Is it not best to wait for more news on this before calling people arrogant, ignorant or mislead?
Well I'll have a go based on what we know from this statement. I'll stick with my original naive, there is nothing arrogant about wanting to re-open an airport for business. If they can pull it off it would be against all the odds, and these are a few reasons why:
reflecting a notion that the airport was closed due to it being commercially unviable – an argument which the FSB has consistently contested.
Let's look at destinations previously served: BHD, AMS, BRU, DUB, JER - so those five may or may not return. Realistically, how many more might be added on top? Best case?
More to the point, LCY was served before, these shorter routes are much harder to justify now, gone from LPL & MAN, barely got started at LBA, never happened at MME, was it 3 months at NCL. So why would it work at SZD? London tends to be quite useful to the business case for any regional airport.
Also, an airport being "viable" - as in able to turn a profit, and being able to turn a better profit than other uses of the land are two different things.
and intends to include a restaurant and other leisure facilities in a redeveloped terminal.
Well I would hope that a terminal of any kind has some form of catering. As for leisure facilities, what the hell are they on about? This is a STOLPORT - in quickly, out quickly.
If they want amusement options, plenty in the corridor between city centre and Meadowhall, and there's always Magna Park! Hence I repeat the term "naive".
The bid would be subject to the full support of the Sheffield City Council, including provision of all the necessary planning consents,
Again, grossly naive.
You can't put a bid together like that (in public) and just demand planning consent. Either it already has it, or it has lapsed, in which case fresh application needed, possibly going to a long and costly public inquiry, as there will be green objections. Can anyone confirm current status?
I can tell you from experience at CVT that you certainly don't go around proposing a larger terminal. Either the existing one does the job or forget it. Why would it need to be redeveloped anyway?
and a realistic price being agreed
Realistic on who's terms? Considering this would be competing with DSA, and that other uses are already being line up, I can't see any chance of this "realistic" price being reached. So again, grossly naive. Either the "market" rate is paid, or bean counter says no.