BMFA National Flying Centre

MattyB · May 5, 2015

...

Edited By MattyB on 05/05/2015 23:28:52

Dave Hopkin · May 5, 2015

Posted by MattyB on 05/05/2015 23:27:09:

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 05/05/2015 23:06:40:

Matty, I read the proposal to the full council meeting differently, in that while they were in the process of making contact with the selling agent and making planning searches etc they have raised a proposal for full council support in this course of action to be voted on at the meeting on 16th May. I assume if it is accepted that there will be subsequent proposals and votes before proceeding with any purchase etc.

I was not referring to the proposal to the full council meeting, but the new update on the BMFA site published today. That states as point 11 (erroneously numbered 1 again!) "Offer accepted with a proposed contract date of June 5th and completion date of September 1st". I cannot see how they can state that with explicit dates unless an offer has been placed and accepted.

I am guessing it would be via a Statement of Intent between the BMFA and the Agents, which serves as a non-binding precursor to a contract allowing time for things like Change of Use, covenants etc to be sorted out

Peter Jenkins · May 5, 2015

If you've ever bought or sold a house you'll know that until contracts are exchanged the deal is not done! Either party can walk away without any penalty. Not so in Scotland I believe.

Martin Harris - Moderator · May 5, 2015

I'm obviously out of touch with terminology because I thought a feasibility study into the establishment of a national centre would concentrate on general principles, location, funding, usage, income generators etc. before starting to consider a specific purchase should the study result in a positive indication but it seems that it was mainly used to identify a number of sites which would be worth bidding on...

Peter Jenkins · May 5, 2015

Martin, have you read the rationale behind why there is a proposal to bid for Laws Lawn Farm.

Firstly, Full Council has to decide whether the Feasibility Study has come up with a viable solution. Then the options presented will have to receive publicity around the membership and only then will a decision be made on the NC. This will require either an EGM or an AGM decision.

Buying a farm (an unfortunate expression in the circumstances) is merely a by-product of the feasibility study as an alternative use of funds which are currently getting very little interest sitting in a bank, or where ever they are sitting, as opposed to investing in land that is showing every sign of appreciation encouraged by Government and the need to build a huge number of houses in the future.

It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the NC is going ahead as Full Council has yet to meet.

Peter Jenkins · May 5, 2015

Here's another interesting news release from the BMFA which lends support to the idea of a National Centre. Power Nats are OK for Barkston this year but that decision has only just been extracted from the MoD but the Silent Flight Nats may no longer use RAF Cranwell so they are looking for somewhere to use.

MattyB · May 6, 2015

Posted by Martin Harris on 05/05/2015 23:43:27:

I'm obviously out of touch with terminology because I thought a feasibility study into the establishment of a national centre would concentrate on general principles, location, funding, usage, income generators etc. before starting to consider a specific purchase should the study result in a positive indication but it seems that it was mainly used to identify a number of sites which would be worth bidding on...

Very good point Martin. Clearly we have been hoodwinked and those closest to the project never had any intention of presenting the results for review and transparent debate; instead it appears they wish to rush through a decision that delivers their desired result under the pretence of the need to proceed at speed.

Martin Harris - Moderator · May 6, 2015

Peter, I'm going by the latest BMFA information, i.e.

The primary aspects and findings of the study have been briefly summarised below in order to provide additional background on the proposal to Full Council (the proposal is supported by a description of the reasoning from the Chairman).

The key actions and outcomes are summarised below:

Initial broad search criteria established and a selection grid produced in order to score sites against a defined set of criteria

59 locations considered, 20 locations shortlisted and investigated in more detail

Initial focus of the study was MOD/ex MOD airfields as these were felt likely to yield opportunities.

This route proved problematic and ultimately fruitless as current airfields listed for disposal already marked for development/housing and former airfields either already developed or in alternative use (gliding, skydiving, general aviation or industry)

Attention turned to agricultural/brownfield/greenfield land

Two sites of significant interest identified in East Northants, one of which scored highly on the selection grid and was on the market namely Laws Lawn Farm, Kings Cliffe, East Northampstonshire.

Further study work, including costing models directed to Laws Lawn Farm but with relevance to other sites. This showed Laws Lawn Farm to be a meaningful and desirable proposition

Findings of study presented to BMFA Executive and members of the Executive shown location at LLF Kings Cliffe to provide context.

Agreement by the Executive that land purchase represents a relevant first step towards a long term strategy and also represents a meaningful objective in its own right

...which gives me the impression that the feasibility study was not what I thought it was going to be.

Please don't think I'm against the idea of a national centre if the arguments stack up - and I accept that if the BMFA has money lying about unused in bank accounts that are earning little interest that alternative investments should be investigated, but I'm afraid that many people will see the purchase of the land as an investment as rather a convenient coincidence. I just think it would be prudent for the BMFA to preempt any speculation and I don't see any published information on just what the vision and practicalities are.

I'm no financial expert so I can only wonder how assets tied up in land can be released should the BMFA need to use some of their (our) money in a hurry - perhaps borrowing against the security of the land would make financial sense?

The bottom line is that the membership have been told that all that is under way is a feasibility study - but even before this was published (and I really don't see much evidence that its scope was what was expected by the average member) moves (which I do realise are non-binding at this stage) to purchase land have gone ahead.

If there is some more relevant information from the study yet to be published - or I've missed it - please let me know where I can read it and maybe ask the council to think about how to publicise it more effectively.

Edited By Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 00:33:27

MattyB · May 6, 2015

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 05/05/2015 23:52:07:

Martin, have you read the rationale behind why there is a proposal to bid for Laws Lawn Farm.

Firstly, Full Council has to decide whether the Feasibility Study has come up with a viable solution. Then the options presented will have to receive publicity around the membership and only then will a decision be made on the NC. This will require either an EGM or an AGM decision.

Buying a farm (an unfortunate expression in the circumstances) is merely a by-product of the feasibility study as an alternative use of funds which are currently getting very little interest sitting in a bank, or where ever they are sitting, as opposed to investing in land that is showing every sign of appreciation encouraged by Government and the need to build a huge number of houses in the future.

It is by no means a foregone conclusion that the NC is going ahead as Full Council has yet to meet.

1) If the final decision requires an EGM or AGM, how can that happen by June 5th when contracts are due to be exchanged? I doubt that it is possible, so members will be committed to the purchase whether or not they believe it is right and before they have been consulted.

2) If as you suggest this is first and foremost an investment with the speculative possibility of creating a NC, where is the money coming from? According to the BMFA 2013 accounts they would have to invest every penny in the reserves to get anywhere close, and that still isn't £1.25m. The rest we can only assume comes from our insurers, but is it really sensible to invest every £ in the coffers in such a purchase with no reserves? How will the opex costs of the BMFA be met once the land is purchased? Would any of us buy a property or run our own business in this manner?

Edited By MattyB on 06/05/2015 00:36:41

Martin Harris - Moderator · May 6, 2015

It does seem to me that if there is any intention to use the investment land for flying, it's a case of out of the frying pan...into the fire, as any meaningful flying would still be subject to the whim of the MOD due to it being located in an active MATZ. Due to the sun position, RC model flying activities are more likely to be carried out to the north of the site which brings the operation closer to the Wittering runway.

Peter, do you know if the RAF have been approached for their feelings on the matter?

Edited By Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 00:48:15

Peter Jenkins · May 6, 2015

People are confusing two issues.

Firstly, the Executive cannot make the decision to proceed with the NC. Secondly, the proposed purchase of land is an investment decision that is felt to offer a better income stream than current investments by the Executive and might, might mind you, end up being a possible NC site. Both of those will be taken by the Full Council meeting scheduled for 16th May.

True, the surprise decision to make an unbinding offer for the purchase of land has come out of the blue but is more about what the site search turned up and the income being generated by current BMFA assets. I'm sure that members would be happy to see Council look at ways to increase the organisation's income. Since these are time sensitive decisions, asking the whole membership for their views before acting would destroy any opportunity that presented itself.

It would be quite wrong to publish the Feasibility Study to the whole membership before it has been reviewed and debated by Full Council. If Full Council believes that there is more work to be done on the Study for some of the reasons set out in this thread then the membership would have wasted its time in reviewing the Study.

Many of the comments above appear to believe that there is a conspiracy around this decision. I find that hard to believe for the reasons I have set out in earlier posts and reiterated above.

My understanding is that if Full Council thinks the Feasibility Study has merit then the next step will be to inform the membership of the situation and take their views into account. The final decision will require an EGM or AGM. The issue of what investments should be made to secure a better income stream for the Organisation has, as far as I'm aware, never been put the membership and I cannot see any good reason why that should now change. The fact that the investment is in the highest ranked option the Feasibility Study has identified seems to me to be a helpful proposal in the event that, in the fullness of time, the BMFA as a whole decides to take this option. If Full Council does not agree that this is a good investment, regardless of whether it's an option for the NC, that will end the matter.

You can imagine the comments if the primary option identified by the Feasibility Study were to have been sold to someone else and the Executive and Full Council had done nothing to safeguard the option.

In any event, this forum is not the arena for making this decision. There is a process for decision making that was laid down many years ago. That doesn't mean to say that the process should not be revisited but there isn't time to formulate a change, put it to the membership and take it to an EGM or AGM to implement. It's a bit like saying decisions to be taken by Parliament should first be subject to a referendum by the whole country. After all, we all pay taxes so why shouldn't we have a say on matters before a decision is taken by our elected representatives.

The BMFA has opened a channel on its own website for members to put their concerns to the Study Team and Manny has been reading and commenting on most, if not all, of these. I would be surprised if some of those points were not discussed at Full Council even without this prompting.

AGAIN - no decision has been taken on the National Centre because that has to go through the forthcoming Full Council, and then through either an EGM or AGM.

Martin Harris - Moderator · May 6, 2015

Thanks for the comprehensive update but perhaps the reason for the confusion lies with the nature of the information being given. I think that calling a selective issue of information about an incidental issue looked into as part of the feasibility study a "summary of the primary findings" is exceptionally misleading.

Edited By Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 09:31:23

john stones 1 - Moderator · May 6, 2015

I don't have a problem with what Manny posted myself it's there for all to see, ( I accept there was no time to do other) I know things have been there before in minutes but it works better (for me) when it's a stand alone post, this is a big event if it go's ahead or not, maybe when the club bulletins went out something ought to have been posted then. I have no idea about the economics of all this so i'll keep out of it. My belief is simple No committee/organisation should commit it's members to something this big without their approval. Yes I have seen it said we haven't been committed yet some posts on here have made me more optimistic about a centre, the BMFA have yet to do that. I am a bit mistrustful at present but i'd love to be proven wrong.

John

Erfolg · May 6, 2015

Conspiracy? I am not sure that any one has hinted at a conspiracy. My own opinion is a disregard of the membership.

I do suspect and would be surprised if it were otherwise, that those who favour of the concept a NFC were anything other than enthusiastic in the idea. The opportunities for those with reservations have limited avenues available to them, other than this site and the comments section of the BMFA NFC site. I do believe that the vast majority of the membership are still unaware of the NFC other than a vague notion that it is something that is in the future.

Where some favour drawing parallel with the UK, where MPs make decisions resisting any call for referendums. I prefer a small county such as Switzerland, where referendums are not uncommon on a wide variety of topics. My view is that the BMFA is a very small community..

There does appear to be undue haste in pursuing land. An almost total lack of interest in the feasibility study. If you were cynical, the study could be considered window dressing, or perhaps written by safe hands. Why the sudden haste?

I have also tried to search for the constitution, partly to understand what the BMFA is.

I am puzzled why our broker or insurance company would want to give or lend any money to the BMFA. That is unless commercial benefits were derived, what could they be?

The finances have troubled me for some time, they are important to both funding the project, and potentially the future of the BMFA (which could at worst end it). If debt is incurred, the membership deserves to know how long it will take to pay the loan off and how the income will be generated. Could it be a hike in subscriptions?

The really big question what are the views of the 30, 000 members, not just those passionately infavour and on the other side, those who have reservations. In my case I have little idea what the NFC is, beyond a wide ranging catch all facility. I wonder will there be room for a an amusement park?

Edited By Erfolg on 06/05/2015 11:07:32

Martin Harris - Moderator · May 6, 2015

Surely an EGM is a form of referendum?

I'm trying to remain objective about the proposals but I get the feeling that a small faction is thoroughly in favour of the idea and is pushing the project through with undue haste - just a feeling, based on the feedback from the BMFA, but one that seems to be shared by many others.

My vision was a feasibility study to be considered by the membership, approval of the idea and then detailed examination of site availabilities. To tell us that the prospective land purchase is simply a financial investment with just a possibility of using it in the future doesn't seem to fit in with the chairman's letter published on the BMFA website and feels rather patronising to me.

Edited By Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 12:26:10

iqon · May 6, 2015