# Speedferries in administration



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

All the details are on the www.speedferries.com website.

I wonder how much the business is up for sale for? Any offers? Shall we have a whip round?

If this firm just not reappear using the same low cost model, you can bet your bottom dollar that prices on the Eastern Channel will rise.

Russell


----------



## eddied (May 9, 2005)

*Speedferries in Admin.*

 Ciao Russell,
sign of the times I fear.
At close of business tomorrow, Friday, would be interesting to see how many other companies, large or small, throw in the towel. 

I checked out definitely, permanently, and with no if or buts, Oct. 31st.
Kids and big brother furious!! :roll: 
Off to Spain on Monday to console myself. :lol:

saluti,
eddied


----------



## lucy2 (Jun 27, 2007)

Rapide561 said:


> All the details are on the www.speedferries.com website.
> 
> I wonder how much the business is up for sale for? Any offers? Shall we have a whip round?
> 
> ...


 Great shame, things will change now to cross a bit of water


----------



## SidT (May 9, 2005)

Hi. You know what they will all say..... " _Sorry but we have got to put the fares up to make sure we don't end up like Speedferries_"


----------



## geordie01 (Apr 20, 2006)

a very great shame we used the service when ever we went to france pre mh days. cant get the van on it now, we met kurt a couple of times and what a nice guy he is lets hope it gets sorted.


----------



## aultymer (Jun 20, 2006)

> " Sorry but we have got to put the fares up to make sure we don't end up like Speedferries"


 and the problem is - they just may be correct!!
Speedferries = cheap fares = gone.
Others = higher fares = still here.

Am I missing something?

Never before, in the field of human endeavour, has so much been asked of so many for so little.
Is the labourer worthy of his hire? Lower fares = lower wages just so we can go on our jollies.


----------



## Saxonman (Aug 23, 2007)

Left with a book of nine tickets  Mind you with everything else that's gone wrong financially this year I find myself simply shrugging. Must be spending too much time in France!
So fingers crossed for us users but especially for all employees everywhere who may be facing a bleak Christmas.

Thank goodness we're off to the Christmas Markets at the end of the month, there's a good deal of comfort to be found in a gluehwein mug!

Bob

_Nil illegitimus carborundum_


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Speedferries*

Hi

If Jenny opened her basket and used her pocket money to buy Speedferries, renamed it Jennyferries.com, then do any debts simply vanish?

Russell


----------



## androidGB (May 26, 2005)

SidT said:


> Hi. You know what they will all say..... " _Sorry but we have got to put the fares up to make sure we don't end up like Speedferries_"


But that's the problem isn't it, we all expect great service but most people don't want to pay for it.

There's a correct price for every product or service. One that allows the company to pay reasonable wages, make a sensible profit, so that they can reinvest to purchase up to date equipment which allows them to compete without the need to slash prices

Unfortunately what has happened is that companies have been slashing prices and taking up the slack by screwing suppliers and increased borrowing.

Not a receipe for long term survival.

Of course the biggest exponent of this has been Gordon Brown and let's hope he quickly goes the same way....................

Andrew


----------



## locovan (Oct 17, 2007)

*ferry*



aultymer said:


> > " Sorry but we have got to put the fares up to make sure we don't end up like Speedferries"
> 
> 
> and the problem is - they just may be correct!!
> ...


I did read a news piece that said the Ferries are running at a loss
So prices will go up up up!! 8O


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

*Re: Speedferries*



Rapide561 said:


> Hi
> 
> If Jenny opened her basket and used her pocket money to buy Speedferries, renamed it Jennyferries.com, then do any debts simply vanish?
> 
> Russell


What do you think happened in this regard with Transleisure and Brownhills? (not a good analogy as same people continued to trade in the same business!)

Dave


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Speedferries*

I thought so Dave. Corporate stuff like this is not really my thing.

So given that Speed1 is a valuable asset and is owned by the firm, then hopefully Speedferries2008.com might appear and keep on fighting the pirates.

I think Speed1 cost 13.5 million but I do not know what the market is like at present for high speed catamarans. It would look good on the drive though!

Russell


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

I haven't looked for anything beyond what has already been reported on MHF, but I presumed the French arrest of the ship, irrespective of its rights and wrongs, forced an unacceptable cash-flow situation. It is very easy to have a profitable business that goes under because of a single event that disrupts cashflow.

Dave


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

DABurleigh said:


> I haven't looked for anything beyond what has already been reported on MHF, but I presumed the French arrest of the ship, irrespective of its rights and wrongs, forced an unacceptable cash-flow situation. It is very easy to have a profitable business that goes under because of a single event that disrupts cashflow.
> 
> Dave


Yes Dave, I had the same thoughts.

Mine went a bit further though in view of the aggro some of the big operators have given Speedferries in the past.

Where are all the conspiracy theorists when you need them? 8O 8O


----------



## androidGB (May 26, 2005)

DABurleigh said:


> I haven't looked for anything beyond what has already been reported on MHF, but I presumed the French arrest of the ship, irrespective of its rights and wrongs, forced an unacceptable cash-flow situation. It is very easy to have a profitable business that goes under because of a single event that disrupts cashflow.
> 
> Dave


But a profitable business should have the ability to pay its debts in a timely manner, thereby avoiding circumstance that might hinder it's cashflow

Andrew


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

I rather think the issue is the trade between profit and responsibly run. You can maximise profit by holding greater risk, consciously or unconsciously. Whether the racy arrogant Northern Rock Directors did what they did consciously, or rather unconsciously through simple ignorance and incompetence, I don't know. 

And the same goes for Curt, who also I suppose could have simply been unlucky.

Dave


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Fares*



aultymer said:


> > " Sorry but we have got to put the fares up to make sure we don't end up like Speedferries"
> 
> 
> and the problem is - they just may be correct!!
> ...


Speedferries could not accept most Motorhomes and as you know we all have pots of cash!.

Joking aside, SeaFrance have low fares and have just launched a brand new Vessel!.

Trev.


----------



## camper69 (Aug 30, 2007)

*Re: Fares*



teemyob said:


> Joking aside, SeaFrance have low fares and have just launched a brand new Vessel!.
> 
> Trev.


But they don't mind how much they mess you around

Derek


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

It's a shame that a LoCo ferry operator is in administration. As posters have said, that will allow the other operators to get back to cartel-style pricing.

Why was the opportunity missed to build a bridge from Dover to Calais? It was and still is technically feasible. The true reason is that the Thatcher government rejected the bid by the consortium that proposed a bridge, on the grounds that the MoD felt it would put the channel ferries out of business. If a Channel crossing bridge were built, there would be insufficient ferries for the MoD to commandeer if the Warsaw Pact invaded West Germany. The British Army relied on the availability of civilian RoRo ferries for rapid reinforcement. 

What we eventually got is an expensive ferry on rails, while Glasnost occurred and the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Time for a re-think about building a bridge? Sweden and Denmark are connected by one ..


SD


----------



## camper69 (Aug 30, 2007)

Its only half the distance between Denmark and Sweden than across the channel

I would be a bit worried about all those ships going up and down the channel that one would hit the bridge.

Derek


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Re: Fares*



teemyob said:


> aultymer said:
> 
> 
> > > " Sorry but we have got to put the fares up to make sure we don't end up like Speedferries"
> ...


Re SeaFrance and the new vessel.

Does SeaFrance receive pots of money in subsidy from the French Government? Does anyone know how/where to find out?

Russell


----------



## SpeedyDux (Jul 13, 2007)

Ignore the dates, because this wasn't an April Fool. I was involved in a small way in the original bid in the 1980s. The bridge would have been built quicker and more cheaply than the Chunnel. There would also have been a single rail tunnel for high speed passenger trains.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-446048/Maggies-Channel-Bridge.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6517611.stm :

"Cross-Channel bridge bid revealed

Plans for the Anglo-French bridge have been preserved 
People could have driven between England and France across a huge suspension bridge if plans had been approved, records show. 
A submission for a £3bn three-lane motorway link was made to transport officials in April 1981, files released by the National Archives show.

*Engineering group LinktoEurope estimated motorists would pay a £5.60 toll charge and lorries £8 to cross. *
The records did not show how seriously the government considered the plans.

Margaret Thatcher's government was discussing the Channel Tunnel project when the bridge plan was submitted for consideration.

Huge pylons

Dismissing the option of tunnelling under the Channel as "impractical", the LinktoEurope proposal suggested a bridge spanning 21 miles from Dover or perhaps Folkestone.

The bridge, 220ft above Channel waters, would bring in a revenue of up to £220m a year, the group estimated.

Engineers conceded the huge pylons on which the bridge would rest could make navigation of the Channel difficult for ships.

However, they said the structure would be sturdy enough so that traffic above would be unaffected if a vessel ploughed into the struts.

The Channel Tunnel opened in 1994 and took eight years to be built."

The true reason why it was rejected was the opposition by the MoD as I said in my earlier post.

SD


----------

