The Floater
  • The Floater November 2018
  • The Floater October 2018
  • The Floater September 2018
  • The Floater August 2018
  • The Floater July 2018
  • The Floater June 2018
  • The Floater May 2018
  • The Floater April 2018
  • The Floater March 2018
  • The Floater February 2018
  • The Floater January 2018
  • The Floater December 2017
  • The Floater November 2017
  • The Floater October 2017
  • Floater September 2017
  • Floater August 2017
  • The Floater July 2017
  • The Floater June 2017
  • The Floater May 2017
  • The Floater April 2017
  • The Floater March 2017
  • The Floater February 2017
  • The Floater January 2017
  • Floater December 2016
  • Floater December Update
  • Floater November 2016
  • Floater October 2016
  • Floater September 2016
  • Floater August 2016
  • Floater July 2016
  • Floater June 2016
  • Floater May 2016
  • Floater April 2016
  • Floater April 2016 PAGE TWO
  • Floater March 2016
  • Floater February 2016
  • Floater January 2016
  • Most recent issues
  • Information
  • The Floater on Facebook and Twitter
  • The Floater January 2017
  • Link Page
  • The Floater January 2017

Is a new logo enough to close C&RT's financial black hole?

24/3/2018

16 Comments

 
Why does Canal & River Trust appear to be floundering and making changes which begin to look a lot like desperation? Just five years in, it is changing everything from its internal structures to boat licences and even selling off marinas – to say nothing of yet another corporate identity. Peter Underwood has been taking a long look at what lies behind the incessant urge to change.

The Canal & River Trust was born out of a Tory Prime Minister's urge to create what he called a 'third sector solution'. The problem he was 'solving' was government's financial responsibility for a national asset of global importance – the British waterways.

David Cameron wanted to privatise the waterways but could not go as far as selling them to commercial interests as there was no private sector appetite for sustaining them as navigations. His solution was to pass them to a charity, not a proper charity, but one created by government and unaccountable to members or users.

In the preceding decade, under British Waterways, there had been unprecedented investment in the waterways, often with lottery cash, that saw major restorations like the Rochdale and Huddersfield canals.

Yet, with the active help of British Waterways executives, who argued that it would be even easier to access lottery funds and local authority cash and the alternative was ever-shrinking budgets within the public sector, C&RT was established. It was a sort of low key tribute to the neo liberal view of economics that wanted to avoid tax money going to public sector work.

The sweetener was an annual grant from Defra of £40m a year with an extra £10m if C&RT met certain targets.

The sting in the tail was that that additional £10m starts to decrease year by year after 2022 and the grant itself ends in 2027 with no guarantees there will ever be any more cash from government.

Five years on, and 2022 looks alarmingly close and 2027 not that far away – and that is what underlies all the frantic management efforts to re position C&RT in the public mind.
Despite the relentlessley upbeat annual reports and public relations campaigns, the reality is that the Trust is not even close filling the £50m black hole that the loss of tax cash will leave; and many of its fund raising efforts have fallen flat. The Friends of C&RT scheme has yet to break even over its lifetime, and the now-scrapped Waterways Partnerships cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a year and failed to raise a single penny, for example.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that chief executive Richard Parry and his Trustees have come to the conclusion that the only replacement for Government money is more Government money and all the signs of a shift away from C&RT being a waterways charity to being something more relevant to many more people are already there.

Lat year's annual report said: “Our vision now is for living waterways that transform places and enrich lives. To achieve this, we want to release our canals and rivers’ potential as catalysts again – especially in those areas that need it most.”

At the same time the Trust spent another tranche of money on an expensive academic report on the impact of waterways on people's 'well-being' and well-being has become the new C&RT buzz-word.

Richard Parry, once very concerned to be seen as the boaters friend, has almost disappeared from view as far as boaters are aware, and even fails to intervene when the Trust's reputation with volunteers and canal users is badly damaged – as his refusal to do anything about the shameful treatment of Colin Ogden's Lanky Boaters adoption illustrates.

His concern is no longer boaters or perhaps even navigation – it is bringing many more of the 25 million people claimed to be living near C&RT's waterways into the equation and using them as a lever to extract more government cash after cuts begin in four years time.

Given that the current C&RT image has not achieved that, as the figures for Trust 'friends' and other donations amply illustrate, it should be no surprise to boaters that their needs are being overtaken by the urgent need of C&RT bosses to make a case for a large lump of government money for all the good work they claim waterways do in improving the health and well-being of non-boaters.

Boater owners tend to see everything through the lens of their own requirements, naturally enough, and the announcement of the redesign of the C&RT image coincided with the Middlewich embankment collapse – with the cost estimates of both rumoured to be around £2m.

It was inevitable that many boaters drew the comparison and expressed trenchant views – but it was probably mistaken.

To begin with C&RT insists the rebrand came out of it's existing marketing budget and eventually its public relations staff came up with a figure of £60,000 rather than £2m.  Jonathan Ludford told The Floater: “This year we have spent some of this marketing budget on developing our brand, which included testing with market research groups and developing logo and design guidelines. The spend for this activity is estimated at around £60k, so nowhere near £2 million.

“As we’ve said, there is no new marketing budget for this and we are not taking any money away from maintenance spend. I don’t have a figure for the next 2-3 years, but it will be mainly on a replacement basis, so again no new money.”

Perhaps the question boaters might be asking is whether this is enough to turn around the failures of the past in presenting C&RT to a public which seems largely indifferent to the appeal of keeping canals and rivers as working navigations.

Unfortunately, because of the decision to remove direct national accountability for our waterways from Government and place it in the hands of a soon-to-be inadequately funded pseudo charity, boaters are set to suffer as the funds dry up.

Even with the planned increase in licences, and given that there will no longer be an income from BWML as it is being sold, boaters will contribute less than £40m a year to C&RT coffers.

There is some scope for increased income from investments and donations but, even on best estimates, the only real way of sustaining current spending would be to load the burden on the boaters who use the system.

It is not unrealistic to estimate that would require a doubling of licence and mooring fees.

Given that we are lumbered with the very imperfect C&RT organisation, and there is currently no realistic prospect of returning the waterways to the public sector, where they belong, it may seem that the £60,000 or even more spent on a new logo is small beer by comparison with a doubling of boating costs.

Richard Parry's strategy is risky and there are no guarantees that the current C&RT has the ability to generate widespread appeal and awareness. He is gambling that a future government, of an unknown political persuasion, can be convinced to hand over millions on the basis that waterways are good for everyone.
16 Comments
Roger Abbott
24/3/2018 07:38:34

"He is gambling that a future government, of an unknown political persuasion, can be convinced to hand over millions on the basis that waterways are good for everyone."

So basically, we're screwed !

Reply
Brian D Jarrett
24/3/2018 08:17:09

It becomes clearer as to why the Goverment did not approve the transfer of EA waters to CRT
They probably anticipate the gradual demise of CRT as they fail to secure sufficient funding to replace the current agreed funding when it stops
Perhaps the way forward is for individual canals to be adopted by the local canal society becoming a Trust and charging individuals that use both their towpaths and waterways !
The revenue used to maintain to a a minimum standard this would mean the canal system fragmenting into individual canals much as it was in the days before “Nationalisation”
This is not the best scenario but may be the only possible way forward without Goverment funding

Reply
Roger Abbot
24/3/2018 09:16:30

I think that should that situation arise the upper echelons of CRT's directors and managers would attempt to retain control over local societies (not to mention their bonuses and pay packets) which would probably result in perfectly reasonable and effective groups being forced to comply with CRT's particular brand of corporate stupidity much as in the case of Owd Lanky Boaters. CRT do not like being put into second place and their incompetence being exposed by others more capable of sensible decision making !

Reply
Miles
24/3/2018 11:21:27

Excellent article covering all the bases. Thank you. Should generate continued discussion. On that note may I reply to Brian J that individual canals being adopted does not work. Here on the Basingstoke we have found that the various stakeholders along its length quickly walk from committed waterway funding as soon as there are pressures on their purse from other community issues.

Reply
Alan Theaker
24/3/2018 13:09:26

Brian Jarrett has hit the nail on the head. When I joined the cut in 2003 BW had just spent £30m on a new fleet of tugs, barges with interchangeable cabin modules & plant whilst in discussions to lay off half their maintenance force in favour of outstanding. They also vacated their own free office space in favour of leasing city centre stock. Were busy selling off canal/lock cottages where the money should been spent for future investment. So it's no wonder they alienated themselves. Also where ever we go we're accosted by one charity or another wanting our money so the last thing a family wants when out for a leisurely stroll beside a canal is to be accosted by a CRT fundraiser with a clipboard. So I'm not at all surprised theyr now asking. Now then who are they trying to kid that a logo change will only cost £60k. There's stationary, that takes care of £60k. Sign age throughout the cut, £160k & let's not forget cars,vans & trucks however many. So £2m is about right & what is the point! There was nothing wrong with the old BW logo. So pub venture went into liquidation & they now need to sell off their marinas rapid before their BWML follows suit. Why then are they continuing to spend tens of £k's installing electric pedestals in them when money is tight?!
Whistler

Reply
colin
24/3/2018 21:09:58

So now we are having our money wasted over a logo...REALLY!?,a sodding logo!?...60k (the cost of a lock replacement) or 2m (the cost of a breach repair)...The amount is irrelevant...It is still a waste of public money and more money NOT spent on our waterways.

Reply
Alan Theaker
25/3/2018 17:51:46

Prior to retiring back in 2003 I was myself an employer selling goods & services to commercial, domestic & public sector customers in all aspects buildings maintenance. Ide also dabbled with inventions my own, manufacturing & marketing them without success & still have 98% share in a LTd company I formed wich has been dormant since 1983. So for a few years I was running two businesses separately as are CRT with BWML. The only difference being that I was a born entrepreneur whereas CRT & BWML are being managed by civil servants on the advice of employed business consultants. Messy to say the least. Now if one logs onto BWML website, in one sentence it says BWML is a subsidiary of C&RT & at the bottom of the page it says BWML is wholly owned private company wich sounds fishy to me, especially when we get mixed readings about wich owns the 19 marinas that BWML operates. Initially some of these marinas never existed so we're built from scratch at a cost of say £8m a piece. That's money otherwise destined for restoration & ongoing maintenance of our IW. Now overheads & management don't come cheap & with initial outlay one wouldn't expect to see a return on an £8m build for at least 12 yrs were it filled to capacity & isn't there another being built right now? So there needs to be some clarity as to what will happen to these marinas if in the event BWML goes bust before they manage to offload them & from where exactly is the money coming from to put in the proposed metered electric pedistals, C&RT or BWML. Could just be me but nothing seems to add up.
Whistler nb Sawdust

Reply
Brian D Jarrett
26/3/2018 11:57:06

Alan I concurs whole heartily with your comment
I to was a captain of industry in a world wide organisation
I’ve written an open letter to Richard Pary expressing my concerns and assuming that their hidden agenda is to provide “ an 18” linear water park ! “

Reply
Roger Abbott
26/3/2018 13:11:16

He wont answer you know, what you need to do is post a comment on here but put his email address into the email address box and tick the little box at the bottom which says "Notify me of new comments to this post by emal", then post a reply to your comment and it will end up in his email inbox. (assuming he hasn't already identified email from the floater as spam)

Alan Theaker
27/3/2018 11:10:24

Lol, brilliant suggestion Roger.
Whistler

Reply
Roger Abbott
28/3/2018 08:00:13

;-)

Reply
Colin
28/3/2018 10:50:10

Or you could email D.E.F.R.A. if you like being fobbed off!!.
Ministerial Contact Unit <correspondence.section@defra.gsi.gov.uk>

Reply
MikeD
28/3/2018 11:26:16

I am not disputing the loss of the government funding, but is it as essential and its loss as desperate as the article claims? CRT do have another potential source of funding that they could exploit in the years ahead. Here is one example - CRT's Hale Wharf development - 900 flats near the tube in London - a development partnered with another development company, but built on CRT land. CRT are not leasing or selling the land to another developer this time - they are the co-developers and will gain revenue from the sale of flats and rent - and no doubt some of their investment will come from the Mayor's £ 2billion pound fund to encourage development in this area. If CRT pull this one off and then do the same with other London land they own in partnership and with the encouragement of a house building mayor (admittedly that's always a shaky proposition and they are already having trouble with planning permission at Tottenham Hale because of trying to swerve the local Haringey Council's affordable housing recommendations last time I looked) - and no black hole. I think Parry is ignoring boaters for the reason he has always ignored or at best only played lip service to dealing with our needs - we are not where the money is. We never have been and never will be. We are just window dressing at best and a bit of a pain in the arse to him at worse. Property development is where the money is. http://www.hale-wharf.co.uk/

Reply
Roger Abbott
29/3/2018 15:56:57

Bottom line.... " we are not where the money is " and their priority is to fill their own wallets by the look of things so maintenance of the navigation and heritage structures will take second place to the idiots in charge playing at 'global-corporation-tycoon-entrepreneurs' at which they appear to be failing miserably !

Reply
Alan Theaker
28/3/2018 13:54:58

Now that's an interesting piece Micheal. Comes with gullible civil servants being easy prey. So I suppose some government bodies are in on too & wich paves the way for building consent & that puts failing marinas in the limelight for development of high end apartment's. Gets better by the day & considering the prime riverside land owned by the EA it's no wonder Parry & Co express such an interest with an ex bankrupt property tycoon on the board lecturing them on how to get stinking rich in a decade solely by being in the positions they'r in. Does'nt say much for the future of the cut.

Whistler

Reply
foreign exchange services Vancouver link
16/5/2018 19:26:48

No more washing and folding laundry. Get your laundry done for you. Laundry service. Laundry services at your door. I hate laundry. Sort, wash, dry, and fold.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.

    Archives

    March 2018

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly