BMFA National Flying Centre

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thank you Dick

John

[Erfolg]

I have been lead to believe that 14 represent the regional councils, with 6 technical committee members. Which would be 20.

If the handbook says it is 31 then it is 31.

[Dickw]

Don't forget the 9 elected officers (the Executive) as well (plus "other delegates".

Full list here:- **LINK**

Board of Directors = Full Council.

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 16/05/2015 14:36:16

[cymaz]

Posted by MattyB on 15/05/2015 18:46:46:

Posted by cymaz on 15/05/2015 18:13:16:

MattyB........can't see the Manny posting. It has come up on the email but not on my page. Is the site having a hissy fit or could it be my ageing lap top?

I think it must be your PC - it's definitely still there. Try clearing the cache on your browser maybe?

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 18:49:00

Ok now...thank you.

Anyone know why the IC committee has been suspended?

[Charlotte Blackwood]

Passed

[MattyB]

Posted by cymaz on 16/05/2015 15:11:31:

Posted by MattyB on 15/05/2015 18:46:46:

Posted by cymaz on 15/05/2015 18:13:16:

MattyB........can't see the Manny posting. It has come up on the email but not on my page. Is the site having a hissy fit or could it be my ageing lap top?

I think it must be your PC - it's definitely still there. Try clearing the cache on your browser maybe?

Edited By MattyB on 15/05/2015 18:49:00

Ok now...thank you.

Anyone know why the IC committee has been suspended?

Not sure why, but it seems quite recent - digging through the mins will probably find the answer, but I can't do that easily on my phone.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Charlotte Blackwood on 16/05/2015 15:33:20:

Passed

Oh I AM surprised - not.

BEB

[ken anderson.]

well that's it then...close the thread.

ken Anderson...ne...1.... closed thread dept.

[cymaz]

Can't shut the thread just yet Ken.

We need to discuss by how much each we need to bail the bmfa out now all the money has gone

[MattyB]

Let's wait til it's confirmed, but I guess this is no surprise there really - given the exec committee were supposedly unanimous in their support of the proposal as per the last update, they only needed a handful of votes from the technical committee members to render the views of the areas irrelevant. Just another example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the organisation...

Edited By MattyB on 16/05/2015 18:54:17

Edited By MattyB on 16/05/2015 18:55:15

[MattyB]

Just messaged the BMFA public relations officer who I know through my club - he would neither confirm or deny, but says an official communication will be released (no idea of timescales though)...

Edited By MattyB on 16/05/2015 19:40:43

[MattyB]

Ooh err, hang on - perhaps our "friend" Charlotte Blackwood was having some fun at our (and the BMFAs) expense... (From RCMF thread):

I am led to believe (by an impeccable source who was actually at today's meeting) that this is not the case. I understand the message was posted on modelflying before the meeting had voted on *anything* - the meeting didn't wrap up until late afternoon, and the posting of the message on modelflying cased considerable anger and dismay to those present.

I am led to understand that information on the meeeting's conclusions will be posted on the BMFA site shortly.

PDR

Edited By MattyB on 17/05/2015 00:33:21

[John F]

Pessimism at it's best is alive and kicking here!

Just because this has been voted through it automatically means that the 'democratic process' is therefore somehow broken? Just because you're in doubt doesn't mean there's an obvious issue. Has it struck you that most folk want this, hence the positive feasibility survey and council votes?

Financial doom predicted by others means we'll be raising X squillion pounds to get this going?

Come on guys. These folk know what they're doing. As proven so far.

You lot are acting like old ladies talking over the garden fence akin to a Les Dawson sketch. Trying to trip them up on what you guys think are tricky questions is disheartening. This isn't a bunch of people banging on your door asking if you want your drive tarmacking they do know what they are dojng. Where's the positivity and hope that they are going to try and give us something to be thankful for?

Edited By John F on 17/05/2015 08:13:44

Edited By John F on 17/05/2015 08:26:52

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:

Just because this has been voted through it automatically means that the 'democratic process' is therefore somehow broken? Just because you're in doubt doesn't mean there's an obvious issue. Has it struck you that most folk want this, hence the positive feasibility survey and council votes?

Financial doom predicted by others means we'll be raising X squillion pounds to get this going?

As of now we do not know whether they have voted it through, unless you have some inside information you want to share? And what positive feasibility study - the one written by unnamed individuals that none of us are allowed to see? Given the only figures anyone knows that are definitely correct are the £1.25m asking price and the £780k net worth of the BMFA, then yes, we do know millions of pounds are going to need to be raised from as yet undetermined sources - buildings do not build themselves for free. I am yet to meet anyone in person who actually thinks this land purchase is a good idea.

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:

Come on guys. These folk know what they're doing. As proven so far.

Nothing of the sort has been proven. When we get the feasibility study we will all be able to form our own opinions of the proposal and the competence of those who prepared it; until then a healthy scepticism is the only sensible position based on the way this has been conducted.

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:
You lot are acting like old ladies talking over the garden fence akin to a Les Dawson sketch. Trying to trip them up on what you guys think are tricky questions is disheartening. This isn't a bunch of people banging on your door asking if you want your drive tarmacking they do know what they are dojng. Where's the positivity and hope that they are going to try and give us something to be thankful for?

Those are the questions that need and must be answered in order to move forward with a £1.25m purchase. You yourself told me I should ask them there on the previous page - what more do you want?! Manny himself has even since responded and stated they were perfectly reasonable. Your position is ridiculous.

Edited By MattyB on 17/05/2015 11:55:58

[Dave Hopkin]

The feasibility study should postulate the expected costs for establishing the NFC (Land, Building, Fitting out), a costed model on how that finance is going to be raised and paid back, more importantly it should provide a road map on how the NFC can be sustained financially - none of those things are in anyway confidential or the subject of any due diligence process - the fact that the BMFA have classed these as confidential and not to be shared with the membership is a move that is inevitably going to create speculation and suspicion

There should be no issue in the BMFA redacting any sections of the study that relate to any proposed purchase and publishing the rest of the document especially the sustainability plan

Until we know what the risks and benefits are and the long term liability this will entail how can the BMFA expect support from the membership? As this would rank as one of the most important decisions the BMFA have ever made they need to engage with the membership and lay out the vision in more detailed costed and proposed terms

I want an NFC but not at any price.,,,,,

[cymaz]

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:

You lot are acting like old ladies talking over the garden fence akin to a Les Dawson sketch. Trying to trip them up on what you guys think are tricky questions is disheartening. This isn't a bunch of people banging on your door asking if you want your drive tarmacking they do know what they are dojng. Where's the positivity and hope that they are going to try and give us something to be thankful for?

Edited By John F on 17/05/2015 08:13:44

Edited By John F on 17/05/2015 08:26:52

Its similar, in my opinion, to buying four tyres for a Rolls Royce using all your savings hoping that one day you will have enough money to buy the car. And not even having a driving licence.

I am in real favour of the NFC but not the way it's been handled...poor PR in my view.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:
Pessimism at it's best is alive and kicking here!

Just because this has been voted through it automatically means that the 'democratic process' is therefore somehow broken? Just because you're in doubt doesn't mean there's an obvious issue. Has it struck you that most folk want this, hence the positive feasibility survey and council votes?

What I find interesting is that in the one case I have informed knowledge about where the full facts of the "feasibility study" have been shared, the considered opinion was that the land purchase was not justified at this time, although the concept of a NFC was supported - very much the view which I - and other ordinary members at my club who I've discussed my feelings with, share. We don't know the outcome of the NC vote yet, so speculation is useless.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 15/05/2015 21:39:00:

Have the BMFA never heard of paragraphs? Or perhaps they think they cost money and they're saving up for something.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 15/05/2015 21:39:25

^^^^This^^^^

Sorry folks, but if the BMFA cannot even present the discussion of this important topic in a manner that it is possible to read efficiently then those details are simply not going to be read.

Imprenetrable blocks of text, consisting of hundreds of words are not communicating effectively.

Sort it out BMFA.

[PatMc]

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:
Pessimism at it's best is alive and kicking here!

Has it struck you that most folk want this, hence the positive feasibility survey and council votes?

Where's the evidence that most folk want this ?

I've seen none.

[PatMc]

Posted by John F on 17/05/2015 08:02:04:

Come on guys. These folk know what they're doing. As proven so far.

You mean like the nice people at Northern Rock, RBS, HBOS, Lloyds .... et al ?

[Steve T]

Dear me, this post is becoming 'full handbags at dawn'! Any road up, if the location is A1 / A47 ish then it becomes a totally different proposition for me. But I am sure it will be the complete opposite for those from the West side (story). Still don't think it is big enough flying area etc but if it is going to happen then I will cast aside all my reservations and support as best I possibly can. And no more bitching or whining. Any chance of reading some positive responses on here? (still don't totally believe it's a financial winner but....). From here on in 'count me in'.

[Erfolg]

There is some evidence that many ordinary members, the majority within the club that I am a member, either do not want this field or a NFC, or have reservations. Two in favour, at least 30 against.

Perhaps what has concerned me the most with respect to the whole process to date, is the apparent indifference of the views of ordinary members.

[Dave Hopkin]

How can we be expected to support something we only really know vague details of?

I suspect there is a lot of support for the concept of an NFC but a large degree of doubt over the financials

Where, in my opinion, the BMFA have significantly failed is the publicity and information management required to convert that support in principal into something more solid and committed - and to all intents and purposes it appears that the powers that be in Leicester seem to be ploughing ahead regardless and from my perspective doing a good job of Mushroom Management

Geographic location is always going to be a minefield as it cant possibly please everyone - so I wont pass comment on that aspect

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 17/05/2015 13:17:59:

Perhaps what has concerned me the most with respect to the whole process to date, is the apparent indifference of the views of ordinary members.

 

You will never understand this until you understand the basic power structure in play here! Many people express this view but it really shows they do not appreciate the situation:

1. BMFA is a company - not a club

2. We are customers buying a service - not members

3. BMFA do not require our agreement, nor are they under any requirement to listen to our views, or share with us any information.

Understand that and the whole thing is very simple.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 17/05/2015 13:35:05

[Erfolg]

BEB

On the basis you outline, I would see the BMFA as no more than a Insurance Broker, who in addition is a Lobbyist who acts on my behalf.

On that basis

• I see no benefit in responding to any calls for bequests to the Company
• I would not be inclined to raise fund for any new facilities that the BMFA would wish to develop.
• I would be resistant to any increases in annual dues that are needed to fill any gaps in expenditure due to over reaching their income.

I would consider

• Using any facilities and events sponsored by the BMFA if the entrance price was acceptable
• Continue using the BMFA as my insurance broker if they remain competitive and or my club requires BMFA insurance.

It would be much better that the BMFA are able to say, the shareholders are the BMFA membership.

If this is not possible because we are not, if, for argument, the membership fees went up by a margin, many clubs could start to question if the BMFA is the preferred broker.

One of my clubs in the past was insured by an independent insurer. The cost per member was lower. Why then change. The change came about as a consequence of club members wishing to compete nationally, which essentially meant you had to be a BMFA member. Now that very few who compete, this consideration could change.

Until I know more, all options are open with respect to my position.

I hope to continue to restraining myself from using phrases such as, a group of old women, whingers and whiners as they would expose my lack of respects to others views. I do expect to be pulled up for my misogyny in my portrayal of older women, and rightly so. I do apologise.