I read the same article, I don't think there was much to read between the lines. There are oviously some problems but I can't understand the logic of spending until you are £4m in debt then carying on. The finantual risk would then lie with the directors who would be in quite a fix if the whole thing went bust even if you did build houses on the airfield. They would not then be alowed to run a company again as I understand the law.

Why spend all the money on what was Fordair (who I was sad to hear left last year, Mr. Ford was quite a charicter although I accept the ovious i.e. he has left also). What I saw when I visited the airshow last year was remarkable, the new fuel instalation was unlike anything I have seen at an equivelant grass strip. Why put in all the effort rather than declare that you are £4m in debt, delcare bancrupsey and build now? I am sure I don't know anything like the whole story but I just don't can't see how it all adds up?

...says it all. Unless you are aware of all the facts it is best not to surmise too much. Appearances can be deceptive, it's what is going on beneath the surface that determines what happens in the future.

NSF are a well managed school with a large and loyal membership, they would not up sticks from the base that they love and move away unless there was a very good reason.

I see your point. Well I guess Arestahook's theory was, as he said, speculation, we will have to see what happens. I hope it's a load of rubbish but time will tell.

Oxford, you did not see as many aircraft as you would have done 12 months ago. Yes there are a lot of microlights, but I was talking about light aircraft. The owners of aircraft have put up with arriving at the airfield to find gates, but had not been informed of the entry codes. Padlocks changed on the hangar, no new key issued. Padlocks changed again to combination locks, again no codes issued from the 'management'.

A certain prunner asked BB what was going on (covered in a previous posting) and was banned. This can only lead to speculation as BB refuses to speak to his tenants, and does not see why he has to. His attitude is 'if you dont like it, bugger off'.

Amazingly he his now complaining about lack of aircraft movements!

Sywell could be a fantastic aerodrome, but this will NOT happen until BB buggers off.

The company does not have to go bust, it just sell the land to the developer which is worth vastly more than £4m, the debts are settled and the houses get built by another company.

Business is a very devious process..........

I am sure the land is worth a lot more than £4m. What I was getting at was why go to all the bother of redeveloping the hangers if your intention is just to just build houses or indutrial on the place? Why spend all the money on deliberatly bungeling the runway aplication? At the end of the day no matter what happens afterwards it is still lost capital spent on legal fees etc. It just seems a bit far fetched.

I can't coment on the number of lost tennants other than the well publicised ones and I know nothing of the lock problems but I certanly know of the barriers, which are a pain if you have flown in and are meeting someone, (and I have no doubt if you are a business operating aeroplanes of all types) but I suppose you could argue they are additonal security, not that they prevent people steeling aeroplanes!

The whole thing seems a very curious situation no matter what your perspective is on it. As a bystander it is all very interesting.

Because to makes ones case truly plausable one has to go through ALL of the motions.

Hangers make equally good industrial units.

Sorry to keep playing devils advicate here! I still don't see a reason to go through this elaborate shirade. Even the most weathy bussnessmen and women are always after as much as they can get, why through so much unrecoverable cash away?

I take your point about the hangers though it isn't quite as simple as moving a buissness in, plumbing and whatnot not to mention heating and the draft!

If you have to answer to a board of directors (even if it is to pay lip service a la MBB) then sometimes it is necessary to maintain a veneer of normailty regarding your plans for the future. However, if you are simply manouvering for a final coup de gras then any camouflage helps. This can look like a hanger, a new fuel setup or simply making your site resemble the outer perimeter of Colditz.

An earlier posting made reference to Sloane Helicopters. They own their building outright. They also have little need of a runway. Less of a problem in the grand scheme of things and easier to relocate (after a healthy repurchase) if necessary.

I blelive MBB wanted to buy the Sloane building, but did not want to pay Sloane's asking price.

That's something I didn't know inaspin. Interesting and fuel to the fire.
One of BBs quoted reasons for booting out NSF was that he wanted their slice of the action and planned to set up a flying school of his own from the Shackleton building using At3s -ultralights.

Setting up an FTO I would imagine having trawled through CAP 687 et al myself would not be a piece of cake, a long a protracted process with an enormous number of applications that are in the public domain. None of this has happened, there is no FTO to replace NSF, no CFI, no planes no instructors, nothing.
Well why isn't there? With NSF moving shortly there is a gap in the market with the NSF membership left behind in Northampton, why is it not up and running and ready to take up the slack. Good business planning surely?

Never meant to happen! Kick out NSF and eventually put the squeeze on flylight (Movements decrease - blame it on something else not the fact you have thrown out your aviaition operators) and apply for change of use.