Bagso
To pick up on your points:
"I am convinced I read quotes from an IFM spokesperson suggesting "we will only invest if the Stansted deal goes through". OK that may still have been at MAGs bequest but it inferred that IFM held the whip hand ?"
Quite possibly, but this is just a restatement of the terms of the deal on offer from MAG. Namely that MAG would only sell a shareholding in itself if it was successful in winning Stansted. Without winning Stansted, MAG didn't need new capital and the existing shareholders had no interest in selling purely for the sake of it - it was a means to an end. This would have been the case irrespective of whether IFM or Abu Dhabi or whoever had won the right to do the deal with MAG.
"I got the impression that whilst MAG felt the purchase was a good deal they need IFMs £1.5B to do the deal, but with the conditions being laid out by IFM NOT the other way round ?"
Yes, MAG coudn't have done the deal to buy STN without new capital from a new shareholder (or alternatively joining in a larger consortium as was proposed for LGW). So MAG came up with this clever idea to sell a shareholding in itself and use the proceeds to enable it to bid for STN. This deal structure was agreed long before IFM won the contest to buy shares in MAG. Incidentally IFM put in a lot less than £1.5bn - most of STN purchase price came from new debt.
"I "thought" they needed an airport operator to facilitate the deal !"
Yes, the terms set out by the Competition Commission required all bidders for STN to have relevant airport operating capability. But IFM could have got this in a much simpler way, rather than buying a very substantial stake in an existing operator (ie MAG), involving extensive due diligence and lots more money. The CC's criteria could have been met by simply joining a consortium which included an airport operator investing alongside them.
"I'm sure that LGW went for same figure which make STN a "bit of a dear do" now that Davies has dismissed it !"
I certainly agree that GIP got LGW at a very good price, while the £1.5bn for STN looks high. But the Davies decision has no impact - a second runway at STN would not automatically increase its value. The Davies report shows that airline charges at STN would have had to increase astronomically at STN to generate a return on investment in the new runway, and this is simply unachievable given the airport's traffic base. MAG (and IFM) bought STN on the basis of building it up to the maximum capacity of its single runway - no value was attributed to the potential second runway. And, of course, Davies has not ruled out the possibility of STN developing a second runway after 2030, and let's face it it isn't needed until then.