Basil
AND as last time ......
"MAG only needed third party capital if their bid for STN was successful."
AND equally one could argue IFM only then put in that very specific investment based on the prospect of STN then becoming a major third London Airport.
I will once again quote a well respected industry journalist who presumably looked at the manifesto on the table at that time !
"It was not possible to extract from MAG speakers what MAG’s external investor, Australia’s Industry Funds Management (IFM), thinks about the airport city development. IFM is a 35% shareholder in MAG and thus presumably holds a 17.5% in the JV building the airport city. But it came onboard for an entirely different reason, namely to invest into a group operation that includes London Stansted Airport. Those were its terms – an unsuccessful bid for Stansted by MAG would mean no investment by IFM in MAG."
The Aerotropolis ? a strategy, not a project. ?Aerotropolis EMEA? Conference report: Part 1 | CAPA - Centre for Aviation
They may well be very satisfied with how things are turning out at STN, but even you would agree it is both naive and totally absurd to suggest that the conditions that prevailed when IFM came on board are the same as they are now !
A) Airport City according to this article was presumably not part of their thinking.
B) Stansted was very much part of the South East Airport debate. It might still be, even though SHD clearly thinks it is merely a bit player. Though equally you could ask what does he know !
C) Improvement and expansion of infastructure at Manchester requiring substantial investment was I suspect not on the table at that time IFM came onboard.
I am heartily reassured by your insistence that MAG did not actually need Australian monies or indeed investment of any kind if the deal did not go through but what of investment in Airport City and the Airport?
It is perfectly reasonable to be inquisitive if the journalist was not able to illicit a comprehensive and supportive response, from a main shareholder with regard to their thoughts about what they think about a "new" proposal to invest £800m on Airport City.
If we are unaware of their thoughts on this key area (and I am sure everybody on here thinks Airport City is highly positive), what do they now think about a muti million investment in terminal infastructure specifically at MAN ?