Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:11 pm
Joerg. In English law an owner retains all rights until such time as ownership is relinquished.
The Bluebird Project
http://bluebirdproject.com/forum/
Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Page 59 of 63
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:27 pm
Same here. But once possession was handed over to someone, legally by a contract, then the owner can not simply change his plans and have full control. So if the contract says the BBP project is allowed to possess K7 until fully restored, until ready to run on Coniston, then the Ruskin can't say give it to us NOW.
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:31 pm
A few thoughts for you to ponder perhaps, Ernie.
The Ruskin was deeded the wreckage of K7. However, in a legal sense, the wreckage of K7 now no longer exists (save for possibly a few small shards of twisted metal at the bottom of Coniston, and the corroded jet engine in the museum). The boat itself can no longer be classified as a wreck, and ceased being one as soon as it entered the workshop to be pulled down for restoration. It could be argued that the Ruskin handed ownership over, as they knew the wreck would cease to exist in a legal sense once restoration started. Not being privy to the legal documents between the Ruskin and BBP, this is only a thought bubble, for lack of a better term. Interesting to ponder none the less. Perhaps there might be some truth to it as well? Things have changed, and that needs to be sorted out between the BBP and the Ruskin. Once they have reached an agreement, and it is signed off (presuming they haven't already); the great unwashed (such as you and I) will no doubt be informed by a joint press release. Until such time, it should be treated as commercial in-confidence. It's need-to-know, and we don't.
From the little that I do know, the wreck was delivered to the BBP for restoration. All materials and costs have been borne by the BBP, with no funding (as far as I am aware) from the Ruskin at all. When one thinks about it; it would have cost thousands of pounds to re-create the sponsons, with the intricate machining and milling that was required to the blades, and the construction of the new sponson floats. The jet engine; associated parts, and their restoration would have cost thousands. The missing shrouding and cockpit would have cost thousands to re-create; then you have the electrics to make it all go, and the rivets which hold everything together. Finally, you have the eleven (fifteen if you include former workshop volunteers) people working on K7, who have put thousands of hours into the restoration. If you were to put a price on the labour required to restore the boat based on trade based salary, it would push the restoration into the millions.
The ownership of the materials and components which have been fitted to K7 are retained by the BBP, and rightly so given they have funded them, and supplied the labour to engineer; fabricate, and fit them. It's taken 18 years so far, and it hasn't cost the Ruskin a penny. The Ruskin are now demanding K7's return, which is extremely poor form in my opinion.
It might also be worth considering what would have become of K7 if the BBP hadn't have taken on it's restoration, before asking Bill the same question(s) which have been answered Ad nauseam. The Ruskin are on record as saying they wouldn't have displayed it in the condition it was in when it was pulled out of the depths of Coniston, so where would the wreck of K7 have been now do you think? Perhaps you could have volunteered to make sure it's protective tarpaulin was kept in good fettle; no sparrows nested where the cockpit once was, and the shed roof didn't leak on it when it rained? Sure, it's a missed opportunity, but wouldn't you rather see it doing what it was designed to do? I sure as hell would, and I hope to see K7 over here on Lake Dumbleyung someday - the place of Donald Campbell's greatest triumph.
I'll show myself out.
The Ruskin was deeded the wreckage of K7. However, in a legal sense, the wreckage of K7 now no longer exists (save for possibly a few small shards of twisted metal at the bottom of Coniston, and the corroded jet engine in the museum). The boat itself can no longer be classified as a wreck, and ceased being one as soon as it entered the workshop to be pulled down for restoration. It could be argued that the Ruskin handed ownership over, as they knew the wreck would cease to exist in a legal sense once restoration started. Not being privy to the legal documents between the Ruskin and BBP, this is only a thought bubble, for lack of a better term. Interesting to ponder none the less. Perhaps there might be some truth to it as well? Things have changed, and that needs to be sorted out between the BBP and the Ruskin. Once they have reached an agreement, and it is signed off (presuming they haven't already); the great unwashed (such as you and I) will no doubt be informed by a joint press release. Until such time, it should be treated as commercial in-confidence. It's need-to-know, and we don't.
From the little that I do know, the wreck was delivered to the BBP for restoration. All materials and costs have been borne by the BBP, with no funding (as far as I am aware) from the Ruskin at all. When one thinks about it; it would have cost thousands of pounds to re-create the sponsons, with the intricate machining and milling that was required to the blades, and the construction of the new sponson floats. The jet engine; associated parts, and their restoration would have cost thousands. The missing shrouding and cockpit would have cost thousands to re-create; then you have the electrics to make it all go, and the rivets which hold everything together. Finally, you have the eleven (fifteen if you include former workshop volunteers) people working on K7, who have put thousands of hours into the restoration. If you were to put a price on the labour required to restore the boat based on trade based salary, it would push the restoration into the millions.
The ownership of the materials and components which have been fitted to K7 are retained by the BBP, and rightly so given they have funded them, and supplied the labour to engineer; fabricate, and fit them. It's taken 18 years so far, and it hasn't cost the Ruskin a penny. The Ruskin are now demanding K7's return, which is extremely poor form in my opinion.
It might also be worth considering what would have become of K7 if the BBP hadn't have taken on it's restoration, before asking Bill the same question(s) which have been answered Ad nauseam. The Ruskin are on record as saying they wouldn't have displayed it in the condition it was in when it was pulled out of the depths of Coniston, so where would the wreck of K7 have been now do you think? Perhaps you could have volunteered to make sure it's protective tarpaulin was kept in good fettle; no sparrows nested where the cockpit once was, and the shed roof didn't leak on it when it rained? Sure, it's a missed opportunity, but wouldn't you rather see it doing what it was designed to do? I sure as hell would, and I hope to see K7 over here on Lake Dumbleyung someday - the place of Donald Campbell's greatest triumph.
I'll show myself out.
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:35 pm
Here, here ,here. Very well put .Filtertron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:31 pm A few thoughts for you to ponder perhaps, Ernie.
The Ruskin was deeded the wreckage of K7. However, in a legal sense, the wreckage of K7 now no longer exists (save for possibly a few small shards of twisted metal at the bottom of Coniston, and the corroded jet engine in the museum). The boat itself can no longer be classified as a wreck, and ceased being one as soon as it entered the workshop to be pulled down for restoration. It could be argued that the Ruskin handed ownership over, as they knew the wreck would cease to exist in a legal sense once restoration started. Not being privy to the legal documents between the Ruskin and BBP, this is only a thought bubble, for lack of a better term. Interesting to ponder none the less. Perhaps there might be some truth to it as well? Things have changed, and that needs to be sorted out between the BBP and the Ruskin. Once they have reached an agreement, and it is signed off (presuming they haven't already); the great unwashed (such as you and I) will no doubt be informed by a joint press release. Until such time, it should be treated as commercial in-confidence. It's need-to-know, and we don't.
From the little that I do know, the wreck was delivered to the BBP for restoration. All materials and costs have been borne by the BBP, with no funding (as far as I am aware) from the Ruskin at all. When one thinks about it; it would have cost thousands of pounds to re-create the sponsons, with the intricate machining and milling that was required to the blades, and the construction of the new sponson floats. The jet engine; associated parts, and their restoration would have cost thousands. The missing shrouding and cockpit would have cost thousands to re-create; then you have the electrics to make it all go, and the rivets which hold everything together. Finally, you have the eleven (fifteen if you include former workshop volunteers) people working on K7, who have put thousands of hours into the restoration. If you were to put a price on the labour required to restore the boat based on trade based salary, it would push the restoration into the millions.
The ownership of the materials and components which have been fitted to K7 are retained by the BBP, and rightly so given they have funded them, and supplied the labour to engineer; fabricate, and fit them. It's taken 18 years so far, and it hasn't cost the Ruskin a penny. The Ruskin are now demanding K7's return, which is extremely poor form in my opinion.
It might also be worth considering what would have become of K7 if the BBP hadn't have taken on it's restoration, before asking Bill the same question(s) which have been answered Ad nauseam. The Ruskin are on record as saying they wouldn't have displayed it in the condition it was in when it was pulled out of the depths of Coniston, so where would the wreck of K7 have been now do you think? Perhaps you could have volunteered to make sure it's protective tarpaulin was kept in good fettle; no sparrows nested where the cockpit once was, and the shed roof didn't leak on it when it rained? Sure, it's a missed opportunity, but wouldn't you rather see it doing what it was designed to do? I sure as hell would, and I hope to see K7 over here on Lake Dumbleyung someday - the place of Donald Campbell's greatest triumph.
I'll show myself out.
Over to you Ernie ........pass the popcorn
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:10 pm
We are still waiting for Ernie to clarify what it is he has'nt yet started.
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:57 pm
Just a point on the corroded jet engine in the museum. If memory serves me right the museum were quoted several thousand pounds for a display case. BBP thought it was a bit steep so we made them one free of charge. I remember Bill and i being in the workshop in the early hours of the delivery day to get it finished on time. I supplied and fitted the lightng for the display, and we even delivered and installed the display being careful not to touch the still wet paint.No cost to the museum if i remember right.
Bluebirds tail fin was also installed for display by BBP free of charge along with other displays along the way. We promised to deliver a finished boat the same way. Its not yet finished. Still work to do and testing to carry out. If the museum want a display such as this free of charge then surely they have to let us get on with the work and test runs without all this hassle.
Bluebirds tail fin was also installed for display by BBP free of charge along with other displays along the way. We promised to deliver a finished boat the same way. Its not yet finished. Still work to do and testing to carry out. If the museum want a display such as this free of charge then surely they have to let us get on with the work and test runs without all this hassle.
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:32 am
Neither does anyone else but we do remember being formally invited to run on Coniston Water in July 2019 only to have that event cancelled due to 'unforeseen circumstances' and therefore inviting the museum (invite sent 30th January 2019) to join with us in a joint venture on Bute because our team had made arrangements with both employers and families to be running K7 at that time and it was unfair to simply cancel without offering an alternative - a matter as yet unresolved.Don't recall anyone saying it would run on Loch Fad on the Isle of Bute TWICE before running on Coniston THEN going into the museum??
No matter - as you correctly point out, the understanding and the basis on which our volunteers have given thousand of hours of free work over many years is to see K7 run on Coniston Water and THEN be displayed in the museum. Thank you for making it very clear that this agreement was both known to, and understood by, a local of the village unconnected to the museum trustees.
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:42 am
And yet, ironically, BBP has spent years trying to convince us of how much of the boat is original... I seem to recall figures of 90% original parts being bandied about (despite the entirely new engine and sponsons).Filtertron wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:31 pm ...in a legal sense, the wreckage of K7 now no longer exists (save for possibly a few small shards of twisted metal at the bottom of Coniston, and the corroded jet engine in the museum)...
I imagine we can look forward to the amusement of watching some frantic backpedalling on such claims, in the near future...
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:08 am
90% of the wreckage, Bill has said this numerous times over the years
The wreckage accounts for approximately 50% of the boat.
Had you followed from the very beginning (without unconscious bias) you would know this.
So here’s standing by waiting for puerile efforts to point the stick look blah de blah said this on this date and I have screen grabbed it......no body cares....
If you need screen grabs speak to Stuckleberry he has loads “virtual gold” I am told.....
Again no one cares.
Time will be the judge the British public the jury, but as it stands at the minute the museum will go down in history as the the destructor of a national icon.....talk about hosing down a Phoenix just before it takes flight.
Still waiting for clarity from Ernie on his veiled threats.
The wreckage accounts for approximately 50% of the boat.
Had you followed from the very beginning (without unconscious bias) you would know this.
So here’s standing by waiting for puerile efforts to point the stick look blah de blah said this on this date and I have screen grabbed it......no body cares....
If you need screen grabs speak to Stuckleberry he has loads “virtual gold” I am told.....
Again no one cares.
Time will be the judge the British public the jury, but as it stands at the minute the museum will go down in history as the the destructor of a national icon.....talk about hosing down a Phoenix just before it takes flight.
Still waiting for clarity from Ernie on his veiled threats.
Re: Donald Campbell's restored Bluebird in museum home row
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:31 am
Had the Coniston Bluebird Event Working Group (CBEWG) put forward dates for 2019 (confirmed in early November 2018) for which they could actually organise the homecoming festival, an event which includes the Proving Trial of Bluebird K7, then your recollection might have some relevance.newsgirluk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:08 pm Don't recall anyone saying it would run on Loch Fad on the Isle of Bute TWICE before running on Coniston THEN going into the museum??
The Coniston Water Bye Law allows for only one Proving Trial on 'your' lake so everything has to be right. Coming without practice would not have been sensible. With dates fixed some five months ago in diaries and holidays booked, the crew and in particular the safety personnel can practice for a second time. In the time available for organisation, Bute and Loch Fad in particular, seems to be the waterway which is able to offer the BBP suitable water.