Shoreham Closed

[Cricket23]

Slight correction to your post IO540 re airfields south of London. Don't forget that Redhill is still around (at the moment). However, most of the time you need a floatplane to use the place, and RAVL want to cover it in concrete.

Regards,

C23

[rwhites]

large flat grass area what is the point of a runway?

I'm sure i saw a c172 use 05 at shoreham the otherday?

[Jetscream 32]

i spoke with kpmg yesterday afternoon to see if there was a deal to be done for the aviation portfolio - but the only asset eracinous had that was loss making was Shoreham - all of the other operating companies were either Longmint and nothing to do with the administration or as in the case of Fairoaks profitable and quickly placed into another assett vehicle of the group - therefore not requiring administration.

id be surprised if anyone can make money with shoreham..... not enough landing fees to cover the infrastructure costs.... thats why the council got out of it in the first place.... tennants have a right, with little opportunity to increase pricing, not many commercial options..... shame as a fabulous airfield

[Mike Cross]

When I was learning at Shoreham it was all grass. I've even seen a jet operated off it. (OK it was the Miles Student with Neville Duke at the controls. It was on 07 and was very low as it crossed the river!)

[dublinpilot]

but the only asset eracinous had that was loss making was Shoreham

That doesn't really make sense. Are you saying that Eracinous would have been profitable except for the losses that Shoreham made?

[Hugh Mann-Facteur]

Shoreham sold

Heard earlier this evening that the airfield's been sold. John Haffenden's reportedly said it's business as usual. Anyone know more?

[wsmempson]

John Haffenden???

Do you mean this chap?

http://www.shef.ac.uk/english/staff/...haffenden.html

[Hugh Mann-Facteur]

Yes that'll be the one! Er no. Sorry: for those who don't know, JH (the other one) is the airport manager.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Actually this one



Shoreham Airport News Jun 2001

John was also one of the 'board' of the Airport Operators Association in the recent past.

[corkster]

i have heard that a management buyout has happend, any news for sure?

[Jetscream 32]

dublin pilot - lots and lots of different companies all owned by a parent company, however each company a ltd company in its own right - so the loss making ones go into administration the profitable ones are held within the group for re-structure and sell off by the administrator for best value to creditors.... the administrators job is to quickly identify what is viable as a going concern and what is not - clearly shoreham was not as there are no assets, no freehold, no mortgageable equipment - and a whole bunch of debt that can only be serviced by the airfield being open......

If it is a management buyout they will need balls of steel - and a lot of help... it sounds like a lovely great idea - buying airfields - but i can assure from expereince it is not - let the cost cutting begin..........

[IO540]

This comment is not in any way intended to apply to the Shoreham situation...

lots and lots of different companies all owned by a parent company, however each company a ltd company in its own right - so the loss making ones go into administration the profitable ones are held within the group for re-structure and sell off by the administrator for best value to creditors....

that is however a very dirty practice which will make your name stink for years to come, which is why most normal quoted companies avoid sinking one subsidiary without paying off its debts.

One does that only if there is no other option, and you don't care what anybody thinks, and you are not interested in raising finance ever again.

On even more general terms, the 'limited company' vehicle does allow one to walk away from one business while starting (or continuing) to run another doing much the same thing. This cannot be made illegal without busting the Ltd Co principle which has been a cornerstone of human enterprise for centuries. However, in recent years, it has become a lot easier to make Directors personally liable for debts which their company incurred in its final months. It's also a lot easier than it used to be to disqualify Directors... then you just need an extended family so each time you do a runner you get another cousin or whatever to run the new one.

[west lakes]

does this help??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7348883.stm

[Blink182]

So , it doesn't look like we are about to see a welcome reduction in the airport charges ..........if its the same people just under another name ?

[dublinpilot]

dublin pilot - lots and lots of different companies all owned by a parent company, however each company a ltd company in its own right - so the loss making ones go into administration the profitable ones are held within the group for re-structure and sell off by the administrator for best value to creditors.... the administrators job is to quickly identify what is viable as a going concern and what is not - clearly shoreham was not as there are no assets, no freehold, no mortgageable equipment

No problem with that. But it doesn't square up with

but the only asset eracinous had that was loss making was Shoreham

If all elements of the group where in seperate companies, and only one of them was loss making, then you close that subsidary only. (As IO540 says, you usually pay off all the debts to save your name). The group would still be profitable and there would be no need to suspend the shares of the holding company.

You certainly don't call in an administrator. If the group is profitable, you handle the matter with your own finance dept, which the help of consultants if needed, and sell the thing as a going concern, or close it down. The idea of a group with lots of subsidaries, all profitable bar one, calling in outside administrators is unheard of. It causes lots of publicity, and casts a shadow over all your other companies business, and gives your suppliers a scare. Credit terms for your profitable subsidaries suppliers goes out the window, and your debtors don't want to pay (thinking the place will be gone in a few months anyway).

The idea of a quoted PLC making such a basic mistake in unprecedented as far as I'm aware.

There has to be a lot more problems for the group, than simply one loss making asset in one subsidary.

dp

[Fuji Abound]

Based on the news reports it is the Group that are in Administration. DP is quite correct that were there only a single loss making company the Group would not be Administration and nor would the shares have been suspended.

The Admintrator will dispose of those assets he can for the best possible price he can achieve.

Albermarle would almost certainly be prepared to pay a premium for the airport because they own the commercial property. A deal has obviously been quickly done and on balance KPMG will feel it was a "good" deal doubtless taking into account the claims that would be made if the airport had remained closed for any length of time.

It would be interesting to know who controls Albermarle (I have not done any research) which might give a flavour for their ability to "re-generate" Shoreham and provide some comfort for the tenants that they are a sound a secure custodian and operator of the asset.

[niknak]

A quick Google search comes up with:
www.albermarle.com - supplier of specialist chemicals worldwide, and other companys of of the same name as, ticket agency in London, Gallery in London, piano supplier in London and a specialist furniture supplier.

Take your pick, although I would venture it's possibly the 1st.

[Justiciar]

If all elements of the group where in seperate companies, and only one of them was loss making, then you close that subsidary only. (As IO540 says, you usually pay off all the debts to save your name). The group would still be profitable and there would be no need to suspend the shares of the holding company.

This ignores the fact that in many groups there will be inter-company guarantees and composit guarantees and debentures in favour of banks and other lenders, so if there is external borrowing every company in a group will be a guarantor of the borrowing of every other company. This will result in a holding company being hit by, say, an insolvency of one of the subsidiaries and triggering the Holding Company's need to appoint an Administrator.

[julian_storey]

Shoreham appeared to be business as usual yesterday.

[Fuji Abound]

This ignores the fact that in many groups there will be inter-company guarantees and composit guarantees and debentures in favour of banks and other lenders, so if there is external borrowing every company in a group will be a guarantor of the borrowing of every other company. This will result in a holding company being hit by, say, an insolvency of one of the subsidiaries and triggering the Holding Company's need to appoint an Administrator.

No.

Whilst it is possible that cross guarantees and inter group loans of one company could cause the whole group to fail, for this to occur would amount to gross negligence by the Board.

In this case even if Shoreham had been operating at a loss it is inconceivable that the losses of Shoreham alone would cause the demise of the whole group.