Cammell Laird Website

Click the camel

E.mail me.

August 3rd.

It now looks almost certain that with the yards now effectively closed a deal or possibly deals will be done. The government and RBS come out of all this very badly, as has already been said. CMM shareholders will get nothing at all out of this result, but at least the workforce do stand to get jobs again. I hope that "Carnival" (Costa Classica) are eventually obliged to pay up too. Then shareholders could get something?

Searches were all done from the feedback page on this site.

RBS profits up 37%. All businesses performing well. So much for that then!

Old title comment
This page appealed to the UK government to stop the spin and actually DO SOMETHING!
Wonders will never cease! Cash IS available to help out at Motorola, way in advance of closure! Where, might we ask, yet again is the help for Cammell Laird? Are Ships not as voteworthy as microchips? Or am I being cynical? That was one of Mr. Blairs' "Hi tech future" prospects, though wasn't it? July and STILL no action! DISGRACEFUL!
Making mobile phones and working in call centres is NOT the answer!

Sunday 22nd. / Monday 23rd. Alchemy Partners (AP) appear to have a plan to take over both companies currently held in part by RBS. (Report in Mail on Sunday.) "We might close a few yards" they say. To my mind a combination under AP could be a good idea, as long as a facility remains on each of the current riversides, Tyne, Tees and Mersey. Minister Byers could easily ask Gordon if he can spare some of that £37BN he has accumulated! A larger company should be better placed than two smaller ones. I have not looked at the actual figures, but the proposal should be considered. The Unions are quite right to be concerned though, since AP are regarded as "asset strippers" which may, or may not be the case.

Tuesday 17th. Apparently RBS are considering supporting buying out part of Cammell Laird. Why did they not, considering all the facts (here and elsewhere) support the WHOLE company? They could have had contact with the Italian bank which failed to pay the company?

Text of my letter to Mr. Byers appears below. Written before I saw the one quoted below it.

The CMM shares will only regain value if the whole company is rescued. The current debt level (for whatever reason) is far too high. Similarly a "Rights Issue" or placing at 1 for 1 at the current shareprice would not raise £20m, let alone £100m.

Sent 12th. April 2001

The same situation arose at Swan Hunter, a yard I visited when at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I wrote to the Prime Minister then, and had a response. That yard survived, under new ownership.

Speculation in Sunday Express that Swans may bid for some of Lairds

Dear Trade Secretary,

To say I am disappointed with the news from Cammell Laird yesterday is putting it mildly. I am NOT a shareholder in the company, but am interested in the future of UK shipbuilding. It is NOT good enough merely to assist in selling the company off to another EU concern, as appears to be the likely scenario if your department doesn't do something.

I cannot understand why you left Cammell Laird to sort out the Costa Classica debacle! That surely flies against EU and company law! You should at least have been able to enable the company to trade without a cash flow problem. Other EU competitors seem to manage to support their shipyards, so why not divert a bit of Gordon Brown's Cash mountain NOW and give Cammell Laird a lifeline!

You have had PLENTY of time to resolve this problem, so please act now. Debate the matter with Brussels later if they kick up a fuss! This company is too good to lose!

Patrick K. Murphy

Apologies for not having a direct response link here on the page. You can reach me at this e.mail link

Posted on iii 12th. April

Click the link below re the DTI or cut and paste into notepad.

DTI contact

Reply as on 3rd May 2001

Malcolm Clements

Shipbuilding Unit

Internet: malcolm.clements@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr Murphy,

Thank you for your e-mail of 12 April to Mr Byers about the future of Cammell Laird. I have been asked to reply as I have responsibility for the shipbuilding industry.

We share your concern and disappointment about the difficulties that Cammell Laird group are currently experiencing with the appointment of Receivers to Cammell Laird Group Plc and Administrators to Cammell Laird Holdings Plc . You may be assured that the DTI is in close contact with the Receivers of the Cammell Laird companies. The Secretary of State, Mr Byers, has stressed to them how important it is that the companies are sold as a going and continuing concern. We fully recognise that this is a very worrying time for Cammell Laird employees and their families and we regret that there has been a need for some redundancies. We continue to work closely with the Receivers to help in any way we can.

The DTI is also in regular contact with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to ensure that Cammell Laird can be considered for future work on equal terms with other yards. MoD are clear that Cammell Laird are free to compete for new orders, provided they do so on the same basis as other shipyards bidding. I should add that MoD are fully supportive of the Receivers' aim to complete the refitting of Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Argus, worth over £9m, at Cammell Laird's Birkenhead yard. MoD have made an initial payment of £1.5m against work already completed and have agreed a payment schedule with the Receiver to enable further payments to be made as work progresses. MoD officials are also in discussions with the Receiver about the contract Cammell Laird has recently won for the refitting of RFA Fort George, which is due to arrive at the Tyneside yard on 7 May.

The matter of the Costa Classica is and remains a commercial matter. Nonetheless, the DTI did discuss the situation informally with the Italian Government and the European Commission but Cammell Laird specifically asked the DTI not to intervene in the dispute. This contractual difficulty will now be for the Administrators, Receivers and the Italian customer, Costa Crociere, to resolve.

The Government continues to support shipbuilding in general by working with the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association to improve the commercial effectiveness of the UK's yards. This is being achieved through programmes to enhance the shipyards' productivity and marketing as well as the skills and training of their employees.

I hope this reply goes some way to addressing your concerns.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Clements

 

Author

Mollington

Date posted: Thursday at 11:27

Subject: My Swan Song

Recommendations: This message has been recommended 20 times.

The Recommendations number could be greater by now. This page was set up at about 15.50 Thursday.12th.

 dti.enquiries@imsv.dti.gov.uk (address it to Stephen Byers in subject line)

Message:

 Daft as it might be, I intend to email Stephen Byers the enclosed letter. If you feel the same, recommend it and I will enclose your non de plumes. I will send it on Tuesday. The only problem is keeping it at the top of the BB over the long weekend for as many as possible to see.
Mr. Stephen Byers,
Department of Trade & Industry,
12/04/01

Dear Mr Byers,

Re: Cammell Laird Holdings PLC (In Receivership)

The votes you shouldn’t forget.

The action of the receivership has drawn a definite line across this company. Those above the line are the ones the political vote sees. The workers and those in Frank Field’s constituency possibly 30,000 in all. Those below the line, that you are forgetting but who won’t forget your actions: The share holder probably 10’s of thousands, The bond holders, Institutions who pension funds will be severely affected probably 100’s of thousands. Your maths should be better.

Even at this late stage if it were possible to call some form of EGM to find out if together with addition Government support the share and bond holders would also help. From reading the bulletin boards many LOYAL share holders feel the same. I for one and I can assure you many, many others, could have dumped shares and ran, but hung on in there believing in this company.

You can and could have done much more, much earlier. Those below the line will not forget.

 

I suspect many of the shareholders are those same constituents and the workforce. They put money in on the revival. If the company is sold on as a going concern, they will lose out on that count, as the shares in the current company are likely to be worthless. Millington's suggestion of further support seems the better option. The Italians should also be pursued! For their benefit too!

Please respond to the original posting on the iii board, or write to the DTI itself (May amend this)

Page Created 12th April 2001 Updated 3rd. May.

Disclaimer. I have no financial interest in any of the companies involved in this affair. It just seems to me a grossly unfair situation which should have been solved months ago, to the benefit of both the concerned parties.

Some Information on the Costa Classica.

Article from a cruise webpage on The Costa Classica.

Paste the link at the head of the cutting.

http://www.cybercruises.com/costaclassica.htm

The Planned Transformation to the Costa Classica.

To correct these errors, the Costa Classica might undergo the most radical transformation done on a modern cruise ship. The rebuilding comprises both to lengthen and to add an extra deck to the 1991 built Costa Classica.

Cammel Laird was awarded with the $84.15 million contract, one of the biggest ever signed for this purpose. In recent years other modern, but small cruise ships, have undergone the same operation: the Norwegian Wind and Norwegian Dream sisters, and the Norwegian Majesty, all carried out in German yards.

The advantages of a lengthening operation are obvious:

- a shorter delivery time than a newbuilding;

- the cost per berth is two-thirds of a new ship;

- in some cases you have a more sleek and hydrodynamic hull;

- and, of course, you lower the operating cost per guest and per mile.

The Costa Classica should have entered in Cammel Laird's Merseyside docks on November 23.

Then, she should have been cut in two and then a new 44.8 metres midship section should have been inserted, which would have increased her length to 265.4 metres. Six new generators and switchboards, as well as a larger sewage and air conditioning plants should have been installed on her lower decks. On her upper decks, the existing Lido deck should have been raised and another swimming pool, with four jacuzzis, added.

Furthermore around 352 new passenger cabins and 132 crew cabins should have been provided and new passenger facilities such as a piano bar, a Winter Garden Bar, two additional lounges, a teen area, and a Internet Cafe' should have been built. In order to increase her service speed her existing diesel-driven twin screw propulsion system was to be retained with the addirion of a new 8 Mw podded drive, mounted centrally between the two rudders, which were also to be retained.

The extra added power would have more than compensated for the extra weight of the stretched vessel and would have increased the ship'speed to around 23 knots. The existing propeller blades would have been adapted for a higher speed. The use of the pod eliminates the need for stern thrusters and reduces noise and vibrations due to its twin small diameter propellers.

One additional forward thruster would have been added. The work had to be finished on 22 March 2001 a date that would have enabled the ship to fullfil her summer Mediterranean season. Then, the Costa Classica would have increased her gross tonnage from 53,000 to around 79,000 and her maximum passenger capacity from 1,764 to 2,516.

Contract Problems

During the voyage between Genoa and Liverpool, while off La Coruña, Spain's Nort-West coast, Costa Classica's Captain received the order to return to her homeport. Costa motived the decision saying that there was a delay by Cammel Laird and that there was a notable risk that the contract could not be completed within the scheduled 17 weeks.

Costa added that had not been possible to find a solution through normal business agreements.

The contract is subject to Italian law and the arbitrations is to be held in Genoa.

Actually the Costa Classica is laid up in Genoa and the probability that she will be lenghtened in the near future is very remote.

The Cammel Laird's shares lost more than a third of their value, and up to 2,000 jobs are under threat. The new midship section was launched on 26 November 2000, and now it lies idle in Birkenhead. For many people it will be never "pasted" to the Costa Classica.

Discovered on a further seach.

Paste the link to view the details. E.groups goes off line shortly.

http://www.mail-archive.com/cruise_ships@egroups.com/msg00192.html

> Stefano,
>
> This the latest that I have from a friend.
>
> --Tim
>
> Cammell Laird wanted the stretching contract so badly that they agreed to
> anything Costa asked be included in the contract.

If this snippet means anything, it suggests the contract was, perhaps somewhat overloaded. Bear in mind that it was a rather unusual contract too, not least for its scale.

My comment on the situation as I see it.

E.mail me.

If, as is suggested above, the ship is still laid up in Genoa, it seems to me that the cruise company has, in effect torpedoed itself! The court deliberations over the contract should have been avoided by calling in an independent Marine consultant, and hammering out the problems over the table somewhere in either Genoa or Brussels. This would have been quicker and cheaper. It is also worth remembering that Italian as well as UK workers were working on the new section. That, in itself was a potential problem for the main contractor. As it is, both sides have lost out considerably and a huge amount of work has gone to waste. Is it too late to do this and finish the job? At least some of the blame could be attributed to impatience from the RBS and the unwillingness of the Gov't to act to give a medium term loan.

The last sections above are pasted from other web pages for which I have pasted the links, save for my own comment in the last panel. This should not have happened!

LATEST

Posted on iii by "Mollington" on 21st April 2001

Summary of the events so far as I (Mollington) see them, and the possible final conclusion.

RBS pulls the rug

Receivers appointed to get back £45M owed to the bank.

A & P Group owned by RBS buy CL for £45M.

RBS receive £45M and the debt of CL is cleared.

RBS have obtained all the assets, orders, expertise of the workforce. In other words a bloody good company, our company, for nothing.

The Bond holders have appointed KMPG to pursue Costa for £51M and will receive a much lager payment than their bonds were worth at the date of receivership.

THE ONLY LOSERS ARE US THE SHAREHOLDERS.

IS it viewable as "Insider Trading?

If that scenario doesn't stink I don't know what does.

Could we as a group, take any legal action against RBS, for what is the equivalent of insider dealing, for our losses should the above situation eventually take place.

Is any body up to forming a shareholders committee, to lobby as one body the receivers, so as to carry more clout, than individuals. Possibly with the help of Patrick Murphy we could build our own web site for this purpose. Let's not go down without a fight.

P.K.Murphy

Pasted here as it appears on iii, with two minor amendments. 21st. April 2001