needles breezer bus at Alum Bay

The Times spotlights Isle of Wight in UK’s Top open-top bus routes (Updated)

The Times newspaper recently presented a picturesque journey through the UK’s best scenic bus routes, and the Isle of Wight’s iconic Needles Breezer has grabbed the spotlight.

Chosen as the headline image for their article titled ‘Seven of the UK’s prettiest open-top bus routes‘, the image of the Breezer driving up to The Needles Battery is a testament to the Island’s beauty.

A heart-stopping ride
Needles Breezer, a renowned open-top bus route, promises a thrilling adventure. Beginning from the maritime haven of Yarmouth and extending to the westernmost point of the Isle of Wight, this journey offers passengers a magnificent view of the dramatic Needles.

But the journey doesn’t just offer natural wonders.

On the way, passengers can also admire the beautifully thatched church in Freshwater, as well as Dimbola Museum and Galleries, not to mention the house and garden of the renowned poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Farringford.

More to explore
The Breezer runs until November and a day ticket priced at £14 £15, tourists and residents have ample opportunity to explore these sights at their leisure.

As well as the Needles Breezer, Southern Vectis also offer the Downs Breezer (Ryde to Sandown and back via Wootton, Bembridge, as well as the Island Coaster (Ryde to Yarmouth via Sandown, Shanklin, Ventnor, Blackgang Chine, Freshwater Bay, Freshwater, Alum Bay, Totland).

Both scenic bus rides for those wanting to explore the Island’s beauty.

Rich offerings
In a time where domestic travel is witnessing a renewed interest, such routes, that offer a blend of nature, culture, and history stand out.

The Isle of Wight’s inclusion, and the prominence given by The Times, highlights the rich offerings of our beloved Island.

Article edit
7.50pm 4th Sep 2023 – Updated the fare price as SV increased the price yesterday (Thanks for spotting Stuart!).

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
2 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
IOWTUC
24, March 2017 7:22 am

What this does is it puts pressure on Wightlink.

Niton Wight Satin
Reply to  IOWTUC
24, March 2017 8:09 am

You are right. If Red Funnel was owned by Islanders, most of us would travel on it and Wightlink would be forced to lower their prices to tempt people back.

We’d have a truly competitive ferry service.

Colin
Reply to  Niton Wight Satin
24, March 2017 9:53 am

@NWS

No, “we” wouldn’t. “We” would continue to use the ferry that was most convenient to the place “we” were going to and we were coming from.

Have you any idea of the costs of running a major business?

It is a business, not a cake stall at the WI.

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:16 am

A lot of us would, especially if reasonable rather than rip off fares were available as part of the time and money journey equation made by travellers.

The customer costs would certainly be better if fewer major businesses were as greedy as at present.

Paul Taylor
Reply to  IOWTUC
24, March 2017 3:05 pm

Buying it is one thing, but do you have any idea of the maintenance and running and insurance costs? Those costs must be huge

Debbie Andre
24, March 2017 7:26 am

This is exactly the innovative strategy and forward thinking that we need to overcome what has become a crippling obstacle to our island economy. It is only by taking control and breaking the duopoly that currently exists that we will enable the Island to be competitive as both a business and tourist destination. A bold move that proves that the Island Independents will capitalise on every opportunity… Read more »

bbrown
24, March 2017 7:56 am

Well that’s another fine mess you going to get us into!

The council could not even put aside the money to replace the floating bridge so what chance have they of finding the money to replace the Red Funnel car ferries in 15 years time?

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  bbrown
24, March 2017 8:28 am

BBrown, Red Funnel as a company would continue to run as it is, with a management structure and financial plan decided by the Board. It would not be subsumed within the Council, nor be subsidised by Council Tax.

Caconym
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 8:33 am

What do you suggest the benefits to islanders might be, Luisa?

Will it be run as a not-for-profit organisation, or will there be shareholders to satisfy?

Colin
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 9:55 am

@ suruk

If the IW Council were involved it would most definitely be not for profit whether intentional or not.

Caconym
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:08 am

Did you not read the article. The Council would not run it, they and some “partners” would own it and keep the current management.

The difference would be the opportunity to run it on something other than the requirement to return as much profit as possible for the shareholders.

Colin
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:10 am

@suruk

tongue firmly in cheek in previous comment, mate.

bbrown
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 9:59 am

Luisa Hillard, so how do you expect to handle the £100 plus million that is going to be needed within the next 15 years for replacement ferries as they have a finite life span. That is without the investments that are going to be needed to replace Red Jed 3 and 4 which have a shorter life span.

Drone
Reply to  bbrown
24, March 2017 8:45 am

It was the Conservative council who were supposed to put aside £3m for the floating bridge, then spent it.

Thanks for the reminder.

It was the Indies (namely Ian Stephens) who managed to get the Solent LEP to pay for it instead.

Carl Feeney
24, March 2017 8:02 am

Surely this article has been published prematurely?…. April 1st is next weekend. Could anyone please explain how these councillors, who have no experience with investing in £multimillion infrastructure projects…. intend to organise this deal (that will incur massive arrangement fees (even if unsuccessful) and then hope to influence the overall lessening of fares and increasing of schedules…. when that will obviously effect profit margins for the other… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Carl Feeney
24, March 2017 8:23 am

?

When did “the Fixed Link” become a certainty?

If a FL is ever built, which continues to seem unlikely, won’t ferries still be needed if only as back up?

As RF is a profitable essential transport link, wouldn’t it be preferable to have local and/or national public control and benefit?

Hermit
Reply to  Carl Feeney
24, March 2017 9:08 am

Carl. it was either yourself, or your admirer Tim, who said, if people want to invest in a ferry service why not do it now as a challenge. The challenge looks like it’s been accepted and you’re running scared!

Colin
Reply to  Carl Feeney
24, March 2017 9:56 am

@ Mr. Feeney

Pot and kettle

Dan
Reply to  Carl Feeney
24, March 2017 10:55 am

Not that you don’t have a vested interest in this Carl? I’m actually against the fixed link – But have tried to keep an open mind on the subject , and with it an open view , with regards to your campaign . I think there was some good points raised by yourselves , (and some Down and out propaganda , obviously ). But i’m afraid the… Read more »

Mason Watch
Reply to  Carl Feeney
24, March 2017 11:51 am

On the “Pigs might fly” scale if the FL is a 10 I would suggest this is around the 4 area. The FL is a pipe dream by any measure but an improvement in the ferry routes may well be achieved. I can’t be bothered going through the same old shite from Pro Link, it’s almost fake news these days

Caconym
24, March 2017 8:27 am

An interesting idea. Who might these “partners and investors” that Cllr Baker-Smith mentions be?

Allowing Islanders to invest in the project with the benefit of discounted fares or priority bookings might present another opportunity.

Let us hope that this is a genuine election pledge and not just another example of post-truth electioneering.

tr
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 11:41 am

I recall that some months after the last election, the Independents deemed their manifesto ‘aspirational’.

Deja Vu?

clearly they have learned nothing from their experience and are once again trying to win our confidence and give them another chance to mismanage…

Steve Goodman
Reply to  tr
24, March 2017 12:31 pm

I recall that the last election was ‘won’ by the Independents largely because the of the unpleasant aspirations and actions of the mismanaging Cons., who clearly have learned nothing from their experience and are once again trying to win our confidence and give them another chance to mismanage (and who we know know act illegally at election times to do so)…

Black Dog
24, March 2017 8:56 am

While I support taking RF into public ownership I would not support the so-called independents, as they are, taking ownership. There still remains an element within the group that has been destructive. My fears would include meddling and interference by certain members. I would be concerned about any paid placements on the board. The idea is good but it smacks of electioneering. Is this the only manifesto… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Black Dog
24, March 2017 9:10 am

I’m reminded that the so-called conservatives were so destructive and divisive that Islanders voted them out of control in favour of the independents who did change things for the better (and without needing to do any illegal election spending).

Baz Taylor
24, March 2017 9:17 am

We don’t want ferries dictating to us when we travel, whoever owns them! Just build the tunnel and be done with it!!

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Baz Taylor
24, March 2017 9:32 am

Why not just build the boat you need to ditch those dictators and be done with it rather than wait for the tunnel that is unlikely to be built?

Colin
24, March 2017 9:35 am

The IW Council of any flavour is not capable of running diddly squat. It couldn’t run the theatres, the Winter Gardens or the Public Toilets. It signed up for a roads PFI with more potholes in it than the highways and a waste contract that only seems to waste money. It splashes money on feasibility surveys and consultants with gay abandon. It has the business acumen of… Read more »

mywifesheelsare2high
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 9:45 am

Colin you are talking about things the Conservatives were incapable of running the Indies have people who are very capable most Councils have to find new income streams to make up for the lack of Government funding.

Colin
Reply to  mywifesheelsare2high
24, March 2017 9:59 am

@ myfartoolong

Yes, income streams, not bottomless pits for depositing money they haven’t got.

Who are these capable Indies then? I haven’t seen any.

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:10 am

@ coloncontents

I have. And some capable others. Shame they don’t do more co-operating for the common good.

Colin
Reply to  Steve Goodman
24, March 2017 10:16 am

@SG

Exactly that. The council chamber is a hotbed of bickering. If they can’t even agree how to run their own council what chance of anything else?

mywifesheelsare2high
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:32 am

Colin @ myfartoolong I suggest with your affliction you read Le petomane could be to your advantage.Any monies you make could be invested in this excellent idea from the Indies.

Colin
Reply to  mywifesheelsare2high
24, March 2017 10:51 am

@ mywife

Sincere apologies. That was completely unintentional. I didn’t realise till I read it again. It was supposed to read differently…

No insult intended.

tr
Reply to  mywifesheelsare2high
24, March 2017 11:46 am

and just where does the income stream come from? ah yes, that would be the profit. so how does anyone envisage this could be non-profit?????

Caconym
Reply to  tr
24, March 2017 12:08 pm

I think RF make a profit of about £10 million a year.

Now imagine lowering fares and re-introducing some less profitable sailings which reduce that to £5 million.

Then taking that £5 million and using it to fund social care.

So that’s the “profit” divided equally between RF customers and IW residents with none going to shareholders.

Simple maths, really.

Caconym
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:10 am

Again.

Read the article.

The council will not be “running” red funnel. They, sensibly, will leave that to the current management team.

Colin
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 10:17 am

@sts

So what’s the point of the investment then?

tr
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 11:46 am

Oh dear, there’s the word ‘sensible’ – just what these rainbow Indies are not

Caconym
Reply to  tr
24, March 2017 12:10 pm

Whereas the Tories are the epitome of good sense?

Ahem, school reorganisation fiasco…..

tr
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 12:18 pm

Who said anything about Tories? We’re talking about this lot suggesting saddling us all with huge debt. I know its just electioneering, and will be declared aspirational if they manage to convince enough of us to vote for them.
P*** ups and breweries come to mind

Caconym
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 12:23 pm

But the alternative to the indies *is* the Tories.

And they has an even greater propensity for the humongous foul-up.

Again I refer you to the schools fiasco.

PJ
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 12:46 pm

tr:

don’t let facts get in the way…

The overall budget strategy in February 2017 delivered by the conservatives – and voted against by Independents – showed they were going to borrow £100M to investment in schemes/assets….. are you equally affronted and against *that* lot doing the same….?

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 10:36 am

Colin, the Conservatives already agreed to borrow £200 million. However, they want to spend it on property on the mainland. It is my opinion (and I know many other Councillors agree) that any such investment should happen on the Island, to benefit our own local economy and provide opportunities for local business/industry.

Ken
24, March 2017 9:49 am

It’s election time don’t forget…. the council are almost broke, so where will they get £200 million?? They are just looking for votes!!

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Ken
24, March 2017 10:32 am

Ken, if you had read the recent Council papers you would know that there is an agreement to get a loan (capital) which can be invested to generate income (revenue). Just like the ASDA money (capital) has been invested to generate income (revenue). It is revenue that the Council lacks, struggling to pay regular bills and wages. Such investments seek to help remedy that, whilst providing community… Read more »

PJ
Reply to  Ken
24, March 2017 11:25 am

Ken: According to Cllr Stewart, the leader of the minority conservative group in Council…we don’t have much of a financial problem. Indeed, in February 2016 he stated at the Full Council budget meeting that the Independent budget proposals did not go far enough (!) in cuts and that we “should have cut even deeper”. That is to say, cut the £3.5M of ‘discretionary services’ that we refused… Read more »

Mat
24, March 2017 9:50 am

This is the first step towards full public control of our ferries and in line with the general wishes for connectivity. Public Control over freedom of movement for Isle of Wight citizens is not in contradiction with any other forms of connectivity proposed. Also Public Control of routes is in line with previous arrangements where ferries were nationalised. It dismisses the argument that Councils cannot organise where… Read more »

Tim
24, March 2017 9:56 am

There seems to be some confusion here which I hope that the Independent group will clarify. Are they proposing to make this investment purely to get a good return on the capital invested? In which case we can expect no improvement in the service that Red Funnel already operate. Or Are they proposing to operate as a public service where the financial return is secondary to operating… Read more »

electrickery
24, March 2017 10:07 am

.
Once you have control you (we, as owners) can decide our priorities.
At present, an obscene amount of the fare price goes to satisfy shareholders (after paying loan interest, that is). It’s that which is the prize here – how it gets re-allocated is for the owners to decide.

SUPPORT THIS INITIATIVE!

Caconym
Reply to  electrickery
24, March 2017 10:11 am

Agreed.

I want to hear more details about who these “partners” will be, though.

Tim
Reply to  electrickery
24, March 2017 10:15 am

I think that we need to know what the priorities are before, not after the takeover.

Merely continuing with the cosy duopoly will not be of any use at all, apart from the IWC pensioners who will be the major beneficiaries.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Tim
24, March 2017 10:26 am

Should a Council bid be successful then the return on the investment would be used to support local services, not pensions. It would help to close the budget gap caused by government cuts.

Caconym
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 10:37 am

I think most IW residents would prefer that any return on investment (ie profit) should go to providing a more frequent / cheaper ferry service.

If it turns out that we will still have the same old service and high prices with ferry users subsidising local services then it is just going to be seen as a back-door tax.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 10:50 am

Surek, certainly there would be flexibility in how the Council could spend the return on any investment, including subsidised ferry fares, but there must be a focus on protecting services for the most vulnerable people. There must be balance.

Caconym
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 11:15 am

Don’t get me wrong. I can actually see that keeping RF as it is and ploughing the profits into local services as being beneficial. But, and its a big but, the ferries are a very emotive issue on the IW. If you go to the polls with this idea there is a very good chance it could swing the vote for you based on the expectation of… Read more »

PJ
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 11:45 am

STS: Very good point. I think you are right, we can safely say that if we were in a position to acquire RF as owners we would be intending to run it for the benefit of the community whilst ensuring that the operational side was profitable and sustainable over a long term investment period. One thing we have to do is remove these ‘short term’ investment owners… Read more »

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 12:04 pm

Suruk, I understand completely. What we must accept is that any stake held by the Council would directly benefit Islanders but the way that will happen will be determined by the Full Council’s annual Budget dependent on the financial situation of the time – i.e. the depth of government cuts combined with increased costs. I will not make empty promises but I believe that in the first… Read more »

Tim
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 11:54 am

Thanks for the clarification Luisa, a return of investment to take priority over running a public service it s then.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Tim
24, March 2017 12:06 pm

Tim, please don’t twist my words to suit your own agenda. A return on investment would be solely used to run public services, for the benefit of the Island. Please see my discussion of this with Suruk.

Mariner58
24, March 2017 10:08 am

The IW Council turned down Red Funnels expansion plans described by some as a ‘land grab’.
Conflicts of interest, use of public money contrary to government statements, legal complaints of unfair competition.
This has the makings of a saga to put Mr Feeney in the shade.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Mariner58
24, March 2017 10:27 am

Mariner58 – do not confuse the policy side of the Council with the Planning Authority and how the two are kept separate to avoid such conflicts of interest.

tr
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
24, March 2017 11:52 am

Hahahahahaha

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Mariner58
24, March 2017 10:28 am

The IW Council turned down Red Funnels unnecessary greedy and damaging expansion plan partly because it is a land and money grab by a private company refusing to improve their own site.
Using public money in the interests of the puplic should be government strategy, and is only fair.
This has the makings of a big step in the right direction for a better future.

East Cowes
24, March 2017 10:20 am

Too risky. If the Council wants to own something related to the ferries, the Council would do better to own the ports (like ABP does in Southampton) – real assets in land and deep water – therefore being able to control the businesses who want to use the port. The Red Funnel price is already bloated, and private investors will want to make a good return on… Read more »

PJ
Reply to  East Cowes
24, March 2017 11:53 am

The Ports are not up for sale. The price is unknown. The price being circulated comes from an article in a national newspaper and is a (financial) guess. However, there is already extensive declared interest in this company and it may come to bidding. Be wary of the account position of this company for current owners were making a short term/high profit strategy before selling on (why… Read more »

East Cowes
Reply to  PJ
24, March 2017 12:12 pm

Read my other comments, Phil (PJ). The land surrounding the port IS up for sale.

PJ
Reply to  East Cowes
24, March 2017 12:18 pm

…which land? I thought you were referring to the ‘Port’ itself?

…but which land is up for sale?

East Cowes
Reply to  PJ
24, March 2017 12:14 pm

It also is NOT a sound investment. How old are those engines (that weren’t upgraded when they added in the second deck)? There’s a lot of lipstick on that pig.

PJ
Reply to  East Cowes
24, March 2017 12:23 pm

Any investment (for any company) such as this requires due diligence.

To get to that point and to get confidential and detailed company/sale details any potential buyer has to demonstrate funding in place to the owners agent (Macquarie) before they will release the information.

There is also a tight timescale on this sale.

electrickery
24, March 2017 10:25 am

. Owning the ports is a non-starter (Trust Port legislation). And ask Capt McIntosh how much control he has over Red Funnel in Cowes! Nobody is suggesting IWC would run RF, just own it for the benfefit of the community (that’s you and me and our visitors and suppliers). The existing management and staff seem to be doing a pretty good job in maximising benefit for their… Read more »

East Cowes
Reply to  electrickery
24, March 2017 10:43 am

The Port legislation during Thatcher’s years was about her privatising the ports. The problem is that it has become an oligopoly. Also, there are plenty of ways to own the land surround the port without necessarily owning the port itself, which is more what I was thinking of. The pattern has been to give away or selling the land around the port in East Cowes instead of… Read more »

East Cowes
Reply to  electrickery
24, March 2017 10:48 am

The other issue is that the value of Red Funnel is severely bloated (check out their recent loans), and as we all know boats deprecate even faster than cars and other assets. I ‘m always for public ownership (or public ownership through a company as proposed, whether a CIC or LTD, whatever). But Red Funnel is not a good purchase full stop – and not at that… Read more »

Colin
Reply to  East Cowes
24, March 2017 10:54 am

Up arrow for East Cowes. Well said.

GarageElfinIOW
24, March 2017 10:41 am

Indies in charge of a multimillion £ business – when the going gets tough and there are some harsh buisness decisions to be made how will they handle it ? resignation ??

Caconym
Reply to  GarageElfinIOW
24, March 2017 11:17 am

If you would care to read the article, you will notice that it is *not* the prospective IWC’s intention to be “in charge” of the business.

They intend leaving that to the existing management.

tr
Reply to  GarageElfinIOW
24, March 2017 2:22 pm

These are the same Indies who made such a fist of running the public toilets.

Anyone with half a business brain could run a public toilet AND make it make money. does the phrase ‘captive audience’ make any sense – not to this lot.

Caconym
Reply to  tr
24, March 2017 2:28 pm

Again.

Read the blasted article.

The IWC will NOT BE RUNNING Red funnel, they would own leaving the running to the current management.

Why is this so hard for some to comprehend?

tr
Reply to  Caconym
24, March 2017 2:48 pm

Ah, so by not running you mean not dictating pricing structure for example – don’t make me laugh, if they don’t have their influence on RF what is the point of them buying it? Comprendeh?

Caconym
Reply to  tr
24, March 2017 4:21 pm

Of course they would have influence on the management, they would own the company.

There is a world of difference between asking the experienced management to make changes and doing it themselves.

And the correct spelling of the Spanish for “do you comprehend” is “comprendes” (if that was the jibe you were trying to achieve)

East Cowes
Reply to  tr
24, March 2017 4:56 pm

Suruk, if you’re going to correct someone’s Spanish whom you don’t know, you need to do it correctly. Since you are unfamiliar with the person, it is Usted, not tu, therefore it is ¿Comprendre (Ud.)?, not ¿Comprendes (tu o Ud.)? Here’s the rub: the Council wouldn’t be able to have it two ways. If they don’t have the majority shares of the company, they will not necessarily… Read more »

sandancer
24, March 2017 10:56 am

RF took out loans last July against their ships which was a classic move when a company is getting ready for selling. They pay no tax or vat and profits go to shareholders who happen to be the directors. Who gives them the profits and service their debts against tax? The punters do. They can put up the fares and still cream off the profits, take the… Read more »

electrickery
24, March 2017 11:20 am

LK: Owning the ports/land would be great but they aren’t for sale except as part of the package Commenters might find it useful to read RF’s accounts for the last few years, together with those of its chain of parents. The asking price of £250M is laughable, of course, but you don’t open a sale with your lowest price do you? Once interest rates start to rise… Read more »

sandancer
24, March 2017 11:32 am

electrickery: …. but the IOWC can apply for CPO powers to purchase land if it is part of an infrastructure project and of benefit to the whole island. RF accounts show, no tax, no vat, new loans against the car ferries, leasing Red Jet 6 and profit to shareholders. Where is the ‘RF investment in the IOW’? I agree – the asking price is laughable and doesn’t… Read more »

bbrown
Reply to  sandancer
24, March 2017 12:25 pm

Lin Kemp, You really need to check your facts, the port of Southampton is owned by Associated British Ports a private company with net assets in excess of £1.463 billion.

CPO powers can not be used on a whim and have a cost, a CPO does not mean you get land/property for free it has to be purchased at full market value plus costs.

sandancer
24, March 2017 12:30 pm

bbrown
I realise ABP owns the Port of Southampton. I also did say ‘purchase’ the land owned by RF in Trinity Yard; the don’t own it all or should I say,didn’t, last year.

Robert Jones
24, March 2017 12:35 pm

Would the Council seek a controlling interest in the company? If not, I don’t see the point of investing money in Red Funnel when more profitable and successful companies are available to secure a guaranteed return. The press release looks to be premature – it appears that the Independents seek to be part of a so-far unidentified consortium if they’re elected to control IWC, and that without… Read more »

East Cowes
Reply to  Robert Jones
24, March 2017 12:58 pm

Robert Jones, well said re: controlling ownership. Other stakeholders would have a massive say in price fares amongst many other operational and financial decisions. If the purpose is to give benefit to the islanders, they have to show how it benefits islanders and a rock solid plan that controlling all decisions that would affect islanders, whether it means owning the company or some other way that would… Read more »

Colin
24, March 2017 1:11 pm

If borrowing £200 million for investment is such a good idea, why hasn’t it been thought of before? If this sort of option is so good, why hasn’t the governmment done it (just up the figure by a multiple of the number of councils) and then used the profits to fund the councils rather than by cutting the funding. Or is it just better that someone else… Read more »

the spy
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 1:34 pm

The £70 million reserves as they only need £200 million for the company with a price tag of £270 million

the spy
Reply to  the spy
24, March 2017 1:36 pm

typo £250 million

eddo
Reply to  Colin
24, March 2017 7:00 pm

look up sovereign dept for the UK, we still need to pay that off

the spy
24, March 2017 1:28 pm

I was just wondering when was the price for red funnel was dropped by £70 million the company was up for sale for £270 million

the spy
24, March 2017 1:32 pm

This could also be the end of a fixed link as the iwc council would oppose the idea if there was a substantial investment .lest have a referendum on the isue ?
1 does the island what a fixed link
2 does the people of the island what the iwc to by red funnel

John
24, March 2017 2:37 pm

Could the Indies clarify how they are funding this activity ahead of May? They presumably have no council funding as they are a(n) (a)political group, with no identified sponsors. Are they doing any more that chatting to people that will freely entertain them, and browsing the web? Given that a purchase price will be based on the potential return, any idea of influencing reduced fares or running… Read more »

eddo
24, March 2017 6:58 pm

Say the 200m to be borrowed at say 5%, Return on the investment in RF say 8%. profit 3% less cost, passive investment = nil involvement. Looks good on paper but and it is a very big but For when the borrowing rates rise as they will and given that the inflation rate is now 2.3% that only leaves .7 gain in real terms The yield will… Read more »

Eastcowser
24, March 2017 7:01 pm

People are assuming that the current management team will hang around – however if it is anything like previous takeovers Directors have walked away with millions …. I really don’t think they will be hanging around ….

Steve
24, March 2017 8:12 pm

What a waste of money…….would be far better spent towards the only real answer……a Fixed Link!!

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Steve
26, March 2017 11:51 pm

‘What a waste of money – the unnecessary extra costs of operating for excessive/any profit what has become an essential transport link for our independently unsustainable Island……would be far better spent towards the only real answer……local/national ownership!!’ (Reminder; the present links are the only real ones, and a fixed link is unlikely to become real because currently nobody wants to pay for it, only about half of… Read more »

Mariner58
25, March 2017 8:31 am

If the Independents want to use Red Funnel to ‘maximise a revenue stream’ especially with commercial partners, why would the prices come down?………..they need that money to reopen the public toilets.

Karl Love
26, March 2017 2:34 am

Firstly, I don’t know how these Independents can state that they will purchase Red Funnle or claim to speak for all the other independents on our island, when they don’t yet know who is standing independently at the next elections? I am independent and no one has asked me what I think about these plans? There will be lots of independents standing! I can see, from a… Read more »

tr
Reply to  Karl Love
26, March 2017 9:58 am

they could start to earn their business credentials by promising to learn how to run a successful public toilets business….

Red Toilets?
Reply to  tr
26, March 2017 11:02 am

How to run a successful public toilet business: 1) use public money to run public toilets 2) close public toilets because there is not enough public money and it is better spent on things like social care. 3) if it is TRULY a business, start charging for public toilet use and make a profit which could be used to open more toilets. 4) face outcry from people… Read more »

Marinet58
26, March 2017 10:48 pm

The comparison to ‘public toilets’ is a comic device.
‘We’ll reopen them all’ was a very vocal battle cry for some independents before the last election and remains largely unfulfilled.
Another election…….’We’ll buy Red Funnel’…….one hopes merely a comlc device but, more likely, an I’ll considered sound bite for the gullible.

tr
Reply to  Marinet58
27, March 2017 8:49 am

No Marinet58, the comparison with public toilets is NOT a comic device. I am serious. If the Independents could not see how to run these, as a business, on a holiday isle, I have no confidence they could do anything more complex. for some reason, the idea that they could be run ‘as a business’ and not requiring funds from the public purse, completely escapes some of… Read more »

Mariner58
27, March 2017 9:13 am

Tr, I agree with you completely, my intended point was just that.
Their inability to resolve the, comparatively, smaller and considerably less expensive issue of public toilets after such a vocal start renders the plan to purchase Red Funnel laughable…… hence ‘comic device’

tr
27, March 2017 9:23 am

Understood Mariner58,

of course, my fear is that there will be people who will elect them, fully supporting their electioneering, but with no idea of their lack of ability.

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined