Oyster Yachts gone into administration

[lpdsn]

All rather academic now though, as it looks as if Oyster have avoided paying out. I wonder whether Mr Tydeman will feature in any buy-out of the Oyster assets?

The owner's insurance company seems to have paid out. I assume Oyster had valid product liability insurance so maybe the lawyers won't quite be facing unemployment yet.

I hope they do manage to resurect the company, if only for the shopfloor workers and the owners of the part-built boats, although he may not be the biggest PR asset the new company could have.

 

[lw395]

Given the amount of warning they apparently had, they are lucky that they are not facing manslaughter charges. If she had gone down in mid-Atlantic, the outcome could have been very different and they would have been hardpressed to defend themselves.

It would have possibly been the owner facing charges, had it been UK flagged.
He had doubts about the structure, but was still happy to send it across the atlantic and operate the yacht in the med.
Operating a ship which you beleive to be unsound is not a good place to be.
Surely if you or I had a yacht we seriously didn't trust the keel on, we would be taking it somewhere with the know-how to investigate the problem, not sending it across the Atlantic?
I can't access the report from the surveyors in Antigua, the zip is being flagged as not trusted on this PC.
Anyone read it?

As Ward and Mckenzie say, you can't really say what caused the problem without full access to the dessign info.
The hull lines were drawn by Humphreys, their website says:
"....Oyster’s latest striking and contemporary styling, first seen with the highly successful Oyster 625 (of which 12 are now already sold). Clear deck lounging areas and larger hullports with ‘Seascape’ windows are among the features of this innovative new breed of Oyster yacht. With clean and easily driven hull lines drawn by Rob Humphreys and detailed styling and engineering developed by the Oyster Design Team, the new Oyster 825 is sure to attract acclaim wherever she goes" (my bold), which implies the structural design was done in-house. But Oyster may have used consultants for this.
It's not a trivial bit of design, but neither is it bleeding edge stuff. You wouldn't expect a CEO to understand it any more than you'd expect them to be able to derive the best shape for the sails from fundamental physics. A CEO would be relying on experts.

 

[davidej]

You wouldn't expect a CEO to understand it any more than you'd expect them to be able to derive the best shape for the sails from fundamental physics. A CEO would be relying on experts.

I googled Tydeman and he has been a ships surveyor and naval architect, not to mention CEO-of-the-year.

 

[Concerto]

"When the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) formed a working group to look into the keel loss issue in 2013 they tallied up 72 incidents (since 1984) that resulted in 24 deaths. Far from complete, this profile only records incidents where survivor reports or vetted second hand accounts were available, or vessel remains pinpointed to the cause of a loss. No numbers exist for cases in which sailboats simply disappeared at sea—but keel failure, resulting in major hull damage and loss of stability, certainly can’t be ruled out. "
Quote from this old post from 2016. http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2016/01/13/48696/

This number does not include Cheeki Rafiki, Polina Star III or Tyger of London, or others not mentioned on YBW. It does seem that Oyster and other manufacturers have reduced structural keel strength to that design structural models say is strong enough. The structural models are now showing that the forces involved are greater than those designed for, and/or the alternative could be the strength of the lamination/reinforcing is not as great as tested samples used for the design. It may be a combination of both. Irrespective of which has been the cause, there will continue to be other keel failures and these will continue for a great number of years as it is unlikely that many production boats will get strengthened. That is my opinion and I hope no one else looses their life, but this will be very unlikely.

 

[lpdsn]

I can't access the report from the surveyors in Antigua, the zip is being flagged as not trusted on this PC.
Anyone read it?

Just click on the link. Preview fails but you can then download the PDF.

It's about 50% disclaimer but describes and measures keel movement and water leaking out from the bilges when the boat is raised in slings.

 

[lpdsn]

It would have possibly been the owner facing charges, had it been UK flagged.

Guernsey flagged.

Whilst I agree they were lucky she didn't go down in the Atlantic with resultant manslaughter charges, do you think it unreasonable for the owner to have relied on the builder's assurances?

 

[dunedin]

Have you seen this site:

http://www.oysterstory.info

apologies if already posted, the site says it was created on Feb16, I went back to messages until that daye; a forum search with the site name gives no results

Thanks for posting that. Very much worth a read.

Only one side of the story, but if even a fraction of that is true then it explains the outrage of the skipper and owner.
Keel problems being reported and investigated multiple times, but apparently getting reassurances from Oyster that all was fine. Perhaps other owners are becoming less certain about similar reassurances?

The suggestions about Oyster being seen to be apparently complacent / arrogant about the incident at the time (2015/16) are understatements compared to what the skipper & owner felt.
I guess we may never hear the Oyster side of the story to compare with this?

 

[lw395]

Guernsey flagged.

Whilst I agree they were lucky she didn't go down in the Atlantic with resultant manslaughter charges, do you think it unreasonable for the owner to have relied on the builder's assurances?

Yes it could be seen as unreasonable to rely on an opinion you are already discrediting, from a party you are in dispute with.

 

[dunedin]

More reading reveals that the Russian made a further £2.5M claim against Oyster for "emotional distress".
(Having already been paid in full for the yacht by his insurance)

This puts a slightly different spin on things. More understandable perhaps that Oyster felt they were being blackmailed. Especially as the Russian had already gone public in 2015. He was obviously hell bent on revenge.

Presumably the motivation of the Dutch investors to liquidate was to avoid paying the guy a penny. Clash of wealthy egos.

That said, the design or build of the yacht is ultimately to blame for the whole saga. (assuming no skullduggery)

I disagree. Yes it appears that the owner's insurance paid out for the boat value. But the boat was purchased to do a cruise round the world.
These, presumably extensively prepared, plans had to be aborted due to the early keel issues not being repaired. So the owner lost his world cruise - and was still paying expensive professional crew who were doing a delivery back to the UK. There were a lot of other legitimate costs.
And frankly I think the crew on board would be very entitled to claim some compensation from the builders after such a traumatic capsize, that could have lost them their lives if happened further out in the Atlantic. Having apparently been assured twice by the builders that the keel was fine - when clearly it was very much not.

Sounds like the owner has lost his world cruise and a lot of costs, which may never see back. Not blackmail, but perhaps outrage over what they perceived / alleged as disgraceful customer service before and after the incident.

 

[lpdsn]

No.
He seems to have had professional, on the spot, opinion which together with the obvious 'water coming out, it shouldn't do that', would seem to suggest he already did not trust what Oyster were telling him.

It's like there's a yawning crack in your new house, the builder, on the phone say's 'it's fine, we checked it', you're already in dispute with them, would you let your kids in there?

Your analogy is not really comparable though. Builder in this case has more of the status of a renowned architect and builder saying it is normal, Vs a small town surveyor who says he isn't really qualified to go any further with his report (have you read it yet by the way?).

If you're one of those people who can exclude hindsight, most seem unable, think back to what you might've said about the reliability of Oyster build quality four or five years ago.

 

[lw395]

Your analogy is not really comparable though. Builder in this case has more of the status of a renowned architect and builder saying it is normal, Vs a small town surveyor who says he isn't really qualified to go any further with his report (have you read it yet by the way?).

If you're one of those people who can exclude hindsight, most seem unable, think back to what you might've said about the reliability of Oyster build quality four or five years ago.

Yes, read the survey, hence edited my post a little, please edit your quote of my post?

Oyster build quality? My username is based on a product of theirs which was of course balsa core below the waterline. Still my favourite boat though.
The point was, it might be reasonable to argue that the owner believed the boat was defective. Or was not sufficiently sure it was sound.

I'm not going to open any of the docx files from any Russian source.

 

[SO40]

I disagree. Yes it appears that the owner's insurance paid out for the boat value. But the boat was purchased to do a cruise round the world.
These, presumably extensively prepared, plans had to be aborted due to the early keel issues not being repaired. So the owner lost his world cruise - and was still paying expensive professional crew who were doing a delivery back to the UK. There were a lot of other legitimate costs.
And frankly I think the crew on board would be very entitled to claim some compensation from the builders after such a traumatic capsize, that could have lost them their lives if happened further out in the Atlantic. Having apparently been assured twice by the builders that the keel was fine - when clearly it was very much not.

Sounds like the owner has lost his world cruise and a lot of costs, which may never see back. Not blackmail, but perhaps outrage over what they perceived / alleged as disgraceful customer service before and after the incident.

I can confirm the last remark. Totally.

But, do not despare. His new Contest 85 will be ready soon.

I hear lots of buzz of things happening in the background too. That Oyster Brokerage may continue as is. Same for Oyster Services. And that there is a plan put forward to Oyster owners, to setup a company with a small group of Oyster know it alls (I mean ex Oyster staff with years and years of experience in repairs, production and maintenance) to keep the knowledge available to owners, in case it dissapears to China or Hanse or Bavaria.
I am just stating what I hear and read.

 

[Walther]

More reading reveals that the Russian made a further £2.5M claim against Oyster for "emotional distress". (Having already been paid in full for the yacht by his insurance)

This puts a slightly different spin on things. More understandable perhaps that Oyster felt they were being blackmailed. Especially as the Russian had already gone public in 2015.

No blackmail involved, surely? The point of blackmail is to threaten to go public with some unsavoury information. And as you say, the owner had already gone public.

I see nothing wrong with the owner bringing action for uninsured losses. While those claims might have been exaggerated or unrecoverable, that was and is up to the Court to decide. Litigation can never amount to "blackmail".

I googled Tydeman and he has been a ships surveyor and naval architect, not to mention CEO-of-the-year.

EXACTLY.

 

[lpdsn]

Yes, read the survey, hence edited my post a little, please edit your quote of my post?

...

The point was, it might be reasonable to argue that the owner believed the boat was defective. Or was not sufficiently sure it was sound.

It's certainly an argument a lawyer might've put forward in any case, but realistically if we all discarded stuff that we had doubts about despite being assured by a reliable source that it was fine the entire planet would be a junk heap. Of course hindsight had the last laugh regarding Oyster being that reliable source, but in the vast majority of cases it is fine.

Not sure I can edit things in any coherent meaningful way, but I think we're at least somewhat in agreement now.

 

[Walther]

It would have possibly been the owner facing charges, had it been UK flagged.
He had doubts about the structure, but was still happy to send it across the atlantic and operate the yacht in the med.
Operating a ship which you beleive to be unsound is not a good place to be.
Surely if you or I had a yacht we seriously didn't trust the keel on, we would be taking it somewhere with the know-how to investigate the problem, not sending it across the Atlantic?

This causes me some concern, too.

Presumably the owner would retort that he was relying upon Oyster's assurances; but it's clear that he was contesting those assurances and had no confidence in the boat.

While the problem was caused by Oyster, that does not excuse the owner's decision to risk the lives of the crew in a transatlantic passage.

 

[Walther]

I hadn't seen that, thanks for posting it. It struck me as being a remarkably frank and unemotional account. It's intriguing to see the way in which Oyster stonewalled the owner and his skipper.

No doubt Loozer will be along shortly to suggest it isn't factual...

And Scolly will criticize the website as mere nasty speculation.

 

[Walther]

2 million euros is clearly a figure plucked out of thin air. Hence blackmail.

 

[lpdsn]

The breakdown of the figures appears to be 574,493 Euros for expenses incurred and 2,000,000 Euros for mental distress and disappointment.

2 million euros is clearly a figure plucked out of thin air. Hence blackmail.

I'm sure the Russian expected an out of court settlement and an apology... in return for non disclosure and removal of all previous online evidence. He's probably surprised by this turn of events. But for sure he would have been threatening the kind of website he eventually did publish as part of the negotiations.

In that case most lawyers on the planet will be blackmailers.

I suspect any businessman who's been around for long enough to make the money to commission an Oyster wouldn't be that surprised by the turn of events.

The website doesn't look like it was dashed off at home one evening. It seems well designed, in terms of content, clarity and layout, so I guess he's had a few good people working on it for a while.

 

[Wandering Star]

While the problem was caused by Oyster, that does not excuse the owner's decision to risk the lives of the crew in a transatlantic passage.

But it sounds as though the professional crew were also aware the reason they were moving the boat was to obtain further remedial work to the keel - It sounds as though everyone was aware there was a problem before the made their depsrture. From Antigua but with Oysters assurances, they hadn't realised just how weak the structure really was.

 

[pvb]

The website doesn't look like it was dashed off at home one evening. It seems well designed, in terms of content, clarity and layout, so I guess he's had a few good people working on it for a while.

The website's based on a standard template from Tilda Publishing.