Home ... Kent ... That PwC report. At last! So what?

That PwC report. At last! So what?

logo PwC 400Well, what does a quick skip though the PwC report tell us?

Er, well, it doesn’t tell us that RiverOak is a suitable indemnity partner. No siree!

  • It tells us that (had they had infinite resources) TDC could have done a more structured, transparent job and spent more money on much more external advice. But it doesn’t say that they reached the wrong conclusions. (Nor does it mention where the money for all this would have come from.)
  • It says that RiverOak failed to share cashflow information and thus failed to convince TDC that they could pony up the levels of funding necessary.
  • It says that it would be hard for TDC to decide if RiverOak had enough dosh for this whole escapade because TDC had no idea what the site would be worth if a CPO were ever approved (now, we said this months and months ago, but various TDC Councillors chose to ignore us).
  • It says that RiverOak did not produce a 20 year plan and that TDC’s consultants, Falcon, had suggested that this was what would be needed.
  • It says that PwC – even now – has seen no evidence that RiverOak has done anything about setting up an escrow account to pop its dosh into so that TDC could see that the money was available.
  • It says that RiverOak has produced nothing of any substance since TDC took its decision on 11th December. We’re six months on, people. RiverOak and RogerOak have bleated and whinged that RiverOak are up to the job, but no more evidence has been produced to help TDC to see that that’s the case. Interesting, no?

Perhaps most tellingly for us, it says on p29 that in a call with RiverOak’s lawyers on 5th November,

“… the Council appear to have sought clarification on funding levels available to RiverOak on this date. This encompasses sufficient resources available “to prepare for a CPO; to pay the compensation determined; [and] to carry out a scheme of development in accordance with a business plan.”

and:

“The Council […] believe that “the aim of the whole exercise from TDC’s perspective was to see a viable airport in operation and this required evidence of the funds able to be delivered.”

Indeed. As we have always said, if you can’t demonstrate that you can meet all the costs of buying the site, paying for the CPO process, and providing the investment needed to develop a viable airport on that site, then you’re not a suitable indemnity partner.

Now, please can we all turn some attention to the team that actually owns the site; doesn’t have to pay for a CPO; and already has more jobs in the pipeline than exist in the RiverOak business plan? It’s time to stop strutting about playing politics and get down to what the Council should be doing – building a better, more sustainable future for Thanet.

Courtesy of Manston Pickle

Download (PDF, 3.31MB)

Check Also

Eighteen planes every night for Herne Bay?

That’s what the future could hold for Herne Bay if American property developers RiverOak have …

3 comments

  1. Zaphod Beeblebrox

    Considering the enormous losses involved in attempting to run Manston as an airport over the past ten years or so, some important questions come to mind:

    If Riveroak have no experience of running an airport or they are not a charity, why are they REALLY interested in getting their mitts on Manston?

    Why are there no other contenders for attempting to ressurect an airport at Manston, if it is such a great idea?

    Why are Riveroak so reluctant to put their money where their mouth is?

    I know that the airport junkies are quite happy to ignore reality, holding their noses and voicing la-la-la-la while a faint whiff of rotting fish pervades the whole issue…

    In addition…

    Letters in our local (Thanet) newsrag supporting the airport mainly seem to come from people who are resident in the west of Kent, and claim that the majority of residents support the idea! (The last letter came from someone in Tonbridge!) Something to do with Lydd airport maybe?

    • Barbara Lester

      What has it got to do with anyone in Tonbridge. Try living under the flight path with any aircraft, let alone cargo flying just a few hundred feet over your property. I thought Ramsgate wanted to up their game and improve. For goodness sake Thanet wake up and stop living in the past. Thanet wants REGENERATION NOT STAGNATION. Riveroak have their head screwed on because if the airport fails yet again, they still have the land to build on. Then it’s back to square one wasting more taxpayers money. Could someone be putting their own ambitions first here, in order to obtain a Peerage.

      • Patricia Moore

        It has been said at a SMA meeting that windy gale is proud to be called MP for River oak, Bless him. I live in South Thanet, not his patch but if I were I would Object most strongly. River oak are not putting their money where their mouth is, in fact not putting any money anywhere. If they got the CPO, ( it would have to be in TDCs name) who would pay the compensation? TDC ! River Oak would then pretend to build a commercial Hub of 20,000 flights a year. What about pollution? Then they intend to pay back TDC what they owe for the CPO compensation as they do not propose to pay it up front. They will then say they cannot make it pay and need to build houses. They have shareholders who will want their money back so all profits will go to USA where they will not pay the same amount as Stone Hill Park. I would rather SHP pay the correct amount of tax and keep all profits in Britain. I would look at how many jobs are to be provided by RO 45 ? SHP see a lot more jobs and apprentices able to find work.
        It has been proven in print that the Managing Director for RP will be Tony Freudman, a disbarred solicitor who misappropriated clients funds. He was also on the board of Wiggins when they had the control of Manston.