PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - MANCHESTER
Thread: MANCHESTER
View Single Post
Old 1st Mar 2006, 18:03
  #475 (permalink)  
Momentary Lapse
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So more changes at MA then?

In 2001 Mr Muirhead CBE said that the restructure wouldn't affect anyone. How many people were eventually made redundant?

In 2006 Mr Muirhead CBE says it's just a shuffle and it won't affect anyone. Is there an echo in here?

I don't know who's gone, though I'll find out, and will try to post what I know to be true.

In my view those who go will be those people associated with the following deviations from the grand plan:

1 failure to meet a (ridiculous) MA business plan target. Mr Spooner has gone already, probably partly for this one. More will follow. I have my mental list of who I expect to go.

2 failure to ensure harmonious working relationships between MA/MAAS and MA/MADL. Mr Spooner has gone already, probably partly for this one as well. Again, more will follow.

3 failure to deliver the new building work on time or at the right price. I've got a list of names for this too. Is the rumour true that the AVP will be selling tickets this summer for a go on the boating lake on the new apron? Or for a go on the new skateboard park with hair-raising gradients, on stand 100?

4 duplication of similar roles, especially Finance. Three finance directors anyone? At least one of the two that isn't Richard Pike will go, probably both.

And Mrs RB is married to someone at the GMPTE? Conflict of interest? No way. I'd say it's keeping it in the (City Council) family. Despite the relaxation to allow proper shareholders in, Mcr City Council still runs the show because its tentacles run deep and wide. Selling off a profitable monument to free-market capitalism to pay for a socialist dream? Very likely, I'd say, for the bearded lefties at Mcr City Hall. If the Spanish can buy BAA plc, anything's possible.

Some examples of the City's tentacles. They:

own 55% of the shares;

own 55% of the main ground lease, and 100% of some of the subsequent additional leases;

are the local planning authority;

are the recipient of 100% of the airport's business rates.

So just suppose the business was sold off for a fat profit, then the ground rent was found to be mysteriously undervalued and suddenly doubled or trebled or went up ten-fold? Oops, MCC gets the capital value, but all the subsequent years' profits still go to MCC. Nice work if you can get it.

And innocent people vote these people into power!

Watch this space.
Momentary Lapse is offline