Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Thanks @Meatman . Yes, that's a pretty signficant difference...

 

Indeed. £580k gross is £483k net. That's over the summer season, what might the winter be?

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

A cynic might suggest that presenting the gross figures rather than the net figures merely serves to suggest that the OSHI income is greater than in reality....

 

The figures in the public domain show that the following amounts are due on the LBBC loans next spring:

- Secured loan interest (£580k @ 6%) - £34,800

- Trust (Unsecured) loan interest (£250k @ 5%) - £12,500

- Trust (Unsecured) loan principal (10% of £250k) - £25,000

So without repaying a penny on the secured loan, LBBC needs to make £72,300 profit free and clear - otherwise it will default on its loans.

If it wants to repay the secured loan over 10 years, the same as the unsecured loan to the Trust, then add £58,000 to the bill for a total of £130,300.

This is before we get to two other problematic points:

- the fact that the Trust unsecured loan should by definition be more expensive than the secured loan (a violation of CC guidance), and

- it is entirely unclear who else was offered the chance to loan LBBC money on these very attractive terms other than a CIC Director, in what is a related party transaction.

The whole point of LBBC was to insulate the Trust from the cost and risk of acquiring the OSHI business. Instead, the Trust has an exposure of at least £503,000 + accrued interest to a business that has far more debt than as a former banker I'd be comfortable with.

The can only be the case because Mr Miles and Mr Cowling massively overpaid for the business; eBay shows that anyone can overpay for anything on a daily basis. If they'd paid £1m instead of more than £1.9m, then lending on this scale would never have been required.

The result is that a large amount of Trust assets that were previously committed to the extension are now not available, and could be lost forever.

 

Possibly. Though if the question is “how much was spent by customers”, then both the answers £100 (ex VAT) and £120 (inc. VAT) are technically accurate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

If I understand it right, that's just income. Out of that has to come expenditure and cost of sales. I suspect the profit well be fairly low.
There's some kind of saying ..turnover is vanity, profit is sanity....

 

Mr Cowling was elected in September 2021; does that mean his Trusteeship comes up for renewal in May ? I'm geriatric, but anyone feel like putting their name forward for election ?

 

Maybe. The rule is that one third of the trustees must retire every year. Those in the post the longest are the ones to retire. The length of time in post is not relevant.
Those up for retirement can put themselves forward for re-election.

 

Yes you are correct, I think that Chris Duffield and Charles Summers are the other two that are due for re election this time around.

On the other hand, I am not sure who from the CIC are due to retire next year, as I am under the impression that the CIC Company Secretary has indicated that he wanted to step down at the next AGM.

 

There may well be an issue coming up since two years ago we had four trustees resign of which two of them did not want to stand again and so this could in effect make this out of balance for a while, so it is I guess an issues that needs to be discussed and clarified.

 

I don't understand the problem. Length of time in post is immaterial. The rule is that every year, one third of the trustees need to retire by rotation. The number retiring needs to be a multiple of three. Its the longest-serving ones that retire. If they all have the same length of time in post, then they draw lots to decide who retires. It's all straightforward.

 

Next year three Trustees' three-year terms come to an end.

Alphabetically by surname, I believe they are: Ian Cowling, Chris Duffell and Charles Summers.

 

The last mem and arts on companies House is from 2007. There is no such thing as a "three-year term". One third of the directors have to retire every year. The effect is that you get re-elected every three years, but if the number of directors is less than nine, you would get re-elected more often than that.
If you had a clean sweep and a whole new set of directors at a GM, then at the following GM still one third would have to retire, so would only get one year before re-election. And a three-year term would not make sense as then they would all have to retire at the same meeting, which would be illegal.

 

I think you mean stand for re-eection every three years; get re-elected every three years makes it sound like the Trustee elections are run like some tin-pot dictatorship.

 

You mean, like where someone can decide who can or can not stand for election, or gets thrown out afterwards? Really? Where on earth could you have in mind that would do such things ?

 

I note that, across the border in Somerset, the WSRHT has just published its November Board Minutes on its website. If they can do that on a regular basis, then why not the L&BRT ???

 

Maybe because we are a functional board that actually meets and we work with one another. And we have an excellent secretary who knows what he is doing.

 

Morning Everyone,

I wanted to thank all who contributed to the questions posed to the Trustees ahead of the Members Day, especially for those like me who were unable to attend. These are not difficult questions, but ones which pleasingly reflect an engaged Membership keen to ensure that their railway succeeds.

I sent the questions (attached) to the Trustees on 8 November, and they were acknowledged as received that day.

Having not had a substantive response, I sent a follow up last week (30 Nov), and I wanted to let you know that I am still awaiting an answer. When I have it, I will share it with you all.

Best seasonal wishes,

Toby

 

Cross posted to ExmoorNG, Mr Miles has repsonded thus:

Toby

The Forum is a day for the m,embers to hear what is going on, what is planned and to ask questions and discuss. It is also a social occassion.

However it is essentially for those who attend.

The list of questions you sent were in part answered at the event.

Regards

Peter
____________

I've reponded:

Peter, good afternoon

You are currently chairing a Board which is suffering from a serious credibility gap based on your and some of your colleagues misleading statements, illegitimate maneuverings and outright lies.

This was a wholly well intentioned attempt to include Members from around the world and help you reestablish the credibility that cones from honesty and transparency, and which will be essential to successfully taking the project forward.

It is therefore extremely disappointing - but sadly unsurprising - to see you take this approach. I gently suggest that you rethink this and answer the questions honestly and promptly.

Sincerely,

Toby
_____________________

Should we crowd-source our own answers?

 

Possibly the central challenge to this project is that it has failed to engage with “stakeholders”.

The attitude that people should travel to Devon to find out what is going on is wrong headed. It ultimately limits the organisation to the relatively small numbers that live within easy reach. Perhaps 40 years ago this was appropriate. Other forms of cheap mass communication didn’t exist and there were probably more enthusiasts (or people that could be encouraged to become involved) and they were younger. None of this is now the case.

Holding members forums in person is a great thing to do. Even better to find ways to make these interesting, informative and (dare I say) entertaining. Bringing that to the mass of members many of whom do not live within a couple of hours drive or public transport ride, would shift this project from dying to leading in short order. It is very doable. Just needs some imagination and a willingness to engage.