First time I've seen this, but it certainly answers questions of why Network One tickets aren't competitive when compared with corporate season tickets from the big three. Stagecoach + Go North East alone own 52.22% of shares. If Stagecoach and Go North East agree on something as a coalition, such as pricing structure, then no other coalition of share holders can match that controlling stake of 52.22%. They're not daft are they.
(10 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]First time I've seen this, but it certainly answers questions of why Network One tickets aren't competitive when compared with corporate season tickets from the big three. Stagecoach + Go North East alone own 52.22% of shares. If Stagecoach and Go North East agree on something as a coalition, such as pricing structure, then no other coalition of share holders can match that controlling stake of 52.22%. They're not daft are they.
Conveniently owning just over a 50% majority eh?
The shareholdings are based simply on each participating operator's share of the market in Tyne and Wear, and is the basis on which the revenue from NTL is divided. The Metro share is held by Nexus, who also have a share in respect of the Ferry. A Line is, to the best of my knowledge, the only small operator in Tyne and Wear with a commercial service. The implication is that NTL tickets are not valid on the seasonal Wright Bros service or the 131 Jedburgh service for journeys wholly within Tyne and Wear.
I would imagine that if a new operator was to start a service between, say, Fencehouses and Newcastle, competition law would mean that he would be able to join NTL and be given a shareholding commensurate with his share of the NTL market (assuming he accepted NTL tickets and sold Day Rovers and Transfares if appropriate).
So it shouldn't be a surprise that Metro and Go North East take the lion's share of NTL revenue, as the nature of their operations are going to be more suited to multi-modal journeys. It would be interesting to know what the Ferry's split of the PTE's holding amounts to.
(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]The shareholdings are based simply on each participating operator's share of the market in Tyne and Wear, and is the basis on which the revenue from NTL is divided. The Metro share is held by Nexus, who also have a share in respect of the Ferry. A Line is, to the best of my knowledge, the only small operator in Tyne and Wear with a commercial service. The implication is that NTL tickets are not valid on the seasonal Wright Bros service or the 131 Jedburgh service for journeys wholly within Tyne and Wear.
I would imagine that if a new operator was to start a service between, say, Fencehouses and Newcastle, competition law would mean that he would be able to join NTL and be given a shareholding commensurate with his share of the NTL market (assuming he accepted NTL tickets and sold Day Rovers and Transfares if appropriate).
So it shouldn't be a surprise that Metro and Go North East take the lion's share of NTL revenue, as the nature of their operations are going to be more suited to multi-modal journeys. It would be interesting to know what the Ferry's split of the PTE's holding amounts to.
So if that is the case, Arriva only have 6.1% of the market in Tyne & Wear?
Presumably this dropped when GNE and Arriva did their little deal, meaning Arriva gave up a percentage share in Network Ticketing as a result.
(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]The shareholdings are based simply on each participating operator's share of the market in Tyne and Wear, and is the basis on which the revenue from NTL is divided. The Metro share is held by Nexus, who also have a share in respect of the Ferry. A Line is, to the best of my knowledge, the only small operator in Tyne and Wear with a commercial service. The implication is that NTL tickets are not valid on the seasonal Wright Bros service or the 131 Jedburgh service for journeys wholly within Tyne and Wear.
I would imagine that if a new operator was to start a service between, say, Fencehouses and Newcastle, competition law would mean that he would be able to join NTL and be given a shareholding commensurate with his share of the NTL market (assuming he accepted NTL tickets and sold Day Rovers and Transfares if appropriate).
So it shouldn't be a surprise that Metro and Go North East take the lion's share of NTL revenue, as the nature of their operations are going to be more suited to multi-modal journeys. It would be interesting to know what the Ferry's split of the PTE's holding amounts to.
Shareholdings of NTL and the share of NTL revenue taken are two completely separate things though. Your shareholding stake in a limited company gives you voting powers. Your share of NTL revenue doesn't give you anything but hard cash.
Regarding the Fencehouses example (it's funny how that keeps cropping up
). It's a private limited company with share capital. As such, the company cannot be forced to sell shares to the new operator. Not even anti-competitive laws would dictate this. As a company director for a limited company, I'm actually contractually bound to offer any shares I wish to sell to other shareholders, prior to offering them to a 3rd party. This is not uncommon practice.
On another note, I'd love to know what the £4.7m of assets they have are?
Re Arriva's share: Correct, but that would be their share of the total market, including Metro. I doubt that the Hexham/Ashington swap had much of an effect, as what they lost in the Tyne Valley (four buses per hour?) they probably gained on the Ashington corridor; and GNE combined it into their operations, effectively reducing some overbussing between Crawcrook and Newcastle (or 'drastically reducing service levels', if you're a glass half empty person!).
In many respects, you could trace Arriva's lower market share back to the Metro Integration period in about 1982/3, when United (as was) gave up their share of Newcastle-Throckley/West Denton/Chapel House/Heddon and Newcastle-Newbiggin Hall to the PTE's buses, in exchange for being the sole operator on the Newcastle-Tynemouth service (previously shared by PTE, Tynemouth and Wakefield's). Or further back - swapping their Newcastle-High Spen for Venture's Prudhoe Town Service in 1969. Or even further back - swapping their share of Newcastle-Darras Hall for the Corporation's Newcastle-Branch End back in the 1930's. Taking the longer perspective, you could draw the conclusion that, at various times, their management made the wrong decisions. If the swaps had gone the other way, they might today be a major operator in outer west Newcastle.
(10 Sep 2013, 2:14 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]Shareholdings of NTL and the share of NTL revenue taken are two completely separate things though. Your shareholding stake in a limited company gives you voting powers. Your share of NTL revenue doesn't give you anything but hard cash.
Regarding the Fencehouses example (it's funny how that keeps cropping up ). It's a private limited company with share capital. As such, the company cannot be forced to sell shares to the new operator. Not even anti-competitive laws would dictate this. As a company director for a limited company, I'm actually contractually bound to offer any shares I wish to sell to other shareholders, prior to offering them to a 3rd party. This is not uncommon practice.
NTL is different. It's merely a Competition Act-compliant method of offering multi-modal, multi-operator ticketing. If the scheme was not open to participation by any and all operators, it would not meet the competition requirements of various Transport Acts and the Competition Act (and its special multi-operator ticketing arrangements) and would be declared illegal. Without knowing the articles of association of NTL, I can't claim this to be the gospel truth, but I'm fairly certain that's how it works.
(10 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]Re Arriva's share: Correct, but that would be their share of the total market, including Metro. I doubt that the Hexham/Ashington swap had much of an effect, as what they lost in the Tyne Valley (four buses per hour?) they probably gained on the Ashington corridor; and GNE combined it into their operations, effectively reducing some overbussing between Crawcrook and Newcastle (or 'drastically reducing service levels', if you're a glass half empty person!).
In many respects, you could trace Arriva's lower market share back to the Metro Integration period in about 1982/3, when United (as was) gave up their share of Newcastle-Throckley/West Denton/Chapel House/Heddon and Newcastle-Newbiggin Hall to the PTE's buses, in exchange for being the sole operator on the Newcastle-Tynemouth service (previously shared by PTE, Tynemouth and Wakefield's). Or further back - swapping their Newcastle-High Spen for Venture's Prudhoe Town Service in 1969. Or even further back - swapping their share of Newcastle-Darras Hall for the Corporation's Newcastle-Branch End back in the 1930's. Taking the longer perspective, you could draw the conclusion that, at various times, their management made the wrong decisions. If the swaps had gone the other way, they might today be a major operator in outer west Newcastle.
So building on your theory and me setting up Andreos1 Buses between Fencehouses and Newcastle, because I am able to purchase share's in Network Ticketing, am I also reducing a percentage of each individual operators shareholding & the revenue generated by Network Ticketing?
On the other side of the coin, if I was to purchase A-Line, then I would take up their holdings also.
So when GNE bought out the likes of OK, they then took on ownership of the OK shares - thus not only increasing their foothold in the passenger side of things, but also having a bigger voice during meeting and a bigger share in the revenue generated by Network Ticketing.
(10 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]NTL is different. It's merely a Competition Act-compliant method of offering multi-modal, multi-operator ticketing. If the scheme was not open to participation by any and all operators, it would not meet the competition requirements of various Transport Acts and the Competition Act (and its special multi-operator ticketing arrangements) and would be declared illegal. Without knowing the articles of association of NTL, I can't claim this to be the gospel truth, but I'm fairly certain that's how it works.
It's a private limited company with share capital. It makes no difference whether it's a company selling multi-operator bus tickets, or a group of lads selling fish down the market. It has to follow the same rules as any other private limited company, which certainly aren't different for the transport industry. The stake each company holds in the company is vital, as they are
voting shares. I gave the example of GNE and Stagecoach above, as you could already class them as a coalition (NEBOA), and therefore NEBOA have overall voting power for NTL. That being said, it's important to point out that the PTE could also form a coalition with either Stagecoach and/or GNE, and have more voting power than the rest of the share holders put together. However, the PTE plus every shareholder, other than Stagecoach and GNE, put together as a coalition would only have 47.7% of shares, and not enough voting power.
I do agree with your point, and I understand NTL's establishment is to get around other laws like you say. With my limited knowledge of business, I'd say NTL are securing agreements with operators to allow their members to use their services, for an annual fee that NTL will pay to the said operator. As a result, NTL can sell end users membership (in the form of season tickets).
In reality, this is no different to how a lot of companies actually operate these days. It gets quite messy, but I'll try and explain using IT service providers as an example:
Company-A - IT Support Company
Company-B - Organisation wishing to procure IT services
Company-C - Strategic partner to company-A in IT Support
1) Company-A that signs a contract with company-B to provide IT support services to company-B's organisation.
2) Company-A in reality has no intention of supplying this service, so outsources the work to company-C.
3) Because company-B has an agreement with company-A that all it's members (staff in this case) can use company-A's IT support services, the agreement between company-A and company-C will categorically state that company-C has to provide those services to company-B directly for an annual fee paid to company-A.
Someone with a bit more business knowledge than me might want to chip in at this point.
Yes, A1 Buses will be able to join NTL and share in the revenue. After your Fencehouses service is successfully established, you might want to try a service into Sunderland, thereby increasing your NTL revenue share. Let's say that you then build up a successful operation via Washington and Heworth to Newcastle and all is going well and that A Line want to sell to you and you want to buy them. You'll need to be careful at this stage - if you want to buy a neighbouring operation, you might find yourself referred to the Competition Commission. You'll need to declare your hand to the CC fairly early on in the negotiations, ie., before A Line tell you about their costs, margins, and fares, because such talk might breach competition law. Then the CC might block the deal if they rule that it would lead to a decrease in the amount of competition in the area....
Better idea: just start a taxi operation, there's far less regulation!
(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]Yes, A1 Buses will be able to join NTL and share in the revenue. After your Fencehouses service is successfully established, you might want to try a service into Sunderland, thereby increasing your NTL revenue share. Let's say that you then build up a successful operation via Washington and Heworth to Newcastle and all is going well and that A Line want to sell to you and you want to buy them. You'll need to be careful at this stage - if you want to buy a neighbouring operation, you might find yourself referred to the Competition Commission. You'll need to declare your hand to the CC fairly early on in the negotiations, ie., before A Line tell you about their costs, margins, and fares, because such talk might breach competition law. Then the CC might block the deal if they rule that it would lead to a decrease in the amount of competition in the area....
Better idea: just start a taxi operation, there's far less regulation!
They wouldn't though - there's no obligation of a private limited company with share capital to sell shares to anyone. Just being a bus operator in Tyne and Wear doesn't mean you have a god given right to purchase shares in a private company.
Edit: And lets remember that the competition commission was previously known as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I find the old name gives more clarity on who would be a target by the organisation.
Aureolin - without sight of the Articles of Association, we're going to continue this "oh yes they would - oh no they wouldn't" discussion.
The DfT Guidance documents on setting up such schemes are
here.
If (for example) National Express decided to set up a local bus network in the Fencehouses/Sunderland/South Shields/Washington/East Gateshead/Newcastle area, they would be able to join NTL and NTL would have to welcome them to the scheme... otherwise, the NTL directors could be found in Durham Jail!
(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]Yes, A1 Buses will be able to join NTL and share in the revenue. After your Fencehouses service is successfully established, you might want to try a service into Sunderland, thereby increasing your NTL revenue share. Let's say that you then build up a successful operation via Washington and Heworth to Newcastle and all is going well and that A Line want to sell to you and you want to buy them. You'll need to be careful at this stage - if you want to buy a neighbouring operation, you might find yourself referred to the Competition Commission. You'll need to declare your hand to the CC fairly early on in the negotiations, ie., before A Line tell you about their costs, margins, and fares, because such talk might breach competition law. Then the CC might block the deal if they rule that it would lead to a decrease in the amount of competition in the area....
Better idea: just start a taxi operation, there's far less regulation!
As well as generating revenue from passengers using my buses, buying out other operators - I am also generating an additional source of income from Network Ticketing.
The only thing I don't get - if my market share increases then according to your theory, I am entitled to a bigger share of the Network Ticketing revenue.
Except to get that extra revenue, I have to buy the equivalent shares to match that share of the network.
So if my market share is 15%. Then I need to buy 15% of the shares within Network Ticketing (basing this on your comments earlier that the % ownership of shares = the market share in Tyne & Wear).
What will happen then?
I decide to buy my 15%, meaning Mr Stagecoach and Mrs Go North East see their revenue drop.
They step up a gear, forcing me to axe my services into Sunderland.
Because of that, my market share has dropped to 5%, meaning presumably I have to sell 10% of my shares OR Stagecoach/GNE have to purchase more.
AFAIK, it's not a question of "buying" NTL shares. NTL is simply a way of dividing up the revenue between scheme participants based on market share (however that is measured). In all probability, A1 Buses will help to grow the total market, so there'll be more NTL revenue to go round, but there's a risk - say, for example, everyone on all your buses every morning buys from you a T&W Day Rover ticket, and shows it on their return. You've got the revenue from the morning, and you record the ticket use in the afternoon. BUT let's say that they all use each Day Rover on two other operators' buses, and they record the use of the ticket. You therefore owe the other operators a share of your NTL takings for the ticket use. So, you've banked the cash, but you also have a liability to NTL. Equally, when you accept a Day Rover sold elsewhere, you're clocking up an NTL credit.
My understanding of such schemes is that, at the end of a given accounting period, there will be some sort of declaration of takings and usage and an appropriate division of the proceeds. In some periods you might gain, or you might find you owe money to the scheme.
I'm guessing, but I'd bet that the NTL 'assets' and 'liabilities' relate entirely to cash waiting to be reconciled.
(10 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]AFAIK, it's not a question of "buying" NTL shares. NTL is simply a way of dividing up the revenue between scheme participants based on market share (however that is measured). In all probability, A1 Buses will help to grow the total market, so there'll be more NTL revenue to go round, but there's a risk - say, for example, everyone on all your buses every morning buys from you a T&W Day Rover ticket, and shows it on their return. You've got the revenue from the morning, and you record the ticket use in the afternoon. BUT let's say that they all use each Day Rover on two other operators' buses, and they record the use of the ticket. You therefore owe the other operators a share of your NTL takings for the ticket use. So, you've banked the cash, but you also have a liability to NTL. Equally, when you accept a Day Rover sold elsewhere, you're clocking up an NTL credit.
My understanding of such schemes is that, at the end of a given accounting period, there will be some sort of declaration of takings and usage and an appropriate division of the proceeds. In some periods you might gain, or you might find you owe money to the scheme.
I'm guessing, but I'd bet that the NTL 'assets' and 'liabilities' relate entirely to cash waiting to be reconciled.
But it states in black and white on the website that each share has a value of £1.
GNE have a total of 353 shares, they paid £353 to get match their 34.14% market share at £1 per share.
Forgetting about Andreos1 buses for a moment - but if GNE sees an increase in their market share, then their share of Network Ticketing has to increase accordingly according to your explanation.
The only way that increase can happen is to purchase more shares...
You said yourself the share ownership of Network Ticketing reflects the market share.
So seeing as each share costs £1, then each operator has to purchase the shares accordingly.
What does AFAIK mean? Not savvy with all of this tech speak.
As Far As I Know
AFAIK, each NTL participant holds shares in accordance with their market share... a new operator cannot be barred from joining NTL because that would be anti-competitive... At the date of joining, the shareholding would be amended accordingly, revenue divvied up amongst the previous shareholders the day before... if any scheme members' share of the market changes, their share of the revenue changes. So, for example, a Metro extension to Washington would almost inevitably see the PTE's share increase and GNE's fall (excluding the effect of new market generation).
NTL is a limited company, but I'd guess that the 'shares' are nominal and can't be bought and sold. And I haven't added them up, but are there 100 shares by any chance?
It really is very, very simple!
(But I still think taxis would be a safer option!)
(10 Sep 2013, 3:15 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]Aureolin - without sight of the Articles of Association, we're going to continue this "oh yes they would - oh no they wouldn't" discussion.
The DfT Guidance documents on setting up such schemes are here.
If (for example) National Express decided to set up a local bus network in the Fencehouses/Sunderland/South Shields/Washington/East Gateshead/Newcastle area, they would be able to join NTL and NTL would have to welcome them to the scheme... otherwise, the NTL directors could be found in Durham Jail!
The part of your post I previously highlighted was me making reference to the shareholdings of NTL, which is what this thread was about in the first place. The statements I've made are generic on how a private limited company with share capital is obliged to operate.
I appreciate that the DfT guidance you've kindly linked us to states that a new operator shouldn't be discriminated against and should be invited to join the scheme, unless there's a damn good reason for exemption. There's a clear difference between being invited to join a scheme, and being invited to become a shareholder of a private company.
(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]As Far As I Know
AFAIK, each NTL participant holds shares in accordance with their market share... a new operator cannot be barred from joining NTL because that would be anti-competitive... At the date of joining, the shareholding would be amended accordingly, revenue divvied up amongst the previous shareholders the day before... if any scheme members' share of the market changes, their share of the revenue changes. So, for example, a Metro extension to Washington would almost inevitably see the PTE's share increase and GNE's fall (excluding the effect of new market generation).
NTL is a limited company, but I'd guess that the 'shares' are nominal and can't be bought and sold. And I haven't added them up, but are there 100 shares by any chance?
It really is very, very simple!
(But I still think taxis would be a safer option!)
Yes, there are 100 from quickly adding them up.
So if the shares aren't purchased, what does the £1 refer to?
Edit: Misread - there are roughly 1000 shares
(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]NTL is a limited company, but I'd guess that the 'shares' are nominal and can't be bought and sold. And I haven't added them up, but are there 100 shares by any chance?
1034 shares in total valued at £1 per share, giving of course a total share capital of £1,034. It's a strange number, and what I don't understand is that if it's a partnership, why isn't every 'invitee' just sold a single share valued at £1? If you need to 'invite' more members, I'm sure it's just a case of getting your shareholders agreement, and completing a form from companies house. That way everyone would have the voting power of 1, and we wouldn't have had this interesting debate about the ability to form coalitions to have controlling voting power.
(10 Sep 2013, 4:14 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]1034 shares in total valued at £1 per share, giving of course a total share capital of £1,034. It's a strange number, and what I don't understand is that if it's a partnership, why isn't every 'invitee' just sold a single share valued at £1?
Because it's only a mechanism for dividing up revenue from a multi-modal, multi-operator ticketing scheme by market share... nothing more, nothing less...
What's difficult to understand about that?
In theory, the operators are agents, selling on Network Ticketings products - receiving a portion of the revenue, the amount based on the proportion of shares they own.
There is no way in those shares will come about free of charge.
There has to be an investment of some sort, into the Network Ticketing organisation.
(10 Sep 2013, 4:32 pm)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]Because it's only a mechanism for dividing up revenue from a multi-modal, multi-operator ticketing scheme by market share... nothing more, nothing less...
What's difficult to understand about that?
If I'm honest I struggle with the lack of transparency of the scheme. There are no public details provided on the website after all. I have managed to get a copy and taken a look at the latest statement of capital that companies house have, and along with the information you've provided (thanks), I have a greater insight of how the scheme works. Although it seems to be a massively fronted scheme for what appears to be simple model.
One thing I'd love to see is the mathematical formula of how the market share is calculated. I now understand that the scheme administrator calculates this, but how can the PTE have 37.33% of the market compared to GNE's 34.04%? Metro + Ferry has been mentioned, but does this really equate to more than the market share GNE has in Tyne and Wear? I'd be surprised if it did. So it makes me ask what else is included? Are Nexus including secured, works, and scholars services that they contract out to the likes of GNE as their own market?
Another thing to consider now that we're becoming dependant on the smart card world, and with NESTI. You can (generally) get from A to B in one trip using the Metro or Ferry. With the way GNE's network comes across as working (correct me if I'm wrong) in a hub and spoke model, you've generally got to travel from A to B via a change at C. It's been asked before, but is this 2 trips as oppose to 1? Would this affect the data used for calculating market share?
There's a number of ways they can divide up the revenue. Here's some I can think of:
- Per boarding: All boardings are recorded, so dividing up the proceeds per boarding would, IMO, be relatively simple. Attempts by individual operators to 'skew' the boardings by forcing changes would be counter-productive, as people don't like changing buses or modes - it's only worth doing to 'aggregate' two half-bus loads together to make a full bus load (and I'd guess that's the theory at places such as Washington). M1 feeds in to Metro because it can't compete journey-speed wise with Metro; but most GNE buses at Gateshead go through to Newcastle, where the interchange time penalty is greater than the time of the extra bus ride.
- Per boarding weighted by average fare: GNE and Arriva run many longer, inter-urban services, whereas SNE's routes are mainly town or city centre services. GNE and Arriva might argue that they forego a higher fare every time they accept an NTL ticket when compared with SNE. Sounds fairer, but gets more difficult to administer.
- Proportion of mileage operated: forget trying to count boardings, simply divide the takings by the number of miles each operators' buses operate. This assumes that there costs/revenues are broadly the same across the county, which I doubt is true; but I throw this one in for completeness.
That's just three potential models - I've no idea which one they use, but I'd guess the second might work.
BTW, did anyone notice that NTL holds 27 of its own shares? I'd guess that this enabled NTL to be paid enough of the revenue (not quite three per cent?) to cover its own costs... clever!
Re the GNE 'share' being less than the PTE's: surely this just reflects how the NTL market works? Multi-modal tickets, where it's possible to take advantage of the faster speed of rail and the higher frequency of buses, surely suggest that combined bus/Metro journeys is the main use that these tickets are put to?
Just a thought, based on eezypeazy's suggestion that the Network Ticketing shares are divided out to members, based on the % of the market share they have.
I wonder if this is this decided annually or more often?
(12 Sep 2013, 8:07 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Just a thought, based on eezypeazy's suggestion that the Network Ticketing shares are divided out to members, based on the % of the market share they have.
I wonder if this is this decided annually or more often?
The shares in NTL remain the same as far as I know and the revenue is apportioned on usage across the partner operators - so if a new operator came into local bus operation and wanted to accept NTL tickets then they would get their share of the revenue pot rather than a share of the company
(12 Sep 2013, 8:29 pm)busman101 wrote [ -> ]The shares in NTL remain the same as far as I know and the revenue is apportioned on usage across the partner operators - so if a new operator came into local bus operation and wanted to accept NTL tickets then they would get their share of the revenue pot rather than a share of the company
Do you know how the shares are allocated?
Is it true they are allocated on the basis of market share - or are they purchased, like every other share in the world is?
(12 Sep 2013, 8:29 pm)busman101 wrote [ -> ]The shares in NTL remain the same as far as I know and the revenue is apportioned on usage across the partner operators - so if a new operator came into local bus operation and wanted to accept NTL tickets then they would get their share of the revenue pot rather than a share of the company
That was my argument, which was apparently incorrect. From what I've seen now I'd say it works exactly how eezypeazy described.
(12 Sep 2013, 8:50 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]That was my argument, which was apparently incorrect. From what I've seen now I'd say it works exactly how eezypeazy described.
Except eezypeazy argued that the share % changed, based on the market share of the operator.
if any scheme members' share of the
market changes, their share of the revenue
changes. So, for example, a Metro extension to
Washington would almost inevitably see the
PTE's share increase and GNE's fall
That bit, seems impossible to administrate, with ever changing markets and performance.
The shares have got to be the same, unless someone comes in and purchases them - however each member (re-seller) is entitled to a proportion of the revenue raised.
The life of a £6.80 ticket.
* GNE sell the ticket. The passenger uses this as far as Heworth. GNE record the sale and trip as theirs.
* Nexus then record a trip due to the journey being continued by metro.
* Nexus recieve an additional tick in the box with the passenger jumping on the ferry.
* The passenger gets the 333 along to Christians on the fish quay and record another little bit of the £6.80.
With the journey repeated in reverse....
That ticket is added to the big pile, with GNE and Nexus being reimbursed according to the trips they have against their names.
The more I think about it, the more irrelevant the share allocation is when it comes to revenue.
Surely, it can't be anything more than a loud voice and bigger say during meetings - which is where the 1% equal share allocation seems to make sense.
I think we can all see now just how simple this is - it just divides up the revenue based on usage, after NTL's own costs are deducted.
The 'shares' in the company are nominal shares - they are never traded, but (presumably) can be redistributed to reflect market share at an appropriate moment.
Agreed that the question of voting rights at meetings is intriguing, but ask yourselves this - what is there to be decided and voted upon? I'd guess that the biggest decision is an annual review of NTL prices. Each shareholder (including Nexus on behalf of Metro/Ferry) has a need to maximise revenue; but set NTL prices too high and customers will buy two individual operator tickets instead, thereby depriving companies of NTL revenue. Set NTL prices too low and operators own tickets become more expensive and NTL's share of total revenue goes up and the individual operator loses control of his own revenue stream. And Nexus has the problem of needing to maximise revenue while satisfying their political masters' desire for cheap travel...
I would imagine the meetings might get rather tense...!!!