At the risk of flogging a dead horse...
CAPA are mistaken in saying that the conditionality of the STN deal was down to IFM. This was simply the terms of the deal set out by MAG, as part of their strategy to raise funds so as to be able to afford the price tag for STN.
Here is an extract from a May 2012 press statement by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, followed by a press comment:
"Following a strategic review of the group's performance and future prospects, MAG is pursuing two key recommendations: one to explore the opportunity to add a quality airport to the Group; and the other, to bring in new equity investment as part of the deal. Both of these recommendations are interdependent and one will not happen without the other," the joint statement said.
Meanwhile, MAG confirmed it had started to invite detailed proposals from private investors.
It is understood other frontrunners for the stake in MAG are Cheung Kong Infrastructure, the investment vehicle of Asia's richest man Li Ka-shing, and Australia's Industry Funds Management.
I can't say whether IFM had a particular view on Airport City. However, I suspect that they attached little value (if any) to the potential for STN to have a second runway. As with LGW, it is very difficult to see how STN's value would be enhanced by a second runway, given the enormous costs involved and the unwillingness of airlines to pay the necessary fees.
You do however have a good point about the investment in MAN being a lot more expensive than was envisaged when IFM came on board. I'm sure that MAG are working up their business case so as to persuade all shareholders (not just IFM) that they can earn a good return on the much higher capital costs.
Last edited by BasilBush; 11th Jan 2015 at 20:56.