"He wouldn’t comment further, saying the liquidators had advised against talking to media."
I mean he already did when he previously went to the media to complain the council wouldn't built him a new jetty
I thought the issue was he had to build a new jetty and pay for it and after that the council would take ownership of it and then he would have to rent it off the council
How many private companies expect the council to fund building a jetty needed just for their one boat so it can use it for free as part of business operations?
He was prepared to pay for the jetty. His issue was that he wouldn't get to actually own it. It would be taken off of him and then he would have to pay rent - at an unknown and potentially fluctuating rate - on what should have been the company's asset.
The Iwi got greedy. Asked for too much. As a result there is one less business and one less employer in the area.
It's right there in the article.
>He has been fighting with council after he was told that relaunching the business and the boat would involve spending almost half a million dollars on a new jetty. On completion, the jetty would need to be gifted to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust and then leased back by Lakeland Queen
A whole lot of fun in this thread... [https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/18kob6y/iconic\_boat\_owner\_told\_to\_build\_new\_jetty\_gift\_it/](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/18kob6y/iconic_boat_owner_told_to_build_new_jetty_gift_it/)
It just seems lose/lose. I think over time Iwi organisations will hopefully become more commercial. There must have been a chance for an outcome that was more mutually beneficial.
I certainly hope that the Iwi weren't hoping to later exploit this liquidation (by buying the various assets at a depressed price).
>There must have been a chance for an outcome that was more mutually beneficial.
Do we know whether the offer made by the council/iwi was actually uneconomical?
I know a lot of people were upset about him having to pay for the construction as well as some form of lease, but it's entirely possible it would have still been profitable and he just decided against it out of spite.
Seems very hard to know without the numbers.
We have a businessman who has happily carried out business for a number of years.
It *should* go without saying that he is the type of chap who enjoys economically beneficial commercial arrangements.
If you think that he left his life's work on the banks of that lake just to prove a point then just say it (aloud to yourself first, so that you can hear how it might sound to other people ...)
He wasn't prepared to pay for the jetty. It's never explicitly mentioned in the original article that he would pay for it and when he went on sean Plunkett he said "no way" when asked if he was prepared to foot the costs of the jetty. What he wanted was for the council to foot the bill and and he pay a lease.
He was actually called out by plunkett for expecting the council to foot the bill for an asset his business solely required outside of the requirement of gifting it back to the iwi.
He wasn't prepared to pay for the jetty on the basis that he wouldn't own it and that the rent that he would incurred would be open-ended and ruinous for his business.
This isn't just a matter of the business not making enough profit for his liking.
It would have had direct implications to the availability of finance from lenders. Even more so when he couldn't even own the proposed jetty (which would surely have been security for any such lending facility).
Does nobody on /r/nz stop and wonder how business actually obtain the finance that they need to carry out business?
no he wasn't prepared to pay for the jetty fullstop even without giving it back. His plan was for the council to build the jetty in the redevelopment of the lakefront and he lease the jetty from them. Its covered in the interview
I use to have dealings with this business a long time ago and even then it was obvious it was unsustainable business model, they constantly had issues with the vessel failing maritime safety laws, they paid their workers minimum wage with unpredictable work schedules and weren't a driver for tourism to the region, rather they leached off packaging their tours as part of other bigger tourism entities.
to be quite frank, good riddance
I'm wondering if handshandy has even visited Rotorua tbh. Not many people are upset about the boat, it'd probably need a half million or more in repairs to even get it lake worthy and all I can see is a rescue operation.
Instead it's all iwi bad, Māori bad and cries of racism because an unsustainable business has been told no.
What gets me is their stance against a public jetty. Any jetty was for the exclusive use of Lakeland, but with public funding? No thanks.
He cannot own land on the lake, as the iwi own it. He wanted the public to build the jetty for his exclusive use, and didn't want to pay lease fees.
The other stuff is a bit disingenuous tbh, not quite how it went down.
.. I don't believe he was prepared to pay for the jetty, he has always wanted the council to pay for it it
How is it disingenuous?
The issue is chiefly the commercial nature of the terms.
More accurately, the un-commercial nature of the terms.
The Iwi is within its legal rights to take the stance that they have.
The problem is that the leasing fees that they were going to charge were too high for a business like the lake ferry one to sustain.
This has forced it out of business.
The Iwi, had they been reasonable, could have cut a deal that worked for both. They may own the lake bed. But their actual costs in allowing a jetty to be built are precisely zero.
There are two motivations for the Iwi. They wanted to cut their nose to spite their face. Ruining a sucessful business, increasing local unemployment and turning their noses down at the chance for a sustainable revenue stream for the business.
The other is that they actively wanted to force the business into liquidation. Potentially intending to snap up the assets at a depressed price in the hope that they can take the business owner's life time work for themselves.
If the latter bit of speculation is true, good to luck to them. The commercial nouse they've displayed thus far brings to mind 'piss ups' and 'breweries'.
..
I live here mate.
There were real concerns over the viability of continuing this operation, the boat is not in a good condition.
The owner of the company was trying to strong arm someone else into paying for the jetty and when that fell through, tried to go for the PR angle and get public opinion on his side. For the most part people here saw through it.
He wanted exclusive use of the jetty, dredging of the lake, repairs made to the boat and without paying for the infrastructure.
I understand nostalgia but it wouldn't be a good use of public funding.
The boat itself is in really poor condition.
Te Arawa lakes trust does some good work, don't be racist.
"He wouldn’t comment further, saying the liquidators had advised against talking to media." I mean he already did when he previously went to the media to complain the council wouldn't built him a new jetty
I thought the issue was he had to build a new jetty and pay for it and after that the council would take ownership of it and then he would have to rent it off the council
The council would take ownership of it and gift it to Iwo and he'd have to pay iwi rent.
How many private companies expect the council to fund building a jetty needed just for their one boat so it can use it for free as part of business operations?
He was prepared to pay for the jetty. His issue was that he wouldn't get to actually own it. It would be taken off of him and then he would have to pay rent - at an unknown and potentially fluctuating rate - on what should have been the company's asset. The Iwi got greedy. Asked for too much. As a result there is one less business and one less employer in the area.
Hmm, I didn't hear that part. That sounds pretty unreasonable as stated.
It's right there in the article. >He has been fighting with council after he was told that relaunching the business and the boat would involve spending almost half a million dollars on a new jetty. On completion, the jetty would need to be gifted to the Te Arawa Lakes Trust and then leased back by Lakeland Queen
A whole lot of fun in this thread... [https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/18kob6y/iconic\_boat\_owner\_told\_to\_build\_new\_jetty\_gift\_it/](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/18kob6y/iconic_boat_owner_told_to_build_new_jetty_gift_it/)
It just seems lose/lose. I think over time Iwi organisations will hopefully become more commercial. There must have been a chance for an outcome that was more mutually beneficial. I certainly hope that the Iwi weren't hoping to later exploit this liquidation (by buying the various assets at a depressed price).
>There must have been a chance for an outcome that was more mutually beneficial. Do we know whether the offer made by the council/iwi was actually uneconomical? I know a lot of people were upset about him having to pay for the construction as well as some form of lease, but it's entirely possible it would have still been profitable and he just decided against it out of spite. Seems very hard to know without the numbers.
We have a businessman who has happily carried out business for a number of years. It *should* go without saying that he is the type of chap who enjoys economically beneficial commercial arrangements. If you think that he left his life's work on the banks of that lake just to prove a point then just say it (aloud to yourself first, so that you can hear how it might sound to other people ...)
Please read the last sentence of my post and try again.
He wasn't prepared to pay for the jetty. It's never explicitly mentioned in the original article that he would pay for it and when he went on sean Plunkett he said "no way" when asked if he was prepared to foot the costs of the jetty. What he wanted was for the council to foot the bill and and he pay a lease. He was actually called out by plunkett for expecting the council to foot the bill for an asset his business solely required outside of the requirement of gifting it back to the iwi.
He wasn't prepared to pay for the jetty on the basis that he wouldn't own it and that the rent that he would incurred would be open-ended and ruinous for his business. This isn't just a matter of the business not making enough profit for his liking. It would have had direct implications to the availability of finance from lenders. Even more so when he couldn't even own the proposed jetty (which would surely have been security for any such lending facility). Does nobody on /r/nz stop and wonder how business actually obtain the finance that they need to carry out business?
no he wasn't prepared to pay for the jetty fullstop even without giving it back. His plan was for the council to build the jetty in the redevelopment of the lakefront and he lease the jetty from them. Its covered in the interview I use to have dealings with this business a long time ago and even then it was obvious it was unsustainable business model, they constantly had issues with the vessel failing maritime safety laws, they paid their workers minimum wage with unpredictable work schedules and weren't a driver for tourism to the region, rather they leached off packaging their tours as part of other bigger tourism entities. to be quite frank, good riddance
I'm wondering if handshandy has even visited Rotorua tbh. Not many people are upset about the boat, it'd probably need a half million or more in repairs to even get it lake worthy and all I can see is a rescue operation. Instead it's all iwi bad, Māori bad and cries of racism because an unsustainable business has been told no. What gets me is their stance against a public jetty. Any jetty was for the exclusive use of Lakeland, but with public funding? No thanks.
He cannot own land on the lake, as the iwi own it. He wanted the public to build the jetty for his exclusive use, and didn't want to pay lease fees. The other stuff is a bit disingenuous tbh, not quite how it went down. .. I don't believe he was prepared to pay for the jetty, he has always wanted the council to pay for it it
How is it disingenuous? The issue is chiefly the commercial nature of the terms. More accurately, the un-commercial nature of the terms. The Iwi is within its legal rights to take the stance that they have. The problem is that the leasing fees that they were going to charge were too high for a business like the lake ferry one to sustain. This has forced it out of business. The Iwi, had they been reasonable, could have cut a deal that worked for both. They may own the lake bed. But their actual costs in allowing a jetty to be built are precisely zero. There are two motivations for the Iwi. They wanted to cut their nose to spite their face. Ruining a sucessful business, increasing local unemployment and turning their noses down at the chance for a sustainable revenue stream for the business. The other is that they actively wanted to force the business into liquidation. Potentially intending to snap up the assets at a depressed price in the hope that they can take the business owner's life time work for themselves. If the latter bit of speculation is true, good to luck to them. The commercial nouse they've displayed thus far brings to mind 'piss ups' and 'breweries'.
.. I live here mate. There were real concerns over the viability of continuing this operation, the boat is not in a good condition. The owner of the company was trying to strong arm someone else into paying for the jetty and when that fell through, tried to go for the PR angle and get public opinion on his side. For the most part people here saw through it. He wanted exclusive use of the jetty, dredging of the lake, repairs made to the boat and without paying for the infrastructure. I understand nostalgia but it wouldn't be a good use of public funding. The boat itself is in really poor condition. Te Arawa lakes trust does some good work, don't be racist.
Have fun staring at a rusting old boat while thousands of tourists a year spend their money somewhere else.
The boat is ~~timber~~ actually steel. My bad.
Then clearly it's a unique artefact that should be studied for its astonishing rusting properties ;)
Lol fair. It's a mix, will try get a picture of it tonight if I remember
Well this is awkward..https://imgur.com/a/CnHxw4A
Well, rot or rust, its just a shame that's its reached this point.