...even more bizarre and indeed tragic to me Ormiston Addick are those that think that because The Royals are involved it's completely paid for out of public purse and that it's a bad idea because The Guardian/Observer tells them so.
Read the story again, so far only 10 million quid has been fronted up by some so called "Canadian Consortium" out of the so called 60 million quid (which sounds extremely dubious to me, a yacht like this would normally be well over 100 million plus), even the Mail goes on to mention a second figure where they quote a cost of 80 million.
I ask you again, why on earth would any private investor want to invest in a "floating university" that would also be used by the Saxe-Coburg mafia whenever they needed to? What possible long term financial gain would a private investor get from that?
I see the Daily Mail reporting that the 60 million quid would be recouped by leasing accomodation on board the vessel to "200 students" and by being rented out for corporate events - well, that's OK then isn't it?
Let's see now shall we? Let's say 200 student rooms charged out at student rates - let's say 120 quid per week in a 36 week term time per year (Portsmouth Uni charges around 120 quid per week), its only going to take in at most 864,000 quid per year in accomodation fees!
That will take - assuming a 60 million quid construction cost - about 70 years to recoup the cost of building the boat - and that's not taking into account interest on the original capital or on the extremely high staff and running costs for a boat like that.
As for the "corporate events" what sort of blue chip firm is going to schlepp all of its clients to chav-ridden Portsmouth for a day out on Portsmouth harbour? Certainly none that I am aware of and definitely not at the sort of prices that would have to be charged in order to recoup the investment.
In my work I deal with a lot of private equity firms and rich individual investors, the very idea that they would pony up 60 million quid on this bullshit is just laughable beyond belief, there is no prospect of them even getting their money back let alone make the sort of ROI that they would be looking for.
If this project goes ahead - and I doubt it will - you just know who is going to be picking up the tab don't you? Mr and Mrs Taxpayer will be and it will all be kept nice and quiet too.
If the Saxe-Coburgs want a new yacht then why can't they just pay for it themselves?
I'm pretty sure the figure of £60m is based on the costs estimated to replace the royal yacht which was decommisioned in 1997, so the figure is 15 years out of date.
Re the "private" investment idea, there was some royal correspondent on Sky News who listed the Lottery Fund as one of the potential private investors...
I'm pretty sure the figure of £60m is based on the costs estimated to replace the royal yacht which was decommisioned in 1997, so the figure is 15 years out of date.
Re the "private" investment idea, there was some royal correspondent on Sky News who listed the Lottery Fund as one of the potential private investors...
Like I said earlier, you could not make this stuff up!
The funny thing is that some people probably think the Lottery Fund is a private investment vehicle.
As a taxpayer I'd rather pay for a Royal yacht than bail out the currency of the EU.
Far cheaper.
The Queen, although the left detest the fact, is part of our Constitution. If we are not going to pay her costs as taxpayers then logically we should not pay for ministers or civil servants either at home or in Brussels.
Yawn at the dick swinging, paper reading politics. If you believe everything you read you really are all morons.
Royal family bring in more than they cost through tourism alone.
Doesnt mean we should buy them a present.
"As a taxpayer I'd rather pay for a Royal yacht than bail out the currency of the EU.".... yes, well as a man id rather take a punch to the face than staple my johnson to the table. Doesnt mean its right when stood up next to something worse.
Not going to happen anyway. They arent going anywhere either.
The other funny thing is that some people think that their views are 100% correct and everyone else's views are born from what they read in a fuckin news paper......
Bit touchy, aren't we? All you have been asked to do is to explain why on earth any private investor would want to spend 60 million quid - probably nearer 100 million - on putting a floating hall of residence in Portsmouth Harbour that gets used for the Saxe-Coburgs Royal jolly ups - and you can't, can you?
You think that the yacht would be "in the best interests of the country" - all you need to do now is explain why apart from the faintly expressed hope that the building of the yacht will "safeguard hundreds or maybe thousands of jobs" - which seems doubtful at best for what is a one shot deal.
Bottom line? Unless you are Roman Abrahmovich and can afford to shell out 100 million of your own dough on building a yacht then you probably should not build one as there is no way in hell you are going to get your money back and the bill would be footed by the taxpayers, as per usual.
If you can think you can prove me wrong then go for it.
The difference is ministers and civil servants are elected (or employed) to serve us, they don't rule over us by accident of birth. They (in theory) earn their money. And they are not guaranteed that payment for their entire lives. You can make an argument in favour of the queen being funded as she is our Head of State... but how many palaces does she need? Why is the rest of her family also taxpayer funded?
Royal family bring in more than they cost through tourism alone.
I really hate this argument. Britain is the sixth most visited country is the world, four of the five above us (and all of the top three) are republics. I really don't think that our tourist industry would be too badly dented if we got rid of this constant reminder of the class divide.
Apart from the odd wedding and funeral, tourists don't come to this country to see the royal family. They come to see Buck House, Windsor Castle etc. When I go to Paris I don't go there to see Alexandre Gustave Eiffel or Louis XVIII. The Royal Family are not a tourist attraction, although I can think of a few ways of turning them into one.
Royal family bring in more than they cost through tourism alone.
I really hate this argument. Britain is the sixth most visited country is the world, four of the five above us (and all of the top three) are republics. I really don't think that our tourist industry would be too badly dented if we got rid of this constant reminder of the class divide.
Hate it if you want, doesnt change the fact that many tourists come to London because we are viewed with an antiquated fondness, and a massive part of that, if not the biggest part, is the Royals and all that comes with them (guard etc).
Again, let me highlight the fact that I dont want to buy them a yacht. Just dont feel as though we need to hate quite as much. Also, was more an attack on the dull, pointless horn locking on 'who reads what flavour of propaganda'. Do yourselves a favour and either pick up a book, or read Heat. At least you know then that its full of sh*t
Apart from the odd wedding and funeral, tourists don't come to this country to see the royal family. They come to see Buck House, Windsor Castle etc. When I go to Paris I don't go there to see Alexandre Gustave Eiffel or Louis XVIII. The Royal Family are not a tourist attraction, although I can think of a few ways of turning them into one.
Yes and no to that post. If we got rid of The Royals and Buckingham Palace became a hotel. You wouldn't get as many tourists coming to look at it in the longer term
Apart from the odd wedding and funeral, tourists don't come to this country to see the royal family. They come to see Buck House, Windsor Castle etc. When I go to Paris I don't go there to see Alexandre Gustave Eiffel or Louis XVIII. The Royal Family are not a tourist attraction, although I can think of a few ways of turning them into one.
Yes and no to that post. If we got rid of The Royals and Buckingham Palace became a hotel. You wouldn't get as many tourists coming to look at it in the longer term
So the English/British/what remains of the 'Commonwealth' are condemned to live under a feudal system for the sake of tourism ? ... the day when I address another human being as 'your royal highness' will never dawn.
Apart from the odd wedding and funeral, tourists don't come to this country to see the royal family. They come to see Buck House, Windsor Castle etc. When I go to Paris I don't go there to see Alexandre Gustave Eiffel or Louis XVIII. The Royal Family are not a tourist attraction, although I can think of a few ways of turning them into one.
Yes and no to that post. If we got rid of The Royals and Buckingham Palace became a hotel. You wouldn't get as many tourists coming to look at it in the longer term
I'd turn Buck House into the Big Brother House. Fill it with the royals and get the public to vote off their least favorite royal each week. It would make a make a fortune. The winning royal would win a 3 bedroom end of terrace house in Croydon where they can live out their dottage.
Rome still does decent tourist trade without Caesar actually being in attendance.
Yes but that is because Rome has a climate much more suited to tourism than ours is, not to mention all the ruins, and incredible buildings you have over there.
Rome still does decent tourist trade without Caesar actually being in attendance.
Yes but that is because Rome has a climate much more suited to tourism than ours is, not to mention all the ruins, and incredible buildings you have over there.
If its ruins you're after we can always blow up Buck House after the Big Brother show
As I'm constantly being reminded by Mssrs Cameron et al; "We're all in this together", I'm assuming we'll all get to use the new royal tub at some time.
I'd like to request the use of the Royal Yacht in the first two weeks in January 2014 in Australia and New Zealand please.
Some sugestions on here that the royals should pay for their own boat - not much of a present if you pay for it yourself.
On the tourism arguement, it's pretty much proven that people would come with or without a current royal family. I wouldn't advocate turning Buck House into a Holiday Inn though because they do come for the history and historical buildings.
How much would the alternative be - we'd have an elected president - how much does that cost in comparison?
Why is anyone surprised by this, "Tory halfwit or two in sucking up to the Royal Family shocker"? This is not about whether you're a republican or not IMO.
Isn't the bigger issue that some very senior tories actually thought that this would be a good use of public funds?
I mean just how out of touch do you need to be? Why not just light ya big ol' Monte Christo with a fifty note on prime time tv while you're at it...
These people are running our country fer gawds sake!
Yawn at the dick swinging, paper reading politics. If you believe everything you read you really are all morons.
Royal family bring in more than they cost through tourism alone.
Doesnt mean we should buy them a present.
"As a taxpayer I'd rather pay for a Royal yacht than bail out the currency of the EU.".... yes, well as a man id rather take a punch to the face than staple my johnson to the table. Doesnt mean its right when stood up next to something worse.
Not going to happen anyway. They arent going anywhere either.
The Royal family bring in more money in tourism than they cost ? Yeah right. Italy seems to do pretty well out of tourists without the lead weight of royalty hanging round their neck. If the royals were to disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow (god forbid ;0) do you really think that the Yanks and everyone else that visits London and the other tourist attractions would stop coming. It's not like the queen or her huge money grabbing family actually ever are seen outside of their jolly trips. The whole idea of a royal family is beyond belief. Even the name " your royal highness ? Just think about it. Vive la republique.
Comments
I ask you again, why on earth would any private investor want to invest in a "floating university" that would also be used by the Saxe-Coburg mafia whenever they needed to? What possible long term financial gain would a private investor get from that?
I see the Daily Mail reporting that the 60 million quid would be recouped by leasing accomodation on board the vessel to "200 students" and by being rented out for corporate events - well, that's OK then isn't it?
Let's see now shall we? Let's say 200 student rooms charged out at student rates - let's say 120 quid per week in a 36 week term time per year (Portsmouth Uni charges around 120 quid per week), its only going to take in at most 864,000 quid per year in accomodation fees!
That will take - assuming a 60 million quid construction cost - about 70 years to recoup the cost of building the boat - and that's not taking into account interest on the original capital or on the extremely high staff and running costs for a boat like that.
As for the "corporate events" what sort of blue chip firm is going to schlepp all of its clients to chav-ridden Portsmouth for a day out on Portsmouth harbour? Certainly none that I am aware of and definitely not at the sort of prices that would have to be charged in order to recoup the investment.
In my work I deal with a lot of private equity firms and rich individual investors, the very idea that they would pony up 60 million quid on this bullshit is just laughable beyond belief, there is no prospect of them even getting their money back let alone make the sort of ROI that they would be looking for.
If this project goes ahead - and I doubt it will - you just know who is going to be picking up the tab don't you? Mr and Mrs Taxpayer will be and it will all be kept nice and quiet too.
If the Saxe-Coburgs want a new yacht then why can't they just pay for it themselves?
Re the "private" investment idea, there was some royal correspondent on Sky News who listed the Lottery Fund as one of the potential private investors...
The funny thing is that some people probably think the Lottery Fund is a private investment vehicle.
Far cheaper.
The Queen, although the left detest the fact, is part of our Constitution. If we are not going to pay her costs as taxpayers then logically we should not pay for ministers or civil servants either at home or in Brussels.
Royal family bring in more than they cost through tourism alone.
Doesnt mean we should buy them a present.
"As a taxpayer I'd rather pay for a Royal yacht than bail out the currency of the EU.".... yes, well as a man id rather take a punch to the face than staple my johnson to the table. Doesnt mean its right when stood up next to something worse.
Not going to happen anyway. They arent going anywhere either.
You think that the yacht would be "in the best interests of the country" - all you need to do now is explain why apart from the faintly expressed hope that the building of the yacht will "safeguard hundreds or maybe thousands of jobs" - which seems doubtful at best for what is a one shot deal.
Bottom line? Unless you are Roman Abrahmovich and can afford to shell out 100 million of your own dough on building a yacht then you probably should not build one as there is no way in hell you are going to get your money back and the bill would be footed by the taxpayers, as per usual.
If you can think you can prove me wrong then go for it.
The difference is ministers and civil servants are elected (or employed) to serve us, they don't rule over us by accident of birth. They (in theory) earn their money. And they are not guaranteed that payment for their entire lives. You can make an argument in favour of the queen being funded as she is our Head of State... but how many palaces does she need? Why is the rest of her family also taxpayer funded?
Again, let me highlight the fact that I dont want to buy them a yacht. Just dont feel as though we need to hate quite as much. Also, was more an attack on the dull, pointless horn locking on 'who reads what flavour of propaganda'. Do yourselves a favour and either pick up a book, or read Heat. At least you know then that its full of sh*t
So the English/British/what remains of the 'Commonwealth' are condemned to live under a feudal system for the sake of tourism ? ... the day when I address another human being as 'your royal highness' will never dawn.
I'd like to request the use of the Royal Yacht in the first two weeks in January 2014 in Australia and New Zealand please.
Simple. In the age of aviation, if they need a boat, rent one. Or just fly
On the tourism arguement, it's pretty much proven that people would come with or without a current royal family. I wouldn't advocate turning Buck House into a Holiday Inn though because they do come for the history and historical buildings.
How much would the alternative be - we'd have an elected president - how much does that cost in comparison?
Isn't the bigger issue that some very senior tories actually thought that this would be a good use of public funds?
I mean just how out of touch do you need to be? Why not just light ya big ol' Monte Christo with a fifty note on prime time tv while you're at it...
These people are running our country fer gawds sake!
The Royal family bring in more money in tourism than they cost ? Yeah right. Italy seems to do pretty well out of tourists without the lead weight of royalty hanging round their neck. If the royals were to disappear in a puff of smoke tomorrow (god forbid ;0) do you really think that the Yanks and everyone else that visits London and the other tourist attractions would stop coming. It's not like the queen or her huge money grabbing family actually ever are seen outside of their jolly trips. The whole idea of a royal family is beyond belief. Even the name " your royal highness ? Just think about it. Vive la republique.