BMFA National Flying Centre

[John F]

You're taking this far, far too literally KC. Splitting 30K members into 45 minutes per year? Really? Are we getting that ridiculous over this? Guessing that flying will stop at the first complaint is also just predicting doom with absolutely no info to go on.

You did vote for this via your Club Rep. The majority are served, in the same way that General elections are dealt with in a similar manner and are perfectly adequate. Is this not just because you didn't get your way?

Why is it so bad to aim to create a National Centre for our hobby?

[kc]

No, I am pointing out that this is not a project for all the BMFA members it's just for the few who live near. If the centre is built in South Essex I would be all for it as members in Cornwall, Newcastle, Wales and the rest of the country would be paying for a site I could use all the time but they could not.

I did NOT vote for this! Club reps have NEVER asked the rest of my club what they want the Rep to vote for. Mainly because they didn't know what the voting issues would be. But in recent years neither of my 2 clubs has been able to send a rep to the BMFA AGM because the expense is too great ( overnight at an expensive hotel ) for small clubs.

So don't say I voted for a Nationa lCentre because I did not! ( neither did any of my local club members or anyone I know)

I have explained why its bad to have national centre -we need many local sites. Centralising is no use to most of us and too liable to closure due to noise complaints due to constant use..

[Cuban8]

I'm undecided over the whole issue, initially I thought it was a good idea but with many critisisms of the project from contributors here, I do have serious reservations.

Assuming that we do find ourselves with a site, surely the best thing will to be to support it and give it a chance. Maybe it could be made to work, I just don't know given the very limited hard info available about size, final location, its true reason for being and running costs.

I think what gets people hot under the collar is the idea that a NFC will be for the lucky few that live within a thirty minute drive and by good fortune, have a wonderfully equipped private flying field magically dropped into their lap. Well, someone's got to live close to it (I doubt if I'll be within a couple of hours drive), but as as I've said before, I don't expect that users would have 365 day access to fly when they like and for free (assuming of course that ordinary members will have access anyway) but I'd expect a not insubstantial daily charge to be made for the use of the flying site.

Just a reminder to all parties involved...........in my opinion, the overwhelming majority of BMFA members are either unaware of what's going on or couldn't give a hoot either way and just want to fly at their club as and when the fancy takes them.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 09/09/2016 12:23:39

[MattyB]

kc, whilst I sympathise with your views I nudged this thread only to see if there was any news of progress in acquiring a site. I did not want to reopen old wounds about whether an NFC was a good idea or commercially viable (we have all flogged that particular horse to death last year).

Like it or not (and I have documented my concerns about BMFA governance and voting system used many times in this thread) the Council do have a mandate to proceed given by the members according to the current Articles of Association. No amount of criticism here will change that, so the only thing members can do is to wait and see what happens and decide to stay or go as individuals depending on what transpires.

Edited By MattyB on 09/09/2016 12:22:56

[John F]

Posted by kc on 09/09/2016 11:47:01:

I did NOT vote for this! Club reps have NEVER asked the rest of my club what they want the Rep to vote for. Mainly because they didn't know what the voting issues would be. But in recent years neither of my 2 clubs has been able to send a rep to the BMFA AGM because the expense is too great ( overnight at an expensive hotel ) for small clubs.

So don't say I voted for a Nationa lCentre because I did not! ( neither did any of my local club members or anyone I know)

I have explained why its bad to have national centre -we need many local sites. Centralising is no use to most of us and too liable to closure due to noise complaints due to constant use..

If they do not send anyone for financial reasons that you describe then the fault is, sadly, with your club as they are poorly administered to allow for Club business. The fact that your vote was not taken to the meeting is not the fault of the BMFA but your Club who failed to represent you.

You already have a local site; your club. What is wrong with having a centralised one? This could well be the start of regional sites, but even if it is not, it just might help to give us, the members, the chance to have the Nats that we missed on this year.

Imagine that; a place whereby the issue of finding a venue to hold our competitions and displays is gone as our hobby would have our very own, permanent venue. Would that not be a good thing?

[The Wright Stuff]

Why is it so difficult to believe that the benefits can be indirect?

Of course not everyone will be close enough to use it personally on a regular basis. I'd have thought that was so obvious as to not even be worth the effort of typing a comment.

The benefit is surely that your local BMFA site is more secure because the BMFA has more clout as an organisation, as a result of the existence of the national centre.

Now, admittedly, the details of how this will be achieved are not spelt out explicitly, but I'm with Colin here - let's have some faith!

[kc]

People here do not seem to realise how the BMFA has changed. The SMAE ( proper name for BMFA) used to be an association of local clubs so each club had one vote. Individual members of local clubs did not need to be SMAE members it was the local club which was the member. But about 1983 the system was changed - clubs were forced to have 100percent SMAE membership & make all their members pay SMAE/BMFA membership fees and to compensate the SMAE/BMFA subs were drastically reduced to 5 pounds. But voting was still restricted to club reps who attended AGM. All these new individual members have no vote. A very cunning scheme because the clubs were forced to do all the hard work - collecting money, doing all the paperwork to submit subs to SMAE- yet the power still remained with those who ran the AGM not the people who paid their money. Nobody at local club level realised this at the time. But the fees went up and up yet nobody could leave because clubs were forced to be 100percent BMFA.

However it was possible for club secretaries to contact each other and organise a collective effort to promote any alternative ideas if it was ever deemed necessary. The BMFA elite insiders realised this limited their powers and suddenly blocked access to the list of local club secretaries when it looked as though democracy in the form of clubs all contacting each other & agreeing to something would reverse an insiders decision if put to the AGM. . Ever since the complete list of club secretaries has been secret - all you can find is one club at a time. So it is not possible for lots of individual members to organise any objection to any BMFA schemes because you cannot contact all your fellow members But the internet changes things..........

[Colin Leighfield]

It isn't just about our own narrowly focused club interests, it's about how we are perceived by those who are in a position to influence whether we exist or not. We need to be seen as organised on a national scale and substantial to command any respect and with the confidence at a local level that when we are threatened with site loss, noise problem or whatever, that we have a solid nationally recognised body that can fight our corner. What we look like to others matters and having a nationally recognised centre provides exactly that sort of focus and visible substance, as well as providing a base for appropriate events. Throwing stones at the free-flight boys because they are fewer in number these days is the thin end of the wedge, dump their interests and who's next. I don't have the time or opportunity to do what they do any more but I'm still interested and it's where we all came from. It helps to remember that.

Directors of a business couldn't do their job if they had to consult with shareholders on everything. They are judged by results and have the thankless task of seeing a bigger and more futuristic picture than those who's interests they are responsible for. I would criticise BMFA if they didn't have the guts to make decisions like this and while taking note of the sniping, not to be sidetracked by it. Like many other forumites I suspect I'm sufficiently well into the departure lounge not to worry personally about what will happen a bit further down the road, but actually I do. As others have said and some say they will, if you don't agree and feel that strongly, the appropriate action is to support your flying and insurance needs by other means. That's your absolute prerogative. I'm sticking with BMFA.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Just a thought here,... whatever your view, pro or anti, you have to admit that there is a substantial number of people in the BMFA who are:

a) unhappy with this proposal

b) unhappy with the decision making process that got us here - whatever its constitution legitimacy they don't feel that it was fair, democratoic, open and transparent.

So, why not put all this to bed once and for all. Whip the carpet out from under the feet of the objectors. Grasp the nettlle, have a vote - no reps, simply one member, one vote. Those for can lobby and campaign and explain the benefits, those against can likewise present their case. n one stroke of breataking democratic you silence the critics.

Surely that is the way we decide things in truely democratic process? If the proposers win they have a unequivocal authority to proceed - no one can gain say that. Then indeed the opposers would have to accept that the majority view must prevail and do so in good grace.

I know that the BMFA doesn't have to do this - its rather old fashioned constitution does not require it. But look at the difficulties that is causing. Surely the unquestioned legitimacy that a simple clear "one member, one vote" majority would give them is worth it. Or is there possibly a very real fear that they would not win such an open vote? And if that was the case then surely one has to question the legitimacy of proceeding with an idea in the name (and using the assets) of an organisatiion the majority of whos memebers oppose that idea? But of course only a simple individual vote will establish if that is, or is not, the case.

BEB

[Tomtom39]

For my pennys worth. Initially I wasn't keen on the idea of a National Centre (and yes I'd love the idea of the BMFA owning at least one "site" in each region - this however is not feasible where I'm based ). At our club we had an open discussion with the members asked to comment with objections or support in private to the club BMFA rep . Needless to say the ones that didn't bother, seemed to be the loudest objectors once the majority had decided to support the the idea of a Centre (and yes we will be making a donation both as a club and those that may wish to do so privately)

I was a member of the MPA many years ago when some of us went UDI and on return to the hobby I was less than impressed by the "bureaucracy of the BMFA" . Having had the pleasure first hand of the help that we have had from them in fighting and retaining our site I'm more than happy to pay my dues.

Re Closed shop "you pays your money and you take your choices." I tend to agree with some of the points raised by STU (bit bored by the same old moans -sorry must be old age creeping in!) I will be attending the AGM to represent my club (I've been volunteered and no I don't claim for expenses. I do it because I love model flying and hope to be able to pass on my passion to others!) .Only one free flighter in our club and yes I'd love to give it a go.

PS. We are about 2 1/2 hours away from the proposed area (more if the M25 decides to turn into a car park). I hope that those that feel strongly about it either way will attend or at least put their thoughts in writing to the BMFA (David Phipps)

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 09/09/2016 13:06:39:

Directors of a business couldn't do their job if they had to consult with shareholders on everything.

I agee wholeheartedly Colin - but we are not talking about a routine day-to-day executive decision here. We are talking about a major change in policy, entering into a committment that may will extend for many many years, something that will change the very nature of the organisation. For something that major the Directors of any responsable and responsible company would indeed seek a mandate. And even aside from this the fact is that the BMFA id not just a businees whose sole objective is to make money - it proports to be there for the benefit of its members - so surely winning the support of the majority of members - and being able to clear and unequivocally demonstrate that they have it - is not unreasonble is it? As I say - how about an open vote to settle matter once and for all?

BEB

[John F]

Posted by kc on 09/09/2016 12:44:46:

People here do not seem to realise how the BMFA has changed. . . .

It doesn't matter how it has changed but rather what it is now. It doesn't change the fact that your club did not represent you, and your vote, because the club is poorly run.

You mention that Club Secretaries being unable to contact each other nowadays. . . . what about the Club Management Portal? Or the very simple BMFA Club Map? Hardly a secret. This negativity (BMFA Elite insiders, Secret Club lists, limiting of power, cunning schemes, etc) is a lot of conspiracy theories with nothing really of substance to complain about.

Club members don't need to contact other clubs but if they did the info is there to be had, very easily.

BeB,

Yes, some people feel grieved that their individual vote was not counted but rather a Club result submitted. Some on here are very vocal about it but does that mean the majority or just a few who constantly bang the drum at every opportunity?

Maybe, to settle this, a poll could be constructed, with links to other model aircraft forums to get as many involved in the poll, which has a simple question.

"Do you want an individual vote on whether you want a NFC".

If it is a resounding "Yes" then that could be submitted to the BMFA for them to have another referendum? It works for Nicola Sturgeon, who repeatedly brings up the subject to get her way, could it not work here?

Edited By John F on 09/09/2016 13:26:47

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Tomtom39 on 09/09/2016 13:16:28:to pay my dues.

Re Closed shop "you pays your money and you take your choices." I tend to agree with some of the points raised by STU (bit bored by the same old moans -sorry must be old age creeping in!) I will be attending the AGM to represent my club (I've been volunteered and no I don't claim for expenses. I do it because I love model flying and hope to be able to pass on my passion to others!) .Only one free flighter in our club and yes I'd love to give it a go.

PS. We are about 2 1/2 hours away from the proposed area (more if the M25 decides to turn into a car park). I hope that those that feel strongly about it either way will attend or at least put their thoughts in writing to the BMFA (David Phipps)

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here TomTom - You see my point is that is isn't a matter of "you pays your money and takes your choice" - if I want to fly model aeroplanes, in pratical terms, I don't have a choice! I have to join the BMFA - whether I like it or not, whether I agree with its constitutional practices or not.

BEB

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 09/09/2016 13:33:07:

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making here TomTom - You see my point is that is isn't a matter of "you pays your money and takes your choice" - if I want to fly model aeroplanes, in pratical terms, I don't have a choice! I have to join the BMFA - whether I like it or not, whether I agree with its constitutional practices or not.

BEB

Yep, quite correct. The question is will the silent majority who don't really care either way about a national centre be prepared to tolerate subs increases to fund it, and if so by how much? I don't think any of us really know, but there must be a point where that group will start to voice concerns and potentially ask their local committees to de-affiliate if the things they care about most* (decent insurance at a reasonable cost) can be obtained elsewhere for less without interfering with their day to day club activities.

* - Yes I know the BMFA does more than provide insurance (site consultancy when problems strike, interfaces with CAA, government and EU committees, organising comps and nationals etc), but rightly or wrongly many members either do not know about those elements or don't place a major value on them.

Edited By MattyB on 09/09/2016 14:04:55

[Erfolg]

There does appear to be an attempt to fund the NFC via donations, which does suggest there is an attempt to avoid the BMFA membership funding the project via annual subscriptions.

I have been very disappointed at the criticism of KC argument as to the benefit as a flying venue for ordinary members. He clearly demonstrated that casual country wide flying was not practical. The discussion was rational and clearly stated, no need for pointed criticism at all.

I suspect that the prime purpose is to hold competitions, with perhaps local flying to help support the running of the facility.

I do attend the regional BMFA meetings and do find the frequent referral to the constitution of why any local discussions and views were irrelevant. That the decisions are for a variety of top table interests from technical committees etc. or best left to those at the head office in Leicester. Although not strictly directly related to this discussion it is quite clear that the BMFA way of working does need bringing into the 21st Century.

As to seeking insurance from another body, I can see the club where I am an ordinary member potentially transferring to the LMA. Many members are at present LMA members. There is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the BMFA, which is much broader and deeper than the NFC issue.

I will again reiterate that the BMFA is pants at PR with its own membership with respect to the NFC subject. There is no good reason why the time line of activities and milestones is not made widely available. Perhaps more importantly a bit of insight, as to the usage and benefits. Of course many of us ordinary Joes do have an interest in how the both the building and running of the NFC will be funded. We have have had some Powerpoint type presentation type presentation. Perhaps a little more in depth.

Oh, by the way, in my day job when I had one, I had to explain and justify the spends to customers on a regular basis, projects far more costly and involved than the proposed NFC. I seem to remember that many businesses boards seek authorisation before significant expenditure is entered into. Immediately Lloyds taking over RBS came to mind. Many managements have to explain to there shareholders what they are doing. It appears the government will make this aspect far more stringent in the future (when is the next Blue Moon).

[John F]

To be fair if you cannot see the benefits of a national centre, which helps to give us somewhere to host annual competitions and somewhere to visit and fly, which has already been discussed in powerpoint presentations, then what is the point of explaining? There is info there on the BMFA site.

They do not have to tell us anything really but how can they tell us, in depth, what the plans are when they are still in discussions re land usage and funding?

Your friend did not "clearly demonstrate country wide flying was not practical", he just said stated that he didn't want it nor would he use it.

Just because a few, if not hundreds or thousands, members would never use it, does not mean that many thousands would not use the facilities or go to any of the shows that a dedicated centre could offer.

Edited By John F on 09/09/2016 14:49:04

[kc]

I think we would all agree we need the BMFA to represent us at Government level and to the media. But they don't even seem to be doing that at this most crucial time. Why wasnt the BMFA Chairman on the news everytime the media reported something about drones near airliners?. He should have been there everytime saying how responsible BMFA members fly to the rules and clarifying how drones should be flown ( media stated all sorts of wrong figures- ) But he wasn't there was he ? Only some quotes from Manny W as far as I saw. They should have been there saying it's not us it's the lawless element and saying how to fly responsibly.. A few seconds on TV news would give us far more publiicity than the national centre ever will.

I can only assume they were all too busy with this vanity project.

Give us a one member one vote say on this matter BEFORE spending any money at all.

[John F]

Posted by kc on 09/09/2016 14:48:10:

I think we would all agree we need the BMFA to represent us at Government level and to the media. But they don't even seem to be doing that at this most crucial time. Why wasnt the BMFA Chairman on the news everytime the media reported something about drones near airliners?. He should have been there everytime saying how responsible BMFA members fly to the rules and clarifying how drones should be flown ( media stated all sorts of wrong figures- ) But he wasn't there was he ? Only some quotes from Manny W as far as I saw. They should have been there saying it's not us it's the lawless element and saying how to fly responsibly.. A few seconds on TV news would give us far more publiicity than the national centre ever will.

I can only assume they were all too busy with this vanity project.

Give us a one member one vote say on this matter BEFORE spending any money at all.

Because the BMFA has nothing really to do with it, the CAA govern flying not the BMFA, at Government level.

The BMFA don't actually need your vote at all before they spend any money, they never have.  

Edited By John F on 09/09/2016 14:54:24

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 09/09/2016 14:48:05:

To be fair if you cannot see the benefits of a national centre, which helps to give us somewhere to host annual competitions and somewhere to visit and fly, which has already been discussed in powerpoint presentations, then what is the point of explaining? There is info there on the BMFA site.

Actually I don't think any of the formal materials that contained financial estimates or the wireframe value proposition for an NFC that were released immediately prior to the EGM do exist on the website any more - they seem to have disappeared, I'm not sure why. This was the link, but they seem to have been pulled into a password protected area...

Edited By MattyB on 09/09/2016 15:35:18

[bert baker]

I trust the BMFA council to make deisions and spend on my behalf.

I reliy on better educated folks to look after my better intrests for me.

[MattyB]

I just had a good trawl through my PC, but was unable to locate the actual files and ppt presentation released by the BMFA in June 2015. However, I did find this summary of the materials that were shared pre-EGM that I made for members of our club shortly after they were released. At this point the purchase of Laws Lawn Farm was still just about in play I think:

Summary of the proposal:

• The BMFA are seeking permission from the members to spend ~£1.3m on a new ~100 acre site for a NFC and some basic onsite infrastructure; no suitable site has currently been located, but they want the permission now so they can act quickly as and when such a site becomes available.
• The purchase will be funded by an £860k mortgage and £500k from reserves.
• Mortgage repayments plus annual running costs are estimated at ~£60k per annum, based on the variable rate mortgage remaining at 3.25% for the first 5 years.
• Running costs and mortgage are met by a combination of sponsor funding, insurance franchise income (generated for as long as we exhibit a good claims record), surplus from normal operations and a further £5k per annum drawdown from the reserves.
• The costs above cover the land purchase and "minimal development" - it is not clear what that is as yet. It does not include an indoor flying facility, tarmac runway, improvement to field surfaces, improved access, caravan site, office space, shop, coffee bar/restaurant or museum. All of those will need to be funded from new money, but the BMFA have stated these will not be financed from member subscriptions.
• Phase 2 and 3 funding for the above items is expected to come from revenue from use, donations, bequethments, loans or bonds from members & areas, plus external grants and sponsorship (though a report from a 3rd party external funding consultants indicated funding from the EU or National Lottery was unlikely in the forseeable future because it would not meet those organisations key criteria).
• No risk analysis has been published with the feasibility study.
• Country members will not get a vote on this proposal - in line with the governance structure outlined in the BMFA handbook, only those who have joined through a BMFA club can be represented in the vote at the EGM by their club rep casting all the clubs votes in a single block, for or against.

Edited By MattyB on 09/09/2016 15:58:56

[cymaz]

My own personal view is that the bmfa should rent out club sites to hold events. If the LMA can do it why not the bmfa. Granted, there might be more visitors but that would be to the clubs advantage in terms of revenue. Clubs would/ could spend the money on investment. Surely, this would be far more beneficial to the local flyer and money reaching more of the grass roots.

Putting all the eggs in one basket risks everything.

[Erfolg]

Lets be clear i do not know KC, I do not believe I have met him. Non the less i can see that KCs discussion/argument was quite clear, in demonstrating that it is not practical for casual usage by all members.

I also agree that our hobby benefits from representation.

The BMFA would also benefit from some updating of its constitution with respects to its members. There is little or no need for the convoluted and restrictive representation, that presently distances the membership from decision making. For those who do not want to be involved or informed etc, that option would remain. For those who want to influence the direction of the hobby, a reformed BMFA may be the catalyst that encourages more involvement.

Just a thought, it is common jargon to talk about a plan "B" to deal with plans that fail. There needs t be a plan "C" which deals with how to deal with a NFC that is not successful. One aspect would be how would the financial impact of not being i a position to fund the lease, if this were to occur.

[Peter Jenkins]

Matty, I don't know why you think that anything to do with Laws Lawn Farm should still be on the BMFA website since it's history. The latest released Council minutes (found on the BMFA site by navigating - Home/Minutes and Agenda/Minutes Ratified Full 16-Jan-09) show that the CE reported that a new option of leasing a site had arisen and work was now proceeding to investigate this further. There is also a report that is on the BMFA website (reached via News/National Centre Update dated 18 05 2016 - or click here) in which Manny states the then current position and which was put to both Exec and Full Council and approved by both. The next Council meeting is scheduled for Sat 10th September and no doubt, after ratification by this meeting, those minutes will also be published on the website. A further update on the NFC will be given then and no doubt the News tab will be updated at that point.

One of the points made by the Council planning group when the permission was being sought for Laws Lawn Farm was that they looked at what was on the BMFA site to describe the end game for the NFC and this disturbed them and had it come to a decision this information would have led them to turn down the application. In this day and age, you have to be very careful how much information you share as you don't know what are the unintended consequences of doing so.

kc - you complain that local Clubs are denied the opportunity of speaking to each other by the BMFA. I find that hard to understand. All BMFA Clubs are grouped into Areas. The Area Committee meets at least 3 times a year and sometimes more often. All Clubs are invited to attend these meetings. The Area Committee elects officers to administer the Area one of whom is the Council Delegate. This person takes instruction from the Area Committee to which all Clubs in the Area are invited but few choose to attend. The BMFA provides funds to these Area Committees to pay mileage to Clubs to travel to these meetings and they don't need an overnight stay. Your Club rep should have established, at the very least, your Club Committees views, to put forward to the Area Council. The Clubs therein make a decision as to what they would like their Delegate to do at Full Council where all the decisions on the NFC are taken. And who are these Delegates? They are members of the Clubs in the Area who are prepared to put in the effort to do the job. If kc, or anyone else who has posted who vehemently disagrees with the NFC concept, wanted to get onto Council to make his presence felt, it's quite easy to do - put your name forward for election to the post at the Area AGM which will be held soon after the BMFA AGM. I know that our Area has circulated all the Club Secs with a list of Club Secs emails although some Club Secs chose not to have their emails exposed for fear of spam attacks.

So, let's not have the story put about that the Clubs are denied the right to speak to each other. That is simply not true.

There is a constant refrain of having a one person one vote system. Many claim this is the only way to see democracy satisfied. Well, we only have to look at what happened during the Brexit referendum to ponder whether the vote was conducted on the issues to do with staying in or leaving the EU. Some said they would vote for which ever outcome meant they were better off. Others just wanted to put one over authority and so on I'm not suggesting that the NFC is anything like as complex a decision as Brexit but how many of the 36,000 members would bother to vote bearing in mind how many UK registered voters vote in General Elections. In any event, it would require a change in the Articles of Association which would take up a great deal of time and effort from a group who are all unpaid volunteers. Just look at how many Club members volunteer to sit on their Club Committee - not many although I grant you there will be exceptions.

[MattyB]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 09/09/2016 17:37:30:

Matty, I don't know why you think that anything to do with Laws Lawn Farm should still be on the BMFA website since it's history. The latest released Council minutes (found on the BMFA site by navigating - Home/Minutes and Agenda/Minutes Ratified Full 16-Jan-09) show that the CE reported that a new option of leasing a site had arisen and work was now proceeding to investigate this further. There is also a report that is on the BMFA website (reached via News/National Centre Update dated 18 05 2016 - or click here) in which Manny states the then current position and which was put to both Exec and Full Council and approved by both. The next Council meeting is scheduled for Sat 10th September and no doubt, after ratification by this meeting, those minutes will also be published on the website. A further update on the NFC will be given then and no doubt the News tab will be updated at that point.

No, I did not mean the news articles about Laws Lawn Farm. I was responding to the statement by John F which was as follows - "...To be fair if you cannot see the benefits of a national centre, which helps to give us somewhere to host annual competitions and somewhere to visit and fly, which has already been discussed in powerpoint presentations, then what is the point of explaining? There is info there on the BMFA site."

I was merely pointing out that the video, feasibility study Powerpoint and the report from the third party experts on lottery and grant funding that waspublished prior to the EGM seem to have disappeared. Since that information was pretty generic most of it would remain valid today (especially the stuff about opex costs) even though they have moved from a purchase to a lease model. Yes there is info on current status in minutes and news articles, but given the motion passed at the EGM specifically references “That this EGM approves the principle of the BMFA Council of Directors acquiring a piece of land , as yet unidentified, in order to start the process of creating a National Model Flying Centre, within the published feasibility and broad financing parameters set out in the BMFA Feasibility Study and subsequent information" it seems weird these materials are no longer available to members. I can only assume you are correct and they are worried about potential sellers viewing them and using that information to get a better deal from the BMFA.

Edited By MattyB on 09/09/2016 18:18:35