Today's most viewed
Cunard to come home to city port
CUNARD, one of the most prestigious names in British shipping, is sailing back home to Southampton after a gap of ten years when its ships were controlled from America.
The company's famous golden lion flag will fly over Southampton once more as Cunard brings together all of its many different departments and operations under one roof.
Although the move creates only a handful of jobs, the return of one of the city's proudest business names is an historic moment.
One of the first major undertakings to be managed by Cunard in Southampton will be the construction of its brand new vessel, Queen Elizabeth, which will enter service in the port during the autumn of 2010.
In May 1998, Cunard was acquired by the world's largest cruising empire, the Florida-based Carnival Corporation and the day-to-day running of the shipping line was switched from Southampton to Miami. Then, six years later, Cunard operations were moved to Los Angeles.
Up until last December, Cunard's global business was overseen by the offices in California but towards the end of 2007 it was decided that the shipping line should return to Southampton, the city that has been the company's main centre of maritime operations since the 1930s.
Peter Shanks, chief commercial officer for Carnival in the UK, said: "During the naming ceremony for Queen Mary 2 we told the people of Southampton that this was their ship and now we will also be able to say, to the port and city, that Cunard is your company.
"Over the past months we have been drawing together all the aspects of the Cunard operation and now all that remains for us to do is to put the finishing touches to the department that looks after the hotel operations on our ships,'' said Mr Shanks.
"At the beginning of next month everything should be in place
and Cunard will be back home again.''
The change, underlining Cunard's most British of credentials, comes as Carnival UK prepares to occupy the purpose-built corporate headquarters now rising on Southampton's skyline at West Quay Road, just a short distance from the port.
Work is also gathering pace in the Eastern Docks where Associated British Ports is investing £10m in the construction of the city's fourth cruise passenger terminal that will be used by Carnival brands such as Cunard, P&O Cruises, and Princess Cruises.
7:27am Thursday 14th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: THE BRICK, @THE ICE RINK on 8:26am Thu 14 Aug 08
Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship.
Lets start a new campaign!!
Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship.
Lets start a new campaign!!
Posted by: ossiesaint, at the bar on 8:34am Thu 14 Aug 08
I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some "super dooper" terminal!!!!!
I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some "super dooper" terminal!!!!!
Posted by: Gordy H, Southampton on 8:44am Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]ossiesaint[/bold] wrote:
I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some \"super dooper\" terminal!!!!![/quote] Yep, why not build a super terminal at Dibden Bay and release the land for the current mish-mash back to containers? Simple really but not sure those in the docks think like that!
ossiesaint wrote:
I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some \"super dooper\" terminal!!!!!
Yep, why not build a super terminal at Dibden Bay and release the land for the current mish-mash back to containers? Simple really but not sure those in the docks think like that!
Posted by: cruise expert, on board on 11:08am Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]THE BRICK[/bold] wrote:
Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!![/quote] Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!!
THE BRICK wrote:
Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!!
Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!!
Posted by: cruise expert, on board on 11:31am Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Gordy H[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]ossiesaint[/bold] wrote: I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some \"super dooper\" terminal!!!!![/quote] Yep, why not build a super terminal at Dibden Bay and release the land for the current mish-mash back to containers? Simple really but not sure those in the docks think like that![/quote] Relevant points. However nowadays Cruise Companies want the ship to be the focal point not the Terminal.
Cruise Companies have a lot of influence on terminal provision as the likes of Carnival/RCL pay for the construction/refurb within their commercial rate structure.
Terminals need to be clean and tidy and able to transfer up to 8,000 people and probably 16,000 pieces of baggage within an 8 hr turnround, not architecturally stimulating.
Unfortunately grandiose Terminal design does not register on the Cruise Companies scale of priorities unless there is the possibility of external grant aid as is the case in some foreign ports.
Whilst cruise revenue is important to ports (and possibly even more so to local businesses)container
s, comparatively, contribute more to port revenue. That is why expansion of the container business ranks so highly in ports throughout the world.
Also from the cruise company perspective, the proximity of the existing cruise terminals to the motorway/rail and air connections is better in Soton that it would be at Dibden.
Finally having invested upwards of £50m on new/refurbed cruise facilities in Soton in recent years, any move to Dibden (and the Nimbys would still be against development) would not make commercial sense.
Gordy H wrote:
ossiesaint wrote: I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some \"super dooper\" terminal!!!!!
Yep, why not build a super terminal at Dibden Bay and release the land for the current mish-mash back to containers? Simple really but not sure those in the docks think like that!
Relevant points. However nowadays Cruise Companies want the ship to be the focal point not the Terminal.
Cruise Companies have a lot of influence on terminal provision as the likes of Carnival/RCL pay for the construction/refurb within their commercial rate structure.
Terminals need to be clean and tidy and able to transfer up to 8,000 people and probably 16,000 pieces of baggage within an 8 hr turnround, not architecturally stimulating.
Unfortunately grandiose Terminal design does not register on the Cruise Companies scale of priorities unless there is the possibility of external grant aid as is the case in some foreign ports.
Whilst cruise revenue is important to ports (and possibly even more so to local businesses)container
s, comparatively, contribute more to port revenue. That is why expansion of the container business ranks so highly in ports throughout the world.
Also from the cruise company perspective, the proximity of the existing cruise terminals to the motorway/rail and air connections is better in Soton that it would be at Dibden.
Finally having invested upwards of £50m on new/refurbed cruise facilities in Soton in recent years, any move to Dibden (and the Nimbys would still be against development) would not make commercial sense.
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 11:53am Thu 14 Aug 08
next step for cunard, this to go back to there old name white star lines, and move back to liverpool before the final death nail
next step for cunard, this to go back to there old name white star lines, and move back to liverpool before the final death nail
Posted by: northy, baddesley on 12:07pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Point of detail, Cunard & White Star were two separate companies who joined together in February 1934 to become Cunard White Star Line.
No doubt Southey would rejoice if Cunard moved back to their original Liverpool HQ so he can run Soton down in his normal inimitable fashion
Point of detail, Cunard & White Star were two separate companies who joined together in February 1934 to become Cunard White Star Line.
No doubt Southey would rejoice if Cunard moved back to their original Liverpool HQ so he can run Soton down in his normal inimitable fashion
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 12:16pm Thu 14 Aug 08
nope norty because if that happen it be an end of of an era
nope norty because if that happen it be an end of of an era
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 12:25pm Thu 14 Aug 08
whats needed norty is southampton docks to be taken away from ABP and get a new team in
whats needed norty is southampton docks to be taken away from ABP and get a new team in
Posted by: Dan on 1:13pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Southy, I love the way you are able to take positive news about Southampton and twist it to fit your anti-ABP agenda. What exactly is your issue with them?
Southy, I love the way you are able to take positive news about Southampton and twist it to fit your anti-ABP agenda. What exactly is your issue with them?
Posted by: Teacher on 1:21pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Dan[/bold] wrote:
Southy, I love the way you are able to take positive news about Southampton and twist it to fit your anti-ABP agenda. What exactly is your issue with them?[/quote] Even if he replies you will have to wonder what he has written. No doubt he got an A in A level English earlier today.
Dan wrote:
Southy, I love the way you are able to take positive news about Southampton and twist it to fit your anti-ABP agenda. What exactly is your issue with them?
Even if he replies you will have to wonder what he has written. No doubt he got an A in A level English earlier today.
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 1:43pm Thu 14 Aug 08
you need to know how abp works.
you need to know how abp works.
Posted by: THE BRICK, @THE ICE RINK on 1:49pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]cruise expert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]THE BRICK[/bold] wrote:
Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!![/quote] Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!![/quote] How big is the ice rinks on these ships then? If they are the same size as Ryde IOW, that'll do. We'll play hockey anywhere if its made of ice.
cruise expert wrote:
THE BRICK wrote:
Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!!
Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!!
How big is the ice rinks on these ships then? If they are the same size as Ryde IOW, that'll do. We'll play hockey anywhere if its made of ice.
Posted by: Intererested, Musing on 1:53pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Pray explain how ABP works then. You moaned in an earlier piece about the previous port manager (who you incorrectly said was alexander kent!!!) and now you reckon the new management team need replacing. Not saying that any management team are perfect but at least the port of southampton is more buoyant than in the 1970/80's.
Southey surprise us one day with a positive posting pl
Pray explain how ABP works then. You moaned in an earlier piece about the previous port manager (who you incorrectly said was alexander kent!!!) and now you reckon the new management team need replacing. Not saying that any management team are perfect but at least the port of southampton is more buoyant than in the 1970/80's.
Southey surprise us one day with a positive posting pl
Posted by: corkhead, IOW on 1:58pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]THE BRICK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]cruise expert[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]THE BRICK[/bold] wrote: Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!![/quote] Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!![/quote] How big is the ice rinks on these ships then? If they are the same size as Ryde IOW, that'll do. We'll play hockey anywhere if its made of ice.[/quote] Ryde IOW is much bigger than the ship let alone the ice stage!!
Seriously tho assume 20m X 8m but not so good at guessing measrements and of course ship only here 20 days for 8 hours
THE BRICK wrote:
cruise expert wrote: THE BRICK wrote: Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!!
Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!!
How big is the ice rinks on these ships then? If they are the same size as Ryde IOW, that'll do. We'll play hockey anywhere if its made of ice.
Ryde IOW is much bigger than the ship let alone the ice stage!!
Seriously tho assume 20m X 8m but not so good at guessing measrements and of course ship only here 20 days for 8 hours
Posted by: tiffany, stuck in the 80's on 2:17pm Thu 14 Aug 08
I think we're alone now
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 2:17pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Intererested, Musing aka northy,ABP will put share holders first every time,ever since the docks got sold,there been ships that refuse to come to southampton due to there over charging,one explample is the nerc ships,when they was at port barry they was told if they move to southampton the cost will be the same,they had at that time 4 ships based at port barry and there was a new in the pipe line to be built(sir john ross),but when nerc got here the charges was not the same it was going to cost them 3 times has much,thats why nerc ships are now based at porthmouth,and its only there offices here in southampton whitch they will be leavng has soon the short term contract runs out,they are moving to the west country,not far from the uk Oceanography HQ,BAS ships moved out of southampton for the same reason,
And they will grab land and sale docks
Intererested, Musing aka northy,ABP will put share holders first every time,ever since the docks got sold,there been ships that refuse to come to southampton due to there over charging,one explample is the nerc ships,when they was at port barry they was told if they move to southampton the cost will be the same,they had at that time 4 ships based at port barry and there was a new in the pipe line to be built(sir john ross),but when nerc got here the charges was not the same it was going to cost them 3 times has much,thats why nerc ships are now based at porthmouth,and its only there offices here in southampton whitch they will be leavng has soon the short term contract runs out,they are moving to the west country,not far from the uk Oceanography HQ,BAS ships moved out of southampton for the same reason,
And they will grab land and sale docks
Posted by: Lord of Lol'shire on 2:19pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]corkhead[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]THE BRICK[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]cruise expert[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]THE BRICK[/bold] wrote: Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!![/quote] Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!![/quote] How big is the ice rinks on these ships then? If they are the same size as Ryde IOW, that'll do. We'll play hockey anywhere if its made of ice.[/quote] Ryde IOW is much bigger than the ship let alone the ice stage!! Seriously tho assume 20m X 8m but not so good at guessing measrements and of course ship only here 20 days for 8 hours[/quote] the titanic has some ice
corkhead wrote:
THE BRICK wrote: cruise expert wrote: THE BRICK wrote: Aha, as some Carnival cruise ship have onboard ice rinks, maybe the Vikings can use one to play home matches on. that would be different and we can the the arena, The Viking Long Ship. Lets start a new campaign!!
Point of detail it is the newer Royal Caribbean ships that have Ice rinks. Too small for hockey I'm afraid!!
How big is the ice rinks on these ships then? If they are the same size as Ryde IOW, that'll do. We'll play hockey anywhere if its made of ice.
Ryde IOW is much bigger than the ship let alone the ice stage!! Seriously tho assume 20m X 8m but not so good at guessing measrements and of course ship only here 20 days for 8 hours
the titanic has some ice
Posted by: Southy, redbrifge on 2:29pm Thu 14 Aug 08
I dig hung abp workers
Posted by: maneater, soton on 2:38pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Southy[/bold] wrote:
I dig hung abp workers[/quote] Shouldnt there be a 'well' in there somewere m8?
Southy wrote:
I dig hung abp workers
Shouldnt there be a 'well' in there somewere m8?
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 2:45pm Thu 14 Aug 08
lol my turn now is it you can use my name has much has you like it dont bother me
lol my turn now is it you can use my name has much has you like it dont bother me
Posted by: THE BRICK, @THE ICE RINK on 3:22pm Thu 14 Aug 08
The Xmas ice rink in the Civic Centre this year will be 20m x 30m. Thats about the same size as a penalty kill area with 3 players against 5 plus a netminder. Yeah, no problem
The Xmas ice rink in the Civic Centre this year will be 20m x 30m. Thats about the same size as a penalty kill area with 3 players against 5 plus a netminder. Yeah, no problem
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 3:32pm Thu 14 Aug 08
brick what are the olympic size for all types of ice rinks uses and curling
brick what are the olympic size for all types of ice rinks uses and curling
Posted by: THE BRICK, @THE ICE RINK on 3:42pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
brick what are the olympic size for all types of ice rinks uses and curling[/quote] An ice hockey rink is 30m x 60m and the curling sheet, by World Curling Federation standards, is an area of ice 146 feet (44.50 m) in length by 14 feet 2 inches (4.32 m) to 16 feet 5 inches (5.00 m) in width.
Gosport size is a frozen puddle
southy wrote:
brick what are the olympic size for all types of ice rinks uses and curling
An ice hockey rink is 30m x 60m and the curling sheet, by World Curling Federation standards, is an area of ice 146 feet (44.50 m) in length by 14 feet 2 inches (4.32 m) to 16 feet 5 inches (5.00 m) in width.
Gosport size is a frozen puddle
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 3:52pm Thu 14 Aug 08
and what about speed skating and ice dancing,
and what about speed skating and ice dancing,
Posted by: baz, southampton on 4:04pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Get rid of ABP and their horrible containers and use the land to benefit Southampton,
Get rid of ABP and their horrible containers and use the land to benefit Southampton,
Posted by: THE BRICK, @THE ICE RINK on 4:08pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
and what about speed skating and ice dancing, [/quote] Both the same as the olympic/internationa
l size for short track and for long track it is 400 m
southy wrote:
and what about speed skating and ice dancing,
Both the same as the olympic/internationa
l size for short track and for long track it is 400 m
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 4:12pm Thu 14 Aug 08
so an ice hockey rink is the widest and longest
so an ice hockey rink is the widest and longest
Posted by: Marine Man, portland on 4:15pm Thu 14 Aug 08
NERC ships tend to use Portland not Portsmouth.
NERC ships tend to use Portland not Portsmouth.
Posted by: L O'quent, In a Box on 4:22pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]baz[/bold] wrote:
Get rid of ABP and their horrible containers and use the land to benefit Southampton,[/quote] Intersting idea.
what would you replaec it with?
baz wrote:
Get rid of ABP and their horrible containers and use the land to benefit Southampton,
Intersting idea.
what would you replaec it with?
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 4:30pm Thu 14 Aug 08
that true the discovery endever do use that port,but the sir john clark ross and shackleton use portmouth, mv hero use lauderdale,calypso use a french med port and there are many more nerc boats around the world
that true the discovery endever do use that port,but the sir john clark ross and shackleton use portmouth, mv hero use lauderdale,calypso use a french med port and there are many more nerc boats around the world
Posted by: THE BRICK, @THE ICE RINK on 4:53pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
so an ice hockey rink is the widest and longest[/quote] No, the long track speed skating oval at 400m long
southy wrote:
so an ice hockey rink is the widest and longest
No, the long track speed skating oval at 400m long
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 5:04pm Thu 14 Aug 08
so a building measuring 400x 100 meters would plenty of room
so a building measuring 400x 100 meters would plenty of room
Posted by: RC, Southampton on 7:07pm Thu 14 Aug 08
Southy,
you weren't that bloke that said he was bullied by a senior manager at ABP? if not, what's your beef?
Southy,
you weren't that bloke that said he was bullied by a senior manager at ABP? if not, what's your beef?
Posted by: rosylee, southampton on 8:10pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]cruise expert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Gordy H[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]ossiesaint[/bold] wrote: I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some \\\"super dooper\\\" terminal!!!!![/quote] Yep, why not build a super terminal at Dibden Bay and release the land for the current mish-mash back to containers? Simple really but not sure those in the docks think like that![/quote] Relevant points. However nowadays Cruise Companies want the ship to be the focal point not the Terminal.
Cruise Companies have a lot of influence on terminal provision as the likes of Carnival/RCL pay for the construction/refurb within their commercial rate structure.
Terminals need to be clean and tidy and able to transfer up to 8,000 people and probably 16,000 pieces of baggage within an 8 hr turnround, not architecturally stimulating.
Unfortunately grandiose Terminal design does not register on the Cruise Companies scale of priorities unless there is the possibility of external grant aid as is the case in some foreign ports.
Whilst cruise revenue is important to ports (and possibly even more so to local businesses)container
s, comparatively, contribute more to port revenue. That is why expansion of the container business ranks so highly in ports throughout the world.
Also from the cruise company perspective, the proximity of the existing cruise terminals to the motorway/rail and air connections is better in Soton that it would be at Dibden.
Finally having invested upwards of £50m on new/refurbed cruise facilities in Soton in recent years, any move to Dibden (and the Nimbys would still be against development) would not make commercial sense.[/quote] £50 million!! where? the docks looks a shambles, not befitting a city like southampton, they could learn from Portsmouth how to do it properly.
cruise expert wrote:
Gordy H wrote:
ossiesaint wrote: I always feel Southampton has missed the boat whilst trying to exploit the cruise market! Surely 5 years ago we should have built some \\\"super dooper\\\" terminal!!!!!
Yep, why not build a super terminal at Dibden Bay and release the land for the current mish-mash back to containers? Simple really but not sure those in the docks think like that!
Relevant points. However nowadays Cruise Companies want the ship to be the focal point not the Terminal.
Cruise Companies have a lot of influence on terminal provision as the likes of Carnival/RCL pay for the construction/refurb within their commercial rate structure.
Terminals need to be clean and tidy and able to transfer up to 8,000 people and probably 16,000 pieces of baggage within an 8 hr turnround, not architecturally stimulating.
Unfortunately grandiose Terminal design does not register on the Cruise Companies scale of priorities unless there is the possibility of external grant aid as is the case in some foreign ports.
Whilst cruise revenue is important to ports (and possibly even more so to local businesses)container
s, comparatively, contribute more to port revenue. That is why expansion of the container business ranks so highly in ports throughout the world.
Also from the cruise company perspective, the proximity of the existing cruise terminals to the motorway/rail and air connections is better in Soton that it would be at Dibden.
Finally having invested upwards of £50m on new/refurbed cruise facilities in Soton in recent years, any move to Dibden (and the Nimbys would still be against development) would not make commercial sense.
£50 million!! where? the docks looks a shambles, not befitting a city like southampton, they could learn from Portsmouth how to do it properly.
Posted by: True Blue, Fareham on 9:22pm Thu 14 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
whats needed norty is southampton docks to be taken away from ABP and get a new team in[/quote] Get a new team in? You need to get a new team in at the New Delhi before you worry about getting new team at the docks.
southy wrote:
whats needed norty is southampton docks to be taken away from ABP and get a new team in
Get a new team in? You need to get a new team in at the New Delhi before you worry about getting new team at the docks.
Posted by: wild bill, millbrook hous est on 7:43am Fri 15 Aug 08
I have noticed that when some people lose an arguement or can't hold there own,out comes the nick-picking and slagging.an't that right RC,True blue
I have noticed that when some people lose an arguement or can't hold there own,out comes the nick-picking and slagging.an't that right RC,True blue
Posted by: Unwild Bill on 12:07pm Fri 15 Aug 08
[quote][bold]wild bill[/bold] wrote:
I have noticed that when some people lose an arguement or can't hold there own,out comes the nick-picking and slagging.an't that right RC,True blue[/quote] Wild Bill,
I'm not sure of your point however I think what RC is asking is whether southy was bullied by someone at ABP which is a legitimate question. Southy is very knowledgeable about the docks and most probably the authority on all dock matters on this forum however he does appear to have an agenda so was he the guy that was bullied?
wild bill wrote:
I have noticed that when some people lose an arguement or can't hold there own,out comes the nick-picking and slagging.an't that right RC,True blue
Wild Bill,
I'm not sure of your point however I think what RC is asking is whether southy was bullied by someone at ABP which is a legitimate question. Southy is very knowledgeable about the docks and most probably the authority on all dock matters on this forum however he does appear to have an agenda so was he the guy that was bullied?
Posted by: wild bill, millbrook hous est on 12:38pm Fri 15 Aug 08
Knowing Southy,ABP could not off bully him.Because if ABP called him in to do a job,He would of said do you want the job done or not and be heading for the door.Because if they want him to do a job its because no-one else in the docks can do the job,So he has them over a barrel.
But I do think that RC is refering to a pass post about a accountant who said he was bullied by ABP.
Knowing Southy,ABP could not off bully him.Because if ABP called him in to do a job,He would of said do you want the job done or not and be heading for the door.Because if they want him to do a job its because no-one else in the docks can do the job,So he has them over a barrel.
But I do think that RC is refering to a pass post about a accountant who said he was bullied by ABP.
Posted by: :-) on 5:59pm Fri 15 Aug 08
[quote][bold]wild bill[/bold] wrote:
Knowing Southy,ABP could not off bully him.Because if ABP called him in to do a job,He would of said do you want the job done or not and be heading for the door.Because if they want him to do a job its because no-one else in the docks can do the job,So he has them over a barrel. But I do think that RC is refering to a pass post about a accountant who said he was bullied by ABP.[/quote] Don't you just hate bullies. I hope he took them to the cleaners!
wild bill wrote:
Knowing Southy,ABP could not off bully him.Because if ABP called him in to do a job,He would of said do you want the job done or not and be heading for the door.Because if they want him to do a job its because no-one else in the docks can do the job,So he has them over a barrel. But I do think that RC is refering to a pass post about a accountant who said he was bullied by ABP.
Don't you just hate bullies. I hope he took them to the cleaners!
Posted by: gerry, soton on 9:49pm Fri 15 Aug 08
[quote][bold]RC[/bold] wrote:
Southy, you weren't that bloke that said he was bullied by a senior manager at ABP? if not, what's your beef?[/quote] To be fair to Southey it was somenoe else who inferred he was bullied
Lets have clarification from Southey on the bullification issue
RC wrote:
Southy, you weren't that bloke that said he was bullied by a senior manager at ABP? if not, what's your beef?
To be fair to Southey it was somenoe else who inferred he was bullied
Lets have clarification from Southey on the bullification issue
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 10:20am Sat 16 Aug 08
abp would not dare to bully me they know better not to even try.and like bill said a pass post a accountant that work for abp he was bullied.
abp would not dare to bully me they know better not to even try.and like bill said a pass post a accountant that work for abp he was bullied.
Posted by: Be positive, Southampton on 10:50am Sat 16 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
Intererested, Musing aka northy,ABP will put share holders first every time,ever since the docks got sold,there been ships that refuse to come to southampton due to there over charging,one explample is the nerc ships,when they was at port barry they was told if they move to southampton the cost will be the same,they had at that time 4 ships based at port barry and there was a new in the pipe line to be built(sir john ross),but when nerc got here the charges was not the same it was going to cost them 3 times has much,thats why nerc ships are now based at porthmouth,and its only there offices here in southampton whitch they will be leavng has soon the short term contract runs out,they are moving to the west country,not far from the uk Oceanography HQ,BAS ships moved out of southampton for the same reason, And they will grab land and sale docks[/quote] ABP in a private company and has no share holders to please Southy.
ABP was taken over by a consortium a couple of years ago and since then there has been massive investment in the docks. The dock estate is looking better than it has for years. It is better maintained, cleaner and more vibrant than it has been for a long time. A new Cruise Terminal, new multi deck car storage facility, Huelin Renouf are relocating to Southamnpton Docks from Portsmouth and there are lots more projects in the pipeline. People should remember that Southampton Docks and the busineses that work in and around them create thousands of job and bring in millions of pounds to the local economy.
So there are no shareholders to come first. Current Port Director Doug Morrison has been a breath of fresh air to the docks and the city.
southy wrote:
Intererested, Musing aka northy,ABP will put share holders first every time,ever since the docks got sold,there been ships that refuse to come to southampton due to there over charging,one explample is the nerc ships,when they was at port barry they was told if they move to southampton the cost will be the same,they had at that time 4 ships based at port barry and there was a new in the pipe line to be built(sir john ross),but when nerc got here the charges was not the same it was going to cost them 3 times has much,thats why nerc ships are now based at porthmouth,and its only there offices here in southampton whitch they will be leavng has soon the short term contract runs out,they are moving to the west country,not far from the uk Oceanography HQ,BAS ships moved out of southampton for the same reason, And they will grab land and sale docks
ABP in a private company and has no share holders to please Southy.
ABP was taken over by a consortium a couple of years ago and since then there has been massive investment in the docks. The dock estate is looking better than it has for years. It is better maintained, cleaner and more vibrant than it has been for a long time. A new Cruise Terminal, new multi deck car storage facility, Huelin Renouf are relocating to Southamnpton Docks from Portsmouth and there are lots more projects in the pipeline. People should remember that Southampton Docks and the busineses that work in and around them create thousands of job and bring in millions of pounds to the local economy.
So there are no shareholders to come first. Current Port Director Doug Morrison has been a breath of fresh air to the docks and the city.
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 11:26am Sat 16 Aug 08
you better tell SCH workers that their share,s are no longer valid.and the biggest share holders are ABP broad members,morrison is doing a better job than the last lot,burgis would do even a better job.Huelin Renouf is relocating to southampton.but they all so going to be in portmouth to,its not known yet if they going to run ships from southampton they got another 2 years before there lease runs out in porthmouth.the thousands of job is not a all local most of it in national.same as the economy
you better tell SCH workers that their share,s are no longer valid.and the biggest share holders are ABP broad members,morrison is doing a better job than the last lot,burgis would do even a better job.Huelin Renouf is relocating to southampton.but they all so going to be in portmouth to,its not known yet if they going to run ships from southampton they got another 2 years before there lease runs out in porthmouth.the thousands of job is not a all local most of it in national.same as the economy
Posted by: Info Man, Soton on 11:09am Sun 17 Aug 08
Southey wrong as usual for the following reasons:
1. SCH is a private company owned by a small number of private shareholders who set the company up in 1990. ABP have absolutely no involvement with the running of SCH.
Mr burgis (sic) and his merry team of investors are trying to buy the shares of SCH from the current worker shareholders at SCH or their dependents.
2. Southey is probably confusing SCH with the previously named SCT (now DPW Soton) a company in which ABP is a 49% shareholder
3. Heulin Renouf is relocating to Soton in early 2009, lock stock and barrel. Personnel/Warehousin
g and a brand new ship.They will not operate out of Portsmouth after this time.
Typical Southey, confused as usual. Problem is a good many people get taken in by his posts.
Southey wrong as usual for the following reasons:
1. SCH is a private company owned by a small number of private shareholders who set the company up in 1990. ABP have absolutely no involvement with the running of SCH.
Mr burgis (sic) and his merry team of investors are trying to buy the shares of SCH from the current worker shareholders at SCH or their dependents.
2. Southey is probably confusing SCH with the previously named SCT (now DPW Soton) a company in which ABP is a 49% shareholder
3. Heulin Renouf is relocating to Soton in early 2009, lock stock and barrel. Personnel/Warehousin
g and a brand new ship.They will not operate out of Portsmouth after this time.
Typical Southey, confused as usual. Problem is a good many people get taken in by his posts.
Posted by: interested, In the Red on 11:15am Sun 17 Aug 08
[quote][bold]southy[/bold] wrote:
abp would not dare to bully me they know better not to even try.and like bill said a pass post a accountant that work for abp he was bullied.[/quote] Accountants are **** cats who wear specs and sit in a comfy office. Who would dare bully an old sea dog like you.
What was it about?
Presume you owede someone some money?
Or as your post indicates perhaps it was the accountant that was bullied?
southy wrote:
abp would not dare to bully me they know better not to even try.and like bill said a pass post a accountant that work for abp he was bullied.
Accountants are **** cats who wear specs and sit in a comfy office. Who would dare bully an old sea dog like you.
What was it about?
Presume you owede someone some money?
Or as your post indicates perhaps it was the accountant that was bullied?
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 12:12pm Sun 17 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Info Man[/bold] wrote:
Southey wrong as usual for the following reasons:
1. SCH is a private company owned by a small number of private shareholders who set the company up in 1990. ABP have absolutely no involvement with the running of SCH.
Mr burgis (sic) and his merry team of investors are trying to buy the shares of SCH from the current worker shareholders at SCH or their dependents.
2. Southey is probably confusing SCH with the previously named SCT (now DPW Soton) a company in which ABP is a 49% shareholder
3. Heulin Renouf is relocating to Soton in early 2009, lock stock and barrel. Personnel/Warehousin
g and a brand new ship.They will not operate out of Portsmouth after this time.
Typical Southey, confused as usual. Problem is a good many people get taken in by his posts.
[/quote] i know that ABP,SCH,SCT are all diffrent companys,like i also know that alot of the the old black book dockies have shares in all 3 companys,they was giving the option when ABP was first put on the market,my dad bought share,s into ABP,they have now pass onto my mum.
Heulin Renouf offices,most personnel and warehousing,moving to southampton,check there share holders site out,because that all they talk about not the shipping,and the only reason they moving that part to southampton is because it is a purpose built building,plus the only place that a ro-ro ship could work from is where stella line use to run from and this motorize ramp has not been used since the early 1990's and is very old,it will need a major overall or replacing,and theres been no work on this ramp has to date.
interested, In the Red
how would i know what it was about had nothing to do with me
Info Man wrote:
Southey wrong as usual for the following reasons:
1. SCH is a private company owned by a small number of private shareholders who set the company up in 1990. ABP have absolutely no involvement with the running of SCH.
Mr burgis (sic) and his merry team of investors are trying to buy the shares of SCH from the current worker shareholders at SCH or their dependents.
2. Southey is probably confusing SCH with the previously named SCT (now DPW Soton) a company in which ABP is a 49% shareholder
3. Heulin Renouf is relocating to Soton in early 2009, lock stock and barrel. Personnel/Warehousin
g and a brand new ship.They will not operate out of Portsmouth after this time.
Typical Southey, confused as usual. Problem is a good many people get taken in by his posts.
i know that ABP,SCH,SCT are all diffrent companys,like i also know that alot of the the old black book dockies have shares in all 3 companys,they was giving the option when ABP was first put on the market,my dad bought share,s into ABP,they have now pass onto my mum.
Heulin Renouf offices,most personnel and warehousing,moving to southampton,check there share holders site out,because that all they talk about not the shipping,and the only reason they moving that part to southampton is because it is a purpose built building,plus the only place that a ro-ro ship could work from is where stella line use to run from and this motorize ramp has not been used since the early 1990's and is very old,it will need a major overall or replacing,and theres been no work on this ramp has to date.
interested, In the Red
how would i know what it was about had nothing to do with me
Posted by: northy, baddesley on 8:32pm Sun 17 Aug 08
1. If you know the difference between SCH/SCT & ABP why did you state in an earlier post that ABP are shareholders in SCH when this is patently incorrect?
2.There are no private shareholders in ABP since the company was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2006.
If your dear old Mum did have ABP shares she would have been paid out by now at over £9 per share!!
3.There have never been private investors in SCT/DWP so no shares have ever been issued
4.Worse mistake is that Huelin Renouf is a LO/LO service (containers only to the unitiated) NOT RO/RO as stated.
5. The service will operate from the Spring of 2009 from 45 berth in the Eastern Docks where the Tugs are currently based.
6. It was Stena Line (not Stella Line as you incorrectly say )which operated off the RO/RO ramp at 30 berth from 1990 to 1997.
Since then the motorized ramp has been used on average two or three times a week, most recently for UECC ships loading Honda cars and other RO/RO cargo.
7. You also say that this ramp needs a major overhaul. It has obviously escaped your notice that a £1m upgrade was put in place for the short lived Channel Freight Ferry Service to Radicatel three years ago.
Southey, I admire the fact that you have a general interest in marine matters but your facts are generally way off the mark.
More attention to detail please.
1. If you know the difference between SCH/SCT & ABP why did you state in an earlier post that ABP are shareholders in SCH when this is patently incorrect?
2.There are no private shareholders in ABP since the company was delisted from the Stock Exchange in 2006.
If your dear old Mum did have ABP shares she would have been paid out by now at over £9 per share!!
3.There have never been private investors in SCT/DWP so no shares have ever been issued
4.Worse mistake is that Huelin Renouf is a LO/LO service (containers only to the unitiated) NOT RO/RO as stated.
5. The service will operate from the Spring of 2009 from 45 berth in the Eastern Docks where the Tugs are currently based.
6. It was Stena Line (not Stella Line as you incorrectly say )which operated off the RO/RO ramp at 30 berth from 1990 to 1997.
Since then the motorized ramp has been used on average two or three times a week, most recently for UECC ships loading Honda cars and other RO/RO cargo.
7. You also say that this ramp needs a major overhaul. It has obviously escaped your notice that a £1m upgrade was put in place for the short lived Channel Freight Ferry Service to Radicatel three years ago.
Southey, I admire the fact that you have a general interest in marine matters but your facts are generally way off the mark.
More attention to detail please.
Posted by: info man2, soton on 8:45pm Sun 17 Aug 08
Northy,
I think Southey may be confusing 30 berth linkspan with the defunct one at 49 berth.
As mentioned the Stena Service ran from 30 berth which is constantly in use.
Perhaps Southey should spend less time on the internet and get round the port to see whats going on!!!
Northy,
I think Southey may be confusing 30 berth linkspan with the defunct one at 49 berth.
As mentioned the Stena Service ran from 30 berth which is constantly in use.
Perhaps Southey should spend less time on the internet and get round the port to see whats going on!!!
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 10:45pm Sun 17 Aug 08
northy i did not say ABP are shareholders in SCH I said SCH members got shares in ABP,share have been taken of the market is right,but not off share holders,share holder at the moment can not sell there shares on the open market but can sell to other share holders if they wish to do so.
the large UECC have there own ramps that can reach the quay wall and dont need to use any quay side ramps.the smaller ones will head for 201 berth to unload.
Huelin Renouf runs daily sailings using ro-ro ferries and there own vessel, the MV Huelin Dispatch which departs from Flathouse Quay, Portsmouth to Jersey and Guernsey.this ship uses cranes to unload the new ship will be replacing this ship on the channel island run while there the older ship will run between islands.
northy i did not say ABP are shareholders in SCH I said SCH members got shares in ABP,share have been taken of the market is right,but not off share holders,share holder at the moment can not sell there shares on the open market but can sell to other share holders if they wish to do so.
the large UECC have there own ramps that can reach the quay wall and dont need to use any quay side ramps.the smaller ones will head for 201 berth to unload.
Huelin Renouf runs daily sailings using ro-ro ferries and there own vessel, the MV Huelin Dispatch which departs from Flathouse Quay, Portsmouth to Jersey and Guernsey.this ship uses cranes to unload the new ship will be replacing this ship on the channel island run while there the older ship will run between islands.
Posted by: northy, nbaddesley on 3:24pm Mon 18 Aug 08
I assume then that your comments on shreholders relate specifically to SCH who are in a bid situation from outside interests?
No body holds shares in ABP any longer. ABP is owned by 4 foreign investment comapnies.
You contradict yourself re Huelin Renouf. You say the Huelin Despatch is a RO/RO vessel when it is not.
It is a hatched ship, without ramps, built to take containers and a bit of loose freight in the lower hold so therefore a LO/LO vessel.
Also the ship runs on a three day rotation and not daily.
I think you are confused with the regular RO/Ro service operated by Condor Ferries out of Portsmouth!!
I assume then that your comments on shreholders relate specifically to SCH who are in a bid situation from outside interests?
No body holds shares in ABP any longer. ABP is owned by 4 foreign investment comapnies.
You contradict yourself re Huelin Renouf. You say the Huelin Despatch is a RO/RO vessel when it is not.
It is a hatched ship, without ramps, built to take containers and a bit of loose freight in the lower hold so therefore a LO/LO vessel.
Also the ship runs on a three day rotation and not daily.
I think you are confused with the regular RO/Ro service operated by Condor Ferries out of Portsmouth!!
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 4:17pm Mon 18 Aug 08
northy go and read the post again.and dont twist words.
you assume wrong I said some off the SCH workers more so the old boys that was around in the black book days have shares in ABP and some still do have.An offer was made for there share's in ABP but some refused and some took the offer.
you also need to read again about Huelin Despatch I said this needed cranes to unload and load up.condor ferries might own the ships but are run by Huelin Renouf.look at what i said here and i quote "Huelin Renouf runs daily sailings using ro-ro ferries and there own vessel, the MV Huelin Dispatch" not the words and there own vessel
northy go and read the post again.and dont twist words.
you assume wrong I said some off the SCH workers more so the old boys that was around in the black book days have shares in ABP and some still do have.An offer was made for there share's in ABP but some refused and some took the offer.
you also need to read again about Huelin Despatch I said this needed cranes to unload and load up.condor ferries might own the ships but are run by Huelin Renouf.look at what i said here and i quote "Huelin Renouf runs daily sailings using ro-ro ferries and there own vessel, the MV Huelin Dispatch" not the words and there own vessel
Posted by: northy, baddesley on 10:11pm Mon 18 Aug 08
southey
you quote in your last post that ...'Huelin Renouf runs daily sailings...
(WRONG!!, the service runs every 3 days)
.. using RO/RO ferries..
(WRONG!! it is one container ship)
Also Heulin Renouf have nothing to do with Condor Ferries. They are competitors.
Finally as I keep trying to advise, there are NO private shareholders in ABP (not your old Mum as you say in a previous post, nor 'old boys with black books who you state still have shares.)
southey
you quote in your last post that ...'Huelin Renouf runs daily sailings...
(WRONG!!, the service runs every 3 days)
.. using RO/RO ferries..
(WRONG!! it is one container ship)
Also Heulin Renouf have nothing to do with Condor Ferries. They are competitors.
Finally as I keep trying to advise, there are NO private shareholders in ABP (not your old Mum as you say in a previous post, nor 'old boys with black books who you state still have shares.)
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 12:16am Tue 19 Aug 08
northy read my post properly and dont twist my words,i do take it you know about charted ships from one company to another,because that is what is happing here.and you are wrong about ABP share's,for ABP to have all the shares they would need i belive 75% to be able to force the selling of all shares to them, they have never had this many at any time to many shares are in private hands,but they do have enough shares to have a majority vote,and that is it.
northy read my post properly and dont twist my words,i do take it you know about charted ships from one company to another,because that is what is happing here.and you are wrong about ABP share's,for ABP to have all the shares they would need i belive 75% to be able to force the selling of all shares to them, they have never had this many at any time to many shares are in private hands,but they do have enough shares to have a majority vote,and that is it.
Posted by: northy, baddesley on 9:29am Tue 19 Aug 08
southey
Yeas I know all about chartered vessels. Believe it or not I once worked for a London based company that arranged vessel charters so I know the market more than most!!You are wrong on the first point and definately wrong on the ABP share issue.THERE ARE NO ABP SHARES IN EXISTENCE. All shares were bought out when the company was sold in 2006!!
As usual we have deviated wildly from the main topic.
Lets rejoice in the fact that Cunard have decided to move their worldwide Head Office back to the UK (and Southampton) from the USA. Surely you must agree this is good news?
southey
Yeas I know all about chartered vessels. Believe it or not I once worked for a London based company that arranged vessel charters so I know the market more than most!!You are wrong on the first point and definately wrong on the ABP share issue.THERE ARE NO ABP SHARES IN EXISTENCE. All shares were bought out when the company was sold in 2006!!
As usual we have deviated wildly from the main topic.
Lets rejoice in the fact that Cunard have decided to move their worldwide Head Office back to the UK (and Southampton) from the USA. Surely you must agree this is good news?
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 11:03am Tue 19 Aug 08
I all ready said it is good,because cunard do make there ships southampon home port,and are willing to pay for the fee for this.
75% shares was needed
I all ready said it is good,because cunard do make there ships southampon home port,and are willing to pay for the fee for this.
75% shares was needed
Posted by: wild bill, millbrook hous est on 11:10am Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote]quoteHuelin-Renouf Shipping provides shipping and freight forwarding services to and from the Channel Islands
Welcome to Huelin-Renouf Shipping, your partner for shipping to the Channel Islands for full loads and consolidation services.
We provide daily sailings using ro-ro ferries and our own vessel, the MV Huelin Dispatch which departs from Flathouse Quay, Portsmouth to Jersey and Guernsey.
We operate a distribution service from our own Jersey and Guernsey based warehouses that takes your items right to the door.
If you are looking to ship items to the Channel Islands, please contact us to discuss your freight and shipping requirements.
We have great pleasure in announcing that as from the end of 2008 will be relocating our UK operations from Flathouse Quay, Portsmouth to a purpose built receiving logistics depot in Southampton. A detailed press release and further information will be issued in due course.[/quote]
From there own web site
quoteHuelin-Renouf Shipping provides shipping and freight forwarding services to and from the Channel Islands
Welcome to Huelin-Renouf Shipping, your partner for shipping to the Channel Islands for full loads and consolidation services.
We provide daily sailings using ro-ro ferries and our own vessel, the MV Huelin Dispatch which departs from Flathouse Quay, Portsmouth to Jersey and Guernsey.
We operate a distribution service from our own Jersey and Guernsey based warehouses that takes your items right to the door.
If you are looking to ship items to the Channel Islands, please contact us to discuss your freight and shipping requirements.
We have great pleasure in announcing that as from the end of 2008 will be relocating our UK operations from Flathouse Quay, Portsmouth to a purpose built receiving logistics depot in Southampton. A detailed press release and further information will be issued in due course.
From there own web site
Posted by: Shareholder, Dock House on 5:10pm Tue 19 Aug 08
To clarify matters.
Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners.
There are none in existence now.
Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here.
However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries.
These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned
To clarify matters.
Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners.
There are none in existence now.
Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here.
However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries.
These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned
Posted by: jacko, southampton on 6:33pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Shareholder[/bold] wrote:
To clarify matters.
Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners.
There are none in existence now.
Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here.
However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries.
These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned[/quote] Your no share holder,I still have mine I refused ABP offer of £11 per share,When at the share holders meeting they up the lower offer to £11 because no-one would sale,ABP only owns 52% of the shares and they needed 75% of shares to force the sale of all shares to them,But agreement was made not to sale any shares on the open market.
Shareholder wrote:
To clarify matters.
Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners.
There are none in existence now.
Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here.
However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries.
These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned
Your no share holder,I still have mine I refused ABP offer of £11 per share,When at the share holders meeting they up the lower offer to £11 because no-one would sale,ABP only owns 52% of the shares and they needed 75% of shares to force the sale of all shares to them,But agreement was made not to sale any shares on the open market.
Posted by: Eastee, Southampton on 7:54pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Shareholder[/bold] wrote:
To clarify matters.
Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners.
There are none in existence now.
Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here.
However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries.
These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned[/quote] Are you the accountant that was bullied? Are you OK now? Poor love...
Shareholder wrote:
To clarify matters.
Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners.
There are none in existence now.
Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here.
However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries.
These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned
Are you the accountant that was bullied? Are you OK now? Poor love...
Posted by: shareholder, dock house on 11:42pm Tue 19 Aug 08
[quote][bold]jacko[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Shareholder[/bold] wrote: To clarify matters. Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners. There are none in existence now. Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here. However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries. These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned[/quote] Your no share holder,I still have mine I refused ABP offer of £11 per share,When at the share holders meeting they up the lower offer to £11 because no-one would sale,ABP only owns 52% of the shares and they needed 75% of shares to force the sale of all shares to them,But agreement was made not to sale any shares on the open market.[/quote] You are as deluded as your mate (or alter ego Southey)
How many shares do you still profess to own?
Are you really saying you were offerd £11 at a shareholders meeting?
This is nonsense of course but as the company was sold at £9.15 a share then the hypothetical £11 would have been a hell of a deal
This is really a laughable post and bears no semblance to the truth
jacko wrote:
Shareholder wrote: To clarify matters. Can confirm that ALL (ie 100%) of ABP shares were acquired by the new owners. There are none in existence now. Regarding H Renouf. They operate one container ship out of Portsmouth which will be replaced by a brand new ship when they come here. However their freight dept can book cargo on the daily RO/RO ships operated by a rival company Condor Ferries. These vessels are not chartered by H Renouf as previously mentioned
Your no share holder,I still have mine I refused ABP offer of £11 per share,When at the share holders meeting they up the lower offer to £11 because no-one would sale,ABP only owns 52% of the shares and they needed 75% of shares to force the sale of all shares to them,But agreement was made not to sale any shares on the open market.
You are as deluded as your mate (or alter ego Southey)
How many shares do you still profess to own?
Are you really saying you were offerd £11 at a shareholders meeting?
This is nonsense of course but as the company was sold at £9.15 a share then the hypothetical £11 would have been a hell of a deal
This is really a laughable post and bears no semblance to the truth
Posted by: jacko, southampton on 12:49am Wed 20 Aug 08
The higher offer was made because no-one would sale.They needed to get 75% off the shares,To force the rest off the share's to be sold to them.And £11 per share X 100 is not a lot of money,Worth more for me and the other's to keep them.But there 52% of the shares and can do what they like,They know that they will not get out voted.And when it comes to it that,s all that matters.
The higher offer was made because no-one would sale.They needed to get 75% off the shares,To force the rest off the share's to be sold to them.And £11 per share X 100 is not a lot of money,Worth more for me and the other's to keep them.But there 52% of the shares and can do what they like,They know that they will not get out voted.And when it comes to it that,s all that matters.
Posted by: shareholder, dock house on 11:19am Wed 20 Aug 08
Are you saying that you still have 100 ABP shares that you have not sold?
Are you saying that you still have 100 ABP shares that you have not sold?
Posted by: Ed, Southampton on 5:44pm Wed 20 Aug 08
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
Are you saying that you still have 100 ABP shares that you have not sold? [/quote] Hmm, tell you what Jacko, I could be interested in becoming a shareholder of ABP if you're willing to sell.
shareholder wrote:
Are you saying that you still have 100 ABP shares that you have not sold?
Hmm, tell you what Jacko, I could be interested in becoming a shareholder of ABP if you're willing to sell.
Posted by: shareholder, d House on 7:20pm Wed 20 Aug 08
Ed,
I presume you post tongue in check.
Despite what Jacko/Southey says there are no ABP shares avialble for sale as the whole company was bought out by the Canadian/US/Singapor
ean Consortium who bought out all the available share capital a year or so ago for £9.15 per share valuing the company at approx £2.6billion
Ed,
I presume you post tongue in check.
Despite what Jacko/Southey says there are no ABP shares avialble for sale as the whole company was bought out by the Canadian/US/Singapor
ean Consortium who bought out all the available share capital a year or so ago for £9.15 per share valuing the company at approx £2.6billion
Posted by: Ed, Southampton on 7:41pm Wed 20 Aug 08
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
Ed,
I presume you post tongue in check.
Despite what Jacko/Southey says there are no ABP shares avialble for sale as the whole company was bought out by the Canadian/US/Singapor
ean Consortium who bought out all the available share capital a year or so ago for £9.15 per share valuing the company at approx £2.6billion
[/quote] Wrong. I still have mine.
shareholder wrote:
Ed,
I presume you post tongue in check.
Despite what Jacko/Southey says there are no ABP shares avialble for sale as the whole company was bought out by the Canadian/US/Singapor
ean Consortium who bought out all the available share capital a year or so ago for £9.15 per share valuing the company at approx £2.6billion
Wrong. I still have mine.
Posted by: jacko, redbridge on 8:07pm Wed 20 Aug 08
Mine are not for sale ED.
Mine are not for sale ED.
Posted by: Gerry on 8:27pm Wed 20 Aug 08
I still have mine as well.
I still have mine as well.
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 11:09pm Wed 20 Aug 08
Ed/Jerry/Jacko(South
ey),
How interesting about your shares.
May I humbly suggest you speak to your stockbroker/bank manager about any value these shares may or may not have.
ABP was delisted from the Stock Exchange in the Autumn of 2006 when all the shares were acquired by the so called 'Admiral Consortium' who paid out shareholders at over £9 per share.
Up until then ABP were a Stock Exchange 100 company and you could buy & sell shares and the company paid a Dividend. All this stopped when the company was sold.
I would hate to think you will lose out on you due payments.
Also contrary to what Jacko/Southey have said in previous posts, the offer to buy ABP had to go before a special EGM of shareholders (the vast majority of shares being held by financial institutions of course) and there was a 97.5% acceptance of the deal.
Ed/Jerry/Jacko(South
ey),
How interesting about your shares.
May I humbly suggest you speak to your stockbroker/bank manager about any value these shares may or may not have.
ABP was delisted from the Stock Exchange in the Autumn of 2006 when all the shares were acquired by the so called 'Admiral Consortium' who paid out shareholders at over £9 per share.
Up until then ABP were a Stock Exchange 100 company and you could buy & sell shares and the company paid a Dividend. All this stopped when the company was sold.
I would hate to think you will lose out on you due payments.
Also contrary to what Jacko/Southey have said in previous posts, the offer to buy ABP had to go before a special EGM of shareholders (the vast majority of shares being held by financial institutions of course) and there was a 97.5% acceptance of the deal.
Posted by: jacko, southampton on 12:41am Thu 21 Aug 08
shareholder, dhouse Your wrong,they needed 75% of shares to force the sale.All they could require was the old mangerment shares and a few lose ones.And the only agreement that was made at the EGM was to take the shares off the market. 42% of shares are owned by dock workers, ex-docker or there family,s around all the ABP ports,The other 6% are owned by people like me.
shareholder, dhouse Your wrong,they needed 75% of shares to force the sale.All they could require was the old mangerment shares and a few lose ones.And the only agreement that was made at the EGM was to take the shares off the market. 42% of shares are owned by dock workers, ex-docker or there family,s around all the ABP ports,The other 6% are owned by people like me.
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 9:58am Thu 21 Aug 08
Jacko/Southey,
I have the advantage over you because I have the paperwork issued to shareholders at the time of the sale in July 2006.
Approx 5% of the ABP share capital was in private hands, the rest were held by large financial institutions, mainly pension funds.
I can only presume your figures are made up.
You also (rightly)confirm that the EGM resolution allowed for all shares in the company to be taken off the market and sold to the new owners.
In this case your claim that you still have shares of value must be incorrect as there is no market for ABP shares to trade in now as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Incidentally when did you buy the 100 shares
you profess to own and how much per share did you pay on purchase?
Same question to Gerry & Ed if they are still in the loop
Jacko/Southey,
I have the advantage over you because I have the paperwork issued to shareholders at the time of the sale in July 2006.
Approx 5% of the ABP share capital was in private hands, the rest were held by large financial institutions, mainly pension funds.
I can only presume your figures are made up.
You also (rightly)confirm that the EGM resolution allowed for all shares in the company to be taken off the market and sold to the new owners.
In this case your claim that you still have shares of value must be incorrect as there is no market for ABP shares to trade in now as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Incidentally when did you buy the 100 shares
you profess to own and how much per share did you pay on purchase?
Same question to Gerry & Ed if they are still in the loop
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 11:20am Thu 21 Aug 08
Your paper work fail to tell you how much the goverment is still holding to.And you are talking about the EGM that happen in Southampton and not the one in London.And there was 3 ways to vote,Personal.proxy and post,and the final result was not made public till.Nov 2006,So less of the bs please.
Your paper work fail to tell you how much the goverment is still holding to.And you are talking about the EGM that happen in Southampton and not the one in London.And there was 3 ways to vote,Personal.proxy and post,and the final result was not made public till.Nov 2006,So less of the bs please.
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 11:25am Thu 21 Aug 08
if you want to find out things that are happen along the hampshire water front ie banks of the four rivers and solent shores come and join us up on the marine site,to be able to join you have to prove that you have or did have and interest in the water,its an easy to find site.
if you want to find out things that are happen along the hampshire water front ie banks of the four rivers and solent shores come and join us up on the marine site,to be able to join you have to prove that you have or did have and interest in the water,its an easy to find site.
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 4:28pm Thu 21 Aug 08
I thought you may have been misguided now I know you are a wind up merchant.
There was no EGM held in Soton unless there was a secret one that only you know about and can give date and location and who attended.
Also you havent answered my question on your supposed shareholding.
I thought you may have been misguided now I know you are a wind up merchant.
There was no EGM held in Soton unless there was a secret one that only you know about and can give date and location and who attended.
Also you havent answered my question on your supposed shareholding.
Posted by: Hmmm on 7:53pm Thu 21 Aug 08
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
I thought you may have been misguided now I know you are a wind up merchant.
There was no EGM held in Soton unless there was a secret one that only you know about and can give date and location and who attended.
Also you havent answered my question on your supposed shareholding.[/quote] Hmmm, I think Shareholder is an internet troll trying to dimiss Southy. Probably cos Southy knows a great deal about the misworkings of the docks methinks!!!
shareholder wrote:
I thought you may have been misguided now I know you are a wind up merchant.
There was no EGM held in Soton unless there was a secret one that only you know about and can give date and location and who attended.
Also you havent answered my question on your supposed shareholding.
Hmmm, I think Shareholder is an internet troll trying to dimiss Southy. Probably cos Southy knows a great deal about the misworkings of the docks methinks!!!
Posted by: southy, redbridge on 8:44pm Thu 21 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Hmmm[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
I thought you may have been misguided now I know you are a wind up merchant.
There was no EGM held in Soton unless there was a secret one that only you know about and can give date and location and who attended.
Also you havent answered my question on your supposed shareholding.[/quote] Hmmm, I think Shareholder is an internet troll trying to dimiss Southy. Probably cos Southy knows a great deal about the misworkings of the docks methinks!!![/quote] lol you just figure that out,not just me jacko who works at fawley marine,and wild bill,we clock on to him along time back,and his name changes,there's a fair number of member's on the marine site that come reading in here,then returns to our marine site and have a good laugh about it.
Hmmm wrote:
shareholder wrote:
I thought you may have been misguided now I know you are a wind up merchant.
There was no EGM held in Soton unless there was a secret one that only you know about and can give date and location and who attended.
Also you havent answered my question on your supposed shareholding.
Hmmm, I think Shareholder is an internet troll trying to dimiss Southy. Probably cos Southy knows a great deal about the misworkings of the docks methinks!!!
lol you just figure that out,not just me jacko who works at fawley marine,and wild bill,we clock on to him along time back,and his name changes,there's a fair number of member's on the marine site that come reading in here,then returns to our marine site and have a good laugh about it.
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 9:31pm Thu 21 Aug 08
I am not trying to dismiss the gentleman/gentlemen but trying to obtain clarification on some points that appear to be incorrect.
Interestingly Jacko/Southey seem to be avoiding the questions posed in previous posts.
I am not trying to dismiss the gentleman/gentlemen but trying to obtain clarification on some points that appear to be incorrect.
Interestingly Jacko/Southey seem to be avoiding the questions posed in previous posts.
Posted by: Ed on 9:36pm Thu 21 Aug 08
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
I am not trying to dismiss the gentleman/gentlemen but trying to obtain clarification on some points that appear to be incorrect.
Interestingly Jacko/Southey seem to be avoiding the questions posed in previous posts.
[/quote] Hi Northy...
shareholder wrote:
I am not trying to dismiss the gentleman/gentlemen but trying to obtain clarification on some points that appear to be incorrect.
Interestingly Jacko/Southey seem to be avoiding the questions posed in previous posts.
Hi Northy...
Posted by: wild bill, millbrook hous est on 11:06pm Thu 21 Aug 08
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
I am not trying to dismiss the gentleman/gentlemen but trying to obtain clarification on some points that appear to be incorrect.
Interestingly Jacko/Southey seem to be avoiding the questions posed in previous posts.
[/quote] If you had read the posts right you will see all your answers are there,And their not point in keeping repeating the same questions will will get the same answers
shareholder wrote:
I am not trying to dismiss the gentleman/gentlemen but trying to obtain clarification on some points that appear to be incorrect.
Interestingly Jacko/Southey seem to be avoiding the questions posed in previous posts.
If you had read the posts right you will see all your answers are there,And their not point in keeping repeating the same questions will will get the same answers
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 9:46am Fri 22 Aug 08
Bill,
Beg to differ, there are no answers on either the Soton EGM or the personal shareholdings.
Help me out here please
Bill,
Beg to differ, there are no answers on either the Soton EGM or the personal shareholdings.
Help me out here please
Posted by: wild bill, millbrook hous est on 1:12pm Fri 22 Aug 08
I try and explane it the way I know how.
I own a reg fishing boat,the goverment say I am allowed to have 64 share's in this boat I own 100% in the shares,but what if I did'nt,Example:-I have 10 reg fishing boats all at diffrent reg location,And I owned 30 shares in each boat,now I have the money to buy all the shares,Or some one has made an offer to buy every thing up,What I got to do next is call a EGM but I not allowed to call a mass meeting that be breaking the share holders rules,But what I got to do is call 10 local meeting first,Tell them what its about.The 10 meetings can give me 100% backing in a vote.Come the mass meeting.The vote can be diffrent even then a vote don't mean much its not a binding contract.It only becomes a binding contract when the shares are handed over and paid for,If I don't get 75% of the shares,I can not force the sale of the rest of the shares,If I wish to sale my shares to some one out side of those that all ready hold share's,Then I have to do the same call the meetings,And get permission from the rest of the share holders to sale my 30% in each boat to a out sider,This is a private share sale and is not open to the stock market.
I try and explane it the way I know how.
I own a reg fishing boat,the goverment say I am allowed to have 64 share's in this boat I own 100% in the shares,but what if I did'nt,Example:-I have 10 reg fishing boats all at diffrent reg location,And I owned 30 shares in each boat,now I have the money to buy all the shares,Or some one has made an offer to buy every thing up,What I got to do next is call a EGM but I not allowed to call a mass meeting that be breaking the share holders rules,But what I got to do is call 10 local meeting first,Tell them what its about.The 10 meetings can give me 100% backing in a vote.Come the mass meeting.The vote can be diffrent even then a vote don't mean much its not a binding contract.It only becomes a binding contract when the shares are handed over and paid for,If I don't get 75% of the shares,I can not force the sale of the rest of the shares,If I wish to sale my shares to some one out side of those that all ready hold share's,Then I have to do the same call the meetings,And get permission from the rest of the share holders to sale my 30% in each boat to a out sider,This is a private share sale and is not open to the stock market.
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 2:45pm Fri 22 Aug 08
Bill,
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to explain the shareholding arrangement of your fishing boat. I have learnt something interesting today.
Incidentally did you see the Programme on the Irish Sea fishermen on the TV recently? You guys do a really tough job and I take my hat off to you all.
However my question specifically related to ABP an EGM in Soutampton (which never happened but which Southey/Jacko says did)and the question of remaining shares of which I say there are none available.
Bill,
Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to explain the shareholding arrangement of your fishing boat. I have learnt something interesting today.
Incidentally did you see the Programme on the Irish Sea fishermen on the TV recently? You guys do a really tough job and I take my hat off to you all.
However my question specifically related to ABP an EGM in Soutampton (which never happened but which Southey/Jacko says did)and the question of remaining shares of which I say there are none available.
Posted by: wild bill, millbrook hous est on 3:07pm Fri 22 Aug 08
ABP share's are work the same way,Inner shares deal.Not open to stock market share dealing.And by the sound of things it was just the old ABP board mangerment that wanted to sale there shares to and out side intrest party and needed share holder permission to do so.They would had to do the same call local meeting first then the mass meeting,Because you are dealing with 21 ports
ABP share's are work the same way,Inner shares deal.Not open to stock market share dealing.And by the sound of things it was just the old ABP board mangerment that wanted to sale there shares to and out side intrest party and needed share holder permission to do so.They would had to do the same call local meeting first then the mass meeting,Because you are dealing with 21 ports
Posted by: shareholder, dhouse on 5:37pm Fri 22 Aug 08
Bill,
You are quite wrong in what you say. It was the Pension funds and major finacial institutions who actually owned about 95% of ABP who wanted to sell their shares as the price on offer was so attractive.
However all the shareholders benefitted as the price offerd was £9 against the £6 the shares had previously traded at.
By the way keep up the good work. Fish is a great meal and i hopeyou make a decent living from your boats
Bill,
You are quite wrong in what you say. It was the Pension funds and major finacial institutions who actually owned about 95% of ABP who wanted to sell their shares as the price on offer was so attractive.
However all the shareholders benefitted as the price offerd was £9 against the £6 the shares had previously traded at.
By the way keep up the good work. Fish is a great meal and i hopeyou make a decent living from your boats
Posted by: SR on 5:47pm Fri 22 Aug 08
[quote][bold]shareholder[/bold] wrote:
Bill, You are quite wrong in what you say. It was the Pension funds and major finacial institutions who actually owned about 95% of ABP who wanted to sell their shares as the price on offer was so attractive. However all the shareholders benefitted as the price offerd was £9 against the £6 the shares had previously traded at. By the way keep up the good work. Fish is a great meal and i hopeyou make a decent living from your boats[/quote] [bold]Shareholder,[/bold]
Not sure where you're getting your info from but it seems to be full of mis-quotes and half truths. My other half works there and some of what you're spouting is total bs. You've got the general gist but [bold]Southy's[/bold] information is spot on
shareholder wrote:
Bill, You are quite wrong in what you say. It was the Pension funds and major finacial institutions who actually owned about 95% of ABP who wanted to sell their shares as the price on offer was so attractive. However all the shareholders benefitted as the price offerd was £9 against the £6 the shares had previously traded at. By the way keep up the good work. Fish is a great meal and i hopeyou make a decent living from your boats
Shareholder,
Not sure where you're getting your info from but it seems to be full of mis-quotes and half truths. My other half works there and some of what you're spouting is total bs. You've got the general gist but
Southy's information is spot on
