(28 Jul 2014, 10:31 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Champagne flavoured caviar was possibly order of the day! 
Money was spent replacing assets and because of the need to gain additional investment to pay for these purchases - dividends were not only greater than in years gone by, there were more shareholders to satisfy.
The money leaving the company to these shareholders generally increases year on year.
Investment in assets or customer perks, doesn't always increase.
http://www.go-ahead.com/ir/shareholderin...d_cal.aspx
Once you invite shareholders into a company, they naturally want their investment to increase year on year.
Sometimes, a company will need additional shareholders to help the company move onto the next level and help appease the first lot.
It gets to the stage, where the second lot need appeasing after things start to stagnate - so an additional batch are asked to come on board and the cycle continues.
In the meantime, passengers are asked to contribute that little bit more, year on year - based on the grounds fuel costs are increasing - yet overall profits continue to increase, revenue increases and fuel costs decrease (£1m less in 2015 compared to 2014 as it stands) and the (local anyway) fleet decreases in size.
I am not going to suggest some of us re-assess our opinions on Go ahead's shareholders.
I will leave it up to each individual to decide.
Ahh, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
Many of the shareholders in the transport groups are pension funds - they need cash dividends to pay out pensions. And I don't know many caviar-eating, champagne-swilling pensioners - do you?
Dipping in to profits is like dipping into your grannies' purse when she's not looking, so you can have 50p for extra sweeties that you haven't earned.
But I'm sure Andreos knows best....
(29 Jul 2014, 7:24 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]The usual 'higher prices but lower fuel costs' statement was you being positive? 
My only negative post was in response to aureolin, which suggested to retain the same amount of champagne and caviar for shareholders (or, as in your explanation, an increased amount), the company would not invest as much into new technology, as they're operating loss-making services commercially as a result of unfair bids put in by smaller firms..!
My comment was more sarcastic than anything. It wasn't intended to bring up a further debate about people's difference in views. It's healthy that we have such a wide range of views on here, but we shouldn't deem what are traditionally socialist (or Marxist) views, to be negative.
I didn't make any suggestion about reinvestment. That's an operational decision, and often depends on the rate of depreciation accounted for. The comment was more a 'Poor them. They've chosen to operate a service below their target profit margin'. Which it should be noted that Nexus didn't have them a gun to their head to force them to do so. It's a deregulated market and they can operate what they want to as things stand.
Local authorities (whether we agree or disagree) are expected to pick up the pieces where commercial operators can't run (what they deem not to be) a viable service. In this instance Nexus have done just that, and complied wiyh all relevant legislation when going out to tender. GCT in this instance have submitted either the lowest cost of most economically advantageous tender, and therefore won. That's the rules.
I think it's unfair to suggest that smaller firms have put unfair bids in. They'll have done what everyone else has done, and put in a bid (or quote if you like) based on what they can operate the service for. If others aren't competing with the bids of smaller firms, then they need to review their operation and make sure they're competitive in future. That's if they want to continue to go for government tenders that is. They may decide it's not for them.
There was a streetlite on 515/558.
Drove past Gateshead Central Taxis Yard on Stoneygate Lane in Felling. At a rough count there is around 15 to 20 vehicles parked in it this evening (Tues) at around 2140.
(29 Jul 2014, 5:18 pm)danpick wrote [ -> ]There was a streetlite on 515/558.
did you get the reg of it
(30 Jul 2014, 10:20 am)jaimz13 wrote [ -> ]did you get the reg of it
No sadly as it was from a distance in ASDA Boldon.
(29 Jul 2014, 8:07 am)eezypeazy wrote [ -> ]Ahh, ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
Many of the shareholders in the transport groups are pension funds - they need cash dividends to pay out pensions. And I don't know many caviar-eating, champagne-swilling pensioners - do you?
Dipping in to profits is like dipping into your grannies' purse when she's not looking, so you can have 50p for extra sweeties that you haven't earned.
But I'm sure Andreos knows best....
Have you been sniffing out the left wing posts again eezypeazy?
Of course, 'many' of the shares are owned by pension funds. You have mentioned that a few times now.
'Many' of the shares are also owned by individuals/families too.
Some of those are totally independent of the company, some are held by employees or the families of employees past.
All of the data, is available on the shareholder website (
http://www.go-ahead.com/ir/shareholderin...lysis.aspx)
Whether you choose to look, read or acknowledge that is another thing - but the figures and percentages are all there in black and white.
Hey, if me looking, reading and acknowledging those facts make me right - well there you go!
(30 Jul 2014, 7:35 pm)AIG20 wrote [ -> ]The registration of this vehicle is "MX60 BXD".
Image below owned by "Richard Tiplady" of the Northern Road Transport Trust Facebook Group.
Previously with Stanley Travel up until about a Month ago.
SR Demo is on 37/73
Versa is on 558
Standard Solo also on 37/73
I Assume this will mean the Streetlite is on the 515
(31 Jul 2014, 10:54 am)NEBCD Malarkey wrote [ -> ]SR Demo is on 37/73
Versa is on 558
Standard Solo also on 37/73
I Assume this will mean the Streetlite is on the 515
515 & 558 interwork so you should see the Streetlite on both services.
(31 Jul 2014, 4:45 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Think positive thoughts Dan
You've been doing well lately... How can I turn this into a positive?
The destination displays either don't work on their buses, they've got no via points, or they've got spelling mistakes.
Think I'll drop Nexus an e-mail - Adam M, have you got that photo with the Bluebird lacking a destination display? It's also a non-compliant working, so it's a bonus.
(31 Jul 2014, 4:47 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]You've been doing well lately... How can I turn this into a positive?
The destination displays either don't work on their buses, they've got no via points, or they've got spelling mistakes.
Think I'll drop Nexus an e-mail - Adam M, have you got that photo with the Bluebird lacking a destination display? It's also a non-compliant working, so it's a bonus.
Yes I have, just need to upload it Dan, shall do that shortly, The Streetlite was on the 37/73, seen it when I was walking up home.
Collage? Is that an idea for a new brand?
(31 Jul 2014, 5:12 pm)minibus1474 wrote [ -> ]NON DDA compliant destination, with 515 being on O/S instaed of N/S.
If that's the case, Dan you might aswell note that down for:
YJ10 EZB (Twice)
YJ10 MBF
YJ12 NBX
YJ62 FLD
As non of them are Compliant.
With the number of non compliances that we have seen this week it concerns me that this business are taking on 8 school services. I think Nexus need to be monitoring this supplier very closely.
I wonder how they are progressing in sourcing vehicles for the school runs along with staff that have the appropriate clearance for school services.
![[Image: 14794790042_9d61c40613.jpg]](https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3900/14794790042_9d61c40613.jpg)