In article <[log in to unmask]>, George Myszka
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>What happens if problems occurr - partnership breakdown, list size
>changing, early retirement, personal problems, government changes etc
>etc.
>
>We eventually decided against it as being too high a risk dependant upon
>factors outside of our control. And for what? Not quality of medicine
>surely.
>
Absolutely - these are my feelings.
The HA loves PFI - non-cash limitted funds, politically smiled upon and
*no risk*
The PFI company love PFI - huge income which is independent of what
happens to notional rent cos it is the GP that is tied to the 25 year
lease no matter what, and capital finance is via multiple large
organisations that spread the load - so *little risk*
GP loves PFI cos 'luverly building guvnor'......and later may hate it
cos notional rent got capped/disappeared. general practice went
private/disappeared etc and has to pay to lease for 25 years with no
chance of the realisation of capital that would allow escape - so
*signigicant risk*
HA gets kudos at not cost
PFI co gets huge profits
GP gets building but carries the risk for the others and cannot escape
for 25 years and may have no reimbursement to pay the 'above market'
rent that is agreed at the outset - with nothing to show for it at the
end.
At least if you get struck down by negative equity on a cost-rent there
is still some capital to be realised to ease some of the burden.
Any other views?
Cheers :-)
--
Jelly Bean
'When you get fed up surfing....
.....go find some waves'
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|