Adrian Stott wrote: > Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The comparison I was making was between end-of-garden mooring and >> continuously cruising. Whether both or neither should pay something can >> be debated, but the idea that the person who keeps his boat out of the >> way tied up to their own land should pay more than someone who moors on >> BW visitor moorings every night cannot be justified. > > If you are suggesting that CCs should pay a charge reflecting their > heavy use of public moorings, then I agree.
I think you should be able to see what I'm suggesting. > However, my point was that the price of a mooring is set by the > market, not by the provider's costs, so changing BW's cut of the > revenue will make little difference to what boaters pay. But I still don't see how that relates to what I was saying and that you replied to - unless by "boaters" you mean "those who moor in private moorings that pay a 'connection' charge to BW". Somehow I suspect that the market for moorings may be about to fall, and that passing on a reduction to make yourself more competitive might well start to have an impact. If it doesn't now of course; you've (again) made a flat statement about how things work with nothing to back it up.
