Friday, 31 March 2017

RSP open and transparent NOT

Well Riveroak Strategic Partners Ltd have provided a press release concerning their owners M.I.O Investments Limited and typically the ego stroking continues on SMAa however in the real world jaws have dropped and thoughts have turned to the scoring of their own goal. The press release is as follows:

"We share your determination! The creation of RiverOak Strategic Partners meets our long held commitment to have a UK operating company. Our investors are represented on the RSP board by Nick Rothwell, Rico Sykes and Gerard Heusler. M.I.O Investments Limited has been established by our investors as a specific funding vehicle for their financial interests in the Manston project, which is standard practice. M.I.O Investments Limited is a company registered in the Commonwealth territory of Belize.
We have provided all required details of our company ownership structure to Companies House and also informed the Planning Inspectorate of the creation of RSP. Additional, comprehensive details of our funding partners and investment arrangements will be provided to PINS as part of the DCO application, providing solid evidence of our ability to meet all of the financial obligations associated with the acquisition, reopening and operation of the airport"


So why Belize?
To repeat:
Belize offers a high degree of privacy. Belize will not disclose its banking or fiscal information to any foreign party.
No tax at all
No reporting requirements.

Well, Well, Well who owns MIO? Who knows.

What do governments say about Belize as a tax haven?
Link

What do TDC say about this? Well Chris Wells replied to an email by Andy McCulloch as follows:

On 30 Mar 2017, at 19:02, Andrew McCulloch wrote:
In view of the attached are you still willing to go along with the fiction that the DCO is unfunded and that RSP have no money?


Andrew McCulloch


  Dear Andrew

I understand Belize is one of 14 Caribbean nations named by the US as “major money laundering” countries in the 2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) released by the US State Department.



According to the report, a major money laundering country is defined as one “whose financial institutions engage in currency transactions involving significant amounts of proceeds from international narcotics trafficking”.
The report notes that Belize is not a major regional financial center but has a substantial offshore financial sector. It also notes that Belize is a transshipment point for marijuana and cocaine, and states that human trafficking is also a concern for the country.”

What else would you like us to note?

Regards

Chris Wells


 Further from the press release

comprehensive details of our funding partners and investment arrangements will be provided to PINS as part of the DCO application
 Logically this is difficult to understand because shrouding the ownership of RSP Ltd in Belize secrecy doesn't make sense if at the same time you are providing  "comprehensive details of our funding partners" to the Planning Authorities.

Wednesday, 29 March 2017

So who owns Riveroak Strategic Partners

Strangely it seems 90% of Riveroak Strategic Partners is owned by M.I.O Investments Limited which oddly isn't a real Limited Company (well one registered in England and Wales anyway). So who is in charge? It seems from a filing at Companies House on the 27th March 2017no one has significant control.
So at the recent Save Manston Association chin wag where Tony Freudmann , that bastion of honesty, spoke for 7 minutes on the recent departure of the American Riveroak Investments LLC, attempting to reassure the faithful that all was above board and that was all part of the big plan he failed to mention how the 10000 shares in Company 10269461 RIVEROAK STRATEGIC PARTNERS LIMITED were to be allocated and so on the 23rd March 2017 they were duly allocated.

 
1000 shares have been allocated to Riveroak Manston Limited (so that Ltd company own 10% of the company and there are 3 directors and 4 shares yet to be allocated.
Now we have been here before with Pleasurama with the use of a company name selected to mimic a normal Ltd company registered in England and Wales, however there is no company of that name registered at Companies House. So Why?

It would seem that there is attempt to hide the 90% ownership of Riveroak Strategic Partners as the Partners seem to want to hide behind a smokescreen of offshore shell companies.

Why is the most pertinent question but I have no idea as they haven't actually decided on a plan for Manston (well if they have they aren't setting out their plan for scrutiny) neither have they explained where the money is coming from. I suspect MIO Investments Limited is a shell to hide the source of the funding.
So what has their tame MP said about this obfuscation of ownership? well nothing really, I produce his latest statement below:

"Mr Paul Francis, who writes for this newspaper, is a competent journalist bedevilled by a headline writer with an eye for sensationalism rather than fact!
A couple of weeks ago we were treated to the front page suggestion that ' Development Plans Kill Off Airport Hope'. Last week we were told that ' RiverOak has pulled out of Manston'. Neither, as anyone who actually attended the recent Planning Inspectorate hearings in Thanet Council Offices will know, is true.
Thanet's Draft Local Plan is deeply flawed both in content and in process and will be subjected to rigorous public scrutiny and, I suspect, condemnation when it is considered by a planning inspector. The proposals put forward by Ms Gloag's Lothian Shelf company are, as was exposed by the planning inquiry, lightweight and lacking in substance.
It is correct that two of RiverOak's senior main Board Directors, Niall Lawlor and George Yerrall, have left the RiverOak Corporation of America. They have bought out that company's interests (at a million bucks or so not bad for a company that Mr Wells would like us to believe has no money!) to establish RiverOak UK as a British enterprise with a Head Office in London and to devote their entire energies to the re- opening of Manston Airport. Hardly " pulling out of Manston"!
While this paper's headline was landing on your doormats RiverOak was hosting a breakfast briefing at the House of Commons, in the presence of those who intend to finance the acquisition and rebuilding of the airport via a Development Consent Order (DCO), for the Chairman and members of the Transport Select Committee and other MPs. This event detailed in terms the Company's intentions and the timelines for the process that will lead to literal and economic take- off.
Contrast that approach, if you will, with TDC's commissioning of a report to get the Council out of the election pledge made by Cllr Wells and the subsequent further 'study' allegedly being carried out by The Disruptive Finance company (with whom Craig Mackinlay and I spoke about a year ago) upon which Mr. Wells is now staking his County Council election hopes.
As I told the Planning Inspector recently we shall, post- Brexit, need every inch of airport capacity in the South East if we are to develop new markets in Asia and the Far East and to build the economic success that we seek as a nation. Trying to re- furnish an operational airport would have been a nightmare. With adequate funding, which is now readily available to RiverOak UK, we instead have the exciting prospect of creating, practically from scratch, a brand new, world class, state-of- the-art freight hub and subsequent passenger airport to serve the needs of UK Ltd. and to bring business lost to mainland Europe back to Britain. That surely, is a project that ought to have the full support of Government at every level.
One final comment. I am asked, occasionally, " what's in it for you"? Apart from the satisfaction of securing the future of a national asset for my Country I have, indeed, made one - and only one- request of RiverOak. I have asked that the first aircraft to land again at Manston, alongside a plane representing Sue Girdler's TG Aviation (in memory of the founder of the firm, her Father, Ted) shall be a Spitfire. This is a Battle of Britain that we have to win."

So what is the truth? Well who knows is the answer. Gale provides no truth of $1M or so paid to Riveroak Investments LLC just words. Well Lawlor and Yerrall have nothing to do with any USA companies therefore Riveroak Investments LLC aren't the mystery Investors and so far neither Freudmann or Gale have enlightened anyone. Smoke and Mirrors spring to mind.

I am not alone in wondering what is going on:
"Either Sir Roger is very easy to bamboozle, or he thinks that we are. He's nattily conflated in his recent piece in the Thanet Extra the company he calls ""RiverOak Corporation of America" with RiverOak, the company set up by Mr Freudmann. He claims that "RiverOak" is "hardly pulling out of Manston".
Well, he's wrong.
We'll repeat it again.
As Mr Yerrall, once of RiverOak Investment Corporation LLC (registered in Delaware) said at the Planning Inquiry recently, he has left the US company. Mr Lawlor has also left the US company. There is no link between the US company and the new UK company, RiverOak Strategic Partners. It's as plain as the nose on yer face - Stephen DeNardo and RiverOak Investment Corporation LLC have pulled out of the Manston project. They're gorn. They have nothing to do with a future DCO appliction for Manston. Yerrall and Lawlor and Freudmann are going it alone.
Interestingly, since the news broke that RSP was a company owned by Mr Freudmann, things have changed rather rapidly. There's a new ownership structure in town. RSP is now owned 10% by RiverOak Manston Ltd. Who's the person who controls RiverOak Manston Ltd? Er, Mr Freudmann.
So what of the other 90% of RSP? Well, that's listed as being controlled by MIO Investments Ltd. And who are they? You may well ask. There's a company of that name that was dissolved in Feb 2012, but otherwise, there's not a trace.
Hardly transparent, is it? Looks as if we're in for another dose of murk and mystery figures and fantasy investors while our Tone and the boys have a bit of a whip round for the dosh to get the DCO on the road.
Hilariously, the great business brains over on SMAa are busy telling the plane faithful to fret not, this is quite normal behaviour, and it's the sad old "antis" who don't understand. We don't know what country you're used to doing private equity deals in, guys and gals, but it's not one we recognise. Mind you, we're relying on our own experience of deals rather than on what Mr Freudmann tells us. Perhaps that's the difference?"

Answer
 "We share your determination! The creation of RiverOak Strategic Partners meets our long held commitment to have a UK operating company. Our investors are represented on the RSP board by Nick Rothwell, Rico Sykes and Gerard Heusler. M.I.O Investments Limited has been established by our investors as a specific funding vehicle for their financial interests in the Manston project, which is standard practice. M.I.O Investments Limited is a company registered in the Commonwealth territory of Belize.
We have provided all required details of our company ownership structure to Companies House and also informed the Planning Inspectorate of the creation of RSP. Additional, comprehensive details of our funding partners and investment arrangements will be provided to PINS as part of the DCO application, providing solid evidence of our ability to meet all of the financial obligations associated with the acquisition, reopening and operation of the airport"


More later

Friday, 17 March 2017

Why choose Manston for freight

With the setting up of a dedicated UK team "Riveroak Strategic Partners" Freudmann has finally cut all links with his US funders Riveroak Investments LLC based in Connecticut. Where the funding is to come from to supply the stated £300M is unknown at present but like everything Freudmann does these are "commercially sensitive" or to put another way "I ain't telling you".
Riveroak (sic) Strategic Partners
To date no business plan has been disclosed but it is sure to be the most Bigly Business plan ever seen and it needs to be absolutely stupendous as the economics are against most normal business plans.
Taken from observer's that attended the Public Enquiry is this little snippet

The following information comes in small digestible facts easily acquired if you scan the Department for Transport reports, The Airports Commission and the CAA website. None of the figures are made up and there is no reinterpretation (spin) just facts pure and simple.

Firstly total Airfreight at a stagnant 2,300,000 tonnes is a paltry 0.5% of the total freight shipped into the UK, the rest 99.5% is shipped via lorry or Shipping. It has been stagnant for more than a decade with little prospect of increasing for the foreseeable future. However within this figure 70% is shipped in the belly of passenger planes and as the demand for passenger flights is increasing that % is likely to increase.

The target freight that Freudmann has indicated he wants to take on is in the dedicated cargo plane market of the remaining  tonnage which based on CAA figures are carried on 52000 air traffic movements (avg 13 tonnes per movement).

To be a Nationally Significant Project justifying taking the land from Stone Hill Park Freudmann will have to prove at least 10000 air freight movements which would need to haul 130,000 tonnes at the above average significantly less than their boast of between 500000 - 600000 tonnes, however that is still taking 20% of the dedicated freight market from the two biggest airports outside of Heathrow. (East Midlands and Stanstead who between them have a quarter of the total freight market and have significant capacity to take more).

A simple comparison of East Midlands and Stanstead show that Manston is at a distinct disadvantage and I list them below

Does Manston have a 24 hour operation like EMA? NO because they say they don't need Night Flights.
Does Manston have a central UK location with fast motorway access to all parts of the UK? Er No it's stuck in NE Kent with an hour to get to the M25.
Does it have frequent flights to other UK airfields to avoid the road network? Well no and it has never been suggested.

Can it build an extensive network of Freight forwarding companies? Doubtful

In fact most cargo travels in the belly of passenger planes and would prefer their planes not returning empty something that didn't happen at Manston.

Freudmann has already said they will be putting in £300M to build the infrastructure however he has yet to say where this money is coming from and how it will be repaid.

Let's take a look at that situation. No bank will lend him the money as it would be too risky so he will have to look at the Investment Market such as the Riveroak Investments LLC would have been however they have walked away (He has some new directors which may be his bankers). Investment banks take a view they want a return that matches the risk. In today's climate that is likely to be in the region of 9-10% and even then they will want to secure this against the land.
£300M at 10% would mean a return of £30M a year or an eye watering £2.5 Million a month something that would put them at a major disadvantage in the cut throat world of Airfreight. (and that's without repaying the capital borrowed which over 25 years would be £1M per month).

To summarise Manston is and will continue to be at a considerable disadvantage in the Airfreight market so unless Freudmann is completely stupid why is he chasing this non starter maybe that is more to do with the 800 acres of building land which he is fully aware of since his 1st approach to TDC in December 2013 when as MD of Annax Aviation he asked TDC whether he could build 1000 houses on the grass runway to the north. (my take on the reasons)

Further there seems to be some doubt in former supporters minds as to the intentions of Freudmann

Friday, 20 January 2017

irony and xenophobia

During the last 3 years it has become apparent that some of the people supporting the Manston Airport campaign are being played for fools by Riveroak and that they (RO) are using every propaganda tool in their toolbox to drum up continued support.
Some of the slogans have roots in UKIP's election campaign in 2015 and in Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. From megaphone man's entreaty that 10000 homes will be built and filled with slum tenants from London overspill to Gloag developing Gloagsville garden town the campaign has been filled with xenophobic comments and the post truth (lies) has been utilised by Riveroak and Roger Gale to ensure continued support for planes flying again.

So it did surprise me that Carol's comment didn't generate some criticism or at least some recognition that the remark was somewhat wide of the mark. "Bloody newbies" .... " they think they know what Thanet needs". It did generate some likes from people who it seems go along with these remarks.
I suspect the irony was missed completely, so I will spell it out.
The Campaign on behalf of a US Real Estate Company is led by Beau Webber or to give him his full name John Beausire Wyatt Webber. Was he born Thanet? However he is telling you what to do and funnily enough his sidekick Pritchard isn't Thanet born either.
 Still they aren't alone Roger Gale wasn't born in Thanet and neither is Craig Mackinlay.

Still what is clear is the support is single minded about their heroes Riveroak who it seems have £400M to invest in Manston which comes as a surprise when you consider the group only had $11M when they discussed this with TDC in late 2014 ( oh and a credit line of $400K unused) No wonder they wanted everything kept confidential.
What is also unusual is this credit line is from a rather small NY bank which was acquired by another bank (Sterling National Bank) in 2015. So if RO are such a huge company why do they bank with such a tiny entity?

So what of their knight in shining armour Anthony Freudmann was he perhaps born in Thanet? Well no.
This is his CV from the RO website which rather glosses over his business career and the fact that he was a practising solicitor until he was struck off for 23 counts of "misappropriation of clients funds" and he chose to resign from Shropshire CC because these offenses would have caused the Council to be sack him for bringing the council into disrespect. This CV is much more accurate.
It seems that much of the angst stems from xenophobia and several conversations I have had with people hinge on their belief that Manston was lost because people from outside the border of Thanet are interfering in Thanet matters except that it is people from outside of Thanet that are leading the campaign as well so it is somewhat hypocritical to use that as a reason when no referendum in Thanet has ever taken place.
Still this campaign has been dogged by lies and propaganda from the start. Lies like Riveroak own Canary Wharf and Center Parc and that TDC are governed by who pays the most in "Brown Envelopes" none of which are true but if it influences the supporters then why not.
Still there have been light hearted moments like a TDC Councillor (Ex-UKIP until he founded DIGgers) who fooled everybody into believing he was a decorated war hero
and the stringer for the BBC, who thinks he is a real reporter, who turned into a complete prat when he got hoisted by the Walter Mitty Hunters
Oh and Smee is it time yet to discuss your letter to Mr.Weirdy Beardy who lives in Kingsgate?

So to summarise You can only decide on what happens in Thanet if you are Thanet born. You can only live in Thanet if you are born in Thanet and when TDC build that wall round the island I suspect you might have to pay a toll to get on the Island. Unless that is you are Riveroak and our two MP's.

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

access allowed

To date Riveroak have been trying to get to the starting gate so that they can take control of the former Kent International Airport. As they say talk is cheap. The list of conditions to get to the starting line is growing however one hurdle has been negotiated all be it it has taken 6 months which has put their timetable well behind.
How many remember Sir Rog announcing "planes will be flying from Manston by the end of 2016" but then he is wasted as a MP he should be a comedian.

Here is the list of outstanding requirements

1. a rebuttal to the Avia report


In October 2016 the report by AVIA, commissioned at a cost of £50K by TDC, was published. Immediately Riveroak said they would provide a full rebuttal, since then Riveroak has been strangely silent and now the AVIA report has been used to feed into the proposed Local plan which has changed the former airport to a mixed use site.

2. A public consultation
We have had a mickey mouse consultation led by airport supporters which managed to lose any feedback forms from people who think a cargo hub is wrong. But until 7 and 3 are completed there is no chance of a proper consultation.

3. An environment report
A fundamental prerequisite of a Public Consultation is a full Environmental report which should look at the affect on the people living under the flight path of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project with at least 10000 aircraft movements a year.


4. a DCO application
Needless to say this will be the final hurdle however we are a very long way from getting the application submitted.

5. A S53 application to access the land

On the 19th of December after taking 6 months the Planning Inspectorate have granted access to the site. Needless to say the pro airport supporters are ecstatic however in their normal hectoring style Riveroak decided to apply for 24/7/365 access. In other words they wanted unfettered access to the airport for a year. Now I wonder what would be reasonable access to land you don't own, have no rights to access, and ultimately you want to legally steal from the owners?

SHP made this statement:
“The DCO process requires various surveys to be carried out on the land. As part of that process, Stone Hill Park were approached about allowing access, but were concerned at the scope of the entry to our land that RiverOak sought in pursuing this.

“We felt RiverOak’s effective request for entry to our land 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, went beyond the realm of reasonable requests and sought to ensure that if access was granted, it was under strict conditions.

“We are pleased with the conditions the Planning Inspectorate has placed on this access and as a result we will accept the decision rather than appeal.

“We are satisfied the Planning Inspectorate has performed the process with integrity and to a very high standard and now intend to assist RiverOak in accessing our site to carry out these environmental tests.

“Regardless of this decision, our view remains that an airport on this site is unviable and attempts to obtain the land by way of a Development Consent Order will fail – just as attempts to obtain it through a Compulsory Purchase Order failed.”

When asked what the conditions imposed were they said:
"Hi Barry, they predominantly deal with the times and dates that RO can access the site and what tasks can be carried out. The conditions have been shared with RO and SHP. Hopefully they will also be published on the PI website in due course."

Chris Wells responded as follows
"I have been told that section 53 access to the Manston Airport site has been granted by the Secretary of State, although as yet no formal confirmation has appeared.
"I am not surprised by this news, as the early stages of any pre application DCO process concentrate on the potential capacity of the site, to understand if what is being considered is 'a distinct project of real substance genuinely requiring entry onto the land'.
"The capacity of the potential applicant to undertake the proposed project, and its value to be assessed as a nationally significant infrastructure project, comes later. And even with the best of Christmas spirit in mind, it is within the basics of proving finance and business planning that Riveroak have, to date, been found wanting.
We shall all see how things now develop in the New Year."

Read more at http://www.kentlive.news/stone-hill-park-responds-to-government-order-to-allow-riveroak-access-to-manston-airport/story-30001784-detail/story.html#oICuKPBPYZSzbWm4.99

 
6. A answer to the screenshot question from Robo King.

Bar the fact that the comment is very threatening it is also completely ridiculous. The decision made was to withdraw TDC planning's objections to the "change of use" for 4 buildings on the former airfield. This is hardly surprising as the AVIA report stated quite clearly there is no chance of a viable airport before 2031. Still there will be another opportunity to discuss the applications on the 24th January 2017 with a Public Enquiry.

7. No work with TDC on a "Statement of Community Consultation"



"Before formally consulting people living in the vicinity of the project, the developer will prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The SOCC details the consultation the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SOCC.The developer is required to publish a notice stating where and when the SOCC can be inspected. If you are not satisfied with the developer’s consultation process you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and give them an opportunity to respond"

Needless to say despite running an unofficial consultation Riveroak have not been in touch with TDC planning nor indeed KCC planning to formulate their SOCC but then that is hardly surprising given as they took 6 months to gain access to Manston.  

Now there was me thinking they had the most experienced DCO team ever 

Thursday, 15 December 2016

predetermination

Last night, 14th December 2016, TDC planning reversed a decision made to refuse "change of use" for 4 buildings on the Manston site.
A brief synopsis
The following planning applications were received on 23 May 2015:
- F/TH/15/0458 for the change of use from airport use to general industrial use for
Building 4, Manston Airport, Spitfire Way, Manston.
- F/TH/15/0459 for the change of use from airport use to storage and distribution
use for the Manston Airport Cargo Centre & Responding Vehicle Point, Spitfire
Way, Manston.
- F/TH/15/0460 for change of use from airport use to general industrial for a
temporary period of 3years for Building South of Terminal (Hanger 1), Manston
Airport, Manston.
- F/TH/15/0457 for the change of use of Building 870, Spitfire Way, Manston Airport
from airport use to general industrial use together with four storey extension and
insertion of windows

Members considered the planning application for the change of use of Building 870,
Spitfire Way, Manston Airport from airport use to general industrial use together with
four storey extension and insertion of windows, under reference F/TH/15/0457, and
refused the application for the following reason:
- The proposed development, by virtue of the loss of a building for aviation use,
would create the potential need for additional buildings within the countryside and
would not constitute essential airside development, contrary to Thanet Local Plan
Policies CC1 and EC4 of the Thanet Local Plan, and paragraphs 14 and 17 and
guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.


The applicant then appealed and this appeal is due to be heard by virtue of a full public enquiry on the 24th January 2017.

Since then the Council has requested a full report on the viability of an airport being fully up and running in the foreseeable future as any policy set out in a Local Plan must be evidence based. (You know those strange things called facts not wishes, not opinions but those hard solid facts much despised by a section of the population)





So last night the Planning Committee met again in the light of the Avia Report, the recent resignation of the Planning Chair and the realisation that the position is now untenable.

In recommending the withdrawal of the opposition to the appeals, it is considered that
the Council would be acting reasonably in response to the available evidence in
forming its position on the appeals before the Planning Inspectorate.


 What would be the consequences to TDC if they failed to be reasonable?

The advice outlines is that if officers’ professional or technical advice is not
followed, authorities will need to show reasonable planning grounds for
taking a contrary decision and produce relevant evidence on appeal to
support the decision in all respects. If they fail to do so, costs may be
awarded against the authority. In this case, officers and counsel consider
that the Council cannot substantiate the reason for refusal for the change
of use of these specific buildings, given the new evidence before the
Council and the direction of Council policy for the site within the draft local
plan. For this reason if the reason for refusal on each appeal is not
withdrawn officers consider there is a substantial risk of significant costs
being awarded against the Council by the Planning Inspectorate.
There are no funds allocated for any potential fines meaning that that any
decision other than that recommended will result in spend that is outside
of the budgetary framework.


To put the other side would there be any financial consequences to SMAa if they bullied TDC planning into carrying on the refusal to grant "change of use"?

NO


Was this predetermination
To listen to the ostriches in the Save Manston Airport Association (SMAa) it is all a conspiracy and a stitch up by Chris Wells.




This is a sample of how wild and wacky their collective minds work and I do hope that UKIP councillors have their bodyguards well paid. However a brief look at the facts will show there is no conspiracy and no attempt to subvert the will of the electorate. In fact the one constant since 2014 is the repeated failure of Riveroak to adhere to their side of the pact with SMAa.

Where have Riveroak failed

2014 Just prior to the final closure of the site Freudmann (along with Riveroak in tow) approached Ann Gloag and offered (allegedly £7M) the "full asking price" however Ann Gloag refused mainly because Freudmann wnated the £2M in the Manston Skyport bank account. (there may be other reasons but I couldn't possible comment on someone else's business acumen.
Riveroak then failed to convince TDC (under Labour control) they had the money to support TDC in a CPO.
2015 we have a change of leadership at TDC and UKIP allowed RO to try again however once again RO fail to deliver. (No proof of money and no viable plan)
No other viable business comes forward to partner TDC in returning Manston to an airport and RO decide to see if they can blag the National Planning Inspectorate in allowing a Development Consent Order. Yet even here, now into 2016, they fail as they are advised not to start formal consultations until they have applied yet they set up unofficial ones manned by SMAa personnel where people opposed to a freight hub are intimidated and questionnaires mysteriously disappear.
Now late in 2016 they are asking the landowners for permission to access the land to conduct assessments which have been rebuffed. Turning to the PI to order access they have failed to even answer basic questions on their application.
We have a report, requested by TDC for policy SP05 (use of land at Manston), The Avia Report which determined that even if all their ducks line up in a row Manston cannot be viable before 2031. This report was released on the 4th October 2016 and immediately Riveroak issued a stern letter to TDC saying the report was flawed and they would issue a formal rebuttal. Again they fail as it is now the 15th December, the report has been used to overturn the denied planning permissions and has changed the new Local Plan.

So SMAa instead of vilifying UKIP turn your anger onto the fools at Riveroak who have yet to prove they are worth anymore than $1.6M with a credit line of $400K.

Of course this has been predetermined, it is call geography, as no commercial aviation business has turned a profit since the RAF left Manston. In fact how can it when the pool of customers is so small and the cost of running an aviation is so expensive. Wake up and smell the coffee

Having spoken with a few UKIP Councillors it is clear they do want Manston as a viable airport, despite what you fools think, yet wishes and dreams cannot survive in the cold, hard relity of a commercial venture. Riveroak are chancers and Freudmann is a "snake oil salesman" who are playing with your dreams.
The current rumour doing the rounds is that Riveroak has approached the owners asking how much the owners would pay RO to go away.
I also hear that they have told the PI they now do not need to access the land to do their Environmental Assessments, as they have enough information to complete that side of their application.
So to those fools leading the vile and nasty campaign to bully the rest of Thanet into accepting the failed organisation called Riveroak keep going but your time is growing short oh and keep buying that tinfoil you really need it

Tuesday, 6 December 2016

Down the pub

Yet again the propaganda war rears its ugly head. When will people learn to do their own research. The latest from a "discussion" down the pub.

Riveroak own Canary Wharf

This old chestnut keeps coming up yet despite it being proven wrong it keeps coming back.

"Riveroak's CEO is Stephen DeNardo is an independent director of Brookfield Property Partners based in the West Indies who with a Quatari consortium forced a buyout of Canary Wharf. He isn't the Chief Financial Officer but is the Chair of the Audit Committee and as Brookfield is listed on the New York Stock Exchange they have to abide by their rules."
http://promote-ramsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/truth-lies-and-politics.html

So in plain English Steve DeNardo is there because without an auditor Brookfield Property Partner's wouldn't be able to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He has NO say in the running of Brookfield. He doesn't make investment decisions and therefore doesn't own Canary Wharf.

They have 300 million quid available now

I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read this. Why oh why are some people so gullible.
Let's look at some facts.
They rent a couple of rooms in this building
They must be very frugal if they have £300M available right now and bearing in mind their business model (They are a real estate investment company) which is to buy "distressed assets", add value and sell on. To do this they advertise for investors, collect in the money, Buy and then improve. Whilst improving the asset they pay good interest rates which reflect the risk for the investors. In 2014 when they provided figures to TDC their net asset value was $1.6M, with a credit line of $400K.
read here http://promote-ramsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/propaganda-war-part-two.html

There are 27 Freight Operators ready to fly here

If they offered free landing fees and special inducements possibly but then if they borrow £300M to finance the airport they will have to pay their investors around £30M a year in interest which quite frankly is ludicrous to believe both are possible at the same time.
Quite frankly no one is queuing up to fly into Manston but a desperate campaign needs some straws to grab onto.

Ryanair, Aer Lingus and KLM are wanting to fly from Manston

With the right inducements I'm sure they will come but some facts.
1. Planestation failed dismally taking a lot of money with it and who set up Planestation yes you guessed it Tony Freudmann.
"Planestation has been one of the most woeful ventures ever to grace the London Stock Exchange. Over the past ten years the group, previously known as Wiggins, has raised more money, north of around £115 million than its actual market valuation. With this cash it built up an international chain of seven (hitherto largely dormant) airports and an assortment of property interests and assets in the UK. Apart from property disposals, it has generated little in the way of revenues, milked its investor base for all they were worth and produced gargantuan annual losses".
2. KCC lost money in Planestation and they lost money when they tried to underwrite a service to  Virginia (2006 – KCC invests £289,000 in Freudmann’s Manston to Virginia plan. Not a single plane takes off.)
3. KLM were paid an inducement to provide a service from Manston to Schipol by KCC (said to be £680K). During their operating period they achieved a 50% occupancy rate. So without the inducement it is doubtful they would have made a profit and how long the service would have lasted is anyone's guess but what is clear is every passenger service from Manston has failed dismally.
Is it any surprise that Manston doesn't succeed when you look at what other airports offer. Geographically Manston cannot succeed as it is surrounded on 3 sides by sea.

So if passengers cannot work why should freight succeed when dedicated freight services can fly an extra 10 minutes to land in the Geographical centre of the UK surrounded by motorways where most destinations in the UK are only 4 hours away.

Postscript
After the split of SMA "Save Manston Airport" Campaign and Beau Webber and his merry men set up their own group SMAa they have gained 2000+ members however looking through the membership it is surprising how many Countries take an "interest" in this tiny corner of Kent. So can anyone from the group explain just why 10 Japanese nationals are members, why there are Chinese, Americans and various other nationalities are member. Suspicious people might be forgiven for thinking membership is somewhat padded out, just like the number of people turning up at rally's.