Jump to content

BMFA National Flying Centre


Recommended Posts

It does seem to me the BMFA is racing ahead to get this purchase and has convinced itself it is for the common good.

A national flying site is for the common good but who will pick up the tab if this all goes wrong ?

The executive dare come to me cap in hand with the explanation, " We did it for the common good, rushed ahead because it was such a good deal and we did for the common club flyer and it was sent to all the relevant BMFA bodies who approved it and we consulted all the members and everyone was in agreement and can we have have donation to refill the coffers......blah....blah"

 

Edited By cymaz on 06/05/2015 18:14:43

Edited By cymaz on 06/05/2015 18:15:03

Edited By cymaz on 06/05/2015 18:16:32

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that some of those who have posted on this forum have also posted on the BMFA website and had answers from Manny Williamson, the project officer. If you have not seen these exchanges you may wish to take a look at this site.

Erfolg and others who feel strongly on this issue, I trust that you have made your views known to your Club and that your Club representative attends the Area meeting (some have clearly already taken place) to make your Club's views known to your Area Delegate who will be asked to decide which way to vote at the next Full Council as per South Midland Area quoted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternatively they could go the slow route and miss out on this opportunity and spend another couple of years looking for a suitable site after everybody has agreed all the details and then can only find something which costs more and is not as good as this one.

They probably didn't go out with then intent of securing a site at short notice but in the study they would have looked at what was available and this one popped up, which looks like it meets a lot of the criteria, do they try and go for it or pass up and hope that something else suitable is available at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter

The issue as understood, as previously understood, has been discussed at one of our club evenings, in an informal manner, early this year.

I found the situation difficult, in that I wanted to be neutral in outlining the concept of a NFC. My difficulty was then, as it is now, I do not know with certainty what physically is being proposed. I do not know what the vision of purpose is. Nor do i know what the financial implications are. At that time there was one supporter of the NFC with approx 10 to be convinced or opposed.

Today i have started a similar process of taking a sounding from within the club, with the club Chairman. Again, I feel truly saddened that I know very little more. Other than a offer of approx £1.2m has been made on a property and that there is a presentation Power Point type document on the BMFA web site. This really puts me in a difficult position, I do not want my private views to influence other members, yet what can I say that is impartial, other than say there still remains a lot of unknowns.

As a club we have not as yet established a position, unfortunately we have only a few days to canvas views.

The BMFA really can help their cause in distributing a file of the Evaluation Report to Area chairmen, who can forward copies to local club representatives for distribution. We will then be in a position to have as much discussion that the rather compressed time that has made available allows.

I can only reiterate without information and knowledge, I and others cannot formulate an informed opinion. I suspect it is the questioning position of many, which some take as a negative position. The BMFA needs to help us all to be converted into at least supporters, at worst, to passionate believers at best. Its all up to the BMFA.

Edited By Erfolg on 06/05/2015 19:53:05

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Martin Harris on 06/05/2015 12:18:29:

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

My thoughts too Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erfolg - you have made my point that at the moment there is no information to share with members. The Feasibility Report will be discussed at the next Full Council meeting. If that meeting thinks there is some merit in proceeding with the findings, expect to get the information passed out to the membership. If Council feels that there is insufficient information to proceed, or that more information is needed, then there will be little point in circulating the study till that information has been obtained and reviewed by Council, That way, the membership is not asked to comment on a Study that does not adequately answer the questions posed.

It is therefore wrong to assume that there are only a few days to canvas opinion. There will be plenty of time to canvas opinion if Council thinks the Study has some merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So , let me get this right , we are looking for land to build a NFC, they buy a piece of land not connected with the NFC, purely to potentially make some money, And at the same time they are looking for another piece of land for the NFC that there is no money in the pot for ....

I dont think that excuse pans out.....it is something SWMBO would do though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Erfolg on 06/05/2015 19:52:50:

..................................

The BMFA really can help their cause in distributing a file of the Evaluation Report to Area chairmen, who can forward copies to local club representatives for distribution. We will then be in a position to have as much discussion that the rather compressed time that has made available allows.

...........................................

Edited By Erfolg on 06/05/2015 19:53:05

They have distributed it to all "company directors" including your Area delegate so get in touch with him. There was a copy at the South Midlands Area meeting on Tuesday (the meeting that Matty reffered to earlier).

Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by iqon on 07/05/2015 10:25:22:

So , let me get this right , we are looking for land to build a NFC, they buy a piece of land not connected with the NFC, purely to potentially make some money, And at the same time they are looking for another piece of land for the NFC that there is no money in the pot for ....

I dont think that excuse pans out.....it is something SWMBO would do though

That's not the way read it, the site would be suitable for the NFC subject to planning permission etc. but if the membership decides not to proceed with the NFC then the land can be resold at no loss to the BMFA. i.e. the primary purpose of acquiring it is for the NFC, but if for some reason the NFC doesn't go ahead then it can be resold and the committee think that this would not lose any money.

The other thing they noted that to get external funding (national lottery etc) you have to match the funding, show some commitment etc. so before any of these avenues can be seriously followed they would have to have identified a site etc.

Myself I think a NFC is worthwhile, but I don't think it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Martin Harris on 07/05/2015 09:41:59:

...so am I correct in thinking that the almost totally unrelated purchase of 107 acres of land will go ahead with a contract date of the 5th of June, assuming the council see it as a good investment for money that they don't have in the bank?

Posted by Willyuk on 07/05/2015 10:12:31:

perhaps they will do what most of us do, get a mortgage?

For a mortgage you need to prove you have sufficient income. Having looked at the 2013 BMFA accounts income and expenditure are quite finely balanced; they made a surplus of ~£7k in 2012, and ~£35k in 2013. That is nowhere close to the level needed to make up the deficit between the ~£780k reserves and the asking price of £1.25m.

Of course this gap could be being made up by the insurers as suggested in the BMFAs last communication, but the nature and magnitude of that support is unknown at this point. Even if it made up the full gap it would leave no reserve for the organisation as a whole, which does not sound very sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 07/05/2015 11:01:51:
Posted by iqon on 07/05/2015 10:25:22:

So , let me get this right , we are looking for land to build a NFC, they buy a piece of land not connected with the NFC, purely to potentially make some money, And at the same time they are looking for another piece of land for the NFC that there is no money in the pot for ....

I dont think that excuse pans out.....it is something SWMBO would do though

That's not the way read it, the site would be suitable for the NFC subject to planning permission etc. but if the membership decides not to proceed with the NFC then the land can be resold at no loss to the BMFA. i.e. the primary purpose of acquiring it is for the NFC, but if for some reason the NFC doesn't go ahead then it can be resold and the committee think that this would not lose any money.

This is the assumption I really think is incorrect. Property prices can fluctuate significantly in the short term so if we needed to sell again there is no gurarntee of a higher price, and even if it was that would be eroded somewhat by transation fees. For me if you are going to buy the land you have to be pretty sure it is the right spot for the NFC; if not there are much sounder diversified investment strategies that would still return more income than cash and would expose the organisation to far less risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Manny responded to my post on the site yesterday...

Q - Further to my previous comments I wanted to put on record how disappointed I am in the way this initiative is being progressed. Whilst I remain supportive of the idea of the NC and like the location proposed, the way we are rushing in without sufficient consultation or due process is extremely worrying.

Firstly the scope of the feasibility study seems to have been thrown away in a rush to purchase land. Simply put there is no way the governance structures within the BMFA should allow an offer of this magnitude (which based on the 2013 AGM report is a minimum of 1.5x the net reserves of the BMFA) to be made without the Full Council Agreement, even if it is non-binding offer; this would never happen in a plc or charity. The spin that this is primarily an investment with better returns than cash is also is ridiculous; that may be the case in the long term, but what independent financial advisor would suggest putting all of our reserves into a single piece of property which is subject to the vagaries of the property market? This is an extremely risky strategy that could result in big losses to the association and its members if we are unlucky.

Finally the emphasis on the consultation that will occur if the Full Council meeting approves the proposal on May 16th overlooks the fact that there is no time between then and the exchange of contracts on June 5th for an EGM – if the Council approves the proposal it appears we will be buying the land whatever the members views. All in all it’s somewhat of a mess, and one that could easily damage the association in the long term.

Edited By MattyB on 07/05/2015 11:43:52

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A - Matthew, thank you for your further posting and comments regarding the National Centre Study and subsequent developments. It is unfortunate that you are disappointed with the current position but I feel that you have made assumptions that go beyond the actual facts.

Certainly the findings of the study have not been “thrown away” and the results will be presented to the Council Meeting on the 16th of May. If you note the wording of the Chairman’s proposal it is asking that the Full Council endorse the actions already taken by the Executive, this is of course once Full Council have received the same information that the Executive received. It is in no way a done deal. I would say that there is “no rush to purchase land” however there is a recognition within the Executive that firstly, land ownership is a meaningful goal in it’s own right, and secondly that in order to ever move forward then a positive move has to be made. The land at Kings Cliffe was identified as a consequence of the study, and on the advice of the funding consultants was used for various further aspects of the study to evaluate the financial implications against an actual location. The follow on from this work was that the Executive were shown the location and felt that it actually represented a meaningful objective, on this basis further work has been directed to the specific location, but it is important to note that much of the ongoing activity has relevance to alternative locations should that become necessary.

The key facts that the study has revealed have been, firstly, finding a location suitable for the establishment of a large permanent model flying site is extremely difficult, the update published yesterday gave a flavour for this with the number of sites evaluated and rejected, secondly it also demonstrated that land is selling, we looked at two locations that were subsequently sold during the study period. One of the issues I see going forward is that there is no current mechanism to move forward should a potential location be identified, I would view the actions of the Executive and the Chairman as a practical solution to this issue, if we do not ultimately complete on Kings Cliffe then at least the relevant issues will have been addressed and hopefully a way forward established for any future acquisition.

Whilst no future strategy is without risk (including doing nothing) I would not agree that the current process exposes the society or the membership to excessive risk, the potential move forward has been considered on the basis of a significant financial safety margin and absolutely no effect on the day to day operation of the BMFA, it is most certainly not a case of depleting all reserves just to proceed. In terms of your comments regarding risk to members, I see no potential for the service that members receive or the benefits provided as part of the membership package to change (only improve over time as they have done over the last few years) so it is difficult to see what you perceive as the specific risk to individual members.

I do not share your views that it is a “mess”, the timescales involved have of course generated considerable speculation and it has been difficult to place all of the information in the public domain, firstly due to the fact that Full Council have yet receive all of the information (we of course had to follow our constitution hence the publication of the agenda) and also due to a degree of commercial sensitivity in terms of the agents and the current landowners (who I am sure are reading this with considerable interest). However I/we have endeavoured to keep a flow of information outwards as far as has been possible.

At this stage it would appear that a small number of members have strong views but overall the membership seems content to await the outcome of the forthcoming meeting. Whether the membership should vote on this matter or whether the board of directors voted in place by the members should make the relevant decisions is of course a matter of personal opinion. I do not know what the outcome will be, however I await with interest.

Manny W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so I guess the $1m question is what exactly is the nature of the funding model i.e. what is the detail behind "...the potential move forward has been considered on the basis of a significant financial safety margin and absolutely no effect on the day to day operation of the BMFA, it is most certainly not a case of depleting all reserves just to proceed".

I have suggested to Manny via the BMFA site that these models should be shared asap, but have low expectations that that will occur - to be fair he is probably prevented from doing this by the existing governance model. Either way I don't think there is much more any of us can do now, other than making your representation to your area committee member - hopefully if enough people do this there will be enough votes to put the brakes on thsi proposal until financial modelling can be shared and questioned by rank and file members and a revised proposal put forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am finding the situation as being increasingly difficult, for many reasons.

The assertion that the membership is in favour of the NFC, by Manny. I can make the same assertion that the majority of club members i have talked to to date have not been in favour of the NFC. Neither of our views can be relied upon, as we have the views of a small number of members.

Just as worrying to me is again an assertion, that the outlay of £1.2M carries no risks at all to the BMFA or members. How can such a claim be made. Where is the evidence.

After years of little movement for a NFC, suddenly there is a desperate rush to acquire land.

This seems undue haste. I do appreciate that land has historically maintained value, and that we have a significant house shortage, where land will be required to build the continuing additional need for housing. Again we are in an area of significant uncertainty, where one political party has threatened to compulsory purchase any suitable building land, under a broad range of criteria, others to liberalise the planning regime or perhaps both. We have rehearsed all range of other scenarios that could be unfavourable. Caution is required, the saying does come to mind, "fools rush in, where angels fear to tread".

Yet the real crux of the matter is, we, the membership have been provided with little to no relevant information to permit members to form an informed opinion with respect the project as a whole. How can any sensible person be in favour, beyond they could support something, if they only knew what actually the vision specifically is. I have this feeling, that some think that the broader membership, just do not matter with respect to a NFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erfolg, there is a slide show that sets out the Vision thing here.

There is a management structure, just as in a Club, and that group has been passed a copy of the Feasibility Study. If they feel there is merit in it, then the study will be circulated to the membership for their views. I'm sure in a great many Clubs, committees discuss issues which they may decide have no merit and I wouldn't think they would then circulate that to members to waste their time.

The undue haste to which you refer relates to the proposal to purchase a plot of land, currently a farm. I very much doubt if the aim is to buy it outright so a mortgage may be envisaged. Again, if Council does not feel that there is a good financial case for the approach then that proposal will be voted down.

The fact that the best solution identified happened to be on the market was, I believe, the reason for the proposal. As far as I can understand, the aim is to try and safeguard the best solution identified to date. Council may or may not agree.

Incidentally, the BMFA is registered as a Company Limited by Guarantee and as such has the type of governance that a CLG is required to have. Council happens to be the Board of Directors under another name. Normal Company Law rules apply to this Board of Directors. There are 14 Area Delegates (Directors) who sit on Council. There are 9 Directors on the Council Executive. There are other Directors from the various Technical Groups as well. The Area Delegates seek to represent the views of the Clubs in their Areas. That is how this democracy is set up until such time as there is a move to change it.

I think Manny has also said that the information will be made available once Council has decided if this Feasibility Study has merit.

If you want to know all the information that is going to Full Council, you might as well not bother with Full Council and just have every member voting on every item of business that this Company has to transact. I don't see many companies/organisations with that sort of structure out there - it would be impossible to operate in any sensible way e.g. look at how the National Trust operates for comparison. As a member of the NT I don't really want to be bothered with all the stuff the NT Directors have to deal with. Would you like to have to spend significant amounts of time to discuss every item dealt with at Council?

Why not just pass your Club's views to your Area Delegate and then, if the decision is to go ahead with the National Centre, you will get all the relevant information made available to you and your club. If you don't like it, you can vote with the other Clubs in your Area to give your Delegate the instructions on how to vote on the next proposal which would be to go to an EGM or AGM. I think that sounds quite reasonable to me.

The real crux of the matter is that you seems to want all the information that has only just been provided to Full Council members so that you can make a decision before Full Council has a chance to debate it. Forgive me, but doesn't that sound a little bit like anarchy to you.

If you wish to change the way that the BMFA functions, then by all means get a proposal up to your Area Committee and invite your other Area Clubs to support it. There would probably need to be an Areas Council called to debate this proposal with all the other Areas and if everyone was agreed it could then go to Council with the recommendations for change. That's how it works in the real world and I don't see that it's any different for an organisation like the BMFA. Do you agree or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter

I am aware of the presentation slide show, that is all it is.

Please respect the views of others who may not agree with your own. I am entitled to hold dfferent views to your own on goverance or perhaps better put as ensuring that members views and voices are heard more effectively than at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 07/05/2015 14:46:38:

Why not just pass your Club's views to your Area Delegate and then, if the decision is to go ahead with the National Centre, you will get all the relevant information made available to you and your club. If you don't like it, you can vote with the other Clubs in your Area to give your Delegate the instructions on how to vote on the next proposal which would be to go to an EGM or AGM. I think that sounds quite reasonable to me.

Your background information on governance is very useful Peter - thank you. However, the problem here is a very specific one that isn't addressed by your suggestion above...

  1. Yes we can give our views on the proposal at present, and many of us (including me) would like to support it, but without the financial information behind the proposal we cannot be sure. As a result the only feedback we can give to area councils is to vote against it.
  2. Let's suppose enough area councils vote for it, and the Full Council vote supports the proposal as a result. Yes members will be consulted on whether to proceed with the NC, but we will not get a chance to voice our opinion on the land purchase or the funding model behind it; that is what the majority of people here are worried about I think. You will I am sure point out that the Full Council have the right to make that decision and I am certain under the rules of the constitution you are correct (though I have still not been able to find a copy of it). However, when there is a decision of this magnitude affecting the finances and future of the Association it would seem only fair to let members view the purcahse proposal and give their views via area council.

Edited By MattyB on 07/05/2015 15:30:50

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by MattyB on 07/05/2015 15:23:07:
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 07/05/2015 14:46:38:

Why not just pass your Club's views to your Area Delegate and then, if the decision is to go ahead with the National Centre, you will get all the relevant information made available to you and your club. If you don't like it, you can vote with the other Clubs in your Area to give your Delegate the instructions on how to vote on the next proposal which would be to go to an EGM or AGM. I think that sounds quite reasonable to me.

Your background information on governance is very useful Peter - thank you. However, the problem here is a very specific one that isn't addressed by your suggestion above...

  1. Yes we can give our views on the proposal at present, and many of us (including me) would like to support it, but without the financial information behind the proposal we cannot be sure. As a result the only feedback we can give to area councils is to vote against it.
  2. Let's suppose enough area councils vote for it, and the Full Council vote supports the proposal as a result. Yes members will be consulted on whether to proceed with the NC, but we will not get a chance to voice our opinion on the land purchase or the funding model behind it; that is what the majority of people here are worried about I think.

I would add the long term sustainable financial model associated with the NFC of which I have seen nothing of any substance - and to me that is a huge issue - to ensure we create an asset not a millstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matty, it's the Treasurer's job to look at getting best value out of the BMFA's funds and making recommendations to both the Exec and Full Council. I am quite sure that he will provide his views on whether this is a prudent use of funds. I am quite sure that he and the rest of Council is more than a little interested in the long term health of the Organisation. I would imagine that many of the areas in which more information is needed will have already been identified by Council members, some of whom have quite useful business backgrounds, and will be brought up at the meeting.

If from your comments you have no faith in Council members to have any business background, knowledge or common sense in how to assess business risks then, in effect, you are saying you don't trust any of them. If that's the case, who is going to stand up and be counted and kick out these so called incompetents so that you, and other members, will feel confident that you have a Council you can trust and believe in? BTW, I'm not being sarcastic but just taking things to their logical conclusion. I think we are suffering the same in the big election going on i.e. a matter of trust in those running the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one want to see a greater involvement of the grass roots when major decisions are being made.

An example would be that corporate giant, with respect to the BMFA, that was Lloyds banking group. In their case, the amalgamation of Lloyds with HSBC was put to all share holders. Now if major decision making is good enough for a modern business, perhaps similar arrangements could be satisfactory for a small organisation. In the case mentioned, the share holders made a mistake in accepting the Boards recommendation. Again in that case not all relevant information was made available to shareholders.

Not even the medical profession expects the notion of "trust me I am a doctor" to be accepted today. The public expects to have full facts to be made available to them, and to be able to challenge what ever aspects they are unhappy with. I do not think it is unreasonable for ordinary members of the BMFA to expect the same for such a major set of decisions.

I for one am not for, nor am I conceptually or in detail opposed to a NFC. The reason for apparent indecision is the lack of information. Until I have the information available to me to form an opinion, I will remain in a position that I am personally unable to endorse any decision to proceed.

An additional problem, when canvassing for views of club members what can i say that is neutral, when asked for information?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a supporter of a National Model Flying Centre since I first came across the BMFA poll. It is long overdue, should have been set up years ago. I am not convinced by the way that the BMFA is going about it.

The members handbook states the main objectives of the BMFA as "The promotion, protection, organisation and encouragement of model aircraft building, flying and development, in all its aspects in the UK, through the medium of clubs and individual members" There are then a few paras about info. records comps. etc. and then the final para "To establish and support, financially or otherwise ................. any educational scheme or establishment with benefit to the model aircraft movement".

I cannot see that spending a 7 figure sum buying a farm falls within any of the main objectives. Property speculation, like stocks and shares, has a habit of turning around and biting unwary investors on the bum. Investment risk, if taken at all, should always be spread across a diverse portfolio. Even then, if you can't afford to lose it, don't invest at all.

The feasibility study must be finished first. Then every member should be given a chance to read it and vote on the idea. Only with a large majority should anything more be done.

Graeme

PS I'm a member at 2 clubs, total membership over 100, and I have never heard any discussion re. NMFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...