Oyster in liquidation

[Eric50]

Working on construction sites since 1983, sometime at shipyard, it is always a very sad information for me to hear that a company with a long history is about to close.

Main reasons are that it takes ages, or decades to reach, learn and develop good workmanship, construction skills, experience and a certain level of organization, not to mention quality as Oyster was renown for, when such company works it is always kind of a miracle.

All things that are barely teach at school or university, but onsite most of the time.

And it takes seconds to loose it.

At the age where "sustainable development" fashion is everywhere, it sounds even more wrong !

In addition to this, it is even worse when this is happening in a country that historically rules the waves and has always be known for its excellency in shipbuilding, since...centuries, loosing one of its flagship company is never a good sign.

I do sincerely hope that this shipyard will survive and carry on producing nice boats as they did in the past.

UK is in a transition phase currently because of the Brexit (for which I fell sorry too, a great loss for EU...), I also hope that is only an isolated / single "incident" for them.

let's keep the fingers crossed for Oyster.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

There is a big diference on a keel that fell without the boat being grounded after just one year of use and a keel that fell after one or several hard groundings (not having been properly repaired) and more than a decade of hard use.

The oyster that lost the keel, according to the skipper, was never grounded.

Another big difference regards a keel falling on a model that has only 4 or 5 on the water or a keel falling on a model that has 550 boats built and on the water, not having almost all of the other 550 any significant problem.

The only vaguely similar case was the one with the Bavaria Match 42 where only one keel was lost but where it was discovered that there was several boats with problems. Like on the Oyster the company assumed that there was a design problem, all the boats were called in and reinforced.

Bavaria finished almost immediately with that line (performance cruisers) kind of saying to the clients that the fault was on lighter cruiser racers type of built, and they increased the weight on their cruising line making it substantially heavier then the French boats and when asked why they said that they wanted to favor safety over speed.

That kind of assurance seems to have worked regarding the market. Also the fact that keels were not felling on the many thousands cruising Bavarias was an important factor.

If Oyster had made a similar move, stating that now the boats would be heavier and that they would increase boat safety, maybe they could have got away with it but they never dealt well with the accident, starting with the client.

If they had given him a new boat that pictures would never had been taken and they could have maintained credibility. Credibility is very important for a boat builder even more for one that sells boats that cost several millions.

Interesting question -- haven't there been actually SEVERAL Swan yachts which have suffered keel failure? I seem to recall that there was an entire class of Swans that had chronic problems with the keels.

Interesting that this didn't seem to affect Swan's success. Maybe we are overestimating the effect of the Oyster keel incident, on the fate of the company.

[a64pilot]

What I can’t get over is when a keel falls off a boat, any boat, there are a great many people that jump up and say, well the Boat must have been grounded in the past.
Of course it has been aground, most boats run aground at some time don’t they? I admit to it. I’ve run aground a couple of times in my boat, been lucky so far and have always gotten off easy.
I find that excuse as ridiculous as the wheel falling off of an automobile that people would say, well they must have hit a pot hole.

A cruising boat that isn’t built well enough to withstand a grounding, no, several groundings isn’t built well enough, in my opinion.

[TomNH]

Reading other stuff about Oyster's failure there are a few points that haven't been covered:

- Old 'Matthews' era Oyster were not a 'boat builder' in that they didn't have a yard. They were a design and marketing office, outsourcing all the build to a trusted supply chain of quality yards. The PE owners actually invested to bring the manufacture in house and established the Southampton yard. But this suggests that much of the old know how might not have transferred - though the keel issue was clearly design rather than manufacture.

- Only one firm of the group has gone insolvent: the manufacturer. the IP and moulds are owned by another part of the group. No one who buys what's gone bust gets the brand or the moulds. I'm guessing that the sales contracts were with the builder, but that the builder will have paid (substantial?) fees for the use of the moulds (much like southerly of the multiple insolvencies). How much of that £80mn order book is a potentially workable business is an unknown. Frankly this makes the prospects look even worse for the poor workforce.

The boats weren't to my taste, but had traditionally been very well put together. A real shame. I do wonder to what degree Discovery had stolen their clothes? I'd go to Swan or Discovery in the alternative universe where I could place an order for a new high end 60' boat.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Interesting question -- haven't there been actually SEVERAL Swan yachts which have suffered keel failure? I seem to recall that there was an entire class of Swans that had chronic problems with the keels.

Interesting that this didn't seem to affect Swan's success. Maybe we are overestimating the effect of the Oyster keel incident, on the fate of the company.

Maybe but I don't remember any Swan having lost the keel. Can you give me more information on that?

[Colin A]

Originally Posted by Polux

Maybe but I don't remember any Swan having lost the keel. Can you give me more information on that?

I have read about it before. Legend goes it's why Swan stopped building S&S designs. The 57' built in the late 70's had issues with the floors and the keel attachment. I gather swan blamed the designer and the designer blamed swan. Swan kept building the boat but I gather changed the construction in the problem area. Not sure if Swan fixed any of the offending boats. Also not sure if they caused any major sinking.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Colin A

I have read about it before. Legend goes it's why Swan stopped building S&S designs. The 57' built in the late 70's had issues with the floors and the keel attachment. I gather swan blamed the designer and the designer blamed swan. Swan kept building the boat but I gather changed the construction in the problem area. Not sure if Swan fixed any of the offending boats. Also not sure if they caused any major sinking.

I have done some research but I could not have found any Swan that have lost the keel, I have however find references to several S&S Swans that had keel problems but they were boats built on the late 70's early 80's and the problems occurred not when they were new but 30 years later.

Those cases have much more to do with that young couple that lost the keel on a old Columbia than with the case of the Oyster or the Bavaria Match, both almost new boats.

No one that buys new boats gives a damn about what happens to the boat 30 years later after being heavily used in racing and probably grounded. That would not affect the reputation of new Swans.

Even if not grounded the keel on a boat with 30 years should have been dismounted and the bolts replaced, specially on a boat used extensively for offshore racing as many of those boats where.

Anyway after the 80's Swan started to use a galvanized steel frame. Not that those have not problems too since the frame needs maintenance as everything.

The problem is that many think that because they buy a well built boat the boat will not need maintenance on the keel area. That is a mistake and I guess we will see in a near future a lot more old boats, from reputable brands or not, having problems with keels. I agree with these two fellow sailors:

John Squire :"Maintenance is Key

I look after racing yachts with the high aspect ratio fins. We race the boats hard and it in inevitable that we have grounded at high speed. After this I have taken steps to have the keel inspected, keel bolts torqued and in some cases ultra sounded. I have never had any trouble expect for one bad grounding but we took the full maintenance steps and the boat is still racing hard now.

Since the tragic loss of Cheeki Rafiki most of the racing charter fleet have had the keels removed, full check and the it all being reseated. Some of the boats had to have had work. A large number of boat owners believe that they don't need to worry about keels which is insane. If proper steps are taken then it greatly reduces the danger of such loss.

The keelboats and the keel should be checked regularly and also after any serious grounding or stress load. It is simple maintenance. The designers do know what they are doing!"

and also with this guy :

Bluebeard: "Major overhauls as currently understood, do not include any check for fatigue damage anywhere in the hull or keel structure.
The problem is that there are no existing standards for yacht design.
Every industry has had it's catastropic learning curve with fatigue. The aircraft industry had the Comet, and the offshore industry had the Alexander Kielland. As a result each industry has developed and implemented appropriate design standards. That is what the leisure sailing industry needs to do."

So, there is a problem? Yes there is a problem that will increase with the age of the boat and we need guidance from the industry in what regards maintenance schedule for boats in what regards things like keel structure keel bolts and chainplates.

RCD establishes minimum requirements regarding new boats and in some cases how many years one or other part of the boat should last but nothing in what regards medium or long term maintenance.

The surveyors that elaborated the reports on that Fist 40.7 that lost the keel were clear about that: the need of clear guidance from boat builders and in general the boat industry about maintenance schedules and the way they should be performed is a key factor to prevent accidents.

https://www.classicswan.org/forum/po...hp?thread=1107
Nautor Swan Structural Problems in Mid Atlantic - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums
https://www.classicswan.org/forum/po...hp?thread=1247
Swan46 » Blog Archive » Twilight – galvanizing of steel frame
Keel failure: the shocking facts - Yachting World

[CareKnot]

Originally Posted by LLizzard

Yep, women in cocktail dresses and heals while drinking wine and going 10 kts... THE HORROR!

You forgot 'slinky'. Wouldn't it be slinky cocktail dresses? The proper adjectives can make all the difference.

[CareKnot]

I'm sorry about the above post, I just couldn't help it. My comment is off topic and not the least bit serious. I read your post and couldn't help but laugh out loud.

Never saw a marketing firm that wouldn't put a good-looking woman in a slinky dress to sell a product, should the opportunity presented itself. It just seems inconceivable. 😉

[CareKnot]

As the song says, "...it's all a lot of Oysters, but no pearls."

[ahun]

Some inside opinion

[Polux]

Originally Posted by ahun

Some inside opinion

Very interesting another one that thinks that Oyster managed very badly the Polina Star accident.

What is that about another Oyster sunk on the med?

[ahun]

He was out sailing and/or surveying another Oyster yacth, that is what the post about. He says, it isn't that one, a bit misunderstandable.

[CarstenWL]

... "A first-hand account of what happened to the Oyster 825-02 sailing yacht, POLINA STAR III, and how a failure to handle the dispute properly, in our opinion, caused the liquidation of the shipyard" - HOW IT WENT DOWN: The Oyster Story

Regards,

Carsten

[surf_sail]

Originally Posted by CarstenWL

... "A first-hand account of what happened to the Oyster 825-02 sailing yacht, POLINA STAR III, and how a failure to handle the dispute properly, in our opinion, caused the liquidation of the shipyard" - HOW IT WENT DOWN: The Oyster Story

Regards,

Carsten

Certainly mistakes were made by Oyster. But the link provided is clearly a hit piece so I would take everything with a grain of salt.


I took a look at the financial statements. This company was in bad shape even before Polinia Star incident. My guess is that it was handled so poorly because they simply didn't have the financial abilities to deal with it.

Yes they had an 80mil order book. But they weren't making any profit (some years they just broke even and others they lost significant money). The fact that Oysterstory.info has an the unanswered question of "why liquidate now" and states the "record order book of 80mil" providing a runway of 1.5 years tells me that the site authors are either stupid or dishonest. A quick look at the financial statements would beg the question of how did they last this long?

Likely the lenders finally pulled the plug on their financing this year.

The hit piece also makes a vague allegation that money was pulled out illegally. If that's the case you won't be able to tell in these financial statements. You'll need a forensic account to make that determination...