No doubling up at Fawley Meadow

[apollo]

So we have learned thru Ramage that members if these clubs pay substantially more whic tells me two things...
1. Members can afford to pay. After all gyms cost £30-50 per month.
2. The clubs are not passing the money on to EA. Reeks of Greed in my book, every time I pass another brand new clubhouse!!!

£19 per boat us a joke, not even more for an Eight over a Single scull.

Perhaps the EA should open all the weirs and run Henley down to a trickle?

 

[rr_123]

not even more for an Eight over a Single scull

I think that the EA clearly differentiates between "powered" and "unpowered" for the purposes of registration, and "unpowered" has a flat fee

This sounds so like the politics of envy...

Members can afford to pay.

Oh yes. It is

 

[apollo]

I get you don't agree, but let's not get personal eh?

Times are hard and EA is under major pressure to make ends meet, ALL river users will have to pay more including Fishermen, Triathlons, Village regattas.
Or are you happy for them just to slap another increase on your registration cos you are a rich boatowner?

 

[boatone]

Rather than allowing threads of this nature to descend to personal insult level, it would be so much more helpful if we could develop a meaningful discussion that addresses the main issue.

We all want to use the river and the EA, at least for the time being, is charged with the stewardship of the waterway. This includes raising income within the legal framework it operates in which largely constrains it to charging for navigation related activity plus a few other areas such as water extraction. I do not pretend to know what these all are or what the detailed constraints are but it does appear that income opportunity is pretty limited.
Over and above this income the EA is entirely dependent on government and departmental grants and this year I understand the capital grant has been reduced by something like 60%. Fortunately, the EA has carried out a pretty extensive capital improvement programme over the last few years so a severe slow down in capital projects can probably be tolerated for a while, at least.

This governments mantra appears to favour an approach that 'those who use the services should pay for the services'
The EA do have a standard charging regime for the registration of powered and unpowered vessels and accommodations which seems to recognise some level of equitability in relation to degree and type of use.
Having established the charging regime, I believe it should then be incumbent on the EA to exercise that charging regime, without fear or favour, to ensure that the maximum possible income is raised for the purpose of managing the river for the benefit of all users.

I see no reason why ANY sector should enjoy a discount on these charges. This has nothing to do with envy but it does have everything to do with equitability.

The real problem we face is that everything has now come down to massaging the status quo to try and maintain some semblance of an 'acceptable' level of service within the existing financial constraints.
In practice this means "where can we get a little bit more money ?" and "how can we try and prevent even more cuts in government aid ?" - and the net result will continue to be that we pay a bit more every year for which we receive a bit less.

What chance a ground up review of the way the river is financed recognising what the users actually want and value, followed by a radical approach to seeing how the resulting financial requirement might be achieved?
But of course, it won't happen - will it?

 

[apollo]

A much more eloquent way of saying the same thing, well done!!
That's why you sit on the committee.

 

[No Regrets]

Can we barricade large portions of River so we can have races then, with our Tenders being exempt from the speed limits like those twattish Judges boats, whilst marching up and down shouting rubbish via a large loudhailer, and when the rowers want to pass, they have to use the narrow channel we have constructed to be as difficult as possible?

Can we?

Because thats what the fekkers do to me every year....

Why should they not pay for the use of the river?

I accept a 'Lock free' version of the river licence, at a discount for non-lock users, that's only fair...

They get plenty of use, and cause plenty of disruption, seems only fair...

See? FAIR!!

 

[the_wanderer]

Rather moor elsware.

Hi.

Just having a very small boat, I can moor adjacent The Angel on the dayboat moorings for a couple of hours, do a bit of shopping, have a few pints in The Catherine Wheel and shove off to find a decent mooring for the night. Why would anybody want to moor at Fawley anyway?

Regards.

Alan.

 

[boatone]

Hi.
Just having a very small boat, I can moor adjacent The Angel on the dayboat moorings for a couple of hours,....... Why would anybody want to moor at Fawley anyway?

Fawley is a very popular mooring for many people - same side as the town so not so far to walk, cheaper than upstream of the bridge by the park (my preferred spot).
As you say, you have a very small boat so more options.

 

[rr_123]

• our rich thick friends
  
• don't look where they are going
  
• these twats
  
• save his breath for somebody who gave a ****
  
• how little rowers/rowing clubs actually pay to use the river
  
• cause, at the very least, a lot of problems for the rowers
  
• this lot pay diddly squat
  
• We ... should hold an "on anchor" rally
  
• right in the middle of Henley Regatta....full width of the Thames
  
• it is not fair
  
• Time to polish the canon
  
• not even more for an Eight over a Single
  
• barricade large portions of River
  
• those twattish Judges boats
  
• use the narrow channel we have constructed to be as difficult as possible

A very balanced and reasoned set of arguments

This thread seems to have polarised the community quite nicely into those who don't mind the rowers and those who do; I don't believe that this has anything to do with "fair" or "value". I don't row, but having watched no.1 son take gold at the National Schools last weekend (at the national watersports centre in Nottingham, don't worry, they didn't do anything "rich" or "twattish" on the Thames), and knowing how much work went into that, I make no secret about being in the camp that supports.

Funnily enough I never get spoken to

as if were something they had just trodden in

and I never get shouted at to mind my wash by robos either. I will let the reader work out why for him or herself.

A lot of the angst seems to be aimed in particular at Henley Regatta - it is quite well publicised. It should be possible to avoid the area if required, but, no, hang on, you go there for the regatta? Can we just establish also that this is technically a sporting event, not a drinking event albeit that it has well been said that the regatta would continue without the rowing but not the drinking!

If anyone wants another high-horse, consider getting yourselves an 11m by 3m boat and paying more to licence it for the Thames than you would for a gold licence for the entire Inland waterways network AND the Thames

Maybe get out there and enjoy today's wonderful warm sunshine and try and reduce you blood pressure folks... exercise helps btw... maybe... no... I won't say it

 

[apollo]

The EA is broke, cruisers contribute £2.4m a year, rowing £150k, where do YOU suggest more cash is raised from?

Perhaps riparians??? Ha ha!!!

Money has to come from somewhere?

 

[No Regrets]

A very balanced and reasoned set of arguments

This thread seems to have polarised the community quite nicely into those who don't mind the rowers and those who do; I don't believe that this has anything to do with "fair" or "value". I don't row, but having watched no.1 son take gold at the National Schools last weekend (at the national watersports centre in Nottingham, don't worry, they didn't do anything "rich" or "twattish" on the Thames), and knowing how much work went into that, I make no secret about being in the camp that supports.

Funnily enough I never get spoken to and I never get shouted at to mind my wash by robos either. I will let the reader work out why for him or herself.

A lot of the angst seems to be aimed in particular at Henley Regatta - it is quite well publicised. It should be possible to avoid the area if required, but, no, hang on, you go there for the regatta? Can we just establish also that this is technically a sporting event, not a drinking event albeit that it has well been said that the regatta would continue without the rowing but not the drinking!

If anyone wants another high-horse, consider getting yourselves an 11m by 3m boat and paying more to licence it for the Thames than you would for a gold licence for the entire Inland waterways network AND the Thames

Maybe get out there and enjoy today's wonderful warm sunshine and try and reduce you blood pressure folks... exercise helps btw... maybe... no... I won't say it

Mate, you can't just cherry pick from comments made by other posters in the manner of a poor quality politician to try to win a debate, as the end result distorts things somewhat.

There is no doubt that on certain parts of the Thames, there are Rowers who show scant regard to the regulations the rest of us quite happily abide by as a matter of course, and yet contribute little or nothing to the upkeep of the infrastructure of the River itself.

You should be able to see why people who CARE are somewhat unhappy at those users who seem NOT to care!

I always try to put myself in the other persons shoes when considering a fair and balanced approach in these matters, and I would be far happier if the Rowing people showed the Motorised Yacht people the same respect and consideration as I show them.

When they overstep the boundaries of reasonable behaviour, I complain...

 

[rr_123]

Mate

I don't believe that we've met, but thanks

you can't just cherry pick from comments made by other posters in the manner of a poor quality politician to try to win a debate, as the end result distorts things somewhat.

Actually, I can. It's a public forum and I can say what I wish within the rules set down by the hosts, but I am not trying to win a debate; I am merely stating my opinion which happens to be different from yours.

On the other hand... if I was trying to win a debate, I wouldn't come out with trite, unsubstantiated, and subjective statements like

There is no doubt that on certain parts of the Thames, there are Rowers who show scant regard to the regulations the rest of us quite happily abide by as a matter of course, and yet contribute little or nothing to the upkeep of the infrastructure of the River itself..

 

[rr_123]

where do YOU suggest more cash is raised from?

Perhaps riparians???

Not the most stupid idea I've ever heard as it goes.

It could be argued that riparians already contribute a bit more to the public purse as we end up paying top rate council tax for, in my case as many others, a knackered house which would be condemned elsewhere because we enjoy the "amenity" of having boats (cruisers, rowers, barges, party-boats; what have you...?) going past the ends of our gardens, but we love it and are obviously prepared to pay, otherwise we'd move.

Now, that council tax obviously doesn't go toward the upkeep of "the amenity", in fact in general it goes to the upkeep of facilities like street-lighting which we don't have so it could also well be argued that some funding for the upkeep of the river should come from the public purse; in fact as the river is enjoyed by a far greater number of people along the banks than on the water itself, there is quite a strong case for this.

Alternatively, as Apollo suggests, maybe the Riparians should collectiveley fund the maintenance themselves; they own the land to the middle of the river (upstream of Staines bridge anyway) so maybe the EA should concern themselves just with water quality and let the landowners fight over the physics of it.

The upside of that of course (sic) would be that the riparians could then recoup their investment by charging a licence for recrational users to come and enjoy their "back gardens"... ... and have the right to say "no, sorry, you're not having a licence"

 

[No Regrets]

I don't believe that we've met, but thanks



Actually, I can. It's a public forum and I can say what I wish within the rules set down by the hosts, but I am not trying to win a debate; I am merely stating my opinion which happens to be different from yours.

On the other hand... if I was trying to win a debate, I wouldn't come out with trite, unsubstantiated, and subjective statements like

Trite? Unsubstantiated?

Actually, got plenty of it on film, and have approached the club concerned on the last occasion, with an apology and promise to investigate, and change current practise to take on board my simple suggestions which would improve safety to both parties.

You're clearly not trying to win anything, as the persons you have selected your little hit list above from, will clearly not respect your poor judgement for attempting to misuse their quotes somewhat.

I don't doubt you're an utterly decent bloke though, your post history is most pleasant, but as you say, our opinions differ.

Shall we not get into the 'personal' comments that plague some of the other parts of the forum though?