Cromwell Sold

[Deleted]

Anybody heard who has bought Cromwell Lake.??
As one of the norths most productive carp waters for 30s and 40s, we have to hope that it does not become yet another closed water to the day ticket and overnight ticket men.

[woodchucker]

I have just heard about this, not sure who has bought it but I hope its not for a syndicate

[jerseyman]

you would have a chance of getting on there though, best hope its not a different type of group altogether.

[Deleted]

Dec 23, 2010 18:41:06 GMT jerseyman said:

you would have a chance of getting on there though, best hope its not a different type of group altogether.

Why not a different type of group?
Syndicates are far too exclusive.
There are other options which could allow access to waters for the average angler without having to buy into a syndicate membership and the high cost that it entails for the average angler who works and cannot spend hundreds of hours on the venue.
Lots of the syndicates are fully subscribed anyway and you are in a queue waiting for someone to die who probably has not fished the water for years as he is in a care home.
It`s 2011 in a few days and we really need to modernise our approach to carp fishing.
OK it`s now commercial but we have not moved forward since it became so some 20 years ago.
In fact the better venues are being "bought" by those who have a few bob.
I have been on syndicated waters where there is over 50 acres of water and only 2 fishing.
What the hell is that about?

[Sam Vimes]

Dec 24, 2010 1:03:03 GMT @tomeluk said:

Dec 23, 2010 18:41:06 GMT jerseyman said:

you would have a chance of getting on there though, best hope its not a different type of group altogether.

Why not a different type of group?

Perhaps Jerseyman could be thinking of RSPB, English Nature or the like, which could spell the end of angling on the venue.

P.S. Not all syndicates are bad news or particularly small and exclusive. I appreciate that they are usually small but they don't have to be. I remember a place that was technically a syndicate (I don't recall calling it as such though) but actually had more members than some smaller angling clubs. It got bought by a club that had a waiting list for members. Has less anglers on it now than it ever did as a syndicate.
The prevelance of small syndicates has a great deal to do with the less desireable element in our midst. You can't blame a landowner for not wanting the hassle of selling day tickets, litter, loud music, drugs, excessive drinking etc etc.

[tyke66]

Dec 24, 2010 1:03:03 GMT @tomeluk said:

Dec 23, 2010 18:41:06 GMT jerseyman said:

you would have a chance of getting on there though, best hope its not a different type of group altogether.

Why not a different type of group?
Syndicates are far too exclusive.
There are other options which could allow access to waters for the average angler without having to buy into a syndicate membership and the high cost that it entails for the average angler who works and cannot spend hundreds of hours on the venue.
Lots of the syndicates are fully subscribed anyway and you are in a queue waiting for someone to die who probably has not fished the water for years as he is in a care home.
It`s 2011 in a few days and we really need to modernise our approach to carp fishing.
OK it`s now commercial but we have not moved forward since it became so some 20 years ago.
In fact the better venues are being "bought" by those who have a few bob.
I have been on syndicated waters where there is over 50 acres of water and only 2 fishing.
What the hell is that about?

That's partly what you're paying for tomeluk. Sam is right as well, a lot of venue owners are just sick of the chav element so price them out of it by becoming syndicate only.

[Deleted]

I do understand what you are saying and the reasons some waters turn syndicate but quality waters like Cromwell should be bailiffed anyway and part of the job of a bailiff has got to be controlling who gets on the water and how they conduct themselves when they are on it.

There has got to be a better way than full syndication which seemingly punishes the average angler for the misdemeanours of the few.

[tyke66]

I hear what your saying tomeluk but in everything it's usually the minority that spoil it for the majority. I am a bailiff for the local council waters here and we do not allow the sort of behaviour mentioned to go on unpoliced. However, for a private fishery owner I can understand that they do not want the hassle and added cost of policing the chav element. It does seem a shame when quality fisheries suddenly become unavailable to the average angler though and we can only hope that in this instance it doesn't happen.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2010 11:38:20 GMT tyke66 said:

I hear what your saying tomeluk but in everything it's usually the minority that spoil it for the majority. I am a bailiff for the local council waters here and we do not allow the sort of behaviour mentioned to go on unpoliced. However, for a private fishery owner I can understand that they do not want the hassle and added cost of policing the chav element. It does seem a shame when quality fisheries suddenly become unavailable to the average angler though and we can only hope that in this instance it doesn't happen.

Lots of owners do not want the hassle I agree but some owners get the hassle simply because they are not good or responsible owners.
I can think of quite a lot of waters where they do not get any bother because it is known that the owner will not tolerate bad behaviour and any misbehaviour will result in the removal of the perpetrators. I can also think of some waters where the owner is only interested in collecting the fees and does not really care about who is on and what they do as long as they pay. In the long term the fishery and revenue will go into decline as the unruly element force off the average angler and the fishery is over run with ferrels smoking pot and chucking empty lager cans around.
Sorry but I put many of the problems down to owners who do not police their waters efficiently.

[Sam Vimes]

Dec 24, 2010 11:14:53 GMT @tomeluk said:

quality waters like Cromwell should be bailiffed anyway and part of the job of a bailiff has got to be controlling who gets on the water and how they conduct themselves when they are on it.

What happens when the bailiffs are threatened with violence? I know I'd not wish to be a bailiff. They couldn't pay me enough to make the risk worthwhile.

I'm tired of losing good water to syndicates too. However, I don't blame landowners one jot.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2010 13:03:50 GMT Sam Vimes said:

Dec 24, 2010 11:14:53 GMT @tomeluk said:

quality waters like Cromwell should be bailiffed anyway and part of the job of a bailiff has got to be controlling who gets on the water and how they conduct themselves when they are on it.

What happens when the bailiffs are threatened with violence?

[/color]I know I'd not wish to be a bailiff. They couldn't pay me enough to make the risk worthwhile.

I'm tired of losing good water to syndicates too. However, I don't blame landowners one jot.[/quote]

I imagine they get on their mobile phones and call the local police.


I am not saying it is easy. I am asking the question. Is syndication and exclusivity the best way forward or could there be other ways which could discourage the rowdy element while still allowing the average joe public access?
Currently there seems to be only 2 ways. Ticket waters or syndicates.
Does it have to be one or the other?

[Sam Vimes]

Dec 24, 2010 13:51:43 GMT @tomeluk said:

Dec 24, 2010 13:03:50 GMT Sam Vimes said:

What happens when the bailiffs are threatened with violence?

[/color]I know I'd not wish to be a bailiff. They couldn't pay me enough to make the risk worthwhile.

I'm tired of losing good water to syndicates too. However, I don't blame landowners one jot.[/quote]

I imagine they get on their mobile phones and call the local police.[/quote]

That'll be why the EA bailiffs tend to go around in pairs wearing stab proof vests?

Rather than bailiffing their waters it's a boat load easier for the owners to simply not bother with bailiffs and day tickets. I suspect that to adequately bailiff some waters the cost of the day tickets would have to go up so much as to make the cost of many syndicates look like a bargain.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2010 13:59:01 GMT Sam Vimes said:

Dec 24, 2010 13:51:43 GMT @tomeluk said:

I imagine they get on their mobile phones and call the local police.

That'll be why the EA bailiffs tend to go around in pairs wearing stab proof vests?

Rather than bailiffing their waters it's a boat load easier for the owners to simply not bother with bailiffs and day tickets. I suspect that to adequately bailiff some waters the cost of the day tickets would have to go up so much as to make the cost of many syndicates look like a bargain.

I understand all that.
Owners go for the easy option but who does it really affect? Us the angler who loses another of his favourite waters to the syndication system.
We get the problem so we should look for solutions.
We are sick of losing access to waters but what do we do about it?
Sweet diddly squat.
So OK
Why cannot we forward buy a piece of time on a water depending on our needs. The cost of time being greater at the weekends than in midweek?

[Sam Vimes]

Dec 24, 2010 14:23:39 GMT @tomeluk said:

Why cannot we forward buy a piece of time on a water depending on our needs. The cost of time being greater at the weekends than in midweek?

Sounds like a timeshare syndicate to me.

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2010 14:29:52 GMT Sam Vimes said:

Dec 24, 2010 14:23:39 GMT @tomeluk said:

Why cannot we forward buy a piece of time on a water depending on our needs. The cost of time being greater at the weekends than in midweek?

Sounds like a timeshare syndicate to me.

Well it works for timeshare why not for angling?
It keeps the rowdies out and you only buy what you want to use on a forward purchase "use it or lose it" basis.
The owner has control over the amount of time he sells. The angler has control over the amount of time he spends on the water.
Front end annual membership fee.
Cause bother and you are excluded.

[tyke66]

Could have hit on something there Sam...timeshare angling hmm.

Seriously, at the end of the day you have to remember that it's someones business, their livelihood. If they can make a water syndicate with say 20 members paying a few hundred quid a year, no hassle, no ticket collecting, no bailiffs, the option must be attractive to them rather than constantly policing the place to keep the unwanted off and getting abuse and threats for it. Unfortunately bailiffs are subject to abuse, threats and in some cases violence and as Sam correctly says the EA bailiffs now travel in pairs wearing stab vests due to incidents involving eastern europeans carrying knives. Would you want that sort of hassle when going about your daily business? The answer for me has to be No!

[Sam Vimes]

Dec 24, 2010 14:37:56 GMT @tomeluk said:

Well it works for timeshare why not for angling?
It keeps the rowdies out and you only buy what you want to use on a forward purchase "use it or lose it" basis.
The owner has control over the amount of time he sells. The angler has control over the amount of time he spends on the water.
Front end annual membership fee.
Cause bother and you are excluded.

So, what you're really against isn't syndicates per se, just syndicates that you can't get into or can't afford?

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2010 14:43:24 GMT Sam Vimes said:

Dec 24, 2010 14:37:56 GMT @tomeluk said:

Well it works for timeshare why not for angling?
It keeps the rowdies out and you only buy what you want to use on a forward purchase "use it or lose it" basis.
The owner has control over the amount of time he sells. The angler has control over the amount of time he spends on the water.
Front end annual membership fee.
Cause bother and you are excluded.

So, what you're really against isn't syndicates per se, just syndicates that you can't get into or can't afford?

I am not against syndicates or for them.
I just happen to believe that we are losing too many waters to syndicates and am asking, does it have to be that way?
Are there other possible solutions.

As for the Eastern Europeans they are here to stay.
As for the Chav element. It too is here to stay.
We either walk away or look for solutions.
I like my angling too much to walk away and so do all the other posters on these forums.
I am not in any syndicates but I can afford to be, it is just that I like to fish many different waters and I don`t think I could get real value from a syndicate water where I would probably only fish it 2 or 3 times a year.

[BOF]

I don`t think I could get real value from a syndicate water where I would probably only fish it 2 or 3 times a year.

Think about it, if its a Carp syndicate and you fish sessions, tomeluk, the 2 or 3 sessions could be called holidays. Then where else could you get 2 or 3 weeks holiday on a good Carp water for £200 - £300 per year?
Thats how I used to look upon the membership of some of my more far flung syndicates anyway.

BOF

[Deleted]

The only problem is Bof that I am not a youngster and a 48 hr session is now about my limit.
In 3 or 4 weeks I will be on Lake Chira for 7 days I will be within 20 mtrs of the lake day and night for 7 days but I have to accept my limitations and will only be fishing for 4 days out of the seven and I doubt very much if I will fish through any night. It will be hard to be there and watch opportunities pass me by but it has to be. I have now got the time to do it but I no longer have the endurance.
It`s a shame that when we have the time to enjoy ourselves we are too old to do so.
It will be far worse for future generations as their retirement goalposts are moved further into their dotage. The presidence has now been set with very little objections from those affected so I suspect the retirement age to be taken up and up until some generation says enough is enough.

[yorkiman]

If dreams could only bi wishes, then we catch loads of fishess.................

[Deleted]

Dec 24, 2010 20:08:40 GMT yorkiman said:

If dreams could only bi wishes, then we catch loads of fishess.................

Can I just have a half of what he`s had please landlord ;D
No offence intended.

Enjoy yourself Yorkiman.

[Sam Vimes]

Dec 24, 2010 14:57:08 GMT @tomeluk said:

Dec 24, 2010 14:43:24 GMT Sam Vimes said:

So, what you're really against isn't syndicates per se, just syndicates that you can't get into or can't afford?

I am not against syndicates or for them.
I just happen to believe that we are losing too many waters to syndicates and am asking, does it have to be that way?
Are there other possible solutions.

The sad fact is that I'm not sure that there are many alternatives.
Day ticket waters tend to reap the bigger financial rewards for the owners but that comes with the possibility of a heap of aggravation. Syndicates generally offer a reduced income but massively reduced footfall and hassle. The timeshare syndicate proposal is probably feasible economically for the landowner but takes more work. A day ticket fishery that wanted to maintain a similar level of income might go for it but I suspect that the cost per angler would be as much, if not more than the average syndicate.

I've resisted joining a syndicate for years. This year I gave up fighting the inevitable. I did the sums and worked out what was what. The reality was that a half decent day ticket carp fishery would be at least £10 a day and £20 for an overnighter. Twenty day sessions and a couple of overnighters leaves you looking at £240 in tickets. Bear in mind that's for an average carp fishery, not necessarily a particularly good one. www.linear-fisheries.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.prices A syndicate starts to look less expensive in this light. Cromwell itself isn't particularly cheap. www.cromwelllake.com/page9.htm

I've also found that I'm much more inclined to pop down and have a dabble for a few hours. If I'd had to pay for a day ticket somewhere this simply wouldn't happen.

The other comparison I made was with a football season ticket. I used to have one a few years ago. If I wanted one now it would cost me around £400 a season, maybe even a lot more. Makes most syndicates look an absolute steal.I've had my moneys worth this year but the enjoyment has been having a fishery to myself on many occasions. Being involved and having a say on what goes on. The biggest joy is watching the fishery grow and mature knowing that you are playing a part. It beats the hell out of fishing soulless holes with a horde of customers.

I'll grant you that syndicates are no good for the very occasional angler. However, If you can get there at least once every week spring through to autumn you can really make it pay.

The only option left for the very occasional angler is whatever day ticket waters remain. For those that go a little more regularly you've got club tickets. Both will survive despite the seeming onslaught of syndicates.

[jerseyman]

Dec 24, 2010 14:57:08 GMT @tomeluk said:

Dec 24, 2010 14:43:24 GMT Sam Vimes said:

So, what you're really against isn't syndicates per se, just syndicates that you can't get into or can't afford?

I am not against syndicates or for them.
I just happen to believe that we are losing too many waters to syndicates and am asking, does it have to be that way?
Are there other possible solutions.

As for the Eastern Europeans they are here to stay.
As for the Chav element. It too is here to stay.
We either walk away or look for solutions.
I like my angling too much to walk away and so do all the other posters on these forums.
I am not in any syndicates but I can afford to be, it is just that I like to fish many different waters and I don`t think I could get real value from a syndicate water where I would probably only fish it 2 or 3 times a year.

Thought provoking, but i look at from the totally opposite point of view.
I get to travel up north, once maybe twice a yr, and i find it far easier to pay the money for one or two club books, just for the simple fact that i will have choice of venues, to cover most weather conditions, i don't need to look for the day ticket seller, the access to and the rules for the water probably won't have changed, and if they have i have it in writing.
If i was that lucky to get the chance to have spare time, i would get a syndicate somewhere, as i then could go fishing on a nice water, and get a swim, when i wanted one.

As for baliffing, it can be hard enough to get club members to follow or respect the rules,even with the threat of sanctions been applied.

Fact of life i fear now Tomeluk, anglers who can afford, who wish to get away from the problems described earlier in the thread, will take any offers they get ,to get some peace, and not necessarily have big fish in mind

[Deleted]

Two great posts Sam and Jerseyman but not coming up with anything really new to move carp fishing forward.
I was kinda hoping that there would be one ore two ideas which could be looked at with a view to getting access to possibly exclusive waters for those who cannot afford to be in a syndicate or those who cannot get the time in good waters to make their fees worthwhile.

It seems to me that currently you have to be a named angling celebrity to get an invite to some waters.

[Deleted]

New owner posted on Cromwell site today that It will continue to run as a carp fishery with no changes to the prices as yet.

lake by Nathan new owner - written 27/12/2010 17:02:31
The lake is still frozen i will let you know as to when it is fishable.The lake will continue to run as a carp fishery there will be no immediate changes.As a good will gesture i have decided to keep the prices same for 2011.

[jerseyman]

Well thats your first fear out of the way ,at least for now.

My own thoughts, would be dependant on the level of experience of the new owner. If he has run a water before , you may be on thin ice, if you express your thoughts in the wrong way. last thing you want is banning for racking him off.

However, he may discretely ask regulars for a bit of feed back, if so make sure you get your proposals right to start with ,as in a lot of cases ,the loudest voice is often heard whether its right or wrong.


Ever thought of taking up river fishing?

[Deleted]

Dec 28, 2010 19:38:54 GMT jerseyman said:

Well thats your first fear out of the way ,at least for now.

My own thoughts, would be dependant on the level of experience of the new owner. If he has run a water before , you may be on thin ice, if you express your thoughts in the wrong way. last thing you want is banning for racking him off.

However, he may discretely ask regulars for a bit of feed back, if so make sure you get your proposals right to start with ,as in a lot of cases ,the loudest voice is often heard whether its right or wrong.


Ever thought of taking up river fishing?

Why would I express my thoughts the wrong way?
They own so they dictate.
We as anglers can plant thought seeds though.
Not overly keen on Cromwell for myself as it is a hell of a hike to the far end pegs and I am not getting any younger so I would only go if I had a couple of younger mates along with me to help with the gear.
River fishing I used to do many years ago Nidd, Swale, Derwent, Ouse, Costa, Dove, but again it is a hell of a walk sometimes.
My limit seems to be 1,2,3,11,12,13 on Q Lake these days.

[compo]

if yu cant find any info look here
www.cromwelllake.com/userimages/forum.htm