini-cruises can be transferred to and from the ship by train or coach, as already happens with Fred Olsen Cruise Lines and Ocean Countess repositioning trips.
David Dingle, chief executive of Carnival UK, which owns Cunard, told the Post: “It is feasible the ship could sail from New York to Liverpool and back to avoid the need for repositioning from Southampton.”
Fly-cruises are certain to be offered, with travel one-way by sea and the other by air, for those wanting to stay up to a week in New York.
A return transatlantic sea trip can be achieved in two weeks, including stops at Cobh (Ireland), Boston (USA) and Halifax (Canada).
Cllr Joe Anderson, Liverpool Council leader, said: “This is the icing on the cake for allowing turnarounds from Liverpool Cruise Terminal.
“We should celebrate restarting these historic links to America and it builds on what we plan to do.
“I am thrilled about this for our tourist industry and its job prospects. We can even think about direct Liverpool-New York air links to service the fly-cruise market.
“It is the rocket fuel for the future, giving us the opportunity to strengthen our sustainable growth.
“We have also got exploit this through the cruise-and-stay market by expanding our events programme and protecting our heritage.
“It also gives me the opportunity to ask Peel Holdings about developing its planned Liverpool Waters cruise berth.
“We could link the two facilities so two liners could berth at once.”
The first crossing will be the first Cunard Line sailing from Liverpool to New York since RMS Sylvania’s last round-trip in 1966.
The cruise industry’s exceptional growth and desire for more varied travel experiences has revived a market regarded as obsolete
The Post’s Get On Board campaign was taken to the heart of Government when a 2,500 signature petition was delivered to shipping minister Mike Penning at his Whitehall office.
However not everyone was starry-eyed about the news.
Pat Moran, of Liverpool Retired Merchant Seafarers Association, said: “When Cunard starts offering the descendants of my members jobs as ratings then I will wish them well in their endeavours.
“While John Prescott was deputy prime minister, he offered cruise lines tax breaks on the understanding that young British ratings would be hired.
“We have yet to see that happen with the cruise lines.”
This is the article from the Liverpool Daily Post, written by Peter Elson. It gives sources for the story: CUNARD Line is set to start transatlantic crossings from Liverpool now the city’s cruise terminal turnaround row is resolved. It will be the first such sailing in 47 years and a triumphant end to the Post’s Get On Board campaign to allow cruises to start and finish at the Pier Head. It could mean the world’s largest-ever ocean liner – the 151,400 gross tons RMS Queen Mary 2 – making the six-day voyage from Liverpool to New York carrying 3,000 passengers. This new era of Liverpool transatlantic voyages would be unlikely to begin until summer 2013 because the current Cunard brochure runs up to next April. The QM2, or her fleetmates Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria, would follow in the wake of the first scheduled UK-US sailings by Samuel Cunard’s steamer RMS Britannia in 1840. Peter Shanks, Cunard Line president, said: “These will be one-off events, rather than a continuous service. We are committed to Southampton as our main base, but Liverpool is our spiritual home. “If Liverpool invests in its facilities and has the opportunity for turnaround, it is quite possible voyages could start in Liverpool. I think that would be very popular with our guests.” Travel agents do not doubt Liverpool transatlantic sailings would be a sure-fire success. John Cooper, Liverpool Cruise Club marketing manager, said: “This is fantastic news. Tickets will fly off the shelves. “Liverpool is an iconic place to sail from and New York is the iconic place to go to. It is just what the city and port needs. “Although Cunard has been long-based at Southampton, everyone thinks of Liverpool as its real home. “There was talk about this opportunity in the cruise industry for a long time. “Cunard’s initiative will put the seal on Liverpool as the great northern cruise departure port. “We know cruise lines are really keen to do business with the city and vice versa.” Jean Merry, Simply Cruising groups manager, said: “The revival of Cunard’s Liverpool transatlantic sailings is like rewriting history. “It is superb for the city’s prosperity and will be great for everybody who lives from the Midlands up to Scotland. “Northerners want to cruise from their home port or the nearest one and not spend hours travelling to Southampton or Dover. “Once Cunard starts turnaround voyages from Liverpool, I believe the floodgates will open for other cruise lines. I am certain Holland America Line, Princess Cruises and Thomson Cruises will base ships here.” In the meantime, with the Pier Head embarkation ban lifted passengers could possibly join a Cunard round-UK cruise and stay onboard for the next transatlantic trip from Southampton. In the longer term, mini-cruises could be offered as the liners reposition between Southampton and Liverpool. THAT would appeal to first-time passengers who wanted to try the experience or those who wanted a shorter or cheaper trip rather than the full transatlantic passage. Passengers on mini-cruises can be transferred to and from the ship by train or coach, as already happens with Fred Olsen Cruise Lines and Ocean Countess repositioning trips. David Dingle, chief executive of Carnival UK, which owns Cunard, told the Post: “It is feasible the ship could sail from New York to Liverpool and back to avoid the need for repositioning from Southampton.” Fly-cruises are certain to be offered, with travel one-way by sea and the other by air, for those wanting to stay up to a week in New York. A return transatlantic sea trip can be achieved in two weeks, including stops at Cobh (Ireland), Boston (USA) and Halifax (Canada). Cllr Joe Anderson, Liverpool Council leader, said: “This is the icing on the cake for allowing turnarounds from Liverpool Cruise Terminal. “We should celebrate restarting these historic links to America and it builds on what we plan to do. “I am thrilled about this for our tourist industry and its job prospects. We can even think about direct Liverpool-New York air links to service the fly-cruise market. “It is the rocket fuel for the future, giving us the opportunity to strengthen our sustainable growth. “We have also got exploit this through the cruise-and-stay market by expanding our events programme and protecting our heritage. “It also gives me the opportunity to ask Peel Holdings about developing its planned Liverpool Waters cruise berth. “We could link the two facilities so two liners could berth at once.” The first crossing will be the first Cunard Line sailing from Liverpool to New York since RMS Sylvania’s last round-trip in 1966. The cruise industry’s exceptional growth and desire for more varied travel experiences has revived a market regarded as obsolete The Post’s Get On Board campaign was taken to the heart of Government when a 2,500 signature petition was delivered to shipping minister Mike Penning at his Whitehall office. However not everyone was starry-eyed about the news. Pat Moran, of Liverpool Retired Merchant Seafarers Association, said: “When Cunard starts offering the descendants of my members jobs as ratings then I will wish them well in their endeavours. “While John Prescott was deputy prime minister, he offered cruise lines tax breaks on the understanding that young British ratings would be hired. “We have yet to see that happen with the cruise lines.” MerseyMart
  • Score: 1

8:01pm Fri 17 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

The interesting thing here is that Peter Elsom's piece, originally carried in the Liverpool Echo, and followed up by the sister online paper, Daily Post, seems now to have been pulled from the Liverpool Echo
This followed the statement from Cunard rubbishing the article.
It also reflected the concensus of opinion from many, better informed, Liverpudlians that this story line was taken from a radio interview with a Cunard executive some while ago, full of 'could's, 'possibly's', 'maybe's etc and especially 'if Liverpool invest in suitable turnround facilities'
I doubt very much if Cunard will be too fussed about putting their passengers through the planned tent on Princes Dock
The interesting thing here is that Peter Elsom's piece, originally carried in the Liverpool Echo, and followed up by the sister online paper, Daily Post, seems now to have been pulled from the Liverpool Echo This followed the statement from Cunard rubbishing the article. It also reflected the concensus of opinion from many, better informed, Liverpudlians that this story line was taken from a radio interview with a Cunard executive some while ago, full of 'could's, 'possibly's', 'maybe's etc and especially 'if Liverpool invest in suitable turnround facilities' I doubt very much if Cunard will be too fussed about putting their passengers through the planned tent on Princes Dock phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Fri 17 Feb 12

MerseyMart says...

I actually listened to that Radio Merseyside interview Phil and go along with the 'ifs, buts and maybes' interpretation. However, the 'ifs, buts and maybes' are at odds with the statement by Keith Hamilton (quoting no sources) that Cunard have 'categorically denied' that they will run transatlantic services from Liverpool.
Peter Elson (sic) quotes two sources - Peter Shanks - Cunard Line President and David Dingle - Chief Executive of Carnival Line UK so it is a bit more than just idle speculation.
As for the Liverpool Echo 'pulling the story' well, I copied the article from the LiverpoolNews site today so it is clearly available.
The planning application for the temporary facility on Princes Dock has just gone in. It is right by the landing stage and might I remind you that Heathrow Airport started off with a row of tents along the Bath Road.
I actually listened to that Radio Merseyside interview Phil and go along with the 'ifs, buts and maybes' interpretation. However, the 'ifs, buts and maybes' are at odds with the statement by Keith Hamilton (quoting no sources) that Cunard have 'categorically denied' that they will run transatlantic services from Liverpool. Peter Elson (sic) quotes two sources - Peter Shanks - Cunard Line President and David Dingle - Chief Executive of Carnival Line UK so it is a bit more than just idle speculation. As for the Liverpool Echo 'pulling the story' well, I copied the article from the LiverpoolNews site today so it is clearly available. The planning application for the temporary facility on Princes Dock has just gone in. It is right by the landing stage and might I remind you that Heathrow Airport started off with a row of tents along the Bath Road. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Fri 17 Feb 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
I actually listened to that Radio Merseyside interview Phil and go along with the 'ifs, buts and maybes' interpretation. However, the 'ifs, buts and maybes' are at odds with the statement by Keith Hamilton (quoting no sources) that Cunard have 'categorically denied' that they will run transatlantic services from Liverpool.
Peter Elson (sic) quotes two sources - Peter Shanks - Cunard Line President and David Dingle - Chief Executive of Carnival Line UK so it is a bit more than just idle speculation.
As for the Liverpool Echo 'pulling the story' well, I copied the article from the LiverpoolNews site today so it is clearly available.
The planning application for the temporary facility on Princes Dock has just gone in. It is right by the landing stage and might I remind you that Heathrow Airport started off with a row of tents along the Bath Road.
Do you not think people coming on here boasting about the return of transatlantic sailings from Liverpool,your council leader saying it & your press supposedly saying it (according to posts on here) this could actually backfire on you?
Cunard aren't going to want to be seen doing deals before a decision has been made & if they have & it's been leaked out they are going to pull right out of it.
We down here & many sensible people from Liverpool know this is far from over.
In the above article you can see that the EU are now looking at taking their money back if a change of use takes place so people trying to sway the decision is harming your case not helping it
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: I actually listened to that Radio Merseyside interview Phil and go along with the 'ifs, buts and maybes' interpretation. However, the 'ifs, buts and maybes' are at odds with the statement by Keith Hamilton (quoting no sources) that Cunard have 'categorically denied' that they will run transatlantic services from Liverpool. Peter Elson (sic) quotes two sources - Peter Shanks - Cunard Line President and David Dingle - Chief Executive of Carnival Line UK so it is a bit more than just idle speculation. As for the Liverpool Echo 'pulling the story' well, I copied the article from the LiverpoolNews site today so it is clearly available. The planning application for the temporary facility on Princes Dock has just gone in. It is right by the landing stage and might I remind you that Heathrow Airport started off with a row of tents along the Bath Road.[/p][/quote]Do you not think people coming on here boasting about the return of transatlantic sailings from Liverpool,your council leader saying it & your press supposedly saying it (according to posts on here) this could actually backfire on you? Cunard aren't going to want to be seen doing deals before a decision has been made & if they have & it's been leaked out they are going to pull right out of it. We down here & many sensible people from Liverpool know this is far from over. In the above article you can see that the EU are now looking at taking their money back if a change of use takes place so people trying to sway the decision is harming your case not helping it loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Fri 17 Feb 12

ronn12 says...

Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .
Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans . ronn12
  • Score: 1

10:12pm Fri 17 Feb 12

ronn12 says...

Oh another thing I would like to mention, I recently seen a artical in this paper regarding your failed attempts to celebrate the titanic , well you should see Liverpools plans, world class it will be telivised around the world .... Leave Liverpool to celebrate the 100 years of titanic Southampton will you please ha because you haven't got a clue what you are doing !!!!!
Oh another thing I would like to mention, I recently seen a artical in this paper regarding your failed attempts to celebrate the titanic , well you should see Liverpools plans, world class it will be telivised around the world .... Leave Liverpool to celebrate the 100 years of titanic Southampton will you please ha because you haven't got a clue what you are doing !!!!! ronn12
  • Score: 0

8:07am Sat 18 Feb 12

loosehead says...

ronn12 wrote:
Oh another thing I would like to mention, I recently seen a artical in this paper regarding your failed attempts to celebrate the titanic , well you should see Liverpools plans, world class it will be telivised around the world .... Leave Liverpool to celebrate the 100 years of titanic Southampton will you please ha because you haven't got a clue what you are doing !!!!!
You like blowing your own trumpet don't you?
Where has Mike Penning said you have start finish facilities as that's what all the arguments are about?
turnaround wasn't a problem & no one complained when Liverpool got it.
then you applied under a Labour Government to change it & they said NO you admitted having no intention of using this facility for Turnaround & that was just a means of getting the grants.
So why do people like you come on here & slate a city that has done it all with in the law & with private money?
As for the Titanic if you had read the articles in this paper You'd find the Left(ILabour,Unite & Unison) are vehemently opposed to this council spending anything on attracting tourists so to have what we've got is nothing short of a miracle.
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Oh another thing I would like to mention, I recently seen a artical in this paper regarding your failed attempts to celebrate the titanic , well you should see Liverpools plans, world class it will be telivised around the world .... Leave Liverpool to celebrate the 100 years of titanic Southampton will you please ha because you haven't got a clue what you are doing !!!!![/p][/quote]You like blowing your own trumpet don't you? Where has Mike Penning said you have start finish facilities as that's what all the arguments are about? turnaround wasn't a problem & no one complained when Liverpool got it. then you applied under a Labour Government to change it & they said NO you admitted having no intention of using this facility for Turnaround & that was just a means of getting the grants. So why do people like you come on here & slate a city that has done it all with in the law & with private money? As for the Titanic if you had read the articles in this paper You'd find the Left(ILabour,Unite & Unison) are vehemently opposed to this council spending anything on attracting tourists so to have what we've got is nothing short of a miracle. loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:55am Sat 18 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

ronn12 wrote:
Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .
Ronn
I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet
The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay.
Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!!
And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money
So it could take some time to resolve completely.
Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through.
Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey.
I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction.
This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts
Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre
Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton
Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing.
Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012.
The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .[/p][/quote]Ronn I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay. Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!! And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money So it could take some time to resolve completely. Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through. Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey. I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction. This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing. Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012. The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:54am Sat 18 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

btw it appears that the rebuttal from Cunard may well have been picked up initially by a lady journo, Lauren Riley, who works for a Liverpool on- line newspaper 'Click Liverpool'.
Talking to people in the trade there appears no way a big ship (especially a Cunarder) will be happy processing passengers and baggage through a tent.
Apparently Southampton spent £30m on its new terminal. With a grant of £5m+ to pay back and a further investment on a 'proper' terminal where is the money coming from to finance this on the Mersey , from 'occasional calls' at a time when Liverpool CC are announcing £50m of budgetary cuts this year, and beyond, and the grant money tree has dried up?
Also the Peel Ports, Liverpool Waters , scheme is, by their own admission 20-30 years away.
Perhaps the 200,000 or so people, like at least one regular poster on here, who have moved out of Liverpool is the past 40 years or so might like to dobb in £150 to repay the grant and provide proper terminal facilities. Problem solved.
btw it appears that the rebuttal from Cunard may well have been picked up initially by a lady journo, Lauren Riley, who works for a Liverpool on- line newspaper 'Click Liverpool'. Talking to people in the trade there appears no way a big ship (especially a Cunarder) will be happy processing passengers and baggage through a tent. Apparently Southampton spent £30m on its new terminal. With a grant of £5m+ to pay back and a further investment on a 'proper' terminal where is the money coming from to finance this on the Mersey , from 'occasional calls' at a time when Liverpool CC are announcing £50m of budgetary cuts this year, and beyond, and the grant money tree has dried up? Also the Peel Ports, Liverpool Waters , scheme is, by their own admission 20-30 years away. Perhaps the 200,000 or so people, like at least one regular poster on here, who have moved out of Liverpool is the past 40 years or so might like to dobb in £150 to repay the grant and provide proper terminal facilities. Problem solved. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Sat 18 Feb 12

X Old Bill says...

Just a small point about 'facilities':
If anyone thinks that they need state of the art super buildings then just take a look at Cape Liberty Cruise Port at Bayonne NJ.
It used to called Bayonne Military Port and still looks the same as it did when the big logistic support ships used it, apart from some glorified tents which have been erected to give some shelter to the punters boarding and disembarking.
So if New Jersey can get away with it, why not other ports?

Come to think of it - How does Marchwood Cruise terminal sound?
Just a small point about 'facilities': If anyone thinks that they need state of the art super buildings then just take a look at Cape Liberty Cruise Port at Bayonne NJ. It used to called Bayonne Military Port and still looks the same as it did when the big logistic support ships used it, apart from some glorified tents which have been erected to give some shelter to the punters boarding and disembarking. So if New Jersey can get away with it, why not other ports? Come to think of it - How does Marchwood Cruise terminal sound? X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Sat 18 Feb 12

Condor Man says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Bring back Ken Dodd and the Diddy men from Knotty Ash!
Ken Dodd? that tax dodger who got out of a jail sentence due to a dodgy ticker? well enough now to perform on stage.
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Bring back Ken Dodd and the Diddy men from Knotty Ash![/p][/quote]Ken Dodd? that tax dodger who got out of a jail sentence due to a dodgy ticker? well enough now to perform on stage. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Sat 18 Feb 12

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
btw it appears that the rebuttal from Cunard may well have been picked up initially by a lady journo, Lauren Riley, who works for a Liverpool on- line newspaper 'Click Liverpool'.
Talking to people in the trade there appears no way a big ship (especially a Cunarder) will be happy processing passengers and baggage through a tent.
Apparently Southampton spent £30m on its new terminal. With a grant of £5m+ to pay back and a further investment on a 'proper' terminal where is the money coming from to finance this on the Mersey , from 'occasional calls' at a time when Liverpool CC are announcing £50m of budgetary cuts this year, and beyond, and the grant money tree has dried up?
Also the Peel Ports, Liverpool Waters , scheme is, by their own admission 20-30 years away.
Perhaps the 200,000 or so people, like at least one regular poster on here, who have moved out of Liverpool is the past 40 years or so might like to dobb in £150 to repay the grant and provide proper terminal facilities. Problem solved.
A sad reflection on the decline of the UK if that many people have to leave a major city.
But your idea of a whip round sounds good.
Similar to the 1930's when the good citizens and businesses of Liverpool collected 10 million, the equivalent of 280 million to-day,to build, H.M.S. Prince of Wales, to defend this country.
You really should not have a go at the messenger, people may think you have no answer to the message.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: btw it appears that the rebuttal from Cunard may well have been picked up initially by a lady journo, Lauren Riley, who works for a Liverpool on- line newspaper 'Click Liverpool'. Talking to people in the trade there appears no way a big ship (especially a Cunarder) will be happy processing passengers and baggage through a tent. Apparently Southampton spent £30m on its new terminal. With a grant of £5m+ to pay back and a further investment on a 'proper' terminal where is the money coming from to finance this on the Mersey , from 'occasional calls' at a time when Liverpool CC are announcing £50m of budgetary cuts this year, and beyond, and the grant money tree has dried up? Also the Peel Ports, Liverpool Waters , scheme is, by their own admission 20-30 years away. Perhaps the 200,000 or so people, like at least one regular poster on here, who have moved out of Liverpool is the past 40 years or so might like to dobb in £150 to repay the grant and provide proper terminal facilities. Problem solved.[/p][/quote]A sad reflection on the decline of the UK if that many people have to leave a major city. But your idea of a whip round sounds good. Similar to the 1930's when the good citizens and businesses of Liverpool collected 10 million, the equivalent of 280 million to-day,to build, H.M.S. Prince of Wales, to defend this country. You really should not have a go at the messenger, people may think you have no answer to the message. arizonan
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Sat 18 Feb 12

ronn12 says...

phil maccavity wrote:
ronn12 wrote:
Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .
Ronn
I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet
The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay.
Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!!
And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money
So it could take some time to resolve completely.
Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through.
Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey.
I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction.
This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts
Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre
Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton
Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing.
Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012.
The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC
Wrong ! Peel have announced building their new terminal within 4 years in the first phase along with shangi tower skyscraper and offices and apartments !!!
And Southampton started on aid ? So what's your argument . And another thing whilst most cities and towns have stopped investing Liverpool is still building with private investment , currently there is another boom in regards to hotels , more hotels here than anywhere outside London , we have the new central village being built right now and that's is nearly as big as our new Liverpool 1 shopping centre and numerous projects look it up .....Liverpooldevelo
pmentsummary
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .[/p][/quote]Ronn I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay. Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!! And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money So it could take some time to resolve completely. Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through. Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey. I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction. This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing. Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012. The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC[/p][/quote]Wrong ! Peel have announced building their new terminal within 4 years in the first phase along with shangi tower skyscraper and offices and apartments !!! And Southampton started on aid ? So what's your argument . And another thing whilst most cities and towns have stopped investing Liverpool is still building with private investment , currently there is another boom in regards to hotels , more hotels here than anywhere outside London , we have the new central village being built right now and that's is nearly as big as our new Liverpool 1 shopping centre and numerous projects look it up .....Liverpooldevelo pmentsummary ronn12
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Sat 18 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

Ronn
Can't find anything in print which agrees with your statement that Peel will build their own cruise terminal within 4 years.
I suspect they won't but if they do, and it is financed without grant aid, then no problems.
They also have to get planning permission and overcome the World Heritage site objections (which personally I think are ridiculous)
Peel are no fools and if the figures stack up (and it is a big IF as I have been told), I am sure they will be comfortable investing..
Again no problems with new shopping centres/hotels etc but all this was originally pump primed by the massive UK/EC Grants to rejuvenate the city centre.
Ronn Can't find anything in print which agrees with your statement that Peel will build their own cruise terminal within 4 years. I suspect they won't but if they do, and it is financed without grant aid, then no problems. They also have to get planning permission and overcome the World Heritage site objections (which personally I think are ridiculous) Peel are no fools and if the figures stack up (and it is a big IF as I have been told), I am sure they will be comfortable investing.. Again no problems with new shopping centres/hotels etc but all this was originally pump primed by the massive UK/EC Grants to rejuvenate the city centre. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Sat 18 Feb 12

loosehead says...

Ronn if you come to Southampton & know anything about the city you would know that since the tories took control we've had a new Cultural sector.a new Arts Complex,expanded our art gallery, built the sea city museum.
we have plans some of which are already started on for a new Hotel & apartments, an extension/enlargemen
t of Mayflower park which will give far more space for the boat show.
we have plans to rebuild the central train station area but if Labour gets into power this city will halt in it's tracks.
Now why don't we all wait & see what Mike Penning & the EU are going to do before we go for each others throats?
Ronn if you come to Southampton & know anything about the city you would know that since the tories took control we've had a new Cultural sector.a new Arts Complex,expanded our art gallery, built the sea city museum. we have plans some of which are already started on for a new Hotel & apartments, an extension/enlargemen t of Mayflower park which will give far more space for the boat show. we have plans to rebuild the central train station area but if Labour gets into power this city will halt in it's tracks. Now why don't we all wait & see what Mike Penning & the EU are going to do before we go for each others throats? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Sat 18 Feb 12

MerseyMart says...

I just wonder if anyone shares my opinion that Cunard have said exactly the same thing to Liverpool and Southampton - except given a different emphasis according to their business aspirations.

Reminds me of the story of the two mothers who had had their babies christened by the same vicar and who both claimed that the vicar had said that their's was the most beautiful baby. When they stopped quarelling, they recalled what the vicar had actually said 'My! this is a baby isn't it?'

Cunard has been an astute business operator ever since the days of Samuel Cunard. That's how they have managed to stay in business for over 170 years. They want us in Liverpool to believe that, as long as we provide a good service, that they will give us transatlantic crossings whilst they want you in Southampton to believe that they want to stay with you but you need to stay on the ball as they now have other opportunities.

After all, saying that they 'have no plans' is not quite the same as a 'categorical denial' is it? I don't think you would be too happy overhearing your wife say that she has no plans to murder her husband would you?

Phil has finally admitted the vacuity of the Southampton argument. We have not been given some lavish new terminal out of taxpayers money - in fact, we don't have a terminal at all and, when we do it will likely be a marquee (provided by local Liverpool worthies the de Sade family). What the public money did provide was a floating landing stage - something necessary in this part of the world due to our very high tidal range - and which has hardly made us more attractive than Southampton - just helped level the playing field.

As for Phil's other comments about Liverpool losing population and receiving public money for regeneration. Firstly, they show a failure to grasp the argument. We need the terminal to provide turnaround facilities - to allow people from Liverpool and the wider North West to be able to embark on cruise liners not to come to visit Liverpool - which they can do already due to our present stopping services. Therefore, the attractiveness or unattractiveness of Liverpool is not relevant to the argument.

Secondly, they are just totally unnecessary. Bringing up the subject of Liverpool's economic fortunes all time as mysteriously an argument for depriving the city of regeneration grants reveals that Phil has some hidden agenda.

For myself, I just want Liverpool to have a more prosperous future. I have no antipathy toward Southampton - a place that I have never visited (apart from Eastleigh Airport on the way to Bournemouth). I just wish that the powers that be in your city were not trying to stifle the legitimate aspirations of mine.
I just wonder if anyone shares my opinion that Cunard have said exactly the same thing to Liverpool and Southampton - except given a different emphasis according to their business aspirations. Reminds me of the story of the two mothers who had had their babies christened by the same vicar and who both claimed that the vicar had said that their's was the most beautiful baby. When they stopped quarelling, they recalled what the vicar had actually said 'My! this is a baby isn't it?' Cunard has been an astute business operator ever since the days of Samuel Cunard. That's how they have managed to stay in business for over 170 years. They want us in Liverpool to believe that, as long as we provide a good service, that they will give us transatlantic crossings whilst they want you in Southampton to believe that they want to stay with you but you need to stay on the ball as they now have other opportunities. After all, saying that they 'have no plans' is not quite the same as a 'categorical denial' is it? I don't think you would be too happy overhearing your wife say that she has no plans to murder her husband would you? Phil has finally admitted the vacuity of the Southampton argument. We have not been given some lavish new terminal out of taxpayers money - in fact, we don't have a terminal at all and, when we do it will likely be a marquee (provided by local Liverpool worthies the de Sade family). What the public money did provide was a floating landing stage - something necessary in this part of the world due to our very high tidal range - and which has hardly made us more attractive than Southampton - just helped level the playing field. As for Phil's other comments about Liverpool losing population and receiving public money for regeneration. Firstly, they show a failure to grasp the argument. We need the terminal to provide turnaround facilities - to allow people from Liverpool and the wider North West to be able to embark on cruise liners not to come to visit Liverpool - which they can do already due to our present stopping services. Therefore, the attractiveness or unattractiveness of Liverpool is not relevant to the argument. Secondly, they are just totally unnecessary. Bringing up the subject of Liverpool's economic fortunes all time as mysteriously an argument for depriving the city of regeneration grants reveals that Phil has some hidden agenda. For myself, I just want Liverpool to have a more prosperous future. I have no antipathy toward Southampton - a place that I have never visited (apart from Eastleigh Airport on the way to Bournemouth). I just wish that the powers that be in your city were not trying to stifle the legitimate aspirations of mine. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

1:44am Sun 19 Feb 12

ronn12 says...

Southampton just can't get over liverpool can it !!!!
Your paper , mp, people are obsessed and won't let it be .
You will never have what liverpool has got , your stupid backward uneducated remarks from the 80's which you are stuck in , Liverpool is a great city believe me , and in regards to handouts I think not? U have a cheek , look closer to home , London dominates this country in regards to public money and investment and the hard working people of the north are fed up with it, like Scotland who wants out of the uk now and I don't blame them . I think the people of the north should start to conplain about the muppets in the backward south
Southampton just can't get over liverpool can it !!!! Your paper , mp, people are obsessed and won't let it be . You will never have what liverpool has got , your stupid backward uneducated remarks from the 80's which you are stuck in , Liverpool is a great city believe me , and in regards to handouts I think not? U have a cheek , look closer to home , London dominates this country in regards to public money and investment and the hard working people of the north are fed up with it, like Scotland who wants out of the uk now and I don't blame them . I think the people of the north should start to conplain about the muppets in the backward south ronn12
  • Score: 0

7:24am Sun 19 Feb 12

loosehead says...

ronn12 wrote:
Southampton just can't get over liverpool can it !!!!
Your paper , mp, people are obsessed and won't let it be .
You will never have what liverpool has got , your stupid backward uneducated remarks from the 80's which you are stuck in , Liverpool is a great city believe me , and in regards to handouts I think not? U have a cheek , look closer to home , London dominates this country in regards to public money and investment and the hard working people of the north are fed up with it, like Scotland who wants out of the uk now and I don't blame them . I think the people of the north should start to conplain about the muppets in the backward south
Ronn all your comments seem to be from a bitter person I read what Merseymart & Tom say & I can see they can see both sides of the argument but then I read your posts what a difference?
London is about as alien to us as Liverpool is.
Gordan Brown gave the go ahead to grant money being spent on a severe threat to any container port & called it Shellhaven.
London we all know gets a far bigger slice of the cake than any one else & after the riots it looks like even more but this isn't the general thing on the South coast.
If you do come down here you must speak to people? you must know we're not in the same league as London so why bring up London ?
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Southampton just can't get over liverpool can it !!!! Your paper , mp, people are obsessed and won't let it be . You will never have what liverpool has got , your stupid backward uneducated remarks from the 80's which you are stuck in , Liverpool is a great city believe me , and in regards to handouts I think not? U have a cheek , look closer to home , London dominates this country in regards to public money and investment and the hard working people of the north are fed up with it, like Scotland who wants out of the uk now and I don't blame them . I think the people of the north should start to conplain about the muppets in the backward south[/p][/quote]Ronn all your comments seem to be from a bitter person I read what Merseymart & Tom say & I can see they can see both sides of the argument but then I read your posts what a difference? London is about as alien to us as Liverpool is. Gordan Brown gave the go ahead to grant money being spent on a severe threat to any container port & called it Shellhaven. London we all know gets a far bigger slice of the cake than any one else & after the riots it looks like even more but this isn't the general thing on the South coast. If you do come down here you must speak to people? you must know we're not in the same league as London so why bring up London ? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:31am Sun 19 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

The argument all comes down to this.
Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business.
The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS.
Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul.
Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL.
Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules
Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade.
No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK
The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:16am Sun 19 Feb 12

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
The argument all comes down to this.
Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business.
The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS.
Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul.
Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL.
Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules
Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade.
No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK
I hope the people who post on here from Liverpool read this & can accept it's not us being anti Liverpool & read the points you've made
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK[/p][/quote]I hope the people who post on here from Liverpool read this & can accept it's not us being anti Liverpool & read the points you've made loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sun 19 Feb 12

southy says...

You lot do relise why White star/Cunard came to Southampton in the frist place, it was about cost of leaving Liverpool then having to sail into the Channel to visit a french port to pick up passengers, With that French port not recieving many passengers ships any longer, because its to easy to travel from one place to another, its no wonder that Cunard is or has thought about Liverpool again, it might be a no this time but it will come up again in the future.
You lot do relise why White star/Cunard came to Southampton in the frist place, it was about cost of leaving Liverpool then having to sail into the Channel to visit a french port to pick up passengers, With that French port not recieving many passengers ships any longer, because its to easy to travel from one place to another, its no wonder that Cunard is or has thought about Liverpool again, it might be a no this time but it will come up again in the future. southy
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Sun 19 Feb 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
You lot do relise why White star/Cunard came to Southampton in the frist place, it was about cost of leaving Liverpool then having to sail into the Channel to visit a french port to pick up passengers, With that French port not recieving many passengers ships any longer, because its to easy to travel from one place to another, its no wonder that Cunard is or has thought about Liverpool again, it might be a no this time but it will come up again in the future.
Southy when are you going to Liverpool?
You can't stand this city & most people would say go it's your time so why not go & write posts in Liverpools local paper & get them telling you to go!
You say that Southampton should be for Southampton people. You say we should go back to the heavy manufacturing base we had? When?
then you come out with pro Liverpool statements?
If the only way your TUSC can get votes is if we're all on the dole then give up & go
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: You lot do relise why White star/Cunard came to Southampton in the frist place, it was about cost of leaving Liverpool then having to sail into the Channel to visit a french port to pick up passengers, With that French port not recieving many passengers ships any longer, because its to easy to travel from one place to another, its no wonder that Cunard is or has thought about Liverpool again, it might be a no this time but it will come up again in the future.[/p][/quote]Southy when are you going to Liverpool? You can't stand this city & most people would say go it's your time so why not go & write posts in Liverpools local paper & get them telling you to go! You say that Southampton should be for Southampton people. You say we should go back to the heavy manufacturing base we had? When? then you come out with pro Liverpool statements? If the only way your TUSC can get votes is if we're all on the dole then give up & go loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Sun 19 Feb 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
You lot do relise why White star/Cunard came to Southampton in the frist place, it was about cost of leaving Liverpool then having to sail into the Channel to visit a french port to pick up passengers, With that French port not recieving many passengers ships any longer, because its to easy to travel from one place to another, its no wonder that Cunard is or has thought about Liverpool again, it might be a no this time but it will come up again in the future.
Southy when are you going to Liverpool?
You can't stand this city & most people would say go it's your time so why not go & write posts in Liverpools local paper & get them telling you to go!
You say that Southampton should be for Southampton people. You say we should go back to the heavy manufacturing base we had? When?
then you come out with pro Liverpool statements?
If the only way your TUSC can get votes is if we're all on the dole then give up & go
Loosehead I am a realist, it dont matter what city you love or where you live and you can spend all the money you like to try and keep firms here, but it will all ways boil down to one thing where would they make the biggest profit and lest amount of running cost, you can not force a company like Cunard, they will do what they want its about profit not the wellbeing of a city, they do not care what happens so long they make the biggest amount of profit margins.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: You lot do relise why White star/Cunard came to Southampton in the frist place, it was about cost of leaving Liverpool then having to sail into the Channel to visit a french port to pick up passengers, With that French port not recieving many passengers ships any longer, because its to easy to travel from one place to another, its no wonder that Cunard is or has thought about Liverpool again, it might be a no this time but it will come up again in the future.[/p][/quote]Southy when are you going to Liverpool? You can't stand this city & most people would say go it's your time so why not go & write posts in Liverpools local paper & get them telling you to go! You say that Southampton should be for Southampton people. You say we should go back to the heavy manufacturing base we had? When? then you come out with pro Liverpool statements? If the only way your TUSC can get votes is if we're all on the dole then give up & go[/p][/quote]Loosehead I am a realist, it dont matter what city you love or where you live and you can spend all the money you like to try and keep firms here, but it will all ways boil down to one thing where would they make the biggest profit and lest amount of running cost, you can not force a company like Cunard, they will do what they want its about profit not the wellbeing of a city, they do not care what happens so long they make the biggest amount of profit margins. southy
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Sun 19 Feb 12

southy says...

Also do Fords, H and W, Vospers, Avo, Supermarine, Hovercraft, Husbands and thats just to name a few Heavy Industrys that was base here.
Also do Fords, H and W, Vospers, Avo, Supermarine, Hovercraft, Husbands and thats just to name a few Heavy Industrys that was base here. southy
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Sun 19 Feb 12

MerseyMart says...

phil maccavity wrote:
The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK
No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels?

Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least.

Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds).

Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised.

Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland.

Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK[/p][/quote]No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels? Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least. Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds). Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised. Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland. Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton? MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Sun 19 Feb 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK
No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels?

Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least.

Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds).

Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised.

Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland.

Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?
MerseyMart for one you know you applied for those grants for a visiting facility but had no intention what so ever to honour it as before you had applied you already had the appeal written out to change it's use.
This was said by the leader of your council!
As for Portsmouth I can't believe you! I give you more credit than that!
Portsmouth were building a new terminal for smaller ships than visit Southampton you were on about a facility that would compete with them so why did they back you?
With you going about it all wrong they could see you in a mess for years to come but with out someone else's support would you have continued fighting for it?
They can now fight to win the same size ships that your terminal would attract on a regular schedule but their terminal is built yours is years ahead because of this.
the word con comes to mind can't you see that?
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK[/p][/quote]No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels? Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least. Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds). Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised. Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland. Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?[/p][/quote]MerseyMart for one you know you applied for those grants for a visiting facility but had no intention what so ever to honour it as before you had applied you already had the appeal written out to change it's use. This was said by the leader of your council! As for Portsmouth I can't believe you! I give you more credit than that! Portsmouth were building a new terminal for smaller ships than visit Southampton you were on about a facility that would compete with them so why did they back you? With you going about it all wrong they could see you in a mess for years to come but with out someone else's support would you have continued fighting for it? They can now fight to win the same size ships that your terminal would attract on a regular schedule but their terminal is built yours is years ahead because of this. the word con comes to mind can't you see that? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Sun 19 Feb 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Also do Fords, H and W, Vospers, Avo, Supermarine, Hovercraft, Husbands and thats just to name a few Heavy Industrys that was base here.
Okay Husbands was a ship repairers hardly heavy industry.
Supermarine built Spitfires not heavy industry.Fords assembles Transit vans production line not heavy industry.
or are you going to include BAT & Martini in your heavy industry?
these were light industry.
Vospers built & repaired ships but even when they had permission to expand the yard the chance of getting big bucks in the housing boom era( Labours) they jumped city to cheaper Royal Navy yards .
When was the last large Hovercraft built in Southampton?
Pirelli's was the only heavy industry I can think of that we lost & then Eastleigh lost so we will never get that back China's to cheap so why do you knock tourism?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Also do Fords, H and W, Vospers, Avo, Supermarine, Hovercraft, Husbands and thats just to name a few Heavy Industrys that was base here.[/p][/quote]Okay Husbands was a ship repairers hardly heavy industry. Supermarine built Spitfires not heavy industry.Fords assembles Transit vans production line not heavy industry. or are you going to include BAT & Martini in your heavy industry? these were light industry. Vospers built & repaired ships but even when they had permission to expand the yard the chance of getting big bucks in the housing boom era( Labours) they jumped city to cheaper Royal Navy yards . When was the last large Hovercraft built in Southampton? Pirelli's was the only heavy industry I can think of that we lost & then Eastleigh lost so we will never get that back China's to cheap so why do you knock tourism? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Mon 20 Feb 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Also do Fords, H and W, Vospers, Avo, Supermarine, Hovercraft, Husbands and thats just to name a few Heavy Industrys that was base here.
Okay Husbands was a ship repairers hardly heavy industry.
Supermarine built Spitfires not heavy industry.Fords assembles Transit vans production line not heavy industry.
or are you going to include BAT & Martini in your heavy industry?
these were light industry.
Vospers built & repaired ships but even when they had permission to expand the yard the chance of getting big bucks in the housing boom era( Labours) they jumped city to cheaper Royal Navy yards .
When was the last large Hovercraft built in Southampton?
Pirelli's was the only heavy industry I can think of that we lost & then Eastleigh lost so we will never get that back China's to cheap so why do you knock tourism?
They are all class as heavy Industry, all produce stuff on mass that was not for Domestic use.
Husbands was a ship repairers and builders last ship they built was in 1944-45
BAT, Martini made stuff for Domestic use, just like Mullards, even lo some stuff was for Commerical the majority was Domestic use.

Theres a gray line that divides the two,
Like racing cars that are only made in a small number is light industry.
Appledores is heavy industry, BR foundery in Redbridge another heavy industary.
Last SR model Hovercraft was built in the early 80's, built for the Med sea now operatering on the River Vouge
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Also do Fords, H and W, Vospers, Avo, Supermarine, Hovercraft, Husbands and thats just to name a few Heavy Industrys that was base here.[/p][/quote]Okay Husbands was a ship repairers hardly heavy industry. Supermarine built Spitfires not heavy industry.Fords assembles Transit vans production line not heavy industry. or are you going to include BAT & Martini in your heavy industry? these were light industry. Vospers built & repaired ships but even when they had permission to expand the yard the chance of getting big bucks in the housing boom era( Labours) they jumped city to cheaper Royal Navy yards . When was the last large Hovercraft built in Southampton? Pirelli's was the only heavy industry I can think of that we lost & then Eastleigh lost so we will never get that back China's to cheap so why do you knock tourism?[/p][/quote]They are all class as heavy Industry, all produce stuff on mass that was not for Domestic use. Husbands was a ship repairers and builders last ship they built was in 1944-45 BAT, Martini made stuff for Domestic use, just like Mullards, even lo some stuff was for Commerical the majority was Domestic use. Theres a gray line that divides the two, Like racing cars that are only made in a small number is light industry. Appledores is heavy industry, BR foundery in Redbridge another heavy industary. Last SR model Hovercraft was built in the early 80's, built for the Med sea now operatering on the River Vouge southy
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Mon 20 Feb 12

southy says...

Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also.
Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist
Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also. Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist southy
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Mon 20 Feb 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also.
Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist
Southy Steel mills are classified as Heavy industry the companies you have mentioned are light industry.
Tourism is low wages? your living on cloud cuckoo land!
Have a look at job adverts, try going to a temp agency, These jobs are either £6 an hour or for shift work it's £7 an hour.
have a look at BMW,Honda & Toyota plants & see how many eastern europeans work there.
My sister works at the Grand Harbour she puts in a lot of hours but enjoys her job.
The problem is Southy to many people in this country want the money but don't want to work for it.
Tell some of the unemployed they would have to get up & work shifts for more than their dole money but not a lot more than there tax credits.They would tell you to forget it.
you really are in the land of fairies maybe you should go & live in the Land of the Diddy men?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also. Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist[/p][/quote]Southy Steel mills are classified as Heavy industry the companies you have mentioned are light industry. Tourism is low wages? your living on cloud cuckoo land! Have a look at job adverts, try going to a temp agency, These jobs are either £6 an hour or for shift work it's £7 an hour. have a look at BMW,Honda & Toyota plants & see how many eastern europeans work there. My sister works at the Grand Harbour she puts in a lot of hours but enjoys her job. The problem is Southy to many people in this country want the money but don't want to work for it. Tell some of the unemployed they would have to get up & work shifts for more than their dole money but not a lot more than there tax credits.They would tell you to forget it. you really are in the land of fairies maybe you should go & live in the Land of the Diddy men? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Mon 20 Feb 12

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK
No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels?

Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least.

Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds).

Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised.

Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland.

Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?
Merseymart in the beginning this was all started by a Liberal run Liverpool council,Portsmouth is a Liberal run council I guess the reason they backed this idea was down to that fact & by doing so they were hoping to keep control of Liverpool & win the seat in the general election.
Once they didn't win the seat & lost control of the council they withdrew their support.
If they had come to this city & talked to it's council & ABP who knows maybe this could have been sorted & been beneficial to both cities we will never know now.
Could you find a home for Southy? I don't know if you want him spouting TUSC propaganda in your paper or slagging down your city as he does ours
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK[/p][/quote]No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels? Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least. Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds). Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised. Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland. Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?[/p][/quote]Merseymart in the beginning this was all started by a Liberal run Liverpool council,Portsmouth is a Liberal run council I guess the reason they backed this idea was down to that fact & by doing so they were hoping to keep control of Liverpool & win the seat in the general election. Once they didn't win the seat & lost control of the council they withdrew their support. If they had come to this city & talked to it's council & ABP who knows maybe this could have been sorted & been beneficial to both cities we will never know now. Could you find a home for Southy? I don't know if you want him spouting TUSC propaganda in your paper or slagging down your city as he does ours loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Mon 20 Feb 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also.
Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist
Southy Steel mills are classified as Heavy industry the companies you have mentioned are light industry.
Tourism is low wages? your living on cloud cuckoo land!
Have a look at job adverts, try going to a temp agency, These jobs are either £6 an hour or for shift work it's £7 an hour.
have a look at BMW,Honda & Toyota plants & see how many eastern europeans work there.
My sister works at the Grand Harbour she puts in a lot of hours but enjoys her job.
The problem is Southy to many people in this country want the money but don't want to work for it.
Tell some of the unemployed they would have to get up & work shifts for more than their dole money but not a lot more than there tax credits.They would tell you to forget it.
you really are in the land of fairies maybe you should go & live in the Land of the Diddy men?
steel mills are heavy industry is right, but they are not heavy industral industry,
they make the steel for other industary to use, Ship repairers and builders are heavy industral industary they make good for commerical use in large numbers.
there are version of each and like i said it a gray line that seperate light and heavy industral industary.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also. Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist[/p][/quote]Southy Steel mills are classified as Heavy industry the companies you have mentioned are light industry. Tourism is low wages? your living on cloud cuckoo land! Have a look at job adverts, try going to a temp agency, These jobs are either £6 an hour or for shift work it's £7 an hour. have a look at BMW,Honda & Toyota plants & see how many eastern europeans work there. My sister works at the Grand Harbour she puts in a lot of hours but enjoys her job. The problem is Southy to many people in this country want the money but don't want to work for it. Tell some of the unemployed they would have to get up & work shifts for more than their dole money but not a lot more than there tax credits.They would tell you to forget it. you really are in the land of fairies maybe you should go & live in the Land of the Diddy men?[/p][/quote]steel mills are heavy industry is right, but they are not heavy industral industry, they make the steel for other industary to use, Ship repairers and builders are heavy industral industary they make good for commerical use in large numbers. there are version of each and like i said it a gray line that seperate light and heavy industral industary. southy
  • Score: 0

8:15pm Mon 20 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also.
Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist
Southy
Your comments always me smile(generally with despair)
I guess you are not aware that the main thrust of Liverpool's argument for the £17m of grant aid for the cruise terminal was that it would increase tourism to the city.
They have used massive UK and EC grants to restructure their economy to focus on tourism and, to be fair, have been pretty successful at it.
Presumably TUSC in Liverpool don't share your view!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also. Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist[/p][/quote]Southy Your comments always me smile(generally with despair) I guess you are not aware that the main thrust of Liverpool's argument for the £17m of grant aid for the cruise terminal was that it would increase tourism to the city. They have used massive UK and EC grants to restructure their economy to focus on tourism and, to be fair, have been pretty successful at it. Presumably TUSC in Liverpool don't share your view!! phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Mon 20 Feb 12

MerseyMart says...

I know that we go round in circles with these arguments but one matter that has not really been discussed is the grounds for Southampton's objection to the landing stage at Liverpool.

Soton would have a case if it could prove that Liverpool had been given a commercial advantage by the investment of public money in its landing stage. If that were the case, then what is that advantage?

The whole thrust of Keith Hamilton's argument is that Liverpool has got for free what other ports, including Southampton have to pay for using private money. So what is the equivalent facility at Soton to the floating landing stage at Liverpool and how much did it cost?
I know that we go round in circles with these arguments but one matter that has not really been discussed is the grounds for Southampton's objection to the landing stage at Liverpool. Soton would have a case if it could prove that Liverpool had been given a commercial advantage by the investment of public money in its landing stage. If that were the case, then what is that advantage? The whole thrust of Keith Hamilton's argument is that Liverpool has got for free what other ports, including Southampton have to pay for using private money. So what is the equivalent facility at Soton to the floating landing stage at Liverpool and how much did it cost? MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Mon 20 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

MerseyMart wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK
No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels?

Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least.

Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds).

Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised.

Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland.

Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?
re your comment about ..'when did liners in Soton have to tie up in mid river...?
Actuallly until just after WW2 I think.
Some Liners used to anchor at Cowes Roads off the IOW and tenders used to transport passengers back and forth into the port.
The tender 'Calshot' remains in Soton as testimony to that time!!!

btw you did get a new terminal FOC and if the planned cruise turnround business does not materialise no risk on capital has been undertaken. What a wonderful way for our Govt to do business.!!

I have not personally seen the actual document that Liverpool signed up to initially but have it on very good authority from someone who used to work for the NWDA that the terms of the grant were very specific ie calling cruises only and the PR company working for LCC were also very aware of this.
Liverpool were, at the time in 2007, hoping that Peel would come forward with immediate plans for a new terminal in Bootle but those plans did not materialise and, according to Peels website, now have a 20-40 year horizon.

Southampton has not been given any grant aid support for its cruise business nor, it appears, has any other UK cruise port!!!.
You can muddy the waters by bringing road and rail connections in but what town or city has not received Govt help towards its transport infrastructure.
Liverpool certainly got rail grant aid towards the Olive Mount Branch line into Seaforth Docks and also that wonderful dual carriage way improvement along the Goree.
The EC signage promoting the latter must have cost a fortune!!
They have also recently been given a large wedge to deepen the river whilst, again, Soton port owners have to pay commercial rates for their planned channel deepening
At least the grants for these schemes were given to Liverpool for the purpose they were intended unlike the £17m cruise terminal grant.
The deceipt involved in the latter does the good name of Liverpool no favours at all.
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The argument all comes down to this. Liverpool was provided with grants for £17m specifically for a calling cruise facility. All other UK ports were basically Ok with this as it complemented rather than adversely affected their existing cruise business. The money would not have been given if turnrounds had been mentioned AND LIVERPOOL COUNCIL KNEW THIS. Within a very short time span LCC had approached the, then, Labour Govt (who had initially granted the UK cash) for permission to change the terms of the grant. This was rightly refused. They tried again under the Tory regime and got a provisional thumbs up which has been challenged by other UK cruise ports (led by Soton) none of whom have been able to use public money for their facilities and are crying foul. Liverpool have offered to pay back part/all of the £7m grant but ONLY IF THE CRUISE SHIPS CALL. Bearing in mind the original business case for the £17m calling cruise terminal hasd proved to be rather 'creative' to say the least, LCC are not really playing by the normal business rules Oh and, of course, there is the attrempt to get Portsmouth as a 'major south coast cruise port' to support the initial application for a change of use. Interestingly they are now against the idea as it could potentially harm their own trade. No one is against Liverpool having a nice, shiny cruise terminal but only if it is provided on the same risk based financial terms as applies elsewhere in the UK[/p][/quote]No Phil, the argument comes down to this. Liverpool has received public money certainly but that money has not given the port any advantage over Southampton, it has merely removed a disadvantage. Since when did liners at Soton have to tie up in mid-river and be served by tender vessels? Had we been given a new terminal free of charge, then your claims would have some justification - but we don't have a new terminal at present and, as you have rightly pointed out, when we do get it it will most likely be a marquee - in the short term at least. Are you really expecting us to believe that Liverpool signed up to an agreement that IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they apply for turnaround facilities? (In other words, they would have to build a completely new terminal should they want to develop turnarounds). Repaying the grant money as and when cruise ships make use of the turnaround facilities makes total sense. If cruise companies don't want to use Liverpool for turnarounds, then the terms of the initial agreement would not have been compromised. Also, the claim that Southampton has not been given public money for their facilities beggars belief. We have identified some £60m of public investment in road and rail infrastructure that has directly benefited the port of Southampton and enabled it to compete well into Liverpool's hinterland. Surely the question you should be asking about Portsmouth is why they supported Liverpool - have they had similar experiences with Soton?[/p][/quote]re your comment about ..'when did liners in Soton have to tie up in mid river...? Actuallly until just after WW2 I think. Some Liners used to anchor at Cowes Roads off the IOW and tenders used to transport passengers back and forth into the port. The tender 'Calshot' remains in Soton as testimony to that time!!! btw you did get a new terminal FOC and if the planned cruise turnround business does not materialise no risk on capital has been undertaken. What a wonderful way for our Govt to do business.!! I have not personally seen the actual document that Liverpool signed up to initially but have it on very good authority from someone who used to work for the NWDA that the terms of the grant were very specific ie calling cruises only and the PR company working for LCC were also very aware of this. Liverpool were, at the time in 2007, hoping that Peel would come forward with immediate plans for a new terminal in Bootle but those plans did not materialise and, according to Peels website, now have a 20-40 year horizon. Southampton has not been given any grant aid support for its cruise business nor, it appears, has any other UK cruise port!!!. You can muddy the waters by bringing road and rail connections in but what town or city has not received Govt help towards its transport infrastructure. Liverpool certainly got rail grant aid towards the Olive Mount Branch line into Seaforth Docks and also that wonderful dual carriage way improvement along the Goree. The EC signage promoting the latter must have cost a fortune!! They have also recently been given a large wedge to deepen the river whilst, again, Soton port owners have to pay commercial rates for their planned channel deepening At least the grants for these schemes were given to Liverpool for the purpose they were intended unlike the £17m cruise terminal grant. The deceipt involved in the latter does the good name of Liverpool no favours at all. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Mon 20 Feb 12

phil maccavity says...

MerseyMart wrote:
I know that we go round in circles with these arguments but one matter that has not really been discussed is the grounds for Southampton's objection to the landing stage at Liverpool.

Soton would have a case if it could prove that Liverpool had been given a commercial advantage by the investment of public money in its landing stage. If that were the case, then what is that advantage?

The whole thrust of Keith Hamilton's argument is that Liverpool has got for free what other ports, including Southampton have to pay for using private money. So what is the equivalent facility at Soton to the floating landing stage at Liverpool and how much did it cost?
Soton has 4 cruise terminals which cost between £40- £50m to provide

Perhaps it may be worthwhile imagining this scenario
A vehicle manufacturing company obtains a significant UK/EC grant to build a new commercial vehicle factory at Gosport (nr Soton) which is a pretty deprived town due to Navy downsizing.
The terms are quite specific, commercial vehicle manufacturing only.
However 2 years down the line the owners decide that the return on commercial vehicles is not too clever so they declare an interest in manufacturing SUV's
The owners say that they will only produce about 3% of the Uk's SUV's and support their argument by saying that the markey for SUV's is high in the 'prosperous south!!!' and Gosport is right next door to the port of soton where most of the UK produced SUV's go from, so meeting internal demand and saving Co2 etc etc.
I presume in such a circumstance the workers at Land Rover in Halewood would merely say 'fair enough no problems with competition you deserve your grant money we will just soldier on and hope that Tata will continue to support us.
oh and by the way after Tata make a fuss the owners of the new SUV factory in Gosport reluctantly agree to pay back part of the grant but on the basis of an unspecified amount per car produced
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: I know that we go round in circles with these arguments but one matter that has not really been discussed is the grounds for Southampton's objection to the landing stage at Liverpool. Soton would have a case if it could prove that Liverpool had been given a commercial advantage by the investment of public money in its landing stage. If that were the case, then what is that advantage? The whole thrust of Keith Hamilton's argument is that Liverpool has got for free what other ports, including Southampton have to pay for using private money. So what is the equivalent facility at Soton to the floating landing stage at Liverpool and how much did it cost?[/p][/quote]Soton has 4 cruise terminals which cost between £40- £50m to provide Perhaps it may be worthwhile imagining this scenario A vehicle manufacturing company obtains a significant UK/EC grant to build a new commercial vehicle factory at Gosport (nr Soton) which is a pretty deprived town due to Navy downsizing. The terms are quite specific, commercial vehicle manufacturing only. However 2 years down the line the owners decide that the return on commercial vehicles is not too clever so they declare an interest in manufacturing SUV's The owners say that they will only produce about 3% of the Uk's SUV's and support their argument by saying that the markey for SUV's is high in the 'prosperous south!!!' and Gosport is right next door to the port of soton where most of the UK produced SUV's go from, so meeting internal demand and saving Co2 etc etc. I presume in such a circumstance the workers at Land Rover in Halewood would merely say 'fair enough no problems with competition you deserve your grant money we will just soldier on and hope that Tata will continue to support us. oh and by the way after Tata make a fuss the owners of the new SUV factory in Gosport reluctantly agree to pay back part of the grant but on the basis of an unspecified amount per car produced phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

2:07am Tue 21 Feb 12

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also.
Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist
Southy
Your comments always me smile(generally with despair)
I guess you are not aware that the main thrust of Liverpool's argument for the £17m of grant aid for the cruise terminal was that it would increase tourism to the city.
They have used massive UK and EC grants to restructure their economy to focus on tourism and, to be fair, have been pretty successful at it.
Presumably TUSC in Liverpool don't share your view!!
Well they have some thing to offer, Southampton don't its been screwed up, and then again just across the way you got one of the major car manufaturers that employs more people than fords do has its own dock for car shipping, has a container port also thet the guys there are on better pay then here in Southampton, still has workable dry docks, they still have some ship building repairs but that looks like it dieing out now, same problem there as here, they can not dry dock any of these new large container or passenger ships.
If this council and ABPj used there heads they could of built a dry dock at 101 berth that could of been wider and longer than any of these new super passenger liners, that would of bought orders in to build one or two of these new ships, and to be able to get them out of the water for repairs and hull painting ect.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Tourism do not benefit ordinary working class people, tourism is very cheap labour wages, long hours, poor working conditions, these type of corporations many are only small corporations dont like employing local people because they will have to pay them the NWL, so they employ overseas workers so the wages are below the NWL, and the idea of off brinning overseas work force is to break the NWL and national agreement, I am one off those that would pass a law enforcing all companys to pay overseas work force the NWL, and to agree on the national agreement for them also. Tourism might sound alot incoming revenue but compair that with industral industary it peanut money, The locals put a lot more money into a local economy than a tourist[/p][/quote]Southy Your comments always me smile(generally with despair) I guess you are not aware that the main thrust of Liverpool's argument for the £17m of grant aid for the cruise terminal was that it would increase tourism to the city. They have used massive UK and EC grants to restructure their economy to focus on tourism and, to be fair, have been pretty successful at it. Presumably TUSC in Liverpool don't share your view!![/p][/quote]Well they have some thing to offer, Southampton don't its been screwed up, and then again just across the way you got one of the major car manufaturers that employs more people than fords do has its own dock for car shipping, has a container port also thet the guys there are on better pay then here in Southampton, still has workable dry docks, they still have some ship building repairs but that looks like it dieing out now, same problem there as here, they can not dry dock any of these new large container or passenger ships. If this council and ABPj used there heads they could of built a dry dock at 101 berth that could of been wider and longer than any of these new super passenger liners, that would of bought orders in to build one or two of these new ships, and to be able to get them out of the water for repairs and hull painting ect. southy
  • Score: 0

2:11am Tue 21 Feb 12

southy says...

the trouble with the council we been having for the last 25 years don't have any vision for the future, they are trying to make Southampton a rich man play ground.
and if you seen these sort of areas any where around the world they look nice on tv and in the main tourise area, but got out side on the edges and you really see what it means with slums and poverity and all the problems that come with it.
the trouble with the council we been having for the last 25 years don't have any vision for the future, they are trying to make Southampton a rich man play ground. and if you seen these sort of areas any where around the world they look nice on tv and in the main tourise area, but got out side on the edges and you really see what it means with slums and poverity and all the problems that come with it. southy
  • Score: 0

7:34am Tue 21 Feb 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
the trouble with the council we been having for the last 25 years don't have any vision for the future, they are trying to make Southampton a rich man play ground.
and if you seen these sort of areas any where around the world they look nice on tv and in the main tourise area, but got out side on the edges and you really see what it means with slums and poverity and all the problems that come with it.
At least 21 of those years we had a Labour/socialist council in the last 4 years we've had more built & jobs created than in those 21 years & even the new shopping malls we had built were signed sealed & delivered by the council before the 25 years your talking about & that was a Tory council & it's a Tory council now.
Southy are you going to survive another 4 years? shall we have this same debate after maybe having 4 years of a labour council?
As for the dry dock when the last ship repairer pulled out of this city the dock gate was knackered & instead of replacing it ABP did away with the dry dock.
Yet again you come on here & tell us about "rich people" Wealth creates jobs!
Socialists utopia makes us all the same taking away the enterprise that creates jobs.
do you honestly believe that China's industrial revolution was done by communists or socialists? If you do your really a fool.
Those rich people spend their money in this city so creating jobs or are you so out of touch you can't fathom that one out?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: the trouble with the council we been having for the last 25 years don't have any vision for the future, they are trying to make Southampton a rich man play ground. and if you seen these sort of areas any where around the world they look nice on tv and in the main tourise area, but got out side on the edges and you really see what it means with slums and poverity and all the problems that come with it.[/p][/quote]At least 21 of those years we had a Labour/socialist council in the last 4 years we've had more built & jobs created than in those 21 years & even the new shopping malls we had built were signed sealed & delivered by the council before the 25 years your talking about & that was a Tory council & it's a Tory council now. Southy are you going to survive another 4 years? shall we have this same debate after maybe having 4 years of a labour council? As for the dry dock when the last ship repairer pulled out of this city the dock gate was knackered & instead of replacing it ABP did away with the dry dock. Yet again you come on here & tell us about "rich people" Wealth creates jobs! Socialists utopia makes us all the same taking away the enterprise that creates jobs. do you honestly believe that China's industrial revolution was done by communists or socialists? If you do your really a fool. Those rich people spend their money in this city so creating jobs or are you so out of touch you can't fathom that one out? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Fri 24 Feb 12

Rollo56 says...

"A sad reflection on the decline of the UK if that many people have to leave a major city."
They didn't have to and didn't want to, they were forced out by the Tories boundary changes bringing in Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Warrington. The same is happening now, large swathes of empty land in big cities yet the Tories want to alter 'Planning'????
"A sad reflection on the decline of the UK if that many people have to leave a major city." They didn't have to and didn't want to, they were forced out by the Tories boundary changes bringing in Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Warrington. The same is happening now, large swathes of empty land in big cities yet the Tories want to alter 'Planning'???? Rollo56
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Fri 24 Feb 12

loosehead says...

Rollo56 wrote:
"A sad reflection on the decline of the UK if that many people have to leave a major city."
They didn't have to and didn't want to, they were forced out by the Tories boundary changes bringing in Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Warrington. The same is happening now, large swathes of empty land in big cities yet the Tories want to alter 'Planning'????
Rollo you've got it all wrong! Liverpool was once known as this countries second city but since the war the population has been going down.
people have moved away for work or to move south for the sunnier climate.
then the las government decided to have agencies set up to help regenerate places?cities like Liverpool.
they mistakenly believed the problem with Northern cities was they're housing stock & went about destroying communities by clearing out the houses ( whole estates) even when the people living there didn't want to go, they knocked down a few but most have remained empty as Labour stopped the flow of money.
most new houses would have been out of reach of the people who lived in those communities.
I have said they should start refilling those homes but first modernising them then as in Liverpool offer them to the local people then ask cities across the countries to offer them to people on their housing waiting lists.
We lost Bournemouth & a chunk of our county in the boundary changes & I know some people still put Hampshire as their county but that was not the post was on about
[quote][p][bold]Rollo56[/bold] wrote: "A sad reflection on the decline of the UK if that many people have to leave a major city." They didn't have to and didn't want to, they were forced out by the Tories boundary changes bringing in Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Warrington. The same is happening now, large swathes of empty land in big cities yet the Tories want to alter 'Planning'????[/p][/quote]Rollo you've got it all wrong! Liverpool was once known as this countries second city but since the war the population has been going down. people have moved away for work or to move south for the sunnier climate. then the las government decided to have agencies set up to help regenerate places?cities like Liverpool. they mistakenly believed the problem with Northern cities was they're housing stock & went about destroying communities by clearing out the houses ( whole estates) even when the people living there didn't want to go, they knocked down a few but most have remained empty as Labour stopped the flow of money. most new houses would have been out of reach of the people who lived in those communities. I have said they should start refilling those homes but first modernising them then as in Liverpool offer them to the local people then ask cities across the countries to offer them to people on their housing waiting lists. We lost Bournemouth & a chunk of our county in the boundary changes & I know some people still put Hampshire as their county but that was not the post was on about loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Sat 3 Mar 12

Who's laughing now says...

phil maccavity wrote:
ronn12 wrote:
Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .
Ronn
I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet
The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay.
Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!!
And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money
So it could take some time to resolve completely.
Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through.
Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey.
I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction.
This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts
Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre
Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton
Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing.
Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012.
The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC
Liverpool cruise liner terminal funding agreed

Mar 3 2012

LIVERPOOL council’s cruise liner terminal will cost around £500,000 to build but help bring in up to £20m a year.

Planners are expected to give approval to the bid later this month and work could begin on site in April. At yesterday’s cabinet meeting the green light was given to release the funding for the project.

To save costs and make sure the facilities last they will be temporary and will be taken down during the closed season of the winter months.

Derelict land at Princes Dock will be used for baggage-handling, customs checks, coach and bus parking.

It is understood the cost of improving roads which give access to the site will be around £300,000 with the terminal building or marquee and other works costing around £200,000.

But city leaders said the potential income to the city would be huge.

They have estimated that each cruise liner starting or ending its journey in Liverpool will see around £1m pumped into the city economy.

A report that went before cabinet yesterday stated that “the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination with a particular view to the potential growth of fly-cruising from overseas as well as UK regional departures”.

It adds: “Given the city’s established international profile it is anticipated that in the medium term there is significant growth in this market.”

Council leader Cllr Joe Anderson said: “This is a huge moment for Liverpool and means for the first time in decades we have the prospect of liners starting and ending their voyages in the city.

“Cruising is big business because it means tourists who come here and spend money in the local economy.

“For far too long, holiday makers in the north west have had to travel to and from other ports to start their journeys, and this will return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port.”

Cabinet member for regeneration Cllr Malcolm Kennedy added: “We are grateful to the government for giving us a fair hearing on this matter and are getting everything in place so we can take advantage of turnaround as soon as this issue is resolved.”

The terminal will be in use for three years before a permanent structure is built.

The council is currently in the process of agreeing how much of the original £9.2m of European funding given towards the cost of the existing cruise terminal will have to be paid back. Some money must be reimbursed because it was built on the condition it would only be used for short stop-offs.

Read More http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/liverpool
-news/local-news/201
2/03/03/liverpool-cr
uise-liner-terminal-
funding-agreed-10025
2-30450277/#ixzz1o3T
22Bw7
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .[/p][/quote]Ronn I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay. Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!! And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money So it could take some time to resolve completely. Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through. Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey. I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction. This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing. Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012. The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC[/p][/quote]Liverpool cruise liner terminal funding agreed Mar 3 2012 LIVERPOOL council’s cruise liner terminal will cost around £500,000 to build but help bring in up to £20m a year. Planners are expected to give approval to the bid later this month and work could begin on site in April. At yesterday’s cabinet meeting the green light was given to release the funding for the project. To save costs and make sure the facilities last they will be temporary and will be taken down during the closed season of the winter months. Derelict land at Princes Dock will be used for baggage-handling, customs checks, coach and bus parking. It is understood the cost of improving roads which give access to the site will be around £300,000 with the terminal building or marquee and other works costing around £200,000. But city leaders said the potential income to the city would be huge. They have estimated that each cruise liner starting or ending its journey in Liverpool will see around £1m pumped into the city economy. A report that went before cabinet yesterday stated that “the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination with a particular view to the potential growth of fly-cruising from overseas as well as UK regional departures”. It adds: “Given the city’s established international profile it is anticipated that in the medium term there is significant growth in this market.” Council leader Cllr Joe Anderson said: “This is a huge moment for Liverpool and means for the first time in decades we have the prospect of liners starting and ending their voyages in the city. “Cruising is big business because it means tourists who come here and spend money in the local economy. “For far too long, holiday makers in the north west have had to travel to and from other ports to start their journeys, and this will return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port.” Cabinet member for regeneration Cllr Malcolm Kennedy added: “We are grateful to the government for giving us a fair hearing on this matter and are getting everything in place so we can take advantage of turnaround as soon as this issue is resolved.” The terminal will be in use for three years before a permanent structure is built. The council is currently in the process of agreeing how much of the original £9.2m of European funding given towards the cost of the existing cruise terminal will have to be paid back. Some money must be reimbursed because it was built on the condition it would only be used for short stop-offs. Read More http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/liverpool -news/local-news/201 2/03/03/liverpool-cr uise-liner-terminal- funding-agreed-10025 2-30450277/#ixzz1o3T 22Bw7 Who's laughing now
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Sat 3 Mar 12

loosehead says...

Who's laughing now wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
ronn12 wrote:
Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .
Ronn
I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet
The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay.
Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!!
And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money
So it could take some time to resolve completely.
Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through.
Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey.
I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction.
This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts
Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre
Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton
Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing.
Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012.
The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC
Liverpool cruise liner terminal funding agreed

Mar 3 2012

LIVERPOOL council’s cruise liner terminal will cost around £500,000 to build but help bring in up to £20m a year.

Planners are expected to give approval to the bid later this month and work could begin on site in April. At yesterday’s cabinet meeting the green light was given to release the funding for the project.

To save costs and make sure the facilities last they will be temporary and will be taken down during the closed season of the winter months.

Derelict land at Princes Dock will be used for baggage-handling, customs checks, coach and bus parking.

It is understood the cost of improving roads which give access to the site will be around £300,000 with the terminal building or marquee and other works costing around £200,000.

But city leaders said the potential income to the city would be huge.

They have estimated that each cruise liner starting or ending its journey in Liverpool will see around £1m pumped into the city economy.

A report that went before cabinet yesterday stated that “the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination with a particular view to the potential growth of fly-cruising from overseas as well as UK regional departures”.

It adds: “Given the city’s established international profile it is anticipated that in the medium term there is significant growth in this market.”

Council leader Cllr Joe Anderson said: “This is a huge moment for Liverpool and means for the first time in decades we have the prospect of liners starting and ending their voyages in the city.

“Cruising is big business because it means tourists who come here and spend money in the local economy.

“For far too long, holiday makers in the north west have had to travel to and from other ports to start their journeys, and this will return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port.”

Cabinet member for regeneration Cllr Malcolm Kennedy added: “We are grateful to the government for giving us a fair hearing on this matter and are getting everything in place so we can take advantage of turnaround as soon as this issue is resolved.”

The terminal will be in use for three years before a permanent structure is built.

The council is currently in the process of agreeing how much of the original £9.2m of European funding given towards the cost of the existing cruise terminal will have to be paid back. Some money must be reimbursed because it was built on the condition it would only be used for short stop-offs.

Read More http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/liverpool

-news/local-news/201

2/03/03/liverpool-cr

uise-liner-terminal-

funding-agreed-10025

2-30450277/#ixzz1o3T

22Bw7
“the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination?
surely your already a tourist destination?
With your history & the merseybeat of the sixties?
If you can't attract tourists to your city there's something wrong in your advertising.
you have Manchester airport close & I would have thought people coming to see the city where the Beatles came from would fly in.
Aintree is another attraction but you won't get them taking a cruise to get there.
As Southampton has found, Many visitors are coach drivers waiting to pick up passengers from the ships that's why a 5 star hotel downgraded to attract them.
If the passengers are from the North why would they stop in Liverpool? it would be a place they could visit any day.
they stay in Southampton for the Sun The Isle of Wight(Cowes week) & the New Forest these are places miles from their homes.
If you live in Manchester & are cruising out of Liverpool are you going to spend a week in Liverpool?
I think your council leaders are grossly effecting the increase in tourism a turnaround facility will bring.
I would have thought a day visit would have bought more tourists?
[quote][p][bold]Who's laughing now[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Liverpool has been granted turnaround status , whether the people from Southampton like it or not , get over it and concentrate on improving your town centre , because there is no attractions what so ever , I am from Liverpool and have been to Southampton and believe me when I say this there is no comparison , Liverpool blows Southampton right out of the water in regards to what it has to offer to a tourist , the ships are increasing each year to Liverpool from demand , in regards to Cunard sticking with southampton well personally I think is a load of rubbish , cunard is a business looking to make money , and lots more of it and it would be daft to not to use Liverpool . Liverpool will increase and open up a new market in the north of the uk , and in regards to the recent comment regarding tempary baggage facility at Liverpool well that is correct , tempary it is . Wait until you see the new plans .[/p][/quote]Ronn I am sure Liverpool will get turnround status but it is not a done deal as yet The Independent inspector has yet to report back on the amount of grant money LCC have to repay. Also the Govt may well not favour the LCC offer of 'we will pay the money back out of revenue'!! And there still remains the possibility of the EU looking to recoup some part of their Grant money So it could take some time to resolve completely. Meanwhile LCC are providing a tent on the new quayside for the passengers to embark through. Apparently this will only be there for part of the year due to prevailing weather conditions on the Mersey. I agree that Liverpool is far more of an attractive proposition than Soton as a visitor attraction. This may not have been the case though 20 years ago when, despite many grand old buildings, Liverpool was rather rundown in parts Since then Merseyside has received £2 billion in State aid to make it a vibrant and interesting city centre Just a small proportion of this would have paid for the rejuvenation of Southampton Finally you say that the cruise ships into Liverpool are increasing. Interestingly the original PR campaign,. when the grant money was first allocated, called for 25 calling cruises by 2009 and a doubling by 2012. The cruise call figures have never been above the 16 mark (!!) but it is interesting the PR blurb from Liverpool will state more than this as they count in visiting Royal Naval ships which normally are accomodated FOC[/p][/quote]Liverpool cruise liner terminal funding agreed Mar 3 2012 LIVERPOOL council’s cruise liner terminal will cost around £500,000 to build but help bring in up to £20m a year. Planners are expected to give approval to the bid later this month and work could begin on site in April. At yesterday’s cabinet meeting the green light was given to release the funding for the project. To save costs and make sure the facilities last they will be temporary and will be taken down during the closed season of the winter months. Derelict land at Princes Dock will be used for baggage-handling, customs checks, coach and bus parking. It is understood the cost of improving roads which give access to the site will be around £300,000 with the terminal building or marquee and other works costing around £200,000. But city leaders said the potential income to the city would be huge. They have estimated that each cruise liner starting or ending its journey in Liverpool will see around £1m pumped into the city economy. A report that went before cabinet yesterday stated that “the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination with a particular view to the potential growth of fly-cruising from overseas as well as UK regional departures”. It adds: “Given the city’s established international profile it is anticipated that in the medium term there is significant growth in this market.” Council leader Cllr Joe Anderson said: “This is a huge moment for Liverpool and means for the first time in decades we have the prospect of liners starting and ending their voyages in the city. “Cruising is big business because it means tourists who come here and spend money in the local economy. “For far too long, holiday makers in the north west have had to travel to and from other ports to start their journeys, and this will return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port.” Cabinet member for regeneration Cllr Malcolm Kennedy added: “We are grateful to the government for giving us a fair hearing on this matter and are getting everything in place so we can take advantage of turnaround as soon as this issue is resolved.” The terminal will be in use for three years before a permanent structure is built. The council is currently in the process of agreeing how much of the original £9.2m of European funding given towards the cost of the existing cruise terminal will have to be paid back. Some money must be reimbursed because it was built on the condition it would only be used for short stop-offs. Read More http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/liverpool -news/local-news/201 2/03/03/liverpool-cr uise-liner-terminal- funding-agreed-10025 2-30450277/#ixzz1o3T 22Bw7[/p][/quote]“the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination? surely your already a tourist destination? With your history & the merseybeat of the sixties? If you can't attract tourists to your city there's something wrong in your advertising. you have Manchester airport close & I would have thought people coming to see the city where the Beatles came from would fly in. Aintree is another attraction but you won't get them taking a cruise to get there. As Southampton has found, Many visitors are coach drivers waiting to pick up passengers from the ships that's why a 5 star hotel downgraded to attract them. If the passengers are from the North why would they stop in Liverpool? it would be a place they could visit any day. they stay in Southampton for the Sun The Isle of Wight(Cowes week) & the New Forest these are places miles from their homes. If you live in Manchester & are cruising out of Liverpool are you going to spend a week in Liverpool? I think your council leaders are grossly effecting the increase in tourism a turnaround facility will bring. I would have thought a day visit would have bought more tourists? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:45am Sun 4 Mar 12

Who's laughing now says...

It wont be people from Manchester staying here though will it? People from as far as Scotland will be travelling here,for a day or two I'd imagine.Staying here will encourage many people to come back here though.Liverpool has about 100 miles of coastline,many great beaches and is an hours drive from Snowdonia National Park,the Peak District,the Yorkshire Dales and it's not far from the Lake District,do you think it's an industrial wasteland or something with nothing too see? At the end of the day,you lot cried,we paid up, your gripe has gone, we now have another string to our bow, move on.
It wont be people from Manchester staying here though will it? People from as far as Scotland will be travelling here,for a day or two I'd imagine.Staying here will encourage many people to come back here though.Liverpool has about 100 miles of coastline,many great beaches and is an hours drive from Snowdonia National Park,the Peak District,the Yorkshire Dales and it's not far from the Lake District,do you think it's an industrial wasteland or something with nothing too see? At the end of the day,you lot cried,we paid up, your gripe has gone, we now have another string to our bow, move on. Who's laughing now
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Sun 4 Mar 12

loosehead says...

Who's laughing now wrote:
It wont be people from Manchester staying here though will it? People from as far as Scotland will be travelling here,for a day or two I'd imagine.Staying here will encourage many people to come back here though.Liverpool has about 100 miles of coastline,many great beaches and is an hours drive from Snowdonia National Park,the Peak District,the Yorkshire Dales and it's not far from the Lake District,do you think it's an industrial wasteland or something with nothing too see? At the end of the day,you lot cried,we paid up, your gripe has gone, we now have another string to our bow, move on.
But you haven't paid up! The EU are looking very closely at this & if the government change the use of this facility are looking at taking their money back so Who's Laughing Now? it's not over by a long stretch of the imagination.
the reasons people give for Liverpool being allowed to lie to get grants & then try to get the facility for what they had intended to use it in the first place was that people from the North would use this facility rather than fly to Europe to meet the ships
Now your council go on about tourism?
If it's people from the North they can go visit your city or the places that you mention any time so once again why would they stay in your city?
coming to Southampton many make it part of their holiday & visit the places I mentioned
many will not do that.
At the moment people who go on cruises to visit Liverpool Know they're going there & want to see the attractions you will lose these if you lose the visiting ships.
So how's that an increase on Tourism?
before you come on boasting how you think you've got one over Southampton look at the total picture is this really better for tourism or just increase traffic on your roads?
I'd love to come & see my cousins in Liverpool & I don't think of it as a derelict industrial(past) City but please don't believe all the rhetoric coming out of your councils mouths
[quote][p][bold]Who's laughing now[/bold] wrote: It wont be people from Manchester staying here though will it? People from as far as Scotland will be travelling here,for a day or two I'd imagine.Staying here will encourage many people to come back here though.Liverpool has about 100 miles of coastline,many great beaches and is an hours drive from Snowdonia National Park,the Peak District,the Yorkshire Dales and it's not far from the Lake District,do you think it's an industrial wasteland or something with nothing too see? At the end of the day,you lot cried,we paid up, your gripe has gone, we now have another string to our bow, move on.[/p][/quote]But you haven't paid up! The EU are looking very closely at this & if the government change the use of this facility are looking at taking their money back so Who's Laughing Now? it's not over by a long stretch of the imagination. the reasons people give for Liverpool being allowed to lie to get grants & then try to get the facility for what they had intended to use it in the first place was that people from the North would use this facility rather than fly to Europe to meet the ships Now your council go on about tourism? If it's people from the North they can go visit your city or the places that you mention any time so once again why would they stay in your city? coming to Southampton many make it part of their holiday & visit the places I mentioned many will not do that. At the moment people who go on cruises to visit Liverpool Know they're going there & want to see the attractions you will lose these if you lose the visiting ships. So how's that an increase on Tourism? before you come on boasting how you think you've got one over Southampton look at the total picture is this really better for tourism or just increase traffic on your roads? I'd love to come & see my cousins in Liverpool & I don't think of it as a derelict industrial(past) City but please don't believe all the rhetoric coming out of your councils mouths loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Thu 8 Mar 12

Who's laughing now says...

Who cares about all of the ifs and buts as long as we win this battle?
The first cruise ship to leave from here is scheduled for the 29th May.
Who cares about all of the ifs and buts as long as we win this battle? The first cruise ship to leave from here is scheduled for the 29th May. Who's laughing now
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Thu 8 Mar 12

Who's laughing now says...

Here in the pre launch brochure they have eight cruises listed for next year on the Boudicca
* Norway in May
* Scandinavia and St Petersburg in May and July
* Palaces of Stockholm and St Petersburg in August
* Iberian capitals of Culture in May
* Spain, Gibraltar and Lisbon in August
* The Canaries in April
* Casablanca and The Canaries in July

http://www.cruise.co
.uk/images/Cruise//c
ruise_gallery/1/Pre-
Launch%20Offers%20Br
ochure_0.pdf
Here in the pre launch brochure they have eight cruises listed for next year on the Boudicca * Norway in May * Scandinavia and St Petersburg in May and July * Palaces of Stockholm and St Petersburg in August * Iberian capitals of Culture in May * Spain, Gibraltar and Lisbon in August * The Canaries in April * Casablanca and The Canaries in July http://www.cruise.co .uk/images/Cruise//c ruise_gallery/1/Pre- Launch%20Offers%20Br ochure_0.pdf Who's laughing now
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Thu 8 Mar 12

loosehead says...

Who's laughing now wrote:
Here in the pre launch brochure they have eight cruises listed for next year on the Boudicca
* Norway in May
* Scandinavia and St Petersburg in May and July
* Palaces of Stockholm and St Petersburg in August
* Iberian capitals of Culture in May
* Spain, Gibraltar and Lisbon in August
* The Canaries in April
* Casablanca and The Canaries in July

http://www.cruise.co

.uk/images/Cruise//c

ruise_gallery/1/Pre-

Launch%20Offers%20Br

ochure_0.pdf
All you need now are the Costa line ships
[quote][p][bold]Who's laughing now[/bold] wrote: Here in the pre launch brochure they have eight cruises listed for next year on the Boudicca * Norway in May * Scandinavia and St Petersburg in May and July * Palaces of Stockholm and St Petersburg in August * Iberian capitals of Culture in May * Spain, Gibraltar and Lisbon in August * The Canaries in April * Casablanca and The Canaries in July http://www.cruise.co .uk/images/Cruise//c ruise_gallery/1/Pre- Launch%20Offers%20Br ochure_0.pdf[/p][/quote]All you need now are the Costa line ships loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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