Ex-SolentBoy
New member
On that basis you would probably have to never accept anything from half of the companies on the FTSE 100, most of the banks in Europe, and nearly every politician.
Tough principles to live up to, but I commend your spirit
Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific
- Thread starter Laura Nineham
- Start date
On that basis you would probably have to never accept anything from half of the companies on the FTSE 100, most of the banks in Europe, and nearly every politician.
Tough principles to live up to, but I commend your spirit
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I really don't know what you are getting at.
Bumbury was seen at METS (fawning around the big CMP boss by all accounts). We have already been told that he was "retained" by CMP (RocnaOne made that clear when he was speaking to us). Ergo, he was being paid. Nothing odd about that.
If you believe that he was there out of the goodness of his charitable little heart then you believe anything.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Please read the previous messages and you will see the point I was making. There is no ergo at all, just lots of assumption.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I really don't know what you are getting at and I have already looked through the previous posts. You seem to be querying anything and everything that is being said for little purpose and simply putting forward irrelevant hypothesis upon hypothesis
I'll leave you to get on with it.
Meanwhile I'll continue to follow the real story.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
I too have an interest in the real story, so we are probably on the same side. My interest though, is to find out what the real story is. I am trying to do this by questioning supposed "evidence" to find out if it is based on fact, or just something someone thinks they read somewhere, or we're told by someone who is not identifiable or in possession on real knowledge.
Things like Grant's list of anchor shipments seem like real evidence, but someone saying they were told at a boat Show that Bambury was being paid seems a little less evidence based, even though it may seem obvious. The real questions are how much, for how long, and under whAt conditions. CMP paying him something does not necessarily make them bad. A little for a short while might be commercially desirable. On the other hand, paying him loads for years would indicate something else.
What we do not have is facts.
In my experience the nature of employment and consulting contracts, especially after a takeover or relicensing, are normally treated as confidential. Speculation achieves nothing.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Originally Posted by Twister_Ken
There's also the question of whether one should give one's money to people that have demonstrably cheated their customers.
Response from Conachair:
Have Canada Metal Pacific been cheating their customers?
You'll note I said "people", not "a company". I was referring to Smith and Bumberry, who are in the pay of CMP and appear integral to the Rocna marketing effort.
There's also the question of whether one should give one's money to people that have demonstrably cheated their customers.
Response from Conachair:
Have Canada Metal Pacific been cheating their customers?
You'll note I said "people", not "a company". I was referring to Smith and Bumberry, who are in the pay of CMP and appear integral to the Rocna marketing effort.
Last edited:
Rigger Mortice
N/A
I'll try once more then.....
RocnaOne made it clear that Bumbury had been taken on to help with the transition. Most people assume that that means that there was some kind of short term contract and any other understanding would be odd to say the least.
The nitty gritty of the contractual arrangements is of little real interest and I am not aware of any speculation which has been going on about it.
Bumbury is, at present or certainly until recently, in the pay of CMP. Bumbury was also seen at Amsterdam with the CMP people. Fact, not speculation.
For entertainment we can speculate about whether or not RocnaOne is still contracted to CMP but no one is saying and it won't progress the story one jot.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
I'll try once more then.....
RocnaOne made it clear that Bumbury had been taken on to help with the transition. Most people assume that that means that there was some kind of short term contract and any other understanding would be odd to say the least.
The nitty gritty of the contractual arrangements is of little real interest and I am not aware of any speculation which has been going on about it.
Bumbury is, at present or certainly until recently, in the pay of CMP. Bumbury was also seen at Amsterdam with the CMP people. Fact, not speculation.
For entertainment we can speculate about whether or not RocnaOne is still contracted to CMP but no one is saying and it won't progress the story one jot.
Thanks. My earlier comment that Bambury is not necessarily getting paid every time a Rocna is sold is probably correct then.
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
Thanks. My earlier comment that Bambury is not necessarily getting paid every time a Rocna is sold is probably correct then.
Perhaps not, but he may well still be being paid with every day that passes.
Certainly, if I were involved with CMP, I'd make it very clear that I was no longer employing him, when that time comes. I've not noticed such a statement yet.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Thanks. My earlier comment that Bambury is not necessarily getting paid every time a Rocna is sold is probably correct then.
. Nobody will disagree with that but, for that matter, nobody cares about Bumbury's pay package. I don't think that when Barnacle made his earlier comment he meant to imply that there was a commission being paid to Bumbury; he was just saying that if you buy a Rocna anchor some of the money will find its way into Bumbury's pocket and, for that matter, into the Smith's.Now, stop being argumentative and let's try to pin down the rest of the Rocna story.
Ex-SolentBoy
New member
Now, stop being argumentative and let's try to pin down the rest of the Rocna story.
Spoilsport
evm1024
New member
Spoilsport
I think that sums up your intent quite nicely.
Now back to the story....
We do not know what terms Bambury was able to agree to or was forced to agree to. We do know that Bambury is not held in high regard by many if not most who are aware of the Rocna saga.
We do know that CMP has allowed/required Bambury to be representing them at trade shows.
This implies that CMP sees an advantage to having Bambury on their team. Perhaps that is in the contract.
This does not speak well for CMP. I say just pay him off and keep him in the closet until the contract goes it's term.
maxi77
Active member
To be fair to CMP until they went public only had the story as told by Bambury and Smith. One hopes they are now doing just a little more checking. Perhaps they may even send Rocna1 back to us with another resurection plan, or perhaps the comital to the deep for ROCNA
Twister_Ken
Well-known member
I should hope CMP carried out due diligence before taking on the Rocna licence. If not, innocents abroad/sucker born every minute...
Coaster
Active member
Despite the enormous amount written here and elsewhere I cannot recall reading about any reported failures of anchoring in the British Isles as a result of Rocna manufacturing inadequacies. Have there been any?
Conachair
Guest
Let's face it, we know nothing about what CMP are up to. It's hardly their main business and it looks like they can afford not to be in a rush, maybe they decided before getting into it to make a decent anchor and just sit on it 'til all the fuss dies down.
Who knows.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Thankfully, I don't think there have been any. It would probably need a death to occur and a full MCA report to be issued before it would hit the headlines.
I wouldn't necessarily expect to see reports every time an anchor drags, doesn't set, rusts or bends.
We do know that Rocna went to considerable lengths to cover up the story when the Venice anchor got reported to the distributor.
Coaster
Active member
Thanks for your response. We bought a 20kg Rocna from Piplers in (I think) late 2009. It's been really excellent. We deliberately chose a larger size than the one recommended for our 34' sailing boat.
Should I be at all concerned?
Should I be at all concerned?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
If it has a fabricated fluke then probably no. If it has a cast fluke, with the name Rocna cast into it then possibly yes. My understanding is that anchors from that period were suspect but, rather than taking my word for it, if you PM Grant King he is better able to give you a definitive answer.
Last edited:
Neeves
Well-known member
Coaster
What a lot goes on when Australia sleeps.
Accordong to records shipments from China to the UK: a 20kg Rocna bought in late 2009 is either old NZ stock, with a welded fluke, or a Chinese 420 shanked model with a cast fluke. The UK received 10 x 20kg 420 models on a shipment from China ex Shanghai around end June 2009 and a further 18 units shipped around the 3rd week of September, also with 420 shanks. This information is derived from a Holdfast shipment schedule (check with CMP or Grant for authenticity).
There had been a shipment mid January 2009, of 420 shanked models (including 50 x 20kg units), but one would assume these had been sold as there were 2 subsequent shipments (above), presumably as replacements for those sold from the first shipment. This information is derived from invoices from the Chinese factory, bank transfer documents from HSBC correlated with the invoices, packing lists and a shipment schedule of Holdfast's, then, partner in China - thus 'independent' of Grant and Holdfast as a prime source.
There were no subsequent shipments, as far as I know, of 20kg 420 shanked anchors (the UK then started to receive 620 shanked models). So once the above were sold, anchors were simply not as advertised as opposed to vessel threatening.
None of this makes Piplers statement look too reliable that only 50 units of 420 shanked anchors arrived in the UK. One wonders what their information is based on.
Coaster, I might take stock. Personally I would take it back, I would change it for a an anchor from a different manufacturer. I would not wish to support the concept that deceit is acceptable - but as has been said
There's nowt so queer as folk
Jonathan
What a lot goes on when Australia sleeps.
Accordong to records shipments from China to the UK: a 20kg Rocna bought in late 2009 is either old NZ stock, with a welded fluke, or a Chinese 420 shanked model with a cast fluke. The UK received 10 x 20kg 420 models on a shipment from China ex Shanghai around end June 2009 and a further 18 units shipped around the 3rd week of September, also with 420 shanks. This information is derived from a Holdfast shipment schedule (check with CMP or Grant for authenticity).
There had been a shipment mid January 2009, of 420 shanked models (including 50 x 20kg units), but one would assume these had been sold as there were 2 subsequent shipments (above), presumably as replacements for those sold from the first shipment. This information is derived from invoices from the Chinese factory, bank transfer documents from HSBC correlated with the invoices, packing lists and a shipment schedule of Holdfast's, then, partner in China - thus 'independent' of Grant and Holdfast as a prime source.
There were no subsequent shipments, as far as I know, of 20kg 420 shanked anchors (the UK then started to receive 620 shanked models). So once the above were sold, anchors were simply not as advertised as opposed to vessel threatening.
None of this makes Piplers statement look too reliable that only 50 units of 420 shanked anchors arrived in the UK. One wonders what their information is based on.
Coaster, I might take stock. Personally I would take it back, I would change it for a an anchor from a different manufacturer. I would not wish to support the concept that deceit is acceptable - but as has been said
There's nowt so queer as folk
Jonathan
Last edited: