Oyster Yachts gone into administration

[lpdsn]

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.

With the proviso that we only have one side of the story that is the bit where Oyster seem most remiss. They gave an assurance to the owner when they must've expected him to rely on that to cross the Atlantic - he stated an intention to base the boat in the Mediterranean. The owner and crew trusted them and hindsight shows that their lives, at least of the crew, were at risk.

 

[dunedin]

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

But I bet the lawyers have been through every word published there. Dynamite stuff, and if they got any wrong then the counter suits would be in pretty quickly - unless this is the knockout blow for the Oyster entity.
Devastating for the junior staff, but if the website information is accurate then the junior Oyster staff were let down by their leaders

 

[lpdsn]

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

Thanks, so maybe it was produced quickly. However, the template couldn't have organised the presentation of the argument for them. And the English isn't bad - better written than half the news reports you get on the web these days.

 

[lpdsn]

Yep.

None have been convicted.

 

[Zing]

But I bet the lawyers have been through every word published there. Dynamite stuff, and if they got any wrong then the counter suits would be in pretty quickly - unless this is the knockout blow for the Oyster entity.
Devastating for the junior staff, but if the website information is accurate then the junior Oyster staff were let down by their leaders

It’s only published because they have no fear of litigation. Oyster can’t claim the company was damaged by its publication as they are already broken to the point of ceasing to be viable. You can’t sue for damages done to a company if it is already broken.

 

[Zing]

Blackmail definition:
demand money from (someone) in return for not revealing compromising information about them.

Blackmail, extortion, shake-down. Whatever.

 

[Zing]

Cock ups like this are never the fault of one person or down to one error even. It’s likely the consultant engineer cocked it up, then the in house engineers didn’t spot the error. It seems the moulders made mistakes and of course Oyster QC failed to spot mistakes and or had inadequate procedures. Maybe materials suppliers screwed up too. The naval architect had a chance to spot the cock up and missed it. Then with large projects of boat building like a £7m yacht it is usual for classification societies to appoint independent consultants to approve the design and for the owner, and maybe he failed to do so, to employ project managers and consultants to oversee and protect his interests, ditto the insurance company should. There were clearly lots of eyes not on the ball here and all must take a share of blame.

Ultimately it is the owners who pick up the pieces. Not here I think. The administration process will wash out the Polina damage and they will be off and running at the races soon. My bet is it will be with the current owners back in charge, or maybe the original co founder will step up. We will see soon.

 

[maby]

Cock ups like this are never the fault of one person or down to one error even. It’s likely the consultant engineer cocked it up, then the in house engineers didn’t spot the error. It seems the moulders made mistakes and of course Oyster QC failed to spot mistakes and or had inadequate procedures. Maybe materials suppliers screwed up too. The naval architect had a chance to spot the cock up and missed it. Then with large projects of boat building like a £7m yacht it is usual for classification societies to appoint independent consultants to approve the design and for the owner, and maybe he failed to do so, to employ project managers and consultants to oversee and protect his interests, ditto the insurance company should. There were clearly lots of eyes not on the ball here and all must take a share of blame.

Ultimately it is the owners who pick up the pieces. Not here I think. The administration process will wash out the Polina damage and they will be off and running at the races soon. My bet is it will be with the current owners back in charge, or maybe the original co founder will step up. We will see soon.

I don't think the issue is the original design flaw so much as the irresponsible way in which Oyster addressed it after it became apparent that something had gone wrong.

 

[dunedin]

I don't think the issue is the original design flaw so much as the irresponsible way in which Oyster addressed it after it became apparent that something had gone wrong.

Agreed. All products will have failures. It’s how you take responsibility for them and resolve them for the customers (including any others potentially impacted) that shows the integrity of the organisation.

 

[westhinder]

I don't think the issue is the original design flaw so much as the irresponsible way in which Oyster addressed it after it became apparent that something had gone wrong.

Both, or worse.
The design should not have had the flaw. It should have been spotted during manufacture. Given that they did not spot it, they should never have tried to pretend all was in order.
Screwed up big time.
Which does not mean to say that the owner is an innocent choirboy. He is clearly trying to take revenge and screw the company or its administrators for the maximum he can get.
Extremely sad for all the workers who have lost their jobs.

 

[lpdsn]

Which does not mean to say that the owner is an innocent choirboy. He is clearly trying to take revenge and screw the company or its administrators for the maximum he can get.

Although you have to wonder whether he could've been bought off for a lot less money plus some contrition in an out of court settlement. As I understand it the biggest financial threat to Oyster was the claim from his insurers who had already paid out the value of the boat and were wanting their money back from Oyster. They, by way of contrast, appear to have been doing nothing to generate bad publicity for Oyster.

 

[Zing]

I don't think the issue is the original design flaw so much as the irresponsible way in which Oyster addressed it after it became apparent that something had gone wrong.

As to Oyster's demise, it seems it is clearly down to the fact that the keel fell off and the size of the damages claim, not to the issue of irresponsibly handling things.

In any event, I don't think they acted as irresponsibly at the time as you and others make them out to have done. I believe they thought the complaints were not their doing as there were many other possible explanation for the faults. Having never had an incident like this before in their 40 year history it would not be a surprising position to take. With the benefit of hindsight it does look bad, but they didn't have hindsight at the time. When the keel fell off they then took the unusual step of recovering the wreck to understand the problem and they admitted mistakes relatively soon thereafter and fixing the problem in remaining boats.

 

[Tranona]

"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/.

Care is needed quoting things like this without a fuller explanation. If you dig deeper you will find that a significant number of those cases were racing boats or built too early to comply with the RCD. The majority of boats had also been involved in groundings. There are very few cases where keels have become detached because of sailing forces. Of course there are unknown losses, but given the rarity of keel detachment on cruising boats without evidence of other damage it is unlikely that this would explain such losses.

 

[Walther]

In any event, I don't think they acted as irresponsibly at the time as you and others make them out to have done. I believe they thought the complaints were not their doing as there were many other possible explanation for the faults. Having never had an incident like this before in their 40 year history it would not be a surprising position to take. With the benefit of hindsight it does look bad, but they didn't have hindsight at the time. When the keel fell off they then took the unusual step of recovering the wreck to understand the problem and they admitted mistakes relatively soon thereafter and fixing the problem in remaining boats.

According to the owner: "A direct and formal apology from Oyster was never issued to Mr Ezhkov. In a case this big and sensitive, this is something an organisation should have started with, isn't it?"

The second sentence is absolutely right! A meaningful apology would have cost nothing, and might have salvaged at least some goodwill. Instead, Oyster apparently dug in and decided to stonewall.

 

[Walther]

Blackmail definition: demand money from (someone) in return for not revealing compromising information about them.

So you do know what it means! Good. Then why do you keep misusing the word?

Commencing and prosecuting a civil action is in no way a threat to reveal compromising information. By its very nature, the process involves publicity: the allegations become a matter of public record.

 

[jordanbasset]

Reading through this thread it seems clear to me that the behaviour of Oyster in this matter was nothing short of disgraceful and if I had been the owner and treated in such a manner I would be wanting compensation as well.

 

[pandroid]

According to the owner: "A direct and formal apology from Oyster was never issued to Mr Ezhkov. In a case this big and sensitive, this is something an organisation should have started with, isn't it?"

The second sentence is absolutely right! A meaningful apology would have cost nothing, and might have salvaged at least some goodwill. Instead, Oyster apparently dug in and decided to stonewall.

Unfortunately companies cant afford to do that these days. An apology is the first step on a road to liability, and their lawyers usually wont let them. Also, a claim of £2m for damages isn't outrageous. He clearly expected them to negotiate and settle - again common practice.

What seems odd is a flat out refusal to engage, (until, oddly, the very last minute) and in particular a nasty spat between the owner of the boat and the owner of Oyster, which smacks more of two multi-millionaires getting personal.

We still don't know if this is the full story, but it looks like yet another UK boatyard where the skilled workers have been let down by poor management. Decisions sometimes made by personal sentiment rather than business logic.

 

[Walther]

Unfortunately companies cant afford to do that these days. An apology is the first step on a road to liability, and their lawyers usually wont let them.

No. You are wrong.

In the first place, a lawyer has no ability to prohibit a client from doing anything. A lawyer can only advise, and receive instructions.

In the second place - and more importantly - any competent lawyer would have made Oyster aware of section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006: "An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty."

 

[SO40]

No. You are wrong.

In the first place, a lawyer has no ability to prohibit a client from doing anything. A lawyer can only advise, and receive instructions.

In the second place - and more importantly - any competent lawyer would have made Oyster aware of section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006: "An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty."

If Oyster would have said something along the lines of "We apologise for the situation at hand and will do everything to resolve this matter" there would not have been any legal complications nor atmittance of guilt. But they at least would have apologised.
But, I have seen the CEO in action several times and heard him talk about clients. He is mainly in love with himself, as he really believes Oyster is him and there is no Oyster without him. I was there when he said it.

 

[AndrewfromFal]

...I have seen the CEO in action several times and heard him talk about clients. He is mainly in love with himself, as he really believes Oyster is him and there is no Oyster without him. I was there when he said it.

What an odd thing to say to clients, - he must be supremely confident of his own likeability as a brand rep. If a company such as Oyster can be embodied by one person (which I don't really believe for a moment), I'd say it's probably the guy who founded it, ran it profitably for 20-odd years, built it into a highly credible brand, and then sold it for a fortune.