Oyster Yachts gone into administration

SO40 said:
Lozzer and pvb: I am really not interested in reading about your little quible. Do this in PM´s or go to a pub. It is getting boring.
Click to expand...

How about you go to the pub (qv "get a life") instead of reading and responding to their posts?
 
Last edited:
Pretty awful stuff. Good on the owner for publishing the facts and holding Oyster to account.

With that sort of wilful mismanagement, the company deserved to go under.
 
Walther said:
Pretty awful stuff. Good on the owner for publishing the facts and holding Oyster to account.

With that sort of wilful mismanagement, the company deserved to go under.
Click to expand...

Agreed - if that report is substantially true, then they deserved to go under and the sailing world is better off without them. This report paints a picture of a company that had plenty of warning that they had made a serious error in the design and construction of an ocean going yacht and consistently refused to take it seriously. If the failure had happened just a few weeks earlier, this could easily have been another Cheeki Rafiki.
 
maby said:
Agreed - if that report is substantially true, then they deserved to go under and the sailing world is better off without them. This report paints a picture of a company that had plenty of warning that they had made a serious error in the design and construction of an ocean going yacht and consistently refused to take it seriously. If the failure had happened just a few weeks earlier, this could easily have been another Cheeki Rafiki.
Click to expand...

And then we might have seen Tydeman in court on a corporate manslaughter charge.
 
boatboat said:
Wow, so the owner had already lost confidence in the yacht and asked for a full refund before the incident.
Then it sinks on a calm sunny day a few miles off the coast of Spain, and he does indeed get a full insurance payout.
Suspicious?
Click to expand...

The damage shown in the pictures would be pretty difficult to fake - that hull simply fell apart.
 
boatboat said:
Waterproof chainsaw.

I agree it's the longest of long shots but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Click to expand...

No, look at the pictures - there are no cut marks - that hull simply delaminated and ripped apart. It was too lightly built and the matrix was not adequately glued to the structure of the hull.
 
Roberto said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
 
pvb said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
maby said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or, as I said in post 263, "Just think what would have happened if the keel had dropped off 24 hours earlier. In all probability, no survivors. And, in all probability, no wreckage to show how badly the thing had been built. It would just have been a mysterious loss."
 
Walther said:
Pretty awful stuff. Good on the owner for publishing the facts and holding Oyster to account.

With that sort of wilful mismanagement, the company deserved to go under.
Click to expand...

Well, I understand the sentiment of your comment, but I truly do not believe that the company deserved to go under. The 3 key figures in all this deserve to go under, especially David Tydeman. From the investors, maybe. But they were not directly involved in the building of boats. They just owned the company and I assume got sucked into this drama.
The biggest xxx peeeeep xxx by far is the CEO of Oyster. In my view, thanks to him 400 people have now lost their jobs and probably more indirectly? and a beautiful brand has been burnt to the ground. I truly hope this man gets what he deserves. Somehow, some day.
 
SO40 said:
Well, I understand the sentiment of your comment, but I truly do not believe that the company deserved to go under. The 3 key figures in all this deserve to go under, especially David Tydeman. From the investors, maybe. But they were not directly involved in the building of boats. They just owned the company and I assume got sucked into this drama.
The biggest xxx peeeeep xxx by far is the CEO of Oyster. In my view, thanks to him 400 people have now lost their jobs and probably more indirectly? and a beautiful brand has been burnt to the ground. I truly hope this man gets what he deserves. Somehow, some day.
Click to expand...

If you look at his history, he's no stranger to new jobs.
 
maby said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very much so. You could say it was a brave decision to cross back across the Atlantic. The Antigua report was more evidence than I believe they had against Doug Innes on the condition of the boat before the voyage commenced, but , assuming that e-mail from Oyster is genuine, then they had a full reassurance from the builder that there were no issues.

I presume these document were what the boat owner's legal team had been collating for a claim against Oyster. They seem to have put together a pretty strong case, although obviously we don't get to see Oyster's side of the story.
 
lpdsn said:
Very much so. You could say it was a brave decision to cross back across the Atlantic. The Antigua report was more evidence than I believe they had against Doug Innes on the condition of the boat before the voyage commenced, but , assuming that e-mail from Oyster is genuine, then they had a full reassurance from the builder that there were no issues.

I presume these document were what the boat owner's legal team had been collating for a claim against Oyster. They seem to have put together a pretty strong case, although obviously we don't get to see Oyster's side of the story.
Click to expand...

And if the keel had come off in the Atlantic Tydeman could well be facing a manslaughter charge.
 
lpdsn said:
I presume these document were what the boat owner's legal team had been collating for a claim against Oyster. They seem to have put together a pretty strong case, although obviously we don't get to see Oyster's side of the story.
Click to expand...

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?
 
pvb said:
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?
Click to expand...

Have they? there is still the outstanding case against the moulders and Oysters own insurance both of which will be ring fenced and the administrators will not be able to get their paws on the money should any materialise. The case doesn't go away just because the company doesn't exist, the insurers will still be liable for events whilst the company was extant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top