Premier Marinas - Why haven't they furloughed staff?

[newtothis]

newtothis, you are right, I may have to sell the boat. If too many of us do so, that's not going to help low paid marina workers...

Maybe, but someone else will buy them and use the marina. But that doesn't justify using my taxes to subsidise a marina to furlough staff to subsidise your lifestyle.

 

[FlyingGoose]

Bang on Julian , not to mention that a marina is a service industry , customer focused and relies on good will to customers by provided a service, by God there will be no one on this forum who would expect this from a 5 star Hotel , oh sorry sir all our facilities are closed , but your room is ok
25 Years in the Service industry (Hotels) and customers demands and expectation just keep on getting more bizarre , but a a customer service industry we try to accommodate and in some cases Rebate our clients who have not been given a full service, this is a service focused , customer focused media focused industry.
Same as shop, cafes, restaurants, banks ., etc a service industry would you expect this kind of service (I don't think so people ), do not associate oh poor marinas or poor share holders or large conglomerates that will get aid from government, tax relief on business rates, help to pay staff , and then demand that you pay full prices for a boat you have no access to , nor recompense if something happens to boat in the Marina due to lack of staff. At the minimal good customer service would demand at least a token discount
You would not put up with iut on Amazon ,but allow your marina to take you for a magic roundabout tour

 

[laika]

I guess what I'm saying is that if you can afford to own a boat and keep it in a Premier Marina, then I have a suspicion that not getting a rebate won't hurt your finances too much.

You're doing the hand wavy :"tsk, boat owners and their luxury yachts" or "I'm alright so obviously everyone must be" thing presumably based on your own situation. Other people's situations may be different. Some boat owners don't own a house, have been told to leave the marina, can't gain access to their possessions, have no income now yet are having to rent somewhere on a week by week basis til they can get back onboard and/or had planned on moving at the end of march because they can't afford summer berthing rates and they're being landed with a bill for something they didn't want. Premier can't provide the service you normally pay for (toilets, showers, access to boats) but they are providing something (somewhere to leave the boat, someone checking it isn't sinking). No it's not anyone's fault that folks can't move out of the marina as they planned which is why compromises might be expected on both sides, ie what would be a minimal covering of costs? I don't know details of who is being employed and who not and it's laudable if Premier are maintaining people on full pay, but surely they don't need a fully staffed office that no-one is coming into. Good on 'em if they furlough and top up the extra 20% but surely they'd still be eligible to reclaim the 80%?

Premier was bought from an evil investment company as an investment. No-one noticed a day-to-day change because we deal with the same business, Premier, not Welcome. It is run as a business, not a charity. If a charitable foundation buying a company you deal with suddenly gives you no ethical right to negotiate or question a bill, I suspect many people prefer to deal with a different company and make charitable donations separately and under their control.

 

[FlyingGoose]

Well said Laika Id vote for you

 

[JulianBall]

and those people don't put their boats in expensive marinas

Boat ownership is not so black and white

 

[FlyingGoose]

and those people don't put their boats in expensive marinas

This statement reeks of money and looking down noses , How about the fuel used to travel to another marina is more than the total cost of keeping your boat in Premier Marina, Just one example from the top of my head , no doubt many more ,
Boat ownership is not a right of wealth, it is for some a lifetimes saving and a dream , sacrifices made . what an arrogant statement to use

 

[migs]

Thank you all for your helpful responses. There appear to be two camps: The Wealthy - who don’t want, or need a rebate (why would they?), and the Less Wealthy - who do.

The Solution: Anyone paying less than £5k for annual berthing receives a rebate. No rebate for those paying above £5k.

Seems fair to both camps; let’s now inform the marinas of our decision

 

[Daedelus]

Premier charge contractors who are not based in their yards £10 a day, when I queried this they said it was to cover use of facilities such as toilets rubbish bins, water and such like. This is obviously included in charges to berth holders. a small discount recognising that we are not making use of them would be appreciated but hardly worth getting fussed about. (although it does relieve the tedium of being stuck at home).

 

[Bobc]

This statement reeks of money and looking down noses , How about the fuel used to travel to another marina is more than the total cost of keeping your boat in Premier Marina, Just one example from the top of my head , no doubt many more ,
Boat ownership is not a right of wealth, it is for some a lifetimes saving and a dream , sacrifices made . what an arrogant statement to use

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Premier and MDL marinas are THE MOST expensive places to keep a boat. Everyone I know who sails on a budget has their boat on a swinging mooring, on piles, on a club mooring, or at a cheap boatyard.

Regarding the point about people who don't own a house and live on board, I thought the Premier mooring contract forbids people to live on their boats at their marinas?

 

[dom]

Regarding the point about people who don't own a house and live on board, I thought the Premier mooring contract forbids people to live on their boats at their marinas?

I think you're right about the T&Cs but nobody has told them in Brighton ?

 

[FlyingGoose]

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Premier and MDL marinas are THE MOST expensive places to keep a boat. Everyone I know who sails on a budget has their boat on a swinging mooring, on piles, on a club mooring, or at a cheap boatyard.

Regarding the point about people who don't own a house and live on board, I thought the Premier mooring contract forbids people to live on their boats at their marinas?

No need to buy the argument simple facts and statistics rather than opinion , the South Coast has the most expensive marinas in the UK , marinas around each other will work on a cartel basis no one will offer a price variation to the other , why would they, swinging moorings are no ten a plenty , most areas have been taken up and under management , from clubs, some have LONG waiting lists .
Certain clubs do not have the capacity for certain sized boats as well as have not enough space for every mooring.
This is common sense statistical numbers and understanding supply and demand and carrying capacity of a certain area in the industry, rather than your rich if you own a boat

 

[Airscrew]

I think the underlying point, is simply that Premier and other marinas, who already have our money, would not qualify for the furlough scheme.

I, and the public, wouldnt want to see taxpayer money go to profitable businesses whose income streams are not, or not significantly, affected by C19.

 

[laika]

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. Premier and MDL marinas are THE MOST expensive places to keep a boat. Everyone I know who sails on a budget has their boat on a swinging mooring, on piles, on a club mooring, or at a cheap boatyard.

Winter marina rates are often less than half the price of summer which is why some people come into marinas in the winter and leave on the switch to summer rates at the end of march. Unless some weird virus thing causes the marina to be shut down before they can move the boat. Being then landed with a monthly bill at a rate one intended to avoid may become problematic. Again, I suggest that you are making assumptions from your own social circle which do not transfer to other people whose work and living challenges you are not necessarily familiar with.

I think the underlying point, is simply that Premier and other marinas, who already have our money, would not qualify for the furlough scheme.

I, and the public, wouldnt want to see taxpayer money go to profitable businesses whose income streams are not, or not significantly, affected by C19.

I suggest that you do not fully understand the furlough scheme. There is no point in them having a fully staffed office for the duration of lockdown. They qualify for 80% of the wages of anyone they don't need and ask to stay home. As flaming said earlier, "full pay" may mean furloughed staff with the 20% topped up by the business, which is the nice thing for an employer to do. Nothing in the quoted mail in the OP says "we're not furloughing staff". If they *aren't* but instead have people twiddling their thumbs in the office every day, that would not be returning best value to their owners and would probably be unnecessarily risking virus spread.

 

[steveeasy]

Bit confused by this thread. A business that could furlough its staff, chooses not to and we moan. Credit to any business that chooses to take the option to continue paying their own staff rather than us. I can think of a few businesses who have taken the easy option to get us to pay their staff. Also the business can top up the extra 20%. The system is completely open to abuse and will be. The charity we work with, yes Charity status. No charity I can tell you, has received £150 membership for the year from each of thier 18,000 members. no refund and they have furloughed 37 ,which is most of their staff. Now that's playing the game.
Steveeasy

 

[steveeasy]

I think the underlying point, is simply that Premier and other marinas, who already have our money, would not qualify for the furlough scheme.

I, and the public, wouldnt want to see taxpayer money go to profitable businesses whose income streams are not, or not significantly, affected by C19.

Really?. You think businesses will declare such things. My post above slightly contradicts this opinion id say. Its just one of thousands of busineses that could abuse the situation. I still think the intentions are good by Gov, but really.
Steveeasy

 

[chrisharris]

I think the underlying point, is simply that Premier and other marinas, who already have our money, would not qualify for the furlough scheme.

I, and the public, wouldnt want to see taxpayer money go to profitable businesses whose income streams are not, or not significantly, affected by C19.

Sorry, not true. There is no bar for the furlough scheme. No reason why marinas would not be eligible, obvious case would be yard staff who were unable to lift boats etc. The rebate question is complex, ultimately it's going to come down to what the customers expect, if we feel that we have not had the customer service we expect that will impact the specific marina businesses. I for one (as a Premier berthholder) do not consider the fee I pay as just being for a place to store my boat. Sure that's part of it, but the reason I keep my boat in a marina is for the other elements of the service, and that is the selling point that the marinas use extensively to get new business. I don't suggest for a minute that the current situation is anyone's fault, but the fact is the service I pay for is currently not being provided (beyond the basic storage part), thus to keep me as a customer happy I expect some credit against the fee I have paid. Of course the marinas could decide not to do this, and customer dissatisfaction may be acceptable to them.

 

[Bathdave]

I find it frankly bizarre that people think their marina fees should be discounted

Our boats are being kept safe, the fixed and variable costs of running a marina don’t vary much depending on whether you take your boat out or not.

Many boat owners don’t visit their boat from one month to another, they don’t get a discount for not using their boat

 

[Uricanejack]

First thought,
Premier marinas are a half decent employer.
I am fortune so far my income is unaffected. My health unaffected and my family's health unaffected.
I am not able to use my boat as planned due to restrictions.
on a dock for the winter, offered an extension due to restrictions. Which I have accepted and appreciate.
doesn’t occur to me why I shouldn’t have to pay the going rate for the dock.

I realize other people may face other constraints I don’t. It’s estimated up to 60 per cent may not be able to make rent or mortgage payments by the end of this month.
Bankss and Landlords have been asked to be understanding
all kind of financial obligations may be affected.

Instead of expecting a blanket rebate, perhaps contacting marina and explaining why your particular circumstances make payment of your moorage a problem at this time and ask for understanding due to the effects of the current situation.
I would imagine if you have a bone fide reason such as laid of from work due to shut lockdown or business closed due to lock down.
They might be understanding,

 

[Bobc]

Winter marina rates are often less than half the price of summer which is why some people come into marinas in the winter and leave on the switch to summer rates at the end of march. Unless some weird virus thing causes the marina to be shut down before they can move the boat. Being then landed with a monthly bill at a rate one intended to avoid may become problematic.

That is different to an annual berth holder, and in this case I would expect a discussion and negotiation to go on between the individual involved and the marina. I'm sure the marina would make a concession in a case such as this, but this is not the case for 99% of the berth holder, for whom their boat is on an annual contract and sailing is their hobby paid for from their disposable income.

 

[dom]

I'm also a Premier berth holder who is perfectly happy for them to pocket any excess cash in light of the fact that the Wellcome Trust is the ultimate beneficiary.

That said, I think Laika and others make a compelling case that people should make their own decisions in this regard depending on their personal circumstances, income levels, and notions about which charities to support.

I know, this rarely happens on these forums but I'm doing a 180 on this, and in light of the coherent contrary case now think that Premier should on balance either offer some discount, or at least consult with their customers. Even if for purely commercial reasons, being mindful of the enduring distaste should its customers become truly annoyed. That's not a happy situation for any business.