Oyster Yachts gone into administration

Indeed. It's not exactly unusual for the bolted keel joint to show some movement.
GRP is not infinitely stiff.

Bolting through hollow sections sound like a poor concept to me.
At the end of the day if people can't bond GRP together, they need to go back to wooden or steel boats. You can't hold a GRP boat together with just bolts. You have to trust GRP as structural members.
 
Daydream believer said:
Did Oyster take some preventive measures on other versions of this boat before or after the disaster? if they did this before, then that would suggest an admission of design/construction errors, would it not?
Click to expand...

Would it?
Personally if something breaks, you try to understand why.
Taking a good look at sisterships is an obvious thing to do.
Adding reinforcement 'just in case' would be an obvious step. Whether you understand why one broke or not.
The only time you wouldn't take that approach is because you totally understood why one had failed and knew it did not apply to the others. E.g. if you knew the failure was due to grounding or something.
The other owners want to know their boat is 'not like PSIII', so adding more structure will be what they want, even if there is nothing wrong with their boats.
 
Daydream believer said:
Did Oyster take some preventive measures on other versions of this boat before or after the disaster? if they did this before, then that would suggest an admission of design/construction errors, would it not?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Oyster reinforced the keel stub of boats 825-01, 825-03 and 825-04 in the autumn of 2015. This was after Polina Star sank on 3 July 2015, but before Oyster had been able to view the wreckage of the Polina Star, which wasn't recovered from the seabed until the very end of October 2015. Remember that, until the evidence was recovered from the seabed, Oyster's stance had been to suggest damage by grounding. The work involved in reinforcing the keel stub was massive, including dismantling a lot of the interior, removing the engine, etc, so it can't have been quick. As boats 825-03 and 825-04 took part in the 2015 ARC, it therefore suggests that Oyster carried out the rectification work knowing that the original design/manufacture was sadly inadequate.
 
Last edited:
lw395 said:
Would it?
Personally if something breaks, you try to understand why.
Taking a good look at sisterships is an obvious thing to do.
Adding reinforcement 'just in case' would be an obvious step. Whether you understand why one broke or not.
The only time you wouldn't take that approach is because you totally understood why one had failed and knew it did not apply to the others. E.g. if you knew the failure was due to grounding or something.
The other owners want to know their boat is 'not like PSIII', so adding more structure will be what they want, even if there is nothing wrong with their boats.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Oyster probably took the view internally that they got lucky with PSIII - nobody died, so it could be fixed with sufficient application of money. If, given the circumstances of the loss of PSIII, they had sat on their hands and one of the other boats had sunk with a loss of life, they would have been facing far more serious charges with a risk of imprisonment.
 
pvb said:
..., it therefore suggests that Oyster carried out the rectification work knowing that the original design/manufacture was sadly inadequate.
Click to expand...

How does it suggest that?
It could equally be said to suggest they were at pains to keep their customers happy.
Dismantling some interior and taking the engine out sounds like a lot of work, but in the context of having sold boats for 7 figure sums, it may look different.

How does knowing the design/manufacture was inadequate square with PSIII's hull having been bored to check the layup and consultants having checked the design work?
The letter from Oyster states that Belgrano and Pure Design consultancy reviewed the design. They know their stuff, having won the odd America's Cup.

It seems to me that what went wrong is far more subtle or mysterious than a badly built or badly engineered boat.
 
lw395 said:
It seems to me that what went wrong is far more subtle or mysterious than a badly built or badly engineered boat.
Click to expand...

Surely that is why they are claiming against Bridgeland. Presumably their investigations have confirmed the design is sound which leaves only the execution suspect. There have already been suggestions that the stub webs were not properly attached to the to the grid and hull skin which is where the failure occurred. Perhaps the rework on the other hulls was to check and rectify any defect in this area. This would need as much dismantling as any other work in the stub.
 
Tranona said:
Surely that is why they are claiming against Bridgeland. Presumably their investigations have confirmed the design is sound which leaves only the execution suspect.....
Click to expand...

Except the moulding was checked during the warranty work, according to the correspondence published.
Does the claim against Bridgeland actually exist? If it's even real, is it not undermined by Oyster claiming to have checked everything during the warranty work?
 
lw395 said:
Except the moulding was checked during the warranty work, according to the correspondence published.
Does the claim against Bridgeland actually exist? If it's even real, is it not undermined by Oyster claiming to have checked everything during the warranty work?
Click to expand...

There was mention of drilling samples of the hull. However, looking at the detail photos of the suspect area looks difficult to do any investigation of the integrity of the bonding without dismantling furniture and removing the engine which sits over part of the stub.

Re the claim. Oyster have reported a claim and published the amount in their accounts, but I have not seen anything of the details of the claim.
 
Conjecture is but one step from libel, and there are some heavyweight lawyers circling around this dispute. One might consider treading lightly....
 
lw395 said:
Does the claim against Bridgeland actually exist?
Click to expand...

According to Bridgland's accounts, it does. Their accounts for 31 Oct 2016 include a contingent liability with the note "A claim of approximately £7.2m has been brought upon the company in relation to the loss of a vessel."
 
Ian h said:
so what has happened ? any updates ?
Click to expand...

The most recent Yachting World had an interview with Richard Matthews where he stated he was part of a consortium looking to purchase the company from the receiver, although he also said there was a big enough pool of investors / talent to do it without him. - He was also pretty critical of those running the show in recent times. I also noticed his Fox's Marina / Boatyard have just announced they have set up a dedicated after sales support and servicing operation for Oysters...which sounds like he's maybe either getting his ducks in a row, or parking his tanks on the lawn of any other interested parties.
 
Ian h said:
so what has happened ? any updates ?
Click to expand...

KPMG's initial deadline of 2 March for receipt of offers was extended to 7 March. KPMG apparently had about 10 serious expressions of interest, and I imagine they're still talking in depth to a few parties.
 
From: Rob Humphreys <RH@humphreysdesign.com>
Date: 19 March 2018 at 23:50:28 GMT+1
To: Rob Humphreys <RH@humphreysdesign.com>
Subject: Oyster Announcement....

The past few weeks have embraced a cocktail of emotions - shock, bewilderment, grief even. But I am delighted now to relay some significant news with delight and relief. Oyster, after a time in the wilderness, is out of administration - potentially fitter, stronger and more ambitious than it was when it shocked us all with mass redundancy of its incredible workforce. As I write this the final contractual issues are being finalised, and by the morning Oyster should be in new hands.



So it is my great pleasure to be asked to announce the new owner of the company, Richard Hadida. I have sailed with Richard and his wife, Jenny, on numerous occasions and throughout my sailing life I have felt there is no better environment to get to the soul of a person. You are all sailors and you will all understand.







Richard Hadida on Lush last week



Richard has always said that his pursuit of Oyster is a heart thing, but he has a great head to go with it and I am absolutely in no doubt that he will fly the Oyster flag in a way that will make us all proud. He is in it for the long run and is not a turnaround merchant, a PE spearhead or a VC entity. He is a private owner and his plans will develop over the next few days and weeks, but essentially he is fired up by the notion that this is our Rolls Royce or Bentley, but unlike those marques it’s not going to leave British shores. This is the man who outbid everyone recently at Southeby’s for the last known remnant of Nelson’s Victory Jack from the Battle of Trafalgar. And this is also the man who cleared the slate with the RCNP by making an anonymous donation equivalent to the amounts outstanding from Oyster when the curtain came down last month. You will all be aware that the Oyster Regatta in Palma is an important event in the sailing calendar, and I have already sensed that this year it will be stronger than ever.



There will be Press Releases going out soon with more information, and I understand there will be a big piece in tomorrow’s Daily Telegraph. But it is right and proper that the first to hear of this should be the amazing Oyster ownership family. It has been almost overwhelming in recent weeks to experience the energy and good will that emanates from this powerful community. It’s an immensely strong brand but it’s you owners who make it, and you owners who can provide the invigoration going forward. The handover of the keys will not happen till tomorrow so the new company doesn’t yet have access to the server or, therefore, the complete Oyster Owners’ mailing list. In the first instance this mail shot is just going out to the database I have managed to assemble over the past few weeks and I would be grateful if you would relay it to other owners you may be in contact with.



Footnote



For those of you who so inspiringly supported the contingency plan we were working on for an Owner’s support scheme, I believe we have arrived at a safe haven, and this is no longer necessary in the form intended. The Oyster support and service aspect, which is legendary in this industry, will emerge stronger than ever, and those who have already subscribed their start-up contributions to my back-up plan will be reimbursed shortly, after I have got back to you individually. You will all be pleased to hear that your enthusiasm will now be supported by the prized archive data that might have been denied you with a different sort of outcome.



Thank you for your immense support, and my apologies for not being able to contact you more regularly over the past ten days or so, particularly to update you on what was going on. It has been incredibly fast-moving during these closing stages.



There is no doubt that this was a very unusual and high profile administration, with fifteen bids all told. Whilst there were a few other very worthy candidates in there, for sheer motivation, determination and effort, together with an immense appreciation of Oyster values, the day belongs to Richard Hadida. I believe he will look after the legacy and nurture it as the Oyster brand becomes an even more powerful force in the yachting world.





Rob Humphreys

Humphreys Yacht Design

Middle Barn

Efford Park

Lymington

Hampshire SO41 0JD



www.humphreysdesign.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top