S&D Railway Trust

And again, the contrast between the attitudes of the two organisations leaps out to the casual reader.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Indeed. IMHO a very restrained and tactfully non-confrontational response.

 

The probability is that it did, but the view was taken that there is no point in keeping a pot of money for 53808's overhaul if the company has gone bust by the time that the overhaul is due.

 

and all of which has been comparable to the likelihood of porcine aviation displays at the next gala since then, too.

 

No, as per my previous post, a provision doesn't equal cash. A provision is merely a way of reflecting the fact that you are contractual oblige, in this case, to preform a service in the future. (In this case an overhaul)

 

ALSO: A provision is an amount that you ALLOW in your accounts to cover a future liability. If that amount is not backed by available funds, isn't that simply fraudulent ?

 

Short answer: no

Longer answer, there is a world of difference between a P&L account provision and cash in the bank.

 

Does the fact that it was provision that's been cut rather than hard cash set aside dipped into make it better or worse? I suppose you could be a little more sympathetic to dipping into some cash you'd actually set aside if things were really tough and you needed something quick, but cutting the provision shows that you're not even intending to try and adequately cover costs?

Anyway, as ever reading the two latest statements side by side, on the face of it I know where my sympathies lie. Whatever the result of the arbitration, the S&D Trust can hold their heads high, and the less said about various figures in WSR leadership positions the better.

 

Worse, IMHO. It suggests a question of intent and reinforces the perception that the upturn in the plc accounts is engineered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A prophetic comment - ruins etc.

 

Have you read the statement or not?

The SDJRT seem like rubbish tenants to me. Not willing to engage in anything that will promote their activities and do unsafe acts. I can't see any justification in lighting up a steam engine using a gas heater. They are extremely lucky nothing seriously bad happened. I guess the person who did that isn't a member of mensa.

 

They overhauled 9351, although that wouldn't account for that much of a drop off.

 

According to the WSR. The fact that that statement contained a number of demonstrable inaccuracies casts considerable doubt on the rest of it.

 

>>>>Have you read the statement or not?
Yes. Do I believe everything that it says? - well, let's just that it is so at odds with what the S&DRT have already stated publicly that it gives rise for doubt.

>>>The SDJRT seem like rubbish tenants to me...
In which case, why did the Plc give them a new 50-year lease only two years ago?

>>>Not willing to engage in anything that will promote their activities.....
Funny - I thought the argument from the Plc was that the S&DRT were promoting only their own activities and not those of the wider railway?

>>>..and do unsafe acts..
Do you have the evidence for this please? The Plc statement merely provides some brief examples, but are there the dates, times, places, names to support their claims? Perhaps there are, but at the moment we just don't know.....

 

If the WSR want them out, they should leave. That's what is a tenancy is, they don't own the land.

Regardless of if they did anything wrong or not.

If a landlord of a flat sells up, the renter has to go. End of.

 

No it's not

So, no room for justice in your world then?

Not true

Keith

 

Er, no. If you've signed a 50 year lease just 2 years ago, you emphatically don't just get to chuck your tenants out unless you have a damned good reason. So far the reasons the WSR has given have been decidedly flimsy.

 

They've just said there have been numerous unsafe acts including ones that were publicly reported to the ORR. Do you really think the WSR PLC made that up?

 

To be blunt, yes. That statement had enough things that are demonstrably untrue, inaccurate or half-truths to make me doubt the authenticity of other statements.