Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

Steven - I'm not trying to imply the SVR have anything other than the highest probity in their accounts and are using accepted standards for how they are prepared. Rather, I was just making the point that, in an industry in which the balance sheet has a lot of high value assets that depreciate slowly but cost large amounts to restore when eventually you need to do so, the apparent profit and loss is very sensitive to exactly how you account for things like repairs. It is sometimes difficult to form a real picture as to whether maintenance is keeping pace with wear and tear. The SVR is not alone in this: it is a challenge for every heritage railway. One reason I think this thread is being followed so closely is that in some senses, the challenges the SVR face today both in financial terms and in preserving a "heritage" image in the face of those financial pressures, is one that every other line is either also facing, or will have to confront at some point in the future.

Tom

 

Re: SEVERN VALLEY RAILWAY TO LAUNCH £3,000,000 SHARE ISSUE

Please note I have amended my post.

 

Hold your horses here lets look at each of the points, from the view of some of the volunteers at Bridgnorth, who GFG says should rightly have a good say in this
1) Yes the mass view is that the buildings , footbridge and steamworks is not in keeping - we are being told that the revised designs will be more in keeping (we will wait and see, although many of us still feel steamworks is a waste of time and money)
2)The increased cost is from the maintainance of the lift and the steamworks building - offset of course against the money that is being spent on keeping the current buffet going ,heating costs as being a portakabin its not efficence and of course the lost opportunity cost of having a cramped shop.
3) Undue haste is perhaps not fair as they had been working on this for quite some time before it broke cover - we knew there was a team that was looking at it.
4) Whether they have listened or not again seams premature, until we see the plans- hopefully there will be another presentation soon after the H/G/SVRA and Trust see them next week. I promise we will make our views known and if we don't like them, like last time we will let them know.

What does concern me as a long standing volunteer of 27 years is that some of the comments particularly around accounting are getting very near to the point of making accusations of serious financial irregularities againts the SVR, I just hope you can back them up.

What is also a bit frustrating is that there is all this talk of how good it was in the past. What this overlooks is that there was an absence of investment in track (apparently it would never wear out we were told) nor in keeping up. It was in that past period that the problems that came home with 43106, were put in motion.

Yes we would like more people to visit, but that needs to be at the shoulders of the season so we dont end up with overcrowed trains or have to have even longer trains, which cost more to run.

If there was any arrogance and ignoring volunteers then why no outcry over the engine house, there was no consultation with anyone it was decided and that was that.

What I do know is that over the next week there will be some livley discussions internally. I hope that when the presentation has happened next Tuesday we all get to see the new proposals. I am heartended by Tiggers comments on the volunteers seeing them next and then a further round of consultation with members and shareholders. It sounds although it is not said like the dash for HLF is maybe receeding? -time will tell.

 

Sue, if as a Company spokesman - and you are - you want to come in here and be all shreiky and upset, it might work better for you, the Company and the 1000 + people a day reading this thread if you came along with some evidence-based rebutal that what I - and GF-G before me - have been saying about the Company governance and Project Xanadu is factually wrong, or even "out of context".

I am saying - in very plain language - that under present management SVR is the fastest shrinking paid for attraction in the west Midlands, that the Board is divided - and the semi-detached Directors are cowed by the Gang of Four. I am saying that the share issue is a flop and was always destined to be because the prospectus was alarmingly vague. I am saying that the Bridgnorth project is unquantified for its impact on the survivability of the railway as an independent business or at all.I am suggesting that the GM is an inappropriate appointment and far too expensive. I have said that expensive consultants are doing what volunteers are more than capable of. I am saying that any consultation process that excluded Plan B is in fact an abuse of process. I am saying you have got into terrible trouble with your loco owner partners.

You speak to none of these points. I speak for me, and yes I am on a crusade and am not ashamed of it. I remember the SVR when it was the Premier Line - and so do many of those who have given me their proxy vote to call an EGM. Of course we will wait until you have shown what Plan A Version 2 amounts to but be assured they and I will want some concrete guarantees that the financial i's and t's have been crossed and your Project is not about to send the railway into bankruptcy.

People want some comfort that the company they have sweated for is in safe hands. It does not much look as if it is. You are a spokesman, and you should be able to deliver the facts for them in a way they find plausible.

Best regards


Neil

 

Where does the rumour of 20K per year to maintain those two lifts come from, it seams awfully high. I do take your point on accounting being able to move costs around. I was concerned that there was an implication that some how things were different in the past and better, when there was less investment.

I would agree consultations would have been better before the share isssue, and in my opnion there needs to be clarity on the order for everything on the wish list (I think some of this stuff is years off if it ever happens)
What I do know is that the volunteers
I don't know about the profit or loss of it, just the the HLF gave support for a number of years.

So its the Friday before the new plan is first presented. Lets summerise what it appears the concerns with plan A are
1) additional running costs of the new buildings (ie more staff in the Shop/ steamworks)
2) The running costs of the new lifts (20K rummoured)
3) That profits will not rise and the consequence will be to affect the future profitability
4) The costs and savings need to be clearly presented together with a running order of what will happen in what order (I appreciate that some comment has been made about the first items to be done)

GFG makes an interesting point of the board being divided, what is this praise that he thinks some will not toe the party line. Who are the gang of 4 by the way, I think I know but just in case.

 

I wasn't making any comment on the accounting policies used by the SVR or suggesting anyone else was. I was trying to explain the standards that accounting policies need to pass and a very simple version of the relevant Financial Reporting Standards that preparers of heritage railway accounts get a chance to dust off when many other accounts can let them quietly gather that dust!

Steven

 

That was not the impression I got.

What I heard was people making the point that getting a true picture in financial terms, when there are a lot of long-lived assets which nevertheless require a lot of maintainence, can be tricky - and two good people can disagree on how to write up the numbers - although in such cases 20/20 hindsight will necessarily show that at most one of them was correct.

(For anyone who wants a good example of this sort of thing from another industry, along with a discussion of the ethics of various choices, may I recommend Nevil Shute's "Slide Rule", his wonderful autobiography of his life as an aeronautical engineer in the 1920s and 1930s.)

Noel

 

How far are the two factions going to take this now this argument has made it to the railway press? What is the next action after a possible EGM?

Tigger is doing herself and her beloved railway no favours by getting all uptight with people that disagree with her. If she doesn't like a scrap she should stay out of the debate and let Chris do the fighting.

In fact now she has changed her allegiance towards Plan B I really wonder if is she really posting with the boards sanction? If not there must be some very interesting conversations between her and her spouse. Or does her husband keep a lid on his support for Plan B for fear of being spanked by his chairman.
It would be very easy to assume a fair degree of duplicity is taking place.

For all his faults at least GFG/Niel Howard has been totally consistent.

 

My remit from our supporters is quite plain – to work towards winning the proxy votes of 300,000 shares, to trigger an EGM to discuss a single Special Resolution; To immediately cease all external expenditure on Steamworks and stall the project for 12 months pending a full review of the financial implications for the business AND conduct an open contest among members and shareholders, with independent scrutiny, between Steamworks and Plan B. The exact wording will be determined by those who have pledged their proxy. Whether or not we reach 5% will be wholly decided by the response to Steamworks Version 2, due out soon. If everyone likes it, there will be no point in an EGM, but if it is another unpopular crock like Version 1, we will have a good chance of success.

5% of all issued shares is enough for shareholders to call an EGM when no other EGM has been called in the previous 12 month, otherwise it would be 10%. Since the last EGM was, we think, in 1971 and involved a booming man with a handlebar moustache, we meet this 5% test.

We have a further remit to examine how working members who are not shareholders but support the Special Resolution can engage with the Guarantee Company to make them aware of the level of concern they feel. It would then be a matter for the Guarantee Company to take a position on. We are trying hard to understand the best way of doing this.

I have no remit to do anything beyond securing an EGM and having the Special Resolution adopted. If we are successful and the resolution is passed the Holdings Board will be bound to comply with it, and if we fail they can go ahead and do whatever they want.

Hope this helps


Neil
militarytrain2012@gmail.com

 

Please note (a) I am not a company spokesman, (b) only want the best for Severn Valley Railway - whatever that is, but am perhaps guilty of being too trusting (c) am now keeping out of it until the result of Tuesday's board meeting.

 

Sidmouth, I agree with you, and my post wasn't intended as a personal "bash" - it was a corporate comment . Although Tigger appears to know me, I am afraid I cannot remember much about her at all - I don't think there was any animosity between us in those days. But then, as she says, it was a few years ago, so maybe there was, but I genuinely can't recall any.

I too doubt she has much positive support from the Gang of Four - none of them are real enthusiasts or enthusiastic railwaymen, or serious entreprenurial businessmen either. The Chairman is a political animal, even though his car doesn't have a NAB 1 plate, and the others have always worked for someone else and have never run anything comparable to SVR. I do not think they are terribly troubled by what anyone else thinks of them or how they operate - even though they are only in their positions because the unwashed subsidise them by doing all the dirty jobs. So yes, she should have been better supported for her efforts. But I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for things to change anytime soon...

Neil

 

They shouldn't be trusted to run a bath.

 

Now the battle lines are drawn between the two groups i wonder how far are they prepared to go. Let's consider an extreme situation. Would the anti-Xanadu group go so far as attempting to de-rail a lottery bid and thus cost the railway £1000s? Would the pro-Xanadu group dare proceed if it thought such a threat existed for real? This could lead to some serious brinkmanship.

 

Do you want a wooden spoon to go with that post?

Neil has said quite plainly what his proposals are, great bit of sensationalisation for only a second post...

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I say again that I have no remit or mandate from my supporters to attempt to influence the HLF bid. We await the publication of "Xanadu Two" and when it appears I will ask supporters to refresh or withhold their mandate for a Special Resolution as they think appropriate. No-one can be expected to oppose something they have not seen, and nor could SVR be reasonably expected to take seriously any comments or opinions expressed before the revised scheme has been seen and carefully considered.


Neil

 

I have no call for a wooden spoon as you put it. You're forgetting that before entering any fight the wise extrapolate to consider every possible end-game. Did the board think through the possibility of the rank and file members showing such resistance to Plan A in its original form? If not they are foolish. Have its opponents thought how far may be too far to fight the board? If not they are foolish. Didn't Margaret Thatcher think through all the possible outcomes before she mustered the task force to reclaim the Falklands for the Crown?