POLL- Do you trust your money with a yacht Broker

[DAKA]

Thanks JFM for that input - everything I have been trying to say for what seems almost forever, but some people don't want to hear it, preferring their own distorted account of what is going on.

Again I state this is the wrong thread for this topic.
This thread is to demonstrate to Brokers and Associations that we as sellers are uncomfortable at the way our cash is being handled by some Brokers.

I would like Brokers and associations to take note of their customers concerns.

Thats all.
Not really much of a goal.


It's not my intention to waste your time or get you steaming from the ears, I actually know exactly what that is like having spent years predicting a catastrophe with clients money only to be made to look like a troll by you and jfm, I then waited and waited , BA Peters went bust, I still had to wait for the court case, then the court of appeal, the to see if the CPS went after anyone........................and at last I could post in order to justify my postings of the last 4 years, imagine how frustrating that was.

And now even after the clearly documented court case and appeal both you and jfm dont manage to do a comprehensive reading of the case notes, the precedent quotations in the case and still miss vital issues that put money in the hands of a Yacht Broker at risk.

I understand your frustration , fully !

jfm has failed to state if he trusts the value of his boat with any yacht broker in the UK chosen at random however has previously suggested that he chooses a different method of sales process.

It's only a matter of time before I can come back and give you more examples but I can wait .

 

[Tranona]

Again I state this is the wrong thread for this topic.
This thread is to demonstrate to Brokers and Associations that we as sellers are uncomfortable at the way our cash is being handled by some Brokers.

If that is your aim then you need to demonstrate what your concerns are and provide evidence to support.

You just do not seem able to do this, because you seem unclear about what the issues are. Every time you try to use an example it does not show what you seem to want it to show. Nearly every example you give involves people (or firms) acting as traders and not as brokers. You claim that the current methods used allow brokers to steal from clients - without any evidence. You claim that client accounts do not do what they claim to do - again with no evidence.

So it really is difficult to see what you want, other than to direct undeserved criticism at brokers in general - and people who don't agree with you.

And please don't say I have not seen what you have seen (can't speak for jfm) but my understanding of the relevance of what I have seen is clearly different from yours - and you constantly repeating it will not change that. On the other hand you seem to reject the real meaning of other things you see, because it does not fit with what you want to see.

What I now find interesting is (following jfm's prompting no doubt) that you are refining your concern to the perspective of sellers, when just about every example of wrongdoing you have quoted involves buyers, not sellers!

Might I make a constructive suggestion? If you are really so concerned about the behaviour of brokers (and by implication the ABYA), why not put your concerns directly to them? Sit down with them and talk through what you see as the issues. Use the results of your poll and the frequency with which this comes up for discussion as some evidence that there is concern. You will then get an informed response from people who understand the business because it is their job, rather than interested bystanders and observers like me.

 

[DAKA]

If that is your aim then you need to demonstrate what your concerns are and provide evidence to support.
over the past two years across several threads I have provided the evidence that clients accounts have been used to offset overdrawn business accounts

You just do not seem able to do this, because you seem unclear about what the issues are. Every time you try to use an example it does not show what you seem to want it to show.it clearly shows yacht brokers using clients funds to offset their overdrafts Nearly every example you give involves people (or firms) acting as traders and not as brokers.there is a case above which starts as a yacht broker deal, the money from the sale does not get back to the client, I have repeated said a yacht Broker can 'borrow' from a clients without any risk of prosecution, there will not be any proof of that will there, if it was illegal then I could wait for proof, in the mean time I got lucky as teh BA Peters case details exactly how Barclays automatically took the clients funds balance and used it against the over draught, now this is the bit were I feel you either dont understand or you deliberately mislead, BA Peters stopped 'borrowing' from the client account 3 months before they went bust. The judge stated that at the time of going bust there were adequate funds in the clients account to cover 'some ' clients about £850 000 from memory . You appear to pretend to ignore the fact that 3 months previously there was only £10 000 in the client account, that is a big ********* gap, had BA Peters gone bust 3 months earlier there would have been a bigger mess to sort out. further BA Peters did try to pay some extra money into the clients account that belonged to clients but the judge ruled that because it hadnt gone straight into the clients account then the clients with money in the clients account couldnt have it and they joined the rest of the unsecured creditors, there is a strong possibility that the money from those marks meant that there was adequate funds in the clients account for the other clients but I have no proof on that. You claim that the current methods used allow brokers to steal from clients - without any evidence. You claim that client accounts do not do what they claim to do - again with no evidence. covered above really , but if you cast your mind back I explained how taking a pound out of a trust account meant the whole trust status is lost, you cant just pay a pound back in, hence my objection to banks setting up tandem accounts, again I now have proof of tandem accounts as they got specific mention in the BA Peters case, however the Tandem account had ceased just before they went bust which you seam to think allows you to disregard it.

So it really is difficult to see what you want, other than to direct undeserved criticism at brokers in general - and people who don't agree with you.

And please don't say I have not seen what you have seen (can't speak for jfm) but my understanding of the relevance of what I have seen is clearly different from yours - and you constantly repeating it will not change that. On the other hand you seem to reject the real meaning of other things you see, because it does not fit with what you want to see.I have tried desperately to explain the relevance of the case and related links to previous prejudice but I feel you only see what you want to see.

What I now find interesting is (following jfm's prompting no doubt) that you are refining your concern to the perspective of sellers, when just about every example of wrongdoing you have quoted involves buyers, not sellers!
I really dont know where to start with that, I feel I have been honest with my representation, I feel that I am then led down a garden path where I get mugged, assuming that is not the way you see it I will put it down to forums being brief and not allowing us to deliver full explanations.
Might I make a constructive suggestion? If you are really so concerned about the behaviour of brokers (and by implication the ABYA), why not put your concerns directly to them? Sit down with them and talk through what you see as the issues. Use the results of your poll and the frequency with which this comes up for discussion as some evidence that there is concern. You will then get an informed response from people who understand the business because it is their job, rather than interested bystanders and observers like me.

well if we go back a year that is exactly what happened and despite you not agreeing with me then , at least one Broker association to their credit did alter their advice almost word for word as I suggested.

You have succeed into drawing me into another debate on this thread .

BUT PLEASE DONT LOOSE SIGHT OF THIS POLL

The poll is all about how punters feel.
We feel at risk.
Even the Yacht Brokers agree there is a risk (small).

Just how big that risk is or how it is interpreted by you doesn't alter just how we feel.

Would I buy a boat through Jonic, yes
Would I sell a boat through Jonic, yes

Do I agree that any one leaving prison this afternoon should be able to set up as a Yacht Broker and handle the value of jfm's boat in a clients account then no and I doubt jfm would allow that either !

 

[Tranona]

Pete

You really don't seem to get it. You seem to have a grudge (for whatever reason) against brokers and you try to find evidence to support your grudge and it simply does not wash. Your last sentence says it all. That is nothing to do with laws, client accounts and all those boring details. The type of person you mention can start up in all sorts of business and commit frauds unless they have been specifically banned. What makes you think that yacht brokers are any different from any other business such that they need specific legislation? Peters did not fail because anybody was crooked - it failed primarily because the business ceased to be viable - and it was not the brokerage side of the business that failed but the trading side. Of course there are lessons to be learned from failures and the specific issues related to client accounts raised by the case have been addressed.

If, as you suggested it is sellers that are concerned about brokers, the answer is simple - don't use them, there is no compulsion. As has been pointed out there is negligible risk for a seller as not only does he have a different contractural relationship with a broker, he does not have to use the broker to handle the final payment. Buyers have less choice but can still elect not to deal with a seller that uses a broker, but they can still deal with the vendor directly making the final payment.

I think you are seeing demons that are just not there. You will not get anywhere convincing people there is a problem based on what you present here.

I am even more convinced you need to talk directly with the people that matter. In addition to talking to the Association, take it up through the RYA - after all they are there to represent boaters' interests.

 

[jfm]

made to look like a troll by you and jfm, I then waited and waited , BA Peters went bust, I still had to wait for the court case, then the court of appeal, the to see if the CPS went after anyone........................and at last I could post in order to justify my postings of the last 4 years, imagine how frustrating that was.

Daka I'm not trying to paint you as a troll. I'm just disagreeing. Also what you write above suggests were were disagreeing about this before Peters and that you have been vindicated by Peters. That just isn't correct

jfm has failed to state if he trusts the value of his boat with any yacht broker in the UK chosen at random

OK no worries I'll answer the question. No, I would not trust a random person with £2m of my money for (say) a week, either as trustee or as creditor. It's not because I consider it to be high risk/low risk/no risk; it's because it is a pointless thing to do in a brokerage (as opposed to new build) deal so why even waste your brain cells contemplating whether you'd do it?

It's like my broker happens to have a pet tortoise, and you ask me "Well jfm your sale is about to go through; are you happy to paint the tortoise blue?". My answer to that is not "Yes/no I will paint it", it is "WTF? Why on earth are you asking me that? Painting the tortoise has nothing to do with the boat sale transaction I'm about to do."

The reason "Would you trust broker with £££" is a pointless question and therefore analagous to the tortoise question is that if I'm buying none of my money will ever sit with the broker and if I'm selling there is a perfectly good structure to avoid it sitting with the broker. (I suppose at least the blue tortoise might be VAT paid )

It's only a matter of time before I can come back and give you more examples but I can wait .

I think you're right that there will be future cases of boat buyers/seller losing money. But it wont be because of a lack of the legislation you want, it'll be becuase they didn't avail themselves of protections that are already there for the taking, ie foolhardiness. As I've said before in response to these calls for new laws, man up, it isn't the state's job to wipe your bottom

 

[DAKA]

Daka I'm not trying to paint you as a troll. I'm just disagreeing. Also what you write above suggests were were disagreeing about this before Peters and that you have been vindicated by Peters. That just isn't correct

I suggested some yacht Brokers were 'borrowing' from their clients account .

There is court documented evidence that BA Peters were doing that.

I suggested that just having money in an account with client included in the title didnt offer much protection (better than none accepted).

There were clients / marks with money in BA Peters clients account that were not allowed to get it back, again that is documented in the BA Peters case notes should anyone care to read them FULLY.

There are further more worrying aspects to the case that were highlighted by the judge quoting precedent, I suspect a deal was done that sacrificed some marks but allowed some clients to get their cash back, it is uncertain what would happen in a future case.

I have harped on for years attempting to educate everyone on just how difficult it is to create a 'safe' clients account, BA Peters case proves that the Yacht Broker attempted to put some clients cash into the so called clients account however it was no deemed to be protected.


This is a forum, where we write in text language leaving educated people to fill the gaps in, we are not writing conclusive white papers and there will be gaps !

Over all I accept your post , and humour although I feel many would have found it easier to interpret you had kept to the basics.


In conclusion to yourself and Tranona

Where it might be true to say I used to have a grudge against yacht Brokers
(lets not go there again) I have matured a lot in the last few years, with Tranonas help I have deduced most of the scoundrels that were involved in the scam against me have now gone out of Business anyway.

For me this argument hasnt been about making life difficult for Yacht Brokers, its been about clearing my old reputation for winding people up that I never accepted.

I have made two suggestions that appears to have fallen on deaf ears, without the need for legislation too.........

The Yacht Brokers associations could

a) Have a dedicated Clients account for general use by their brokers

b) Guarantee the money within the account.

c) can encourage the use of escrow agreements by drawing the agreements up for their members.

Costs almost zero, can be effected immediately.

Again it is a rather simplistic explanation and not meant as a white paper report .

 

[jonic]

Ok

I am not going to get into any more argument on here about what happened in the past or what should happen in the future, but for the benefit of anyone who is being bamboozled by this thread this is how it is today if the broker is a properly set up ABYA broker with a written in trust client account.

I am referring here to the brokerage of used boats, not trading or dealing in new boats, or boats owned by a business.

Can "anyone set up tomorrow us a yacht broker" without approval from the Government.

Yes, just like 100's of other businesses. If they did they would then come under all the laws and legislation that cover running a business

But can anyone set up as a yacht broker tomorrow and be a registered and accredited yacht broker with the YBDSA/ABYA?

No. Of course they cant.

They have to undergo training, then stay in the programme of continuous professional development, are required to have a correctly run and correctly set up client account, are required to have professional indemnity insurance and public liability insurance and are required to operate in accordance with the ABYA code of practise.

The client account should be written in trust with the bank.

Client monies do not form part of the brokers business.

They can not be offset by the bank for overdrafts etc and in the event of insolvency remain the clients money and may not be pursued by creditors.

This is the same account as used by accountants and solicitors.

The purpose of this account is to act similarly to an escrow account. i.e funds or title documents are not released by the broker to either party until each party has completed their contractual obligations.

So your buyer doesn't get your boat until you know his money has cleared and you don't get the buyer's money until all the correct title documentation and VAT evidence is complete. It is all done legally and covered by contract law.

The broker has also signed a contract with both parties to handle the funds and title documents correctly and again that is covered by contract law.

Can the broker steal those funds or "borrow" them whilst they are being held at the bank?
Yes, but no more so than the bank employee or even the bank! That would be down to the dishonesty of the person. The incidence of that risk occurring has been blown completely out of all proportion on this thread.

Millions of pounds pass through these brokerage client accounts, backed by signed contracts during the conveyance of yachts every year.

These are the relevant clauses, again, that may set up the trust and set out how the transaction will take place etc.

Broker to the bank

We give you notice that:

a) all money standing to the credit of the above account
is held by us as trustee (or, in respect of investment
business carried on in Scotland, as agent);
b) you are not entitled to combine this account with
any other account or to exercise any right of set-off or
counter-claim against money in this account in respect
of any sum owed to you on any other account of ours;
c) interest earned on balances in the above account shall
be credited to the above account, or to an account of
that type, and
d) the title of the above account sufficiently distinguishes
the account from any account containing money that
belongs to us, and is in the form requested by us.
2 We will comply with the Rules (including in particular,
the Rules relating to clients' money) of the Financial Services
Authority (if applicable) or any Recognised Professional Body
(RPB) 01 which we are a member. We therefore take
responsibility for ensuring that any transaction which falls
within the terms of our mandate to you is in accordance with
any applicable rules of the FSA or any RPB.

ABYA Broker to ABYA

Please sign and return the Undertaking that you will continue to hold Professional Indemnity Insurance to the level set out in the Memorandum and Articles of Association (see below). This MUST be
returned before the due date for Subscriptions.

I xxxx xxxxxxx
will continue to hold the required PI insurance for the year 2011/12.
Signed:


Extract from ABYA code of practice.

3.2 The Member shall set up a Client Account, designated as such, and identified at the Bank as such, where he shall hold all client monies, as these monies are held on behalf of the client and are not to be used for company purposes.

Broker to seller


5 PROCEEDS OF SALE TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE BROKER IN A PROPER MANNER

The Broker shall hold any deposit or purchase funds in an account designated "Client Account" and shall distribute the net proceeds of sale in accordance with the registered Ownership of the vessel or as directed by all parties to Ownership, within 7 days of clearance of the final payment, or provision by the Owner of the Certificate of Registry and a properly executed Bill of Sale in favour of the Purchaser or his nominee, showing the vessel to be free of encumbrances and, where applicable, on transfer of clear title, whichever is the later.



8 PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE OF THE BROKER
The Broker undertakes to maintain professional indemnity cover for himself, his employees and agents in respect of their prospective liability in respect of any breach by them of this agreement or any other act, omission or breach of duty giving rise to loss.


10 SUBMISSION OF OFFERS
The Broker undertakes to submit promptly to the Owner all offers received for the vessel, regardless of whether such offers shall be at the asking price or at a level known by the Broker to be unacceptable to the Owner.


Broker to purchaser


2 DEPOSIT AND PAYMENT
On the signing of this Agreement a deposit of 10% of the purchase price is to be paid by the Purchaser to the Broker as stakeholder. The stakeholder will hold the deposit on behalf of the vendor and the purchaser in a Client Account and, should any dispute be referred to a third party, be entitled to pay monies held into a designated account mutually agreed between the vendor, the purchaser and the stakeholder until the resolution of the dispute. Interest will not be paid on monies held in the Client Account.

The balance of the purchase price together with any Value Added Tax (or other EU tax) payable thereon shall be payable in accordance with Clause 7 hereof.

NOTE: Where payment is made by cheque, Bankers draft, letter of credit or other instrument, the terms of this Agreement shall not be deemed to have been fulfilled until such payment is cleared into the Client Account whereupon completion shall be deemed to have taken place providing all other documentation has been completed. Electronic transfer is the recommended means of payment being the most secure and quickest method.

7 COMPLETION
Upon acceptance of the vessel by the Purchaser, the deposit shall be treated as part payment of the purchase price and within 7 days of acceptance:-

(a) The Vendor shall:

(i) in the case of a Registered vessel provide the Brokers with the Certificate of Registry, correct and updated, together with such other documents as are set out in the Schedule to this Agreement, together with any other documents appertaining to the vessel, and shall execute a Bill of Sale in favour of the Purchaser or his nominee, showing the vessel to be free from encumbrances and in such form as to ensure transfer on the Register. Should the Purchaser so require, the Vendor shall provide the Broker with sufficient instructions to cancel the existing registry and enable the vessel to be re-registered by the Purchaser;
OR
in the case of an unregistered vessel or vessel registered on the Small Ships Register, provide the Brokers with an executed Bill of Sale in favour of the Purchaser or his nominee showing the vessel to be free from encumbrances and such other documents as are set out in the Schedule to this Agreement, together with any other documents appertaining to the vessel.

(ii) Deliver to the Brokers a Value Added Tax invoice, if VAT is charged on the sale, and any necessary delivery order or other authority enabling the Purchaser to take immediate possession of the vessel.

(iii) Provide evidence that the vessel complied with or was exempt from compliance with the RCD, as appropriate.


(iv) By delivery of documents in (i) and (ii) and (iii) of this Clause, be deemed to covenant that he has the power to transfer property in the vessel and that the same is free from encumbrances, duties, taxes, debts and liens except as are the responsibility of the Purchaser under Clauses 4 and 8 hereof.

(b) The Purchaser shall tender the balance of the purchase price to the Brokers who on receipt of the balance of the purchase price will hold the documents referred to in this Clause to the order of the Purchaser.

NOTE: Where payment is made by cheque, Bankers draft, letter of credit or other instrument, the terms of this Agreement shall not be deemed to have been fulfilled until such payment is cleared into the Client Account whereupon completion shall be deemed to have taken place providing all other documentation has been completed. Electronic transfer is the recommended means of payment being the most secure and quickest method

AS JFM has said, there are also further mechanisms available over and above the current set up.

 

[Tranona]

I have made two suggestions that appears to have fallen on deaf ears, without the need for legislation too.........

The Yacht Brokers associations could

a) Have a dedicated Clients account for general use by their brokers

b) Guarantee the money within the account.

c) can encourage the use of escrow agreements by drawing the agreements up for their members.

Costs almost zero, can be effected immediately.

Again it is a rather simplistic explanation and not meant as a white paper report .

Seems to me that most of this is already in place if you read what John has just posted.

One could get into an argument about a guarantee scheme, but this has been considered seriously in the past and rejected - for the simple reason that there is no evidence that "losses" warrant it.

No point is us arguing it here as we are not in possession of the facts to support any position - you need to talk to the ABYA, BMF and RYA for an explanation as to why they consider it unnecessary.

 

[jfm]

Jonic I agree your general direction and 99% of the detial in your post (apart from the fact I don't see why you guys encourage the transaction to be structured so as to involve escrowed money in the first place...) but i object strongly to the ABYA's 7 days rule. So if you sell my boat you can sit on my £2m quid for SEVEN FRIGGING DAYS? You can FRO with that proposal matey! I want the transfer in an hour

EDIT: In addition, those contractual clauses you quote shout "mediocre lawyer" to me. The completion steps involve a series of matters which the parties could dispute have happened. Eg evidence or RCD compliance. Not conclusive evidence. Or evidence that outweighs other evidence to the contray. Just "evidence". Jeeze, howe craap and amateur is that. And "deemed to covenant" - pereeerlease. You want completion to consist of delivery of documents that no-one can debate, actual identifiable documents (like "The original of the VAT invoice dated 1st April 2008 provided by Essex Boatyards to the Seller,a copy of which is atteched hereto as exhibit 5". Or so called "agreed form documents", which is an expression any good lawyer will understand but not the guy who wrote this. An you want an actual covenant, doh.

I coud go on: the use of the word "deemed" in the last para is amateur and the additional term thrown in there fro left field "all other documentation has been completed" is real 1/10 lawyering. It's real £65/hour junior lawyer stuff all that, and nowhere near the drafting quality you get in proper high end contracts. I real do despair at the junk you get from ploddy solicitors!

 

[DAKA]

No point is us arguing it here

We had already agreed on that several 1000 posts ago

May I remind what this thread is about...........

Its not just me that you, Jonic, the ABYACBYSDA, and jfm havent managed to convince/bamboozle , it's almost all boat owners !

The only way you will come close to leaving this thread with any respect (obviously not a general observation, just in relation to this thread) is to agree to run your own poll, worded exactly how you would like and run the poll again to see what results you achieve.

If it is just DAKA who still feels the system is inadequate you will be able to take some gratification that all your arguments have been worth while.

Of course it will not help make the system any safer but but if it makes you feel better then please run the new poll.
BTW
I have already said that I would trust Jonic with my boat, I have deduced enough from his posts to accept he is an honest businessman.

 

[DAKA]

EDIT: In addition, those contractual clauses you quote shout "mediocre lawyer" to me. The completion steps involve a series of matters which the parties could dispute have happened. Eg evidence or RCD compliance. Not conclusive evidence. Or evidence that outweighs other evidence to the contray. Just "evidence". Jeeze, howe craap and amateur is that. And "deemed to covenant" - pereeerlease. You want completion to consist of delivery of documents that no-one can debate, actual identifiable documents (like "The original of the VAT invoice dated 1st April 2008 provided by Essex Boatyards to the Seller,a copy of which is atteched hereto as exhibit 5". Or so called "agreed form documents", which is an expression any good lawyer will understand but not the guy who wrote this. An you want an actual covenant, doh.

I coud go on: the use of the word "deemed" in the last para is amateur and the additional term thrown in there fro left field "all other documentation has been completed" is real 1/10 lawyering. It's real £65/hour junior lawyer stuff all that, and nowhere near the drafting quality you get in proper high end contracts. I real do despair at the junk you get from ploddy solicitors!

Are you sure it wasnt copy pasted off an internet forum, then just spruced up a little

 

[jonic]

Jonic I agree your general direction and 99% of the detial in your post (apart from the fact I don't see why you guys encourage the transaction to be structured so as to involve escrowed money in the first place...) but i object strongly to the ABYA's 7 days rule. So if you sell my boat you can sit on my £2m quid for SEVEN FRIGGING DAYS? You can FRO with that proposal matey! I want the transfer in an hour

In practise it's usually 24hrs and there would be nothing to stop you asking for that to be inserted in the contract.

Regarding the escrowed set up, that's the irony of this thread. It is all, as far as possible, to protect buyers and sellers from other unscrupulous buyers and sellers!

I'll put it forward about a more expensive lawyer, but have you seen the size of the boats those guys drive!

I'll be at the boat show tomorrow promoting swmbos book on the Kelvin Hughes stand if anyone wants to drop by- including you DAKA

 

[Tranona]

Its not just me that you, Jonic, the ABYACBYSDA, and jfm havent managed to convince/bamboozle , it's almost all boat owners !

The only way you will come close to leaving this thread with any respect (obviously not a general observation, just in relation to this thread) is to agree to run your own poll, worded exactly how you would like and run the poll again to see what results you achieve.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that 30 people ticking a box next to a sweeping generalisation justifies "almost all boat owners"?

Get real - this subject has come up over and over again here and you can count on the fingers of your hands the number of people who have more than a passing interest. Contrast that with the hundereds of people who view these fora and have bought and sold boats - never mind the thousands who have done the same and don't visit fora or read yottie comics and you will realise how ridiculous your statement is.

Remember I spent half a working lifetime engaged in research into peoples' attitudes to issues that affect them. A tick box poll of the type that is possible here is absolutely useless, even if you have determined that respondents represent the population as a whole. To think you can get any reliable information from 60 people whose only common characteristic is that they read this forum is just nonsense.

So, I will pass on your suggestion.

 

[DAKA]

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that 30 people ticking a box next to a sweeping generalisation justifies "almost all boat owners"?

Get real - this subject has come up over and over again here and you can count on the fingers of your hands the number of people who have more than a passing interest. Contrast that with the hundereds of people who view these fora and have bought and sold boats - never mind the thousands who have done the same and don't visit fora or read yottie comics and you will realise how ridiculous your statement is.

Remember I spent half a working lifetime engaged in research into peoples' attitudes to issues that affect them. A tick box poll of the type that is possible here is absolutely useless, even if you have determined that respondents represent the population as a whole. To think you can get any reliable information from 60 people whose only common characteristic is that they read this forum is just nonsense.

Why the hell do you get so wound up about it then

Parting on good terms as far as I am concerned.

cheers
Pete

until of course the next time it crops up

 

[jonic]

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that 30 people ticking a box next to a sweeping generalisation justifies "almost all boat owners"?

Get real - this subject has come up over and over again here and you can count on the fingers of your hands the number of people who have more than a passing interest. Contrast that with the hundereds of people who view these fora and have bought and sold boats - never mind the thousands who have done the same and don't visit fora or read yottie comics and you will realise how ridiculous your statement is.

Remember I spent half a working lifetime engaged in research into peoples' attitudes to issues that affect them. A tick box poll of the type that is possible here is absolutely useless, even if you have determined that respondents represent the population as a whole. To think you can get any reliable information from 60 people whose only common characteristic is that they read this forum is just nonsense.

So, I will pass on your suggestion.

....and currently the poll question with the most votes is........


"Yes , I am happy to trust the value of my boat with a Yacht Broker as it is a small risk"


I really must get off this forum and do some work now!

 

[Tranona]

Why the hell do you get so wound up about it then

Parting on good terms as far as I am concerned.

cheers
Pete

until of course the next time it crops up

You are right - guess it has something to do with seeing the lengths people will go to when defending the indefensible - or trying to build a case where none exists.

Expect the upcoming debate on Scots devolution and the ongoing Euro debate would be good displacement activity.

 

[DAKA]

....and currently the poll question with the most votes is........


"Yes , I am happy to trust the value of my boat with a Yacht Broker as it is a small risk"

Come on Jonic, youre taking the whats a name if you think Im going to let that one go !

your figure is distorted with Brokers responding (who admit that there is a risk BTW)

If you take the brokers out its 68% vers 32%

ooooops sorry I forgot the 5 % that no one told there was a risk, obviously never sold through a Broker or I sure it would have been explained to them

 

[jonic]

Come on Jonic, youre taking the whats a name if you think Im going to let that one go !

your figure is distorted with Brokers responding (who admit that there is a risk BTW)

If you take the brokers out its 68% vers 32%

ooooops sorry I forgot the 5 % that no one told there was a risk, obviously never sold through a Broker or I sure it would have been explained to them

A glittering career in politics awaits you

Actually, thinking about it....are you an MP or local councillor?


....and "Yes , I am happy to trust the value of my boat with a Yacht Broker as it is a small risk" is still leading.

 

[DAKA]

You are right - guess it has something to do with seeing the lengths people will go to when defending the indefensible - or trying to build a case where none exists.

I thought you made a valiant attempt at it actually.

 

[jonic]

I thought you made a valiant attempt at it actually.

Typical politician, didn't answer my question.

Daka is the MP for where ever he lives and I claim my £5.

You can pay it straight into my client account.