Menu
 
North East Buses Local Bus Scene Operations, Management & Infrastructure Network Ticketing

Network Ticketing

Network Ticketing

 
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
 
Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 12:58 pm #1
I have been wondering about the makeup of the organisation, who was involved etc for a while now.

Just found this website, containing practically all you need to know about Network Ticketing.
www.companycheck.co.uk/company/02197910/NETWORK-TICKETING-LIMITED/group-structure
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 12:58 pm #1

I have been wondering about the makeup of the organisation, who was involved etc for a while now.

Just found this website, containing practically all you need to know about Network Ticketing.
www.companycheck.co.uk/company/02197910/NETWORK-TICKETING-LIMITED/group-structure

Adrian



9,566
10 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm #2
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. Wink

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
10 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm #2

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. Wink


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 1:34 pm #3
(10 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm)aureolin 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. Wink

Conveniently owning just over a 50% majority eh?
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 1:34 pm #3

(10 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm)aureolin 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. Wink

Conveniently owning just over a 50% majority eh?

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm #4
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.
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm #4

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.

Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 1:44 pm #5
(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy 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.
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 1:44 pm #5

(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy 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.

Adrian



9,566
10 Sep 2013, 2:14 pm #6
(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy 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 Tongue). 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?

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
10 Sep 2013, 2:14 pm #6

(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy 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 Tongue). 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?


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm #7
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.
Edited 10 Sep 2013, 2:22 pm by eezypeazy.
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm #7

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.

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm #8
(10 Sep 2013, 2:14 pm)aureolin 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 Tongue). 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.
Edited 10 Sep 2013, 2:29 pm by eezypeazy.
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm #8

(10 Sep 2013, 2:14 pm)aureolin 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 Tongue). 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.

Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 2:46 pm #9
(10 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm)eezypeazy 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.
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 2:46 pm #9

(10 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm)eezypeazy 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.

Adrian



9,566
10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm #10
(10 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm)eezypeazy 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. Tongue

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm #10

(10 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm)eezypeazy 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. Tongue


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm #11
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!
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm #11

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!

Adrian



9,566
10 Sep 2013, 3:07 pm #12
(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy 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.

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
10 Sep 2013, 3:07 pm #12

(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy 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.


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 3:15 pm #13
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!
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 3:15 pm #13

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!

Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 3:21 pm #14
(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy 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.
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 3:21 pm #14

(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy 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.

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm #15
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.
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm #15

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.

Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 3:46 pm #16
(10 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm)eezypeazy 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.
Edited 10 Sep 2013, 3:49 pm by Andreos1.
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 3:46 pm #16

(10 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm)eezypeazy 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.

eezypeazy



173
10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm #17
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!)
Edited 10 Sep 2013, 3:59 pm by eezypeazy.
eezypeazy
10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm #17

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!)

Adrian



9,566
10 Sep 2013, 4:00 pm #18
(10 Sep 2013, 3:15 pm)eezypeazy 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.

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
10 Sep 2013, 4:00 pm #18

(10 Sep 2013, 3:15 pm)eezypeazy 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.


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Andreos1



14,155
10 Sep 2013, 4:11 pm #19
(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy 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
Edited 10 Sep 2013, 4:19 pm by Andreos1.
Andreos1
10 Sep 2013, 4:11 pm #19

(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy 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

Adrian



9,566
10 Sep 2013, 4:14 pm #20
(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy 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. Wink

Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook
Adrian
10 Sep 2013, 4:14 pm #20

(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy 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. Wink


Forum Moderator | Find NEB on facebook

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
 
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average