Yacht partnership deals. How good are they?
Vassilis Seferidis
Does anyone have any experience with buying a yacht through Sunsails' "Yacht
Partnership programme" or its equivalent offered by other charter companies?
Vassilis
Rich M
you get a yacht that has been worked very hard by people who wont care as
much as you about it. And it costs you about the same as it would to just
buy a 3.5 year old yacht of the same make, but with probably just 1 loving
owner and very few sea miles.
I think there may be a balance if you intend to take several charters with
Sunsail every year throughtout the 3.5 years, as you dont pay for the
charter cost, but I wasnt intending that so I decided against it.
Rich M
BT Internet
Vassilis Seferidis <vass...@teo.com> wrote in message
news:7DRk6.9$xs4....@news.dircon.co.uk...
howard marks
The deal seems to be that you pay a reduced price and they get to use your
yacht for several years.
The buying power of Sunsail means that the discount they get is roughly the
same as the reduction you see.
Thus they rent your boat for 3+ years and pay......Nothing for the
privalige.
Great business for them, bad deal for you. IMHO
Vassilis Seferidis <vass...@teo.com> wrote in message
news:7DRk6.9$xs4....@news.dircon.co.uk...
>
Vassilis Seferidis
you are talking generally about them?
Vassilis
"BT Internet" <plat...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:976j85$qvs$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Vassilis Seferidis
first 5 years they use it as part of their fleet. The benefit to you is that
in addition to 1-10 weeks allowance per year you have a hefty (?) income to
cover your interest payments to your marine mortgage. Am I missing something
here?
Obviously the problem of overuse these 5 years is a serious consideration
but you end up with a "relatively" young boat and a reduced mortgage.
Vassilis
"howard marks" <pen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rxAl6.18185$5n4.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Donal
> The way I understand it is that you buy the boat at the NORMAL price but
the
> first 5 years they use it as part of their fleet. The benefit to you is
that
> in addition to 1-10 weeks allowance per year you have a hefty (?) income
to
> cover your interest payments to your marine mortgage. Am I missing
something
> here?
>
> Obviously the problem of overuse these 5 years is a serious consideration
> but you end up with a "relatively" young boat and a reduced mortgage.
>
I know someone who is doing this with Sunsail at the moment. He is going to
pay a *proportion* of the new cost. He will get a couple of free weeks each
year. Sunsail will receive the income. In 5 (I think) years he will be
given full ownership of the boat.
From what I heard, the deal is fairly neutral. The price that he is paying
reflects a fair price for an ex-charter yacht. In the meantime he gets
holidays for the cost of the flights. The boat is going to be based in the
BVI. I have no idea how he intends to transport the boat back to the UK
when he becomes the owner.
Regards
Donal
--
guy fawkes
wrote:
>I know someone who is doing this with Sunsail at the moment. He is going to
>pay a *proportion* of the new cost. He will get a couple of free weeks each
>year. Sunsail will receive the income. In 5 (I think) years he will be
>given full ownership of the boat.
>
>From what I heard, the deal is fairly neutral.
yeah, except that the price he is paying will in fact be slightly more
than sunsail pay the fab for the brand new boat.... it is known as
economies of scale.
said boat will also be inferior to commercially available equivalent
as it is tailored for sunsail more than the person who is paying.
sunsail thus have a free boat to charter as they please, you end up
with a knackered old peice of crap worth a few thousand at auction, if
that.
not just "GF ranting again, ignore him" because like it or not I do
know some of the things I talk about...
but hell, it's some other guys money, if he wants to piss it away
that's his lookout, he has been warned.
Rainer Thonnes
guy fawkes <guy.f...@glaranews.com> writes:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:19:41 -0000, "Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com>
>wrote:
>>I know someone who is doing this with Sunsail at the moment. He is going to
>>pay a *proportion* of the new cost. He will get a couple of free weeks each
>>year. Sunsail will receive the income. In 5 (I think) years he will be
>>given full ownership of the boat.
>>
>>From what I heard, the deal is fairly neutral.
>
>yeah, except that the price he is paying will in fact be slightly more
>than sunsail pay the fab for the brand new boat.... it is known as
>economies of scale.
That doesn't tie in with the stated position that he is paying
what a 5 year old ex charter boat would be worth. If they
depreciate, as they most definitely do, they must be worth more
when new than when old.
Nevertheless, it's worth noting that he's saving the company
commercial interest rates on what is in effect a loan, since the
buyer is paying the cash five years in advance. Whether the "free
charters" he gets in return are adequate compensation is for him
to judge.
It depends on what fraction of the nominal boat value he's paying.
A common costing formula puts the retail price of bareboat charter
at 1/70 of boat value per average week. If he gets two two-week
charters a year, that's 5.7% of the value. If his investment was
half the boat's cost, his return on investment is 11.4%, which is
quite respectable, especially as it's tax free.
>not just "GF ranting again, ignore him" because like it or not I do
>know some of the things I talk about...
Oops! If by your admission you know only *some* of what you talk
about, what does that say about the rest? :-)
Donal
"guy fawkes" <guy.f...@glaranews.com> wrote in message
news:bduk9tkcu7ec7m2sr...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:19:41 -0000, "Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I know someone who is doing this with Sunsail at the moment. He is going
to
> >pay a *proportion* of the new cost. He will get a couple of free weeks
each
> >year. Sunsail will receive the income. In 5 (I think) years he will be
> >given full ownership of the boat.
> >
> >From what I heard, the deal is fairly neutral.
>
> yeah, except that the price he is paying will in fact be slightly more
> than sunsail pay the fab for the brand new boat.... it is known as
> economies of scale.
He is more interested in what *he* gets out of the deal. He seems pleased.
I don't think that he is too worried about how well Sunsail do.
>
> said boat will also be inferior to commercially available equivalent
> as it is tailored for sunsail more than the person who is paying.
I agree with this. In fact I think that the mast is shorter than standard.
>
> sunsail thus have a free boat to charter as they please, you end up
> with a knackered old peice of crap worth a few thousand at auction, if
> that.
I know two other people who have bought ex-charter boats. Both felt that
they got a bargain. Neither boat was in as good a condition a one would
expect from a private purchase - but the prices reflected that.
>
> not just "GF ranting again, ignore him" because like it or not I do
> know some of the things I talk about...
Unquestionably. But you are ranting just a *little* bit. You have ignored
the fact that the price is less than the market price for a boat of that
age.
>
> but hell, it's some other guys money, if he wants to piss it away
> that's his lookout, he has been warned.
He feels that he is getting a good deal. What Sunsail make out of it is
irrelevant. If both sides are winning, then everyone should be happy.
Personally, this sort of arrangement would not be for me. I see too many
risks, and if I had the dosh to hand I would want my boat now. I couldn't
cope with the smaller mast, and the smaller stern cabin(s).
Regards
Donal
--
guy fawkes
>>yeah, except that the price he is paying will in fact be slightly more
>>than sunsail pay the fab for the brand new boat.... it is known as
>>economies of scale.
>
>That doesn't tie in with the stated position that he is paying
>what a 5 year old ex charter boat would be worth. If they
>depreciate, as they most definitely do, they must be worth more
>when new than when old.
look at it this way, say a ford mondeo is 12k at your local dealers, I
walk into longbridge (or wherever they make them) and enquire about
purchasing 30% of the annual production run, but I do not want any of
that fancy shit like radios, central locking, warranty etc, and I
don't mind if they use triumph dolomite seats and morris marina door
handles and skoda upholstery, just so long as it looks the same, oh
yeah, no problem with a BL "A" series engine either, and the price to
me isn't going to be £11,000, £10,500, £10, 250 or anything else like
it, the price to me is going to be £7,995.
I get *you* to "buy" the thing in "partnership" with me for "only"
£10,995 up front, and use it as a minicab / self drive hire.
Not only do I offer you this fantastic discount, I will also let you
use your own car absolutely free for 2 weeks a year, but I will charge
you a very handsome profit on the journey to your car.
At the end of five years you will be like some prat who bought a new
£8,000 japanese motorbike on HP, you will have absolutely no option
financially but to chop it in for a new one and start all over again.
"timeshare" except people you have never met get to drive your
apartment while pissed as well as vomiting on the mattress, and people
still ask "Is this a good investment"
I have a piece of the original cross which I am prepared to sell for a
measly £55 million.
>
>Nevertheless, it's worth noting that he's saving the company
>commercial interest rates on what is in effect a loan, since the
>buyer is paying the cash five years in advance. Whether the "free
>charters" he gets in return are adequate compensation is for him
>to judge.
you are omitting a whole slew of very clever financial practices such
as charging you 150 quid for the flight to your own boat (thus making
125 profit) etc etc etc. It all adds up. Good corporate tax dodge too.
>
>It depends on what fraction of the nominal boat value he's paying.
>A common costing formula puts the retail price of bareboat charter
>at 1/70 of boat value per average week. If he gets two two-week
>charters a year, that's 5.7% of the value. If his investment was
>half the boat's cost, his return on investment is 11.4%, which is
>quite respectable, especially as it's tax free.
no wonder sailors are broke, if he invested the lot on diesel powered
nuns (as long as they were'nt e-commerce enabled) he would likely
generate enough income from the capital to pay for a couple of weeks
holiday a year.
>
>>not just "GF ranting again, ignore him" because like it or not I do
>>know some of the things I talk about...
>
>Oops! If by your admission you know only *some* of what you talk
>about, what does that say about the rest? :-)
I meant "know" as is *KNOW* without any possibility of being mistaken.
the obvious question, considering the sums involved, is why the guy
didn't immediately visit the fab in person and discuss the deal with
the shop floor staff for the straight shit. A yacht is hardly an
everyday purchase is it?
guy fawkes
wrote:
>
>He feels that he is getting a good deal. What Sunsail make out of it is
>irrelevant. If both sides are winning, then everyone should be happy.
>
if there are middlemen making lots of money out of the deal, no matter
how good a deal you *think* you are getting, you are being royally
screwed.
as to "good" after charter, does this include when the gelcoat is
ground off the hull and a skim slapped back on so that the hull loses
enough rigidty that you can't keep the rigging tight? To name but one
very small example that the type of buyer targeted will never notice,
till *they* try and sell it.
Donal
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1epgd5k.5885t1103rbp7N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Donal <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote:
>
> > Unquestionably. But you are ranting just a *little* bit. You have
ignored
> > the fact that the price is less than the market price for a boat of that
> > age.
>
> Hmm is it though less than the market price in the country where that
> boat is operated? That is somethign I woudl check, in fact I did
> consider buying a boat via Sunsail and ended up thinking it was cheaper
> to *not* buy the boat but to charter one as and when needed.
You are probably right. There is probably a convenience factor in the
price. It is easy to buy now and worry about taking ownership later. Five
years is a long time away. The chap doing this is away on holiday this
week, so I cannot confirm any of the details.
Generally, chartering is cheaper than owning a boat. Few of us are in it
for financial reasons, eh?
Just one Wednesday evening in June - nipping off from work a bit early -
makes ownership worth it.
Regards
Donal
--
Ian Johnston
: ... I did
: consider buying a boat via Sunsail and ended up thinking it was cheaper
: to *not* buy the boat but to charter one as and when needed.
I suspect that's a cheaper option for almost everyone, but there's something
about the joy of possession!
Ian
Roy Prescott
My boss used to be an "engineer" on one of the fleets in Greece.
I was considering teh partnership deal until he told me what he used to get up
to.
In his words, "after 5 years teh boats are absolutely Sh***ed.
He used to hold them together with glue and string.
This was a good 15 years ago, things may have changed......the choice is yours.
I never bothered and bought a smaller boat.
Regards
Roy
Roger Holden
laughing all the way to the bank.
£120,000 boat costs them £60,000 - say £1,000 charter income a week for 3
years = £150,000 - profit £90,000 - they also get to keep their fleet nice
and new which is a continued advantage over small charter companies... and
you get a knackered boat.
Would you buy an ex-rental car ? I rest my case.
Donal
"Roger Holden" <roger.holden@remove_btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:B6C2F2AC.5D19%roger.holden@remove_btinternet.com...
> Indeed - this is the way I would look at it. Even paying full price they
are
> laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> £120,000 boat costs them £60,000 - say £1,000 charter income a week for 3
> years = £150,000 - profit £90,000 - they also get to keep their fleet nice
> and new which is a continued advantage over small charter companies... and
> you get a knackered boat.
>
The High season in most parts of the world is about 4 months. For the rest
of the year occupancy will be very low.
You have also assumed that running costs are zero. There are berthing fees,
servicing costs, repairs, staff ..etc.
Free market principles mean that if you could get a 150% return in a three
year period, then everybody would be doing it. They probably make about 8%
pa, just like any other business.
Regards
Donal
--
guy fawkes
wrote:
>
>"Roger Holden" <roger.holden@remove_btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:B6C2F2AC.5D19%roger.holden@remove_btinternet.com...
>> Indeed - this is the way I would look at it. Even paying full price they
>are
>> laughing all the way to the bank.
>>
>> £120,000 boat costs them £60,000 - say £1,000 charter income a week for 3
>> years = £150,000 - profit £90,000 - they also get to keep their fleet nice
>> and new which is a continued advantage over small charter companies... and
>> you get a knackered boat.
>>
>
>The High season in most parts of the world is about 4 months. For the rest
>of the year occupancy will be very low.
the likes of sunsail can manage damn near 100% booking from late march
to october, and even at the beginning and end of the season still get
prats to pay (a reduced rate) to deliver the boats from summer ports
to holding areas for winter "refit"
>
>You have also assumed that running costs are zero. There are berthing fees,
>servicing costs, repairs, staff ..etc.
practically zero yes, berthing fees are negligible, servicing costs
negligible because everything is botched on the cheap by (unskilled)
staff, repairs are a joke, and as for staff wages, how can you lose
money when twats will work for you for 40 quid a week?
>
>Free market principles mean that if you could get a 150% return in a three
>year period, then everybody would be doing it. They probably make about 8%
>pa, just like any other business.
yeah right.....
biggest "expense" by far in banana countries like greece is laws that
state that companies must be 51% greek owned, just another name for
payola.
I hate sunsail because I hate anything that is 95% marketing bullshit,
but I have never denied that from a business (eg make money any way
you can just this side of the law) point of view it is a far slicker
operation than most people are capable of grasping.
even to the point where parts are "unofficially" smuggled from say
greece to turkey to dodge duty, it is an operation like an eskimo
fensing, nothing goes to waste and no avenue of making a buck is
unexploited.
and exploted is the word, doesn't matter if you sign up as staff,
co-owner (sic) or straight punter, you will be financially exploited
to the limit, wrapped up in a very slick marketing machine that would
make goebbels nod in apreciation.
billy butlins had tens of thousands of happy punters, still doesn't
make a butlins holiday camp anything but hell on earth.
Donal
guy fawkes <guy.f...@glaranews.com> wrote in message
news:8jtq9tou59jhig7i0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:09:56 -0000, "Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >The High season in most parts of the world is about 4 months. For the
rest
> >of the year occupancy will be very low.
>
> the likes of sunsail can manage damn near 100% booking from late march
> to october, and even at the beginning and end of the season still get
> prats to pay (a reduced rate) to deliver the boats from summer ports
> to holding areas for winter "refit"
The reduced rate is *very* reduced. I did a 5 day charter in Greece for 160
quit - including flights - a few years ago.
>
> >
> >You have also assumed that running costs are zero. There are berthing
fees,
> >servicing costs, repairs, staff ..etc.
>
> practically zero yes, berthing fees are negligible, servicing costs
> negligible because everything is botched on the cheap by (unskilled)
> staff, repairs are a joke, and as for staff wages, how can you lose
> money when twats will work for you for 40 quid a week?
Their Solent fleet is based in Port Solent. I know that they tie up 3 & 4
deep, but Port Solent is not cheap. Their UK staff cannot be on 40 quid a
week - that is illegal.
>
> >
> >Free market principles mean that if you could get a 150% return in a
three
> >year period, then everybody would be doing it. They probably make about
8%
> >pa, just like any other business.
>
> yeah right.....
Yes, right! What return on investment do you think that they are making?
>
> biggest "expense" by far in banana countries like greece is laws that
> state that companies must be 51% greek owned, just another name for
> payola.
>
> I hate sunsail because I hate anything that is 95% marketing bullshit,
> but I have never denied that from a business (eg make money any way
> you can just this side of the law) point of view it is a far slicker
> operation than most people are capable of grasping.
<snip>
> and exploted is the word, doesn't matter if you sign up as staff,
> co-owner (sic) or straight punter, you will be financially exploited
> to the limit, wrapped up in a very slick marketing machine that would
> make goebbels nod in apreciation.
Jeeeze H Ch..., Guy, you are very cynical. I am no fan of Sunsail (their
Solent races are always in the way, and the boats crewed by idiots), but if
it is so profitable, why don't you start up in competition with them? If
their margins are so high, you would be able to slaughter them. Any
business with high margins is an easy target because they have not needed to
be careful with costs.
>
> billy butlins had tens of thousands of happy punters, still doesn't
> make a butlins holiday camp anything but hell on earth.
That is an interesting point. You say they were happy, but that it was hell
on earth. Surely you can see that if the punters are happy, then they are
right to enjoy themselves. So what, if you think that it is hell on earth.
Not everyone has to go where _you_ think they should????
Regards
Donal
--
guy fawkes
>The reduced rate is *very* reduced. I did a 5 day charter in Greece for 160
>quit - including flights - a few years ago.
>
hmm, around about the time they managed to kill delivery crew on just
such a trip.
>Their Solent fleet is based in Port Solent. I know that they tie up 3 & 4
>deep, but Port Solent is not cheap. Their UK staff cannot be on 40 quid a
>week - that is illegal.
solent fleet is a drop in the ocean compared to what they have. that
is why most of the operaion _is_ abroad, the laws are lax and
unenforced.
>>
>> yeah right.....
>
>Yes, right! What return on investment do you think that they are making?
better than just about any other marine business going, not
speculation, fact.
>Jeeeze H Ch..., Guy, you are very cynical.
nope, just experienced.
> I am no fan of Sunsail (their
>Solent races are always in the way, and the boats crewed by idiots), but if
>it is so profitable, why don't you start up in competition with them?
why don't I start up in competition with tescos?
economies of scale do not come cheap, and I disagree with the ethos
anyway.
> If
>their margins are so high, you would be able to slaughter them.
I come across the exact same sentiment day to day in what I do now,
and as you have seen in recent threads, nobody believed I can be legit
because it is just too cheap to be any good etc.
people like the security of a big company, so they invest in
lastminute dot com and maxwell pensions and so on, and get royally
screwed with boring regularity.
> Any
>business with high margins is an easy target because they have not needed to
>be careful with costs.
tell that to freddie laker
>That is an interesting point. You say they were happy, but that it was hell
>on earth. Surely you can see that if the punters are happy, then they are
>right to enjoy themselves. So what, if you think that it is hell on earth.
>Not everyone has to go where _you_ think they should????
you enjoy it, fine, good on you, you claim it is a fine operation
where high standards and safety are paramount then you can expect some
comment to the contrary.
sunsail, like butlins, or tiny, is aimed squarely at the proles, in
finest lowest common denominator fashion.
Mike Cobbe
Hardly. Every major charter operator has been sold on due to financial
difficulties. Some more than once.
Mike