BMFA News

[Colin Leighfield]

That's a perfect analysis for me John, let them get on with it and see what they produce. I'm looking forward to seeing how this goes because in principle I think it's a good idea.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Time to repeat it I think, votes in favour of proceeding without having to go back to the members 2657, against 1157 (took numbers off other thread, hope they're correct)

You/We can talk till the cows come home, how easy was it to stop this in it's tracks, or at least impose conditions on the leadership ? Apathy reigns supreme. All the talk about the voting structure is a smokescreen talk of how passionately your members are against when you chat on the phone means nothing now, we're done and the dusting's in progress.

Yep it's a fair way for some to travel for the EGM and some had work or other commitments, but could not one from your club attend or arrange a proxy vote ? it was a big deal by all accounts.

Our club had two concerns, members should get a vote, what's your plans for those outside the comp arena. Vote we got..we voted No, second we're waiting on. Financial side of it doesn't worry us, if the BMFA gets broke we'll survive, grass roots can look after it's self. (save the lecture about who'll represent us at a high level, it won't be us who broke it)

LMA/BMFA/OTHERS ? not the time for that, stand by assurances given at EGM and there's no need, latest update looks less scary, so to repeat myself Good luck with it.

John

[The Wright Stuff]

At the moment, I'm about 50:50, but I do have a slightly different take on this...

The worst case scenario is that the BMFA folds, having bankrupted itself and lost the confidence of its membership. I suppose I could take the devil's advocate approach here and say that the people who claim that the BMFA does nothing for them, will get LMA insurance instead, and aren't interested in the Nats or competitive flying, are essentially no worse off if this happens.

Except this is a very short-sighted view.

It seems to be clear that a single facility is not going to directly benefit a significant proportion of the BMFA membership in terms of providing a site for regular flying, wherever it is located. Therefore it has to provide long term benefit to all members (including those who do not personally ever visit the site), even if it means a short term increase in subs to support the purchase and development. A return on investment, in other words.

The problem as I see it, is that this isn't going to be something that can be done incrementally, but rather an 'all or nothing' approach. The 'return' would take the form of increased recognition, better representation, and a more integrated, unified hobby, with all the additional punch that comes with that the next time a local authority threatens a flying site near you.

I must admit, while I'm concerned about how this can be achieved, I'm also concerned about the long term consequences of not investing in something like this. The baseline, in other words. The hobby is evolving so quickly at the present time, that who knows where the BMFA will be in 10 - 20 years time, with or without the centre.

So while a carefully considered and presented business case is absolutely essential. Please also consider and accept, at least in principle, that there is risk in not investing in this, too.

[Cabbage Man]

Whats a shame is that i doubt the bmfa will reach out to some of its highly experienced members to help them get this right. Even in a small club, you often find there is a wealth of legal or commercial expertise to tap into so that key decisions like planning permission are done correctly. My last club wasted thousands when the committee had a go themselves at submitting a planning permission . It turned out not one of them had ever done anything like it before and were all from manual trades, so inexperienced at officialdom and LA liaison. As it transpired, we had solicitors and even a local planning officer in the club but didn't use them.

The lack of facts/reasoning behind the location, costs, revenue, joint use etc not being provided worries me . Either its too sensitive to publish or it doesn't exist . The latter is fatal.

Id sign off by wishing them well. if it goes well, it could be a financial success as well as potentially good for the hobby. if it fails, it may just break the association.

[cymaz]

It is very arrogant to shake the stick at them with claims that they have no idea what they are doing or what professional level they are working at when you actually don't know what level they are working at.

Some folk have come on here and stated " I am x financially qualified / I have done Y for years / I have worked in Z for decades and they need a,b,c and d in place" etc, etc, etc which is extremely arrogant and dismissive considering how much info you have on the plans the BMFA has in mind.

How do you know that they do not have any of this in place or in mind? None of you know.

Could we not just wait to see what their plans are before you deny them any credibility?

Or is this the wrong crowd and the non-lynch mob thread is yet to come?

Edited By John F on 25/05/2016 08:15:57

From the figures and projections of costs etc that I saw on the last NFC site that I saw, those figures just didn't add up. We were shown these costings that the bmfa had produced themselves, though not made public. I wont reveal how this came about.

Though I thought its not fair of the bmfa to keep such figures away from the general members who WILL be asked to cough up some money towards it. Why this secrecy, I don't know.

[Colin Leighfield]

I don't subscribe to the idea that there is a risk of this breaking BMFA. If the project becomes serious there will have to be professional inputs and appropriate risk assessments. There's no need to second-guess on this one, let's be patient.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Does anyone know how the financial model of the BMFA works? Should the worst happen, what are the implications to the SMAE? Is it possible that the SMAE could simply fold up the BMFA and continue to represent the interests of modellers?

I'm a little concerned that the promised review of voting rights hasn't materialised yet and intend to ask my club representative to raise this at the next area committee - perhaps others could lobby theirs?

John Stones' post above makes some good points. The die is cast - the membership were given the opportunity to challenge the proposal and for whatever reason - contentment, apathy, disenfranchisement or whatever - endorsed it with the authority to go ahead with financial commitment. In fact, as pointed out by the chairman, there was no constitutional reason to even hold the EGM in the first place as the executive is empowered to run the affairs of the society without further reference to the membership.

I left the EGM a little happier with the apparent calibre of the members of the executive. Yes, we've yet to see detailed plans and despite my misgivings, I hope the NFC will work out well. Perhaps we should be looking at ways to assist rather than simply pointing out the negatives - I'm sure positive suggestions would be well received and considered by the executive?

[MattyB]

Posted by John F on 25/05/2016 08:14:25:

With respect to you BeB and also other people here . . . .

Before people start to second guess / criticise / damn or just plain winge about the financials on this plan might I suggest something?

Could we not just let the BMFA get on with it and produce and actual funding and development plans first? I mean, you might be surprised that some people in the BMFA might actually know what they are doing and have funding arranged, plans in place, development plans etc, etc.

To hear some of you talk the BMFA cannot manage any monies and don't know what they are doing. How do you know?

It is very arrogant to shake the stick at them with claims that they have no idea what they are doing or what professional level they are working at when you actually don't know what level they are working at.

Some folk have come on here and stated " I am x financially qualified / I have done Y for years / I have worked in Z for decades and they need a,b,c and d in place" etc, etc, etc which is extremely arrogant and dismissive considering how much info you have on the plans the BMFA has in mind.

How do you know that they do not have any of this in place or in mind? None of you know.

Could we not just wait to see what their plans are before you deny them any credibility?

You are right - we don't know about the qualifications of those involved, the detailed and costed business model, or the development plan for the site. All of these would be an absolute requirement within a commercial organisation before making the decision to proceed with something like a long term lease or land purchase. Instead we have (actually had; they seem to have been removed from the website for some reason) only a set of extremely optimistic estimations for an NFC located on land purchased for the purpose (a model which has now been deemed unfeasible), and a feasibility study that acknowledged that there were no obvious sources of external funding beyond the membership for the phase 2 development of the site. I think it is fair to say that many of the misgivings expressed by people here are based on the low level of detail and rose tinted assumptions baked into those documents

So, has the detailed financial due diligence and project planning associated with this new proposal been completed, and if so has it been done by people with the qualifications to run a multi-million £ infrastructure project? Maybe, maybe not, but that's certainly are not visible to members. It is all very well saying be patient, but by the time these things are are surfaced (if they are - I cannot see any requirement for the BMFA LT to share them with members in the Articles) it appears leases will have been signed and concrete will be being poured.

I fully acknowledge due process was followed and that the BMFA LT have the right to proceed in this manner, but I really hope they have got the right people involved this time, have done their sums and assumed worst not best case financial models for the full lifetime of the project.

Edited By MattyB on 25/05/2016 13:00:13

[Peter Jenkins]

The SMAE is the legal entity that trades under the name of BMFA. The BMFA is not therefore a separate legal construct.

To The Wrinkled Prune - you may be agreeably surprised that the BMFA reached out to the wider membership for those who had specialist knowledge and that the team has input from experts in planning and leasing arrangements working on the matter as we speak.

The issue around not publishing every bit of information at the moment is that there is a planning application in process as described by Manny Williamson in his last post on this topic. A lesson learned from Laws Lawn Farm planning permission is that planners looked at the BMFA site and took on board the extensive vision that the presentation on the site contained. That did not help to get the planners on side. Had the site not failed on some of the other gating factors, I would have thought there might have been some real difficulty with getting the sort of planning scope that was being sought.

So, there is some recent experience that indicates that keeping ones powder dry until such time as planning permission is granted will mean we stand a better chance of getting that permission in the first place. I would have thought that we would all wish that lesson to be not just learned but applied by the BMFA in this instance.

[John Lee]

Posted by Martin Harris on 25/05/2016 10:32:53:

Is it possible that the SMAE could simply fold up the BMFA and continue to represent the interests of modellers?

No - The BMFA is the trading name of SMAE Ltd, they are one & the same organisation. See page 5 of the Members' Handbook.

[MattyB]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 25/05/2016 12:57:55:

...The issue around not publishing every bit of information at the moment is that there is a planning application in process as described by Manny Williamson in his last post on this topic. A lesson learned from Laws Lawn Farm planning permission is that planners looked at the BMFA site and took on board the extensive vision that the presentation on the site contained. That did not help to get the planners on side. Had the site not failed on some of the other gating factors, I would have thought there might have been some real difficulty with getting the sort of planning scope that was being sought.

So, there is some recent experience that indicates that keeping ones powder dry until such time as planning permission is granted will mean we stand a better chance of getting that permission in the first place. I would have thought that we would all wish that lesson to be not just learned but applied by the BMFA in this instance.

Interesting... so they have taken down all the NFC proposal materials from the BMFA site because they think it may scare off the planners? I suppose it makes sense, though ultimately they will have to get permission for what they want to build one way or the other at some point; already having the site then finding out we cannot expand it's facilities further would be a bad situation to be in.

Edited By MattyB on 25/05/2016 13:06:02

[Erfolg]

The only documents I have (officially) seen with respect to a NFC were the documents presented on the BMFA web site. Even as an abridged summary of a business plan, it could not remotely be classed as a "business plan". It was totally lacking in content. It had more in common with a "fag Packet Design" that very rarely is converted into a viable project.

Although we have drifted a little distance from our starting concerns, which were Mannies comments in the BMFA News, there is no good commercial reason to make a full business plan available. The BMFA does not have business competitors. More over the fundamentals of a business plan would not necessarily contain any information specific to a site. Even if this were the case, the purchase of property, is based on what the seller can get, rather than how much money the potential purchaser has or can get.

I am not so sure that some clubs would not consider insurance via the LMA, if BMFA subscriptions increase by a noticeable amount.

We should recognise that the reason that robust business plans, that are comprehensively and well structured, have evolved because, many projects in the real world of both Government and Private sectors, had in the past been embarked upon because of the enthusiasm of the promoters, who knew the right people. Unfortunately far to many of these projects were abandoned, or the business viability placed in jeopardy, as reality overtook the vision.

Some projects are of the vanity type, at present most of have no real idea with respect to the NFC, as so little good quality, broad based information, beyond the superficial has been forth coming. Certainly not of the type that BEB alludes, nor the ones I would evaluate.

I think the real issue is both funding the concept, then the ongoing costs. Telling me that I am mean, because Golfers at Wentworh pay £10,000 per annum plus a joining fee, cuts no ice with me. For example my wife paid less than £300 for membership at her club, and she plays every other day, with no Green Fees, another example at the other end of the spectrum of Golf.

[extra slim]

Holy Moly...after the last foray into this venture and the many posts of disapproval as to the way the BMFA went about it....I had to agree, that the secret squirrel approach caused the scepticism/criticism. But blow me down, at least they have got onto another lead and are giving it a go....I am pleasantly surprised and pleased....much quicker than expected.....they might have even secured the nats for next year as well!!.. (whoops...easy now)

In terms of how it will pan out etc, then it will, at the relevant point all come out, but the key here is the relevant point.

I'd imagine, it looks like they have taken on board the comments on lack of communications after the lessons learnt of last time, in letting people know they have another candidate, so it would be unfortunate if they get slated for this as well....in their eyes they would be damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I for one, will back down, and let them give it a crack, and will look at it in more detail once they have more detail to report.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[kc]

People keep saying here that we had a chance to vote on this matter. We ordinary members did not get a chance to vote! We were not properly informed that a vote was to take place. Therefore most did not know and could not vote! And when an EGM is held it's not the members of BMFA that vote its the representatives of clubs that live near enough to attend that can vote. It's not democratic! Even worse than the EC

[Andy Meade]

What's an ordinary member? If you failed to register a vote, then it's your club's fault, not the BMFA's. If you're a country member, then you don't get to vote anyway. It's as democratic as a business needs to be.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by John F on 25/05/2016 08:14:25:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 24/05/2016 21:50:51:

I develop research projects in my job - some of them very large projects with multi-million pound budgets. Some are funded by private industry and some are funded by tax payer's money; many are a combination of the two. To get any of them funded I have to develop an extremely detailed case, fully thought out, with financial projections and evidence to back those projections, not just unfounded hopeful claims. . . . . . . . Impact assessments on subject areas, users, society in general etc etc. All this amasses to many hundreds of pages of case and report. I don't belive that the decision to embark on this project has been backed by anything like such a level of care and analysis.

With respect to you BeB and also other people here . . . .

Before people start to second guess / criticise / damn or just plain winge about the financials on this plan might I suggest something?

Could we not just let the BMFA get on with it and produce and actual funding and development plans first? I mean, you might be surprised that some people in the BMFA might actually know what they are doing and have funding arranged, plans in place, development plans etc, etc.

To hear some of you talk the BMFA cannot manage any monies and don't know what they are doing. How do you know?

It is very arrogant to shake the stick at them with claims that they have no idea what they are doing or what professional level they are working at when you actually don't know what level they are working at.

Some folk have come on here and stated " I am x financially qualified / I have done Y for years / I have worked in Z for decades and they need a,b,c and d in place" etc, etc, etc which is extremely arrogant and dismissive considering how much info you have on the plans the BMFA has in mind.

How do you know that they do not have any of this in place or in mind? None of you know.

Could we not just wait to see what their plans are before you deny them any credibility?

Or is this the wrong crowd and the non-lynch mob thread is yet to come?

Edited By John F on 25/05/2016 08:15:57

OK John, if this analysis exists - where is it? Why isn't it public domain? After all there is no question of commercial confidentiality here - there is no competition - well not yet anyway!

And if it doesn't exist - which I believe is the case - then why the hell not? You ask me to give them time to complete such an analysis,...they have had over a year! This is the second time they have taken us to the brink of apparently entering a contract - so don't you think such an analysis is just a tad overdue?

Finally you challenge me saying I cast doubt on the their competence? Yes I do - that is my opinion. What is it based on? Its based on fiascoes like the Nats; its based on the evidence that, despite the fact the 95% of their membership is hobby RC, their focus is entirely elsewhere; its based on the evidence of the pages and pages of pictures of the annual "black tie bash" in which people none of us have ever heard of are lauded and which indicates that "they" have absolutely no idea whatsoever just how irrelevant that is to the overwhelming majority of the membership!

No, you can stick with them John if you wish, that is your privilege - but I will simply store all this ready for the "I told you so" - that will only give me marginal pleasure - in 5 years or thereabouts when they come knocking for the money - because I personally am completely sure they haven't thought this potential "train crash" out!

This is my final contribution on this, as I think the debate is simply going round in circles now. Others will have to make their own mind up - I know which way I see this initiative going.

BEB

[MattyB]

Here here, though frankly I doubt it will take as long as 5 years for the begging bowl to be handed round - I give it until the AGM 2 years after the purchase at the latest...

[Erfolg]

One of the issues touched on by Manny, was that of the change of regulations with respect to ANOs.

This again seems to be a flag that there are changes in the pipeline. I suspect of significance, as it is not unusual for there to be changes on an annual basis, of a minor nature.

I feel uneasy that some may eagerly embrace changes that make compulsory regulation of either models by individual models displaying a unique alpha numeric identifier, as an example or perhaps something similar for the owner, as yet another alternative.

What would be of greater concern would be the creation of an administrive system, which was in the control of a single single body, such as the BMFA or any one else. The reason being it could be a "cash cow", that eventually kills the "Golden Goose". Such a system could also be a "Trojan Horse" used to re-enforce the position of such an administrator. I do like the Metaphors.

Logically such a scheme would cover flying devices above a certain weight, which would leave flying toys. including small drones outside such a scheme.

On that basis i would expect that the LMA would and should have an equal part to play, if not the prime role, given their experience of administrating of the structural and control systems which LM require.

As a foot note, I totally agree with BEB, irrespective if as an individual you are in favour of a NFC, you would expect a "Fully Developed Business Plan" to have been made available to the membership. Recognising that extensive nature of such a document is impractical to make available widely in a paper format. It is totally suited to being made available via the web site. Not buried away, not in the form of a superficial presentation document, presenting a broad brush hope. I am not totally convinced that the hierarchy are as incompetent that such events as the venue for the NATs would indicate. I am sure that the vast majority could see the writing on the wall, before last years NATs. I suspect that the present position was a tactical ploy to emphasis, the perceived view that a NFC was a necessity. If not, well they would have been sacked in industry, where senior managers and possibly institutional shareholders asking "where was the plan B"?

Edited By Erfolg on 26/05/2016 10:48:52

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Percy Verance on 25/05/2016 15:31:29:

Just in case you need reminding once more BMFA. You need the members, but the members don't necessarily need you!

Edited By Percy Verance on 25/05/2016 15:38:29

Unless you have a flying field dispute, negotiations with the CAA on protecting model flying rights, input into the protection of frequencies for RC flying etc. Maybe we don't need a national organisation representing our interests and just allow the CAA to regulate us unfettered.

[MattyB]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 26/05/2016 10:48:51:

Posted by Percy Verance on 25/05/2016 15:31:29:

Just in case you need reminding once more BMFA. You need the members, but the members don't necessarily need you!

Unless you have a flying field dispute, negotiations with the CAA on protecting model flying rights, input into the protection of frequencies for RC flying etc. Maybe we don't need a national organisation representing our interests and just allow the CAA to regulate us unfettered.

True, but (probably wrongly) most members don't perceive those items as direct benefits of membership since day to day they are invisible to them. Also with the exception of the flying site support the others are effectively provided to the UK model flying community by the BMFA whether you are a member or not, so that won't stop people making a decision as to their future membership based on items like rising fees and their opinions of the NFC project.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by MattyB on 26/05/2016 11:24:22:

 

True, but (probably wrongly) most members don't perceive those items as direct benefits of membership since day to day they are invisible to them. Also with the exception of the flying site support the others are effectively provided to the UK model flying community by the BMFA whether you are a member or not, so that won't stop people making a decision as to their future membership based on items like rising fees and their opinions of the NFC project.

Absolutely, but isn't this then an argument precisely in support of the BMFA doing something pro-active to increase awareness of what it does for its members and the model flying community, NFC or otherwise?

Apologies, I fear I've just embarked on the next lap of this circle!

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 26/05/2016 11:45:59

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

The vast majority don't care about business plans fellas they just want to fly and be insured, only people capable of stirring them to action are those at the top and even then it'll most likely be money related if it ever happens.

If things turn out bad and the "few" screw it up, so what ? maybe the hobby side can get together do away with funding the comp lot, maybe there's some capable folk amongst and we'll be o.k whatever

Or maybe the "few" have plans to start engaging with us, don't hold your breath mind.

John...Apathy dept.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 26/05/2016 11:45:38:

Posted by MattyB on 26/05/2016 11:24:22:

True, but (probably wrongly) most members don't perceive those items as direct benefits of membership since day to day they are invisible to them. Also with the exception of the flying site support the others are effectively provided to the UK model flying community by the BMFA whether you are a member or not, so that won't stop people making a decision as to their future membership based on items like rising fees and their opinions of the NFC project.

Absolutely, but isn't this then an argument precisely in support of the BMFA doing something pro-active to increase awareness of what it does for its members and the model flying community, NFC or otherwise?

Apologies, I fear I've just embarked on the next lap of this circle!

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 26/05/2016 11:45:59

And if the CAA brings in a registration fee per model (see Republic of Ireland) the increase in BMFA fees will seem trivial, but hey ho it is the BMFA that needs us not the other way round we can all fight our corner individually.

[Colin Leighfield]

With all due respect, if anyone honestly believes that the CAA will have any interest in negotiating with anything but a broadly representative association that they see as credible, I am sure that they are misguided.

The only chance of anything else that will protect our interests would be the replacement of BMFA by a similar sized and resourced organisation that was recognised by CAA as representing all of the model flying disciplines that they had to consider. They aren't going to commit their resources to dealing with splinter groups and individuals. So unless someone has a credible plan for a new association that will attract all or a substantial proportion of BMFA members into it and it is sufficiently well funded to employ the competent people to do the job on our behalf with the support facilities that they will need, I can't see it happening. That doesn't mean that some won't leave membership and get their insurance somewhere else, but that isn't going to change much. It's all happened before. The environment they fly in will still depend on the protection of BMFA.

Nothing's perfect and you will never please everyone. However on this national centre issue I don't blame BMFA for being aspirational, being aspirational is what building and flying models is about for me anyway. I have a serious business side and fortunately a "head in the clouds" side as well, which is what keeps me happy. I don't actually care if at this stage it looks a bit amateurish to some, because if it gets serious it will have to be professionally managed and I will reserve my judgements until then.

I don't object to resources being committed to free-flight and control-line disciplines. They are not so far removed from what we are doing and they are where we came from in the first place any away. Helicopters and multi-rotors may be radio controlled models but they don't interest me in the slightest. Even so I don't object to their inclusion at all, they are models occupying air-space in competition with other users, the same as the rest of us and that is the lowest common denominator that binds us all together. If we lose sight of that we will all be the losers eventually. Let's hope that all of this aggravation will pass over so that we can get on with doing what we enjoy supported by the strength of a unified and tolerant aeromodelling community.

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 26/05/2016 13:42:58