The City Of Liverpool Cruise Liner Terminal

[jayboy]

The Liverpool echo is not an evening paper , it is in the shops at 8 oclock in the morning there is a late edition which is printed at 11 oclock in the morning, so no racing results or late footy news, anything important like Cruise News is unfortunatley next days news its printed in Oldham wtfs going on?

[Joe the red]

I'm talking about the website which has no such restrictions and which been updated since and still nothing. Anyway let's wait and see what they come up with tomorrow.

[Rock Savage]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

I spotted the story on BBC's website and came here to have a look at the reaction. Nothing - no mention.

So I went to icLiverpool / Echo website as our supposed local news provider. Nothing doing there, except pieces about a car crash involving burglary suspects and a pet shop owner who had been cruel to guinea pigs ffs.

Then I spotted the piece that Paul posted. At least someone in the city is on the ball despite the Richard Whiteleyesque jokes.

Meanwhile back at the Echo website, still fuck all.

At last:

Liverpool cruise liner terminal funding agreed

LIVERPOOL council’s cruise liner terminal will cost around £500,000 to build but help bring in up to £20m a year.

Planners are expected to give approval to the bid later this month and work could begin on site in April. At yesterday’s cabinet meeting the green light was given to release the funding for the project.

To save costs and make sure the facilities last they will be temporary and will be taken down during the closed season of the winter months.

Derelict land at Princes Dock will be used for baggage-handling, customs checks, coach and bus parking.

It is understood the cost of improving roads which give access to the site will be around £300,000 with the terminal building or marquee and other works costing around £200,000.

But city leaders said the potential income to the city would be huge.

They have estimated that each cruise liner starting or ending its journey in Liverpool will see around £1m pumped into the city economy.

A report that went before cabinet yesterday stated that “the development of turnaround cruising will undoubtedly assist in taking the city one step further as a tourist destination with a particular view to the potential growth of fly-cruising from overseas as well as UK regional departures”.

It adds: “Given the city’s established international profile it is anticipated that in the medium term there is significant growth in this market.”

Council leader Cllr Joe Anderson said: “This is a huge moment for Liverpool and means for the first time in decades we have the prospect of liners starting and ending their voyages in the city.

“Cruising is big business because it means tourists who come here and spend money in the local economy.

“For far too long, holiday makers in the north west have had to travel to and from other ports to start their journeys, and this will return Liverpool to its rightful place as a major cruise port.”

Cabinet member for regeneration Cllr Malcolm Kennedy added: “We are grateful to the government for giving us a fair hearing on this matter and are getting everything in place so we can take advantage of turnaround as soon as this issue is resolved.”

The terminal will be in use for three years before a permanent structure is built.

The council is currently in the process of agreeing how much of the original £9.2m of European funding given towards the cost of the existing cruise terminal will have to be paid back. Some money must be reimbursed because it was built on the condition it would only be used for short stop-offs


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...#ixzz1o3O1QyTh



It is in today's Echo .... on page 4. That represents a substantial promotion in importance. Previous items have been around page 11.

'Voice of the People'?

[Cast Iron Shaw]

The £500k expenditure is reasonable in the circumstances

Would be interesting to know whether the £200k per year for the hire of the marquee includes the cost to put up/take down as this is the expensive part and the planning application is only for 6 months per annum.

It is likely that the TOTAL ships revenue from the projected 20 calls will just about cover the cost of the Terminal but out of this will come revenue to Peel and the cost of baggage handlers/security staff etc so there will be a very limited amount left over to repay the Govt grant.

Also it would be interesting to learn where this magical figure of £1m revenue per cruise ship call comes from.

It means that every passenger joining a cruise ship in Liverpool will have to contribute £833 to the local economy.

Bearing in mind the idea is to attract more people from the immediate hinterland, it is difficult to imagine too many people spending anything like this in Liverpool pre/post cruise, despite the city's many attractions

[Rock Savage]

I reckon the £1m figure is wrong too, as you say, CIS.

It is probably based on the terminal being used by a 3,000 berth ship.

If one tenth stayed overnight this would likely get 300 x £300 = £90,000 .. . . . . so nearly there . . . . . :-)

Seriously though, this is worth far more in intangible value rather than simple numbers.

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by Rock Savage

I reckon the £1m figure is wrong too, as you say, CIS.

It is probably based on the terminal being used by a 3,000 berth ship.

If one tenth stayed overnight this would likely get 300 x £300 = £90,000 .. . . . . so nearly there . . . . . :-)

Seriously though, this is worth far more in intangible value rather than simple numbers.

Rock

Perhaps you are right but the Terminal is only licensed for 1,200 passengers

btw how do you calculate 'intangible value'?

[Richard_A]

You don't, as he clearly said "more in intangible value rather than simple numbers".

[jets9]

Originally Posted by Cast Iron Shaw

I think Liverpool CC have gone about this in the right way ie provided a reasonably modest and low cost facility for a 3 year trial period to see what transpires.
It will only be able to accommodate vessels up to 1,200 passengers so this will limit turnround activity to the likes of Fred Olsen and CMS vessels.
Question is how much revenue LCC will get from this activity (net of Peel's take from River Dues etc) to pay back whatever sum is required by HMG.
If the payback turns out to be £9m (and it wont) then it is likley to take a hell of a time to repay, especially if interest is tagged on.
Although the cruise business has been growing rapidly in recent years the Costa problems will hurt bookings for a while and, beyond 2015, the cost of fuel to cruise ships (already at record levels) is likely to increase by up to 80% due to new emission regulations which will also harm Ferry services as fares will have to increase.
This may hamper growth within the cruise market

With the best will in the will world (and with respect) and after the to and fro of a good argument...........CIS....you really do take the good old 'half empty/half full' adage to a new level.

In your case you are a regular '25 per cent' empty man.

[Joe the red]

Glass smashed??!!

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by jets9

With the best will in the will world (and with respect) and after the to and fro of a good argument...........CIS....you really do take the good old 'half empty/half full' adage to a new level.

In your case you are a regular '25 per cent' empty man.

Jets

Guilty as charged

Guess that what comes from having a background trying to argue the case for/against financial investments.

Of course public opinion in Liverpool seems to be very much in favour of cruise terminal development (this is quite natural and has to be understood and respected) and, in essence, I can support the principle

However I do believe there is some significant 'gilding of the lily' when it comes to the financial benefits supporting the financial case and that is the concern I have tried to put forward for debate.

Some of the figures just don't add up.

Even the current grant funded terminal is costing the tax payers of Liverpool £500k a year and I suspect the upgrade could potentially increase this annual loss.

I reckon that LCC have a duty to ensure all schemes deliver a suitable return, or at least wash their face, especially at a time when the City Budget has been reduced by £50m a year, which will adversely affect essential services.

If the cruise terminal is such a good idea why aren't there a queue of commercial enterprises out there willing to invest in the project?

Currently Peel seem to be getting most of the benefit without any risk.

[jets9]

Originally Posted by Cast Iron Shaw

Jets

Guilty as charged

Guess that what comes from having a background trying to argue the case for/against financial investments.

Of course public opinion in Liverpool seems to be very much in favour of cruise terminal development (this is quite natural and has to be understood and respected) and, in essence, I can support the principle

However I do believe there is some significant 'gilding of the lily' when it comes to the financial benefits supporting the financial case and that is the concern I have tried to put forward for debate.

Some of the figures just don't add up.

Even the current grant funded terminal is costing the tax payers of Liverpool £500k a year and I suspect the upgrade could potentially increase this annual loss.

I reckon that LCC have a duty to ensure all schemes deliver a suitable return, or at least wash their face, especially at a time when the City Budget has been reduced by £50m a year, which will adversely affect essential services.

If the cruise terminal is such a good idea why aren't there a queue of commercial enterprises out there willing to invest in the project?

Currently Peel seem to be getting most of the benefit without any risk.

Let's start with an indesputable fact. Any economic entity, whether it's a hamlet of a few houses or a city region of 2 million will always gravitate to the geographic, topographical, resource facts which allow it to make a living, especially if the good lord has blessed it with a competitive advantage.

Putting it crudely, the NW regionalist megalomaniacs can't stuff a cruise liner up the Manchester ship canal. Together with the other facts like the clearly measurable tourist potential of the city (How many hotels have been built and are planned?) it would be plainly balmy if Liverpool didn't go on and develop this advantage. It has to be seen as part of the long road of recovery that the city has had to travel in the last 30 years.......nowadays with some impressive results.

By the early 1980's Liverpool was a true basket case, a dead in the water stagnating economy with a shell shocked political class. Alas, the 'gift horse' now presenting itself to the politicians is so plainly obvious that they are very eager to get involved, (granted) always a worrying sign. But why not?

There is nothing new in state pump priming, after all that is what helped create the existing terminal. Even in these difficult times and after the cuts, the city council still controls a hefty budget with plenty of cash opportunities for capital investment........the proposal for the turnaround terminal is very affordable, easy to understand (which is a help to the politicos) and quickly deliverable (which they love) On this particular occasion I would be pissed off if they didn't have a punt with my tax money. I just hope that if the investment starts to succeed they have the nouse and aggression to kick Southampton's ass.

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by jets9

Let's start with an indesputable fact. Any economic entity, whether it's a hamlet of a few houses or a city region of 2 million will always gravitate to the geographic, topographical, resource facts which allow it to make a living, especially if the good lord has blessed it with a competitive advantage.

Putting it crudely, the NW regionalist megalomaniacs can't stuff a cruise liner up the Manchester ship canal. Together with the other facts like the clearly measurable tourist potential of the city (How many hotels have been built and are planned?) it would be plainly balmy if Liverpool didn't go on and develop this advantage. It has to be seen as part of the long road of recovery that the city has had to travel in the last 30 years.......nowadays with some impressive results.

By the early 1980's Liverpool was a true basket case, a dead in the water stagnating economy with a shell shocked political class. Alas, the 'gift horse' now presenting itself to the politicians is so plainly obvious that they are very eager to get involved, (granted) always a worrying sign. But why not?

There is nothing new in state pump priming, after all that is what helped create the existing terminal. Even in these difficult times and after the cuts, the city council still controls a hefty budget with plenty of cash opportunities for capital investment........the proposal for the turnaround terminal is very affordable, easy to understand (which is a help to the politicos) and quickly deliverable (which they love) On this particular occasion I would be pissed off if they didn't have a punt with my tax money. I just hope that if the investment starts to succeed they have the nouse and aggression to kick Southampton's ass.

Jets

Fully understand what you say and your sentiment will be shared by many I am sure

However, going forward when external aid will not be so easy to obtain, Liverpool will have to show that it is able to provide some tangible return from 'free money'

I am sure this can happen but there have been quite a few projects that have not delivered the returns to the community that the original grant applications have predicted and, at some stage, this may come back to haunt the region.

[Richard_A]

500k is the cost of a fairly average family house in London. It's peanuts.

[PhilG]

Originally Posted by Richard_A

500k is the cost of a fairly average family house in London. It's peanuts.

'Britain has also put up 9.3 billion pounds public funding to prepare for the Games, most of it to build the Olympic Park, which has transformed a rundown area in London's east end.'

This is what taxpayers have paid towards the Olympics.....a bit of perspective!

[PhilG]

Originally Posted by Cast Iron Shaw

It is likely that the TOTAL ships revenue from the projected 20 calls will just about cover the cost of the Terminal but out of this will come revenue to Peel and the cost of baggage handlers/security staff etc so there will be a very limited amount left over to repay the Govt grant.

Hi CIS, i won't be getting any precise figures for you i'm afraid, i'm told that Peel's charges are pretty much standard for the industry and cheaper than in some instances, interestingly i'm told that the charges will come down with useage because it will be cheaper to hire permanent than temp one-off staff, makes sense.

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by PhilG

Hi CIS, i won't be getting any precise figures for you i'm afraid, i'm told that Peel's charges are pretty much standard for the industry and cheaper than in some instances, interestingly i'm told that the charges will come down with useage because it will be cheaper to hire permanent than temp one-off staff, makes sense.

Phil

Thanks for this

It more or less ties in with my own feedback but what no one really seems to know is how much of the per ship revenue will be given to LCC to repay the UK Grant and ongoing running costs of the terminal

The general concensus is that it will be quite small, perhaps as little as £5k per ship call

re your last comment, I think this is a red herring as most/all Uk cruise ports rely on temporary staff to service cruise ships as no port can afford to have anything between 80 to 200 permanent staff per ship call for the relatively small numbers of cruises per annum.

[PhilG]

Originally Posted by Cast Iron Shaw

Phil

Thanks for this

re your last comment, I think this is a red herring as most/all Uk cruise ports rely on temporary staff to service cruise ships as no port can afford to have anything between 80 to 200 permanent staff per ship call for the relatively small numbers of cruises per annum.

No worries, the last comment was more to do with berthing than servicing, i think it's something too do with the last two Dolphins and hire costs for small boats to put men on them.

[PhilG]

Can someone explain why Nissan can get a £9.3m grant but we can't.

Why don't Ford complain, is it because they get grants as well?

Is it because of how we set our stall out at the beginning for 'stop-offs' only?

[bluesnapper]

Originally Posted by PhilG

Can someone explain why Nissan can get a £9.3m grant but we can't.

Why don't Ford complain, is it because they get grants as well?

Is it because of how we set our stall out at the beginning for 'stop-offs' only?

Doesnt make sense if you apply the Soton liners scenario.

[Cast Iron Shaw]

Originally Posted by PhilG

Can someone explain why Nissan can get a £9.3m grant but we can't.

Why don't Ford complain, is it because they get grants as well?

Is it because of how we set our stall out at the beginning for 'stop-offs' only?

Phil

As I understand it Nissan received the £9m from cash allocated to the N East Regional Growth Fund
To my mind this is a good use of public money and the same principle should really be applied to the Ellesmere Port plant which is under threat post 2014 due to GM restructuring in Europe.
Unfortunately Vince Cable doesnt seem to be sending out positive messages about protecting the 2,500 jobs at stake on the Wirral.
re 'setting our stall out for 'stop offs' only. Believe me no grant application would have been entertained if the original grant application had mentioned 'Turnround' calls.
Liverpool CC has either been very crafty or rather underhand in obtaining the cruise terminal money, dependent on which Echo you read
I wonder how people would vote locally on the hypothetical question..how would you spend £17m - on a cruise terminal or invested in GM at Ellesmere Port?