But my sense of wellbeing was disrupted when BMF chief executive John Clarke said to me as an aside during another conversation that he wished I hadn't written those words about BW and Robin Evans. He was reluctant to elucidate on that remark. "Wait and see, " he told me.

Early last month I found out to what he had been alluding when the five year row between BW and the BMF erupted again. Big Time.

This time the row is public after BW issued a statement to its customers and the press early in November. This brought a response from the BMF. And another letter to customers from BW. Finally, a more detailed response from the BMF to the first BW statement.

You'll find the statements set out verbatim starting on page 18 of this issue. See what you make of them and let me know your thoughts.

The row started soon after BW went into the marinas and moorings market in direct competition with its own customers five years ago.

A lot of BW customers are BMF members. So when the BMF received complaints from its members about the manner in which BW was conducting its marinas businesses, it had to act.

In short, the row is over whether BW is complying with UK competition law. According to the BMF's counsel, it isn't. According to BW's counsel, it is.

The BMF says BW refuses to provide it with precise details of its compliance procedures. BW counters by saying the BMF refuses to give it details of the complaints made against it by the BMF members.

I'm not sure how these two stack up against each other.

The BMF refused to break the confidentiality of the complaints by revealing the names to BW. Sounds OK to me.

But BW seems to try to say there can be no complaints against it because the BMF won't give it details of its complaints. This suggests BW has never received a complaint about its marinas operations.

Pardon?

There is plenty of evidence that BW has caused enormous upsets in the marinas market. A scan through the letters pages of BB would set the scene. A chat with Tim Coghlan on the same subject produced a response verging on the apoplectic. "What about Foxton? What about Kilworth? What about Willow Tree? What about Sherborne Wharf, " he demanded.

But when I spoke to both Evans and Clarke and asked what would get them back to the negotiating table, they both came up with basically the same ideal. Clarke wants to see - in words of one syllable - what BW proposes to ensure it complies with UK competition law. Simple.

Evans, in the meantime, says he is absolutely committed to fair trading. Wonderful: that's what the BMF wants to hear.

So where's the problem here?

All it needs is for BW to show the BMF details of its compliance procedures.

Mr Evans; why do you have a problem with that?