Money

[boatone]

Never rains but it pours week as both EA registration and MDL marina renewals popped through the letterbox.
Rise in EA charge means an extra £25 compared to last year and MDL no increase so no big deal really in the overall order of things. Both offering improved Direct Debit facilities as well which is welcomed, although, with interest rates on savings so pathetically low makes sense to take the discount for paying the marina fees up front.

Been spending quite a bit of time recently pondering the problem of finding increased revenue for the EA to replace the cuts in public purse funding.
Occurs to me that just one commercial entity could pretty much provide the answer single handedly by paying just one per cent of its annual operating profits for the use it makes of the river.
Their operating profits last year were around £600million so £6million would, as they say, "do very nicely". Wouldn't even cost them that as I'm sure they could offset the payment against tax

Who am I talking about ? Here's a clue - their head office is just round the corner and across the road from the EA Thames office at Reading.
They could actually pop round and deliver the cheque by hand and save the postage

 

[boatone]

Wot - No Takers?

Over 130 views and not a single comment !

I have noticed that, whenever I try to raise the issue of funding the river on this forum it tends to meet with deaf ears - or should I say blind eyes?

This problem of funding is going to get worse and there needs to be some different thinking applied to raising revenue to replace reductions in government funding.

Why so little enthusiasm to engage and discuss the issue?

 

[TrueBlue]

Over 130 views and not a single comment !

I have noticed that, whenever I try to raise the issue of funding the river on this forum it tends to meet with deaf ears - or should I say blind eyes?

This problem of funding is going to get worse and there needs to be some different thinking applied to raising revenue to replace reductions in government funding.

Why so little enthusiasm to engage and discuss the issue?

I suppose it's because We're all used to getting public access "free" or no extra charge to facilities that folks ignore indirect pleas for more funding, that is not from the state.

I grizzle at the seemingly high charge to access the Wey or the Warwickshire Avon - 50 quid for two days' cruising??

Or perhaps there's a shortage of ideas?
Here's some seemingly silly ideas to the the arguments (!) going:-

1. More turbines on the River (in addition to those at Windsor and Mapledurham) and charge for their use.
2. Collect day licence fees from ALL the public slipways. Suggest staffing them with volunteers who would get a modest percentage.
3. Ditto day tickets for fishermen (those who don't pay an annual licence.
4. Coin operated public use of the loos and showers already installed at locks.
5. Get more people using the River

 

[cereal tiller]

are you talking about thames water ,tesco or another company?

is there a SCOUTS headquarters nearby,are you suggesting a BOB-A-JOB campaign?

 

[boatone]

are you talking about thames water ,tesco or another company?
is there a SCOUTS headquarters nearby,are you suggesting a BOB-A-JOB campaign?

£600million a bit light for Tescos, don't you think (their profit last year was £3.8billion!) and expecting that sort of money from Bob-a Job seems a little ambitious !

Of course I'm talking about Thames Water - they extract water from the river and they dump sewage in it further down. They declared an operating profit last year of £600million against a turnover of £1.6billion. (They did make charitable donations of around £700k)

Just for comparison, I believe the EA manage the navigation side of the non-tidal Thames for around £10million or so (of which boaters contribute over £3million) - still trying to find out exactly how much of that is contributed by Thames Water but suspect it's less than £1million.

They supply tap water to almost 9million people across the Thames Valley and London and, according to their website they plan to invest nearly £4.9bn across their region from 2010 to 2015.

So £1 a year for every customer as a contribution to the river that provides their raw material sounds good to me ! I bet the EA would be glad to settle for 50p!
And just think of the PR value they could generate from such a gesture !

Oh, and I also think the rowers could pay a bit more and the swimmers should pay something and Henley etc etc ........

 

[watson1959]

They supply tap water to almost 9million people across the Thames Valley and London and, according to their website they plan to invest nearly £4.9bn across their region from 2010 to 2015.

So £1 a year for every customer as a contribution to the river that provides their raw material sounds good to me ! I bet the EA would be glad to settle for 50p!
And just think of the PR value they could generate from such a gesture !

QUOTE]

You know....there's the making of a splendid campaign in that.

A politely-worded, constructive campaign letter, sent by as many people as possible (club members/associations/license-holders etc)....by post (for impact) to the chairman of Thames Water....copied to the newspapers (national and regional)....local radio......TV......something non-confrontational which gives them an opportunity to respond constructively as opposed to just 'raising the barrier' from the outset.....


I wonder.......

 

[robinborton]

More money for the EA

Absolutely agree TW should pay much more, how would they survive without the Thames and they should be fined every time they dump sewage into the river otherwise what's the incentive to fix it.
Also agree every one of those small craft should pay more, £30 per annum (I think) hardly buys I round of drinks.

 

[No Regrets]

Whilst I wholeheartedly congratulate everybody's ideas and suggestions, I can't help feeling that any noticeable money raising schemes, if successful, may result in further government cuts, in a similar way to a Benefits claimant losing out when they find a job...

 

[boatone]

Whilst I wholeheartedly congratulate everybody's ideas and suggestions, I can't help feeling that any noticeable money raising schemes, if successful, may result in further government cuts, in a similar way to a Benefits claimant losing out when they find a job...

Whatever means are used to raise alternative funding there is the risk of tit-for-tat reductions in grant aid. However the cuts are happening even without the EA being given any time, let alone opportunity, to bridge the gap.
A new Commercial Manager has recently joined the EA team with specific responsibility for identifying new revenue opportunities but I doubt any of them will result in quick fix solutions.

The fact is that the sums just don't add up - either more funding is needed - quickly - or major economies need to be achieved - also quickly.

EA Thames is, in my view, between a rock and a hard place. On one side a new breed of government intent on reducing public spending and, on the other, customers who want things to stay the way they like them but don't want to pay any more than they do already.

 

[Ramage]

EA Thames is, in my view, between a rock and a hard place. On one side a new breed of government intent on reducing public spending and, on the other, customers who want things to stay the way they like them but don't want to pay any more than they do already.

There do seem to be a lot of boats up for sale as people decide to take " a few years off boating".

Others are exploring their options, some going below Teddington or to strange far flung cruising grounds where the water is thick and brown....

But I have accepted Uncle Mike's kind offer of another year at Bray.

 

[miket]

Sneaky feeling .......

Ex Boatone;
Been spending quite a bit of time recently pondering the problem of finding increased revenue for the EA to replace the cuts in public purse funding.
Occurs to me that just one commercial entity could pretty much provide the answer single handedly by paying just one per cent of its annual operating profits for the use it makes of the river.
Their operating profits last year were around £600million so £6million would, as they say, "do very nicely". Wouldn't even cost them that as I'm sure they could offset the payment against tax
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... that EA, unimpressed as I am with their business acumen, may just have thought of that avenue of revenue increase.

 

[boatone]

Ex Boatone;
Been spending quite a bit of time recently pondering the problem of finding increased revenue for the EA to replace the cuts in public purse funding.
Occurs to me that just one commercial entity could pretty much provide the answer single handedly by paying just one per cent of its annual operating profits for the use it makes of the river.
Their operating profits last year were around £600million so £6million would, as they say, "do very nicely". Wouldn't even cost them that as I'm sure they could offset the payment against tax
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... that EA, unimpressed as I am with their business acumen, may just have thought of that avenue of revenue increase.

Thought of ... I am sure, but that is not the same as being prepared, or able, to do something about it.
Also, I do not see EA Thames management at Reading as being the people who would , or should, be expected to pursue the matter as it is probably wrapped up in various obscure statutes and historical agreements that would need to be addressed at legislative level. Bear in mind that the EA is a department within DEFRA and EA Thames is but a small part of the EA empire.
Fighting to ensure they get a fair share of the communal pot must be a nightmare if, indeed, they are even given the opportunity.
And whats to say that any income from other areas can even be guaranteed to be allocated to them anyway - I am still trying to find out what revenue will be 'generated' from the Romney Hydro scheme and where it will go to.

 

[gjgm]

MDL being a little crafty with their words, I thought.
No increase...hmm then why is it more expensive for 2012?
Ahh.. no discount being offered this year.
So, yes, no increase but it just costs more !

 

[boatone]

MDL being a little crafty with their words, I thought.
No increase...hmm then why is it more expensive for 2012?
Ahh.. no discount being offered this year.
So, yes, no increase but it just costs more !

3% discount on mine if paid by 16th January.

 

[No Regrets]

VAT? Now 20% instead of 17.5.

C'mon guys, be fair.

Hats off to MDL for holding their prices. It's enough to stop me looking around for cheaper moorings. This sort of treatment is exemplary in this world of shafting.

Cheers Mike and the crew!

 

[Ramage]

Seconded. The MDL people at all 3 of the Thames Marinas give excellent customer service. Shame they don't have a marina further up river though. Perhaps Santa will bring them one!

 

[joejo]

Fully agree with No Regrets and Ramage. Also have always had very good service at Penton Hook.

In fairness to MDL, since the harder times came along their deals have improved and from memory mooring costs were the same in 2008 2009 2010, bit of an increase in 2011 and 2012 only increased due to VAT rise.

In my book very fair, and I wish my other major outgoings had been increased at similar levels.

 

[CJL]

I was extremely annoyed to receive along with our renewals a great sheaf of junk mail to accompany the forms.

Rather hypocritical on the green message and very annoying!!

Interesting comments on Thames Water. However I suspect the EA's priorities for Thames Water is Super Sewer and the AMP (Asset Management Programme) to make sure their assets don't pollute the rivers any more!!

CJL

 

[No Regrets]

I was extremely annoyed to receive along with our renewals a great sheaf of junk mail to accompany the forms.



CJL

Crikey...doesn't take too much to get you going does it?

 

[CJL]

Crikey...doesn't take too much to get you going does it?

No!

GRRRR

CJL