A new airport.... South Yorkshire Airport City?

[pug]

It gets better!

'Significant experience': Doncaster Sheffield Airport company recruits three directors as council boss goes

City of Doncaster Council chief executive Damian Allen has stepped down from the board of the local authority-owned company set to reopen Doncaster Sheffield Airport - with a local business chief among three new appointments to the organisation.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Damian Allen resigns on June 22. This is exactly one week before the confidential briefing where councillors were told the project runs out of money in September. Allen looked at the rapidly evaporating bank balance, realised they were staring down the barrel of insolvency, and immediately hit the eject button. Nice one! 🤣

I’m not sure if it’s clear at this point whether the risk of running out of cash has spurred this on or whether it’s a desperate attempt at appeasing the auditors. I understand Debbie Hogg (?) is still on the board of directors, and as her position as boss of the S151 officer at CDC it does scream of marking their own homework. Isn’t Damien Allen also subject to an investigation into improper communications?

I agree though, none of the people appointed to the board have any business being there. Andy Offer could pose a conflict of interest seeing as he is a director at a private company that has a vested interest in public money being invested into the airport. I wonder whether this lack of impartiality will be flagged as a further risk by the auditors?

 

[Eusebius]

I’m not sure if it’s clear at this point whether the risk of running out of cash has spurred this on or whether it’s a desperate attempt at appeasing the auditors. I understand Debbie Hogg (?) is still on the board of directors, and as her position as boss of the S151 officer at CDC it does scream of marking their own homework. Isn’t Damien Allen also subject to an investigation into improper communications?

I agree though, none of the people appointed to the board have any business being there. Andy Offer could pose a conflict of interest seeing as he is a director at a private company that has a vested interest in public money being invested into the airport. I wonder whether this lack of impartiality will be flagged as a further risk by the auditors?

Well quite. Would Allen's departure really do anything meaningful to mollify the auditors? I think the biggest concern at the moment at least is probably financial structure: it appears that there isn't one and there're no offramps!

 

[pug]

Well quite. Would Allen's departure really do anything meaningful to mollify the auditors? I think the biggest concern at the moment at least is probably financial structure: it appears that there isn't one and there're no offramps!

You’re probably right, I sense that the YP and others have picked up on the governance concerns as they’re actionable, they do appear to have downplayed the financial concerns as ‘well it’s high risk but with risk comes reward’ which is what a lot of the councillors supporting this have been saying.

I wonder whether the appointment of Andy Offer might raise further concerns in that regard. Who knows? Maybe it’s all a null point now anyway if they really are poised to run out of money in a few weeks then that’s the off-ramp taken. If however Coppard and Jones find some more cash to kick the can down the road again then that bailout should really go before the cabinet to vote on. Clearly if Gainshare cannot be released then it shows that it’s not investable.

 

[Eusebius]

Maybe it’s all a null point now anyway if they really are poised to run out of money in a few weeks then that’s the off-ramp taken. If however Coppard and Jones find some more cash to kick the can down the road again then that bailout should really go before the cabinet to vote on. Clearly if Gainshare cannot be released then it shows that it’s not investable.

Absolutely. I don't doubt that someone could find a crumpled fiver down the back of the sofa to keep it going a little while longer... but to what end? I think it's clear to everyone except the mechanic that there is no possibility of success. I dread to think what it's costing taxpayers just for CDC to have the site on their hands!

 

[pug]

Absolutely. I don't doubt that someone could find a crumpled fiver down the back of the sofa to keep it going a little while longer... but to what end? I think it's clear to everyone except the mechanic that there is no possibility of success. I dread to think what it's costing taxpayers just for CDC to have the site on their hands!

I notice that yesterday on LinkedIn the FlyDoncaster official account was advertising a golf day.

It truly is the most bizarre setup. Recently we’ve had Chadwick doing unofficial PR about the acquisition for a useless fire engine, we’ve had an art installation on the runway avd now a golf day. The only ‘positive’ news recently is the success of the meet the public sector trough event, which would be a success. Anyone could ensure high attendance to a meeting where you’re almost guaranteed free cash!

 

[Speedbird1]

I notice that yesterday on LinkedIn the FlyDoncaster official account was advertising a golf day.

It truly is the most bizarre setup. Recently we’ve had Chadwick doing unofficial PR about the acquisition for a useless fire engine, we’ve had an art installation on the runway avd now a golf day. The only ‘positive’ news recently is the success of the meet the public sector trough event, which would be a success. Anyone could ensure high attendance to a meeting where you’re almost guaranteed free cash!

It’s like they are doing anything but actually running or trying to reopen an airport. All stunts to cover up the fact that nothing is actually happening and to try generate PR noise to distract.

I can tell you now, they are currently somewhere between an embarrasment and a laughing stock to the rest of the aviation industry

 

[Eusebius]

It’s like they are doing anything but actually running or trying to reopen an airport. All stunts to cover up the fact that nothing is actually happening and to try generate PR noise to distract.

I can tell you now, they are currently somewhere between an embarrasment and a laughing stock to the rest of the aviation industry

Yes. They've even gone quiet about the "defence opportunities" and "Chinese investors"! 🤣

 

[pug]

Well it seems that Damien Allen may become the perfect figure to blame in all this eventually. He is the one who rushed through the terrible lease in the interests of political expedience ‘it was that or nothing’. He’s the one who had the audacity to then front up to SYMCA at the Leeds forum when he said ‘ignore the public at your peril’ after negotiating such an appalling lease. He’s then the one who allegedly told councillors over WhatsApp that he was blocking moves by a possible private sector investor (themselves questionable, I have to admit) because the only way to push this through was by using a public sector ‘special purpose vehicle’ to achieve it. The civil have already blamed a lack of private sector interest on ‘certain head of terms of the lease’. Itself probably not true, but ultimately it all seems to point to one unelected bloke who has previous.

So his stepping aside means more than just appeasing Grant Thornton. He is probably a rat fleeing a sinking ship, SYMCA have taken over the renegotiation, a statement from an ‘SYMCA spokesperson’ simply said yesterday, when asked by the YP for an update, that talks are progressing positively and that it’s inappropriate to comment at this time. That unnamed spokesperson clearly following the script.

I suspect Peel will be reminding themselves, if not also the SYMCA negotiators, of the vast wealth sitting underneath that runway and the hard standings right now.

 

[Eusebius]

I suspect Peel will be reminding themselves, if not also the SYMCA negotiators, of the vast wealth sitting underneath that runway and the hard standings right now.

Which is why we can estimate the probability of Peel agreeing to scrap the 20% turnover clause at precisely zero.

 

[pug]

Which is why we can estimate the probability of Peel agreeing to scrap the 20% turnover clause at precisely zero.

It’ll depend what’s in it for them I guess, but right now as it seems to be deadlocked then chances are you’re probably correct.

I expect there’ll be a lot of planning wrangling going on, but as SYMCA are leading the negotiations now is it even within their gift to permit planning in exchange for a better deal? I suspect considering it’s already been granted they can’t even leverage that either.

 

[pug]

interestingly @Eusebius i was having a chat with someone who’s been involved with the legal aspects of buying up/renting airport property the other day and this topic popped up regarding the lease renegotiation. They are by no means involved in it at all so they gave an opinion based on their own experiences elsewhere, but their suspicions are that Peel are trying to mercy kill it. By that I mean they will be providing SYMCA negotiators with all data no holds barred about what happened in the 17 years previous and why it will never work, particularly under a public ownership model.

They aren’t just doing this so they can turn it into warehouses as people will be quick to jump on, but it’s also about corporate integrity and investor confidence. The minute DSA 2.0 goes to the wall the press will be all over it that a Peel owned airport has not just failed once, but twice - regardless of the fact that they are only acting as landlord in this instance.

It’s not likely to be the only consideration, certainly not the determining one, but the requirement to protect their previous investment will be the key here, they’ve already leveraged planning for more houses than was in the local plan, but it’s probably another factor in their reluctance to budge on the turnover clause (if indeed they are reluctant), because they know it’s going to be a high profile failure again. It was termed by this person as a ‘deliberate professional firewall’ that the slithering Damien Allen walked straight into and the hapless Ros Jones signed making it legally binding.

 

[Eusebius]

interestingly @Eusebius i was having a chat with someone who’s been involved with the legal aspects of buying up/renting airport property the other day and this topic popped up regarding the lease renegotiation. They are by no means involved in it at all so they gave an opinion based on their own experiences elsewhere, but their suspicions are that Peel are trying to mercy kill it. By that I mean they will be providing SYMCA negotiators with all data no holds barred about what happened in the 17 years previous and why it will never work, particularly under a public ownership model.

They aren’t just doing this so they can turn it into warehouses as people will be quick to jump on, but it’s also about corporate integrity and investor confidence. The minute DSA 2.0 goes to the wall the press will be all over it that a Peel owned airport has not just failed once, but twice - regardless of the fact that they are only acting as landlord in this instance.

It’s not likely to be the only consideration, certainly not the determining one, but the requirement to protect their previous investment will be the key here, they’ve already leveraged planning for more houses than was in the local plan, but it’s probably another factor in their reluctance to budge on the turnover clause (if indeed they are reluctant), because they know it’s going to be a high profile failure again. It was termed by this person as a ‘deliberate professional firewall’ that the slithering Damien Allen walked straight into and the hapless Ros Jones signed making it legally binding.

Interesting, thanks. I've long suspected that Peel didn't expect CDC to sign that dreadful lease, and therefore probably didn't anticipate finding themselves in this situation. It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying persuasion instead of coercion, although as far as I can make out, legally CDC are stitched up like a kipper. If the carrot doesn't work then the stick is close at hand!

None of it makes any sense to me. The press and the politicians all just seem to be worrying about the wrong things and asking the wrong questions. In the last analysis, the question is - why does Doncaster need - not want, need - an international airport? Is there a market for it in the foreseeable future sufficient to justify the eyewatering costs of reopening and runnning it? The answer appears to be a straightforward no.

Since, as I've also long suspected, they can't actually afford it anyway, attention turns to how they extricate themselves from this mess. The present situation is no good for anyone.

It seems to me the council need to call it quits and get out of there. Extricating themselves from a 125-year lease isn't straightforward, but presumably Peel are agreeable.

The prevailing view appears to be that quitting is bad politics, but when one considers the consequences of carrying on... as I say, they're worrying about the wrong thing again!

 

[pug]

Interesting, thanks. I've long suspected that Peel didn't expect CDC to sign that dreadful lease, and therefore probably didn't anticipate finding themselves in this situation. It wouldn't surprise me if they're trying persuasion instead of coercion, although as far as I can make out, legally CDC are stitched up like a kipper. If the carrot doesn't work then the stick is close at hand!

None of it makes any sense to me. The press and the politicians all just seem to be worrying about the wrong things and asking the wrong questions. In the last analysis, the question is - why does Doncaster need - not want, need - an international airport? Is there a market for it in the foreseeable future sufficient to justify the eyewatering costs of reopening and runnning it? The answer appears to be a straightforward no.

Since, as I've also long suspected, they can't actually afford it anyway, attention turns to how they extricate themselves from this mess. The present situation is no good for anyone.

It seems to me the council need to call it quits and get out of there. Extricating themselves from a 125-year lease isn't straightforward, but presumably Peel are agreeable.

The prevailing view appears to be that quitting is bad politics, but when one considers the consequences of carrying on... as I say, they're worrying about the wrong thing again!

I would say all correct and sensible. I have no doubt that Peel would let the council break the lease early, perhaps there’s even some understanding that in doing so the council support Peel in looking fir alternative uses of the site rather than being difficult by making them sit in it ‘just in case’ as I suspect a lot of the die hard reopening proponents would want to see.

Quitting is only bad politics because they’ve backed themselves into this corner. No mayor wants to be seen to be responsible for a new city losing its airport. Ros Jones literally ran for re-election on this very promise, being the only person to be able to reopen the airport. Still the fact she won the majority by a gnats whisker would suggest that the majority of people in Doncaster probably have other things at the top of their list of priorities, and so any increase in council tax and/or reduction in services resulting from this will only make matters worse for her.

They’re in too deep. There will probably be an 11th hour cash drop to keep things ticking for a few months whilst they claim to be ‘in positive talks’ with Peel. But they can only kick the can so far down the road - either Peel agree to undermine their own lease agreement or the project hits the buffers completely.

There’ll be no winners here sadly.

 

[Eusebius]

There will probably be an 11th hour cash drop to keep things ticking for a few months whilst they claim to be ‘in positive talks’ with Peel. But they can only kick the can so far down the road - either Peel agree to undermine their own lease agreement or the project hits the buffers completely.

That's probably what they want to do - just keep kicking the can down the road.

I don't know. The trouble is they can't actually do anything worth a damn to progress the project without spending a lot of money that they don't appear to have. We're half way through 2026 now and from what I can glean, they're basically nowhere. How much longer are the voters going to carry on believing they'll be flying to Alicante in Easter 2028?

 

[pug]

That's probably what they want to do - just keep kicking the can down the road.

I don't know. The trouble is they can't actually do anything worth a damn to progress the project without spending a lot of money that they don't appear to have. We're half way through 2026 now and from what I can glean, they're basically nowhere. How much longer are the voters going to carry on believing they'll be flying to Alicante in Easter 2028?

I’d like to know where this promise of a phased reopening is coming from. It looks like it all rests on the £57million that they said they had, but now turns out they don’t because it relies on Gainshare release. Sensible of course, but they left out that bit back when they were getting excited in November and again in May.

I see that the Mechanic is framing it as a normal part of ‘doing business’. In other words most projects would need to reach certain milestones before more funding is released. He is correct, but it’s irrelevant to DSA because the whole lot appears to be resting on a successful release of Gainshare, and that rests on convincing Gareth Sutton that is a reasonable use of the money. They’re saying the lease terms are bad but again I’m not convinced the lease terms are the only show stopper. I might be wrong but I think he has to take into account what Grant Thornton say too? So even if the terrible lease can be completely turned around, and even if Peel decide to bend over backwards to accommodate it, then Red flags in the business case could also result in the money withheld.

 

[Eusebius]

I’d like to know where this promise of a phased reopening is coming from. It looks like it all rests on the £57million that they said they had, but now turns out they don’t because it relies on Gainshare release. Sensible of course, but they left out that bit back when they were getting excited in November and again in May.

I see that the Mechanic is framing it as a normal part of ‘doing business’. In other words most projects would need to reach certain milestones before more funding is released. He is correct, but it’s irrelevant to DSA because the whole lot appears to be resting on a successful release of Gainshare, and that rests on convincing Gareth Sutton that is a reasonable use of the money. They’re saying the lease terms are bad but again I’m not convinced the lease terms are the only show stopper. I might be wrong but I think he has to take into account what Grant Thornton say too? So even if the terrible lease can be completely turned around, and even if Peel decide to bend over backwards to accommodate it, then Red flags in the business case could also result in the money withheld.

I'll stand corrected on this, but I'm pretty sure the story has changed on the £57m bridging loan. I'm sure when all the rescission shenanigans were going on the claim was that the £57m could be drawn down without the gainshare funding being released. Sensible, as you say, but not as originally advertised.

Yeah the lease is terrible and I bet Peel simply couldn't believe the mayor signed it. Grant Thornton might yet put a spanner in the works. But at the end of the day, there's no market for this airport they're hell bent on building. What is the point?!

 

[pug]

My response to Chadwick’s latest post on the SaveDSA echo chamber - helped by AI but just asked what it thought of it.

It’s highly revealing to watch how the pro-airport campaign is currently trying to backtrack and manage expectations regarding the new FlyDoncaster board appointments.

The narrative being pushed in their closed circles now is that Dan Fell doesn't need aviation experience because he’s there for 'governance and economic regeneration,' and that we should all 'look beyond passenger numbers and aircraft movements.'

Talk about moving the goalposts!

To say a Non-Executive Director on an airport board doesn't need to understand airline economics or route yields is a complete fallacy. A Non-Exec is legally there to provide independent, aggressive challenge to protect the taxpayer. If a director openly admits they don't understand the mechanics of the aviation industry, how can they possibly challenge an executive team that is running a pre-revenue shadow company straight toward a September funding cliff?

Also telling the public to 'look beyond passenger numbers' is the ultimate admission that the underlying aviation growth models have completely failed. Airlines do not base a £100m aircraft at a regional airport because a board member has a great relationship with the local Chamber of Commerce or the Mayor—they base them where the passenger volume and commercial yields are guaranteed.

Swapping out a council chief executive for a local business cheerleader isn't independent oversight; it’s just keeping the public sector echo chamber alive while the temporary grant cash bleeds out ahead of September. They are shifting the definition of success from actual flights to vague public-sector buzzwords because they know the commercial reality is dead

 

[Snackbar]

All smoke and mirrors as usually with the DSA crew…..suspect the reason they ended up with the likes of Fell in a senior role is the fact they will have struggled to recruit anyone with the calibre required for the role from within the Aviation industry……

My response to Chadwick’s latest post on the SaveDSA echo chamber - helped by AI but just asked what it thought of it.

It’s highly revealing to watch how the pro-airport campaign is currently trying to backtrack and manage expectations regarding the new FlyDoncaster board appointments.

The narrative being pushed in their closed circles now is that Dan Fell doesn't need aviation experience because he’s there for 'governance and economic regeneration,' and that we should all 'look beyond passenger numbers and aircraft movements.'

Talk about moving the goalposts!

To say a Non-Executive Director on an airport board doesn't need to understand airline economics or route yields is a complete fallacy. A Non-Exec is legally there to provide independent, aggressive challenge to protect the taxpayer. If a director openly admits they don't understand the mechanics of the aviation industry, how can they possibly challenge an executive team that is running a pre-revenue shadow company straight toward a September funding cliff?

Also telling the public to 'look beyond passenger numbers' is the ultimate admission that the underlying aviation growth models have completely failed. Airlines do not base a £100m aircraft at a regional airport because a board member has a great relationship with the local Chamber of Commerce or the Mayor—they base them where the passenger volume and commercial yields are guaranteed.

Swapping out a council chief executive for a local business cheerleader isn't independent oversight; it’s just keeping the public sector echo chamber alive while the temporary grant cash bleeds out ahead of September. They are shifting the definition of success from actual flights to vague public-sector buzzwords because they know the commercial reality is dead

 

[pug]

All smoke and mirrors as usually with the DSA crew…..suspect the reason they ended up with the likes of Fell in a senior role is the fact they will have struggled to recruit anyone with the calibre required for the role from within the Aviation industry……

I actually don’t think it’s a case of being unable to appoint someone, if they had enough money they would be able to get someone in role with that experience. Probably someone close to retirement. There are two factors I think are at play.

1. Dan Fell is a yes man, he won’t rip up the script. He’ll talk of vague things like employment and supply chain hubs and the council know him like they know Allen. It’s almost a like for like switch - only it absolves Allen of any blame, or at the very least provides a distraction to the utter mess Allen has left behind. Nobody can blame Fell for negotiating an atrocious lease which could ultimately bring the project to a halt.

2. He’s a convenient fall guy for when the thing collapses (if the money doesn’t show up). It wouldn’t be prudent to splash out on senior execs who are qualified for the role.

Ultimately this doesn’t seem to reflect confidence, it screams of a risk mitigation strategy for a project that has no money, appears to be plundering the cash reserves and could hit a brick wall in a matter of weeks.

 

[Eusebius]

2. He’s a convenient fall guy for when the thing collapses (if the money doesn’t show up). It wouldn’t be prudent to splash out on senior execs who are qualified for the role.

Ultimately this doesn’t seem to reflect confidence, it screams of a risk mitigation strategy for a project that has no money, appears to be plundering the cash reserves and could hit a brick wall in a matter of weeks.

Exactly so. They've realised they need to start thinking about who takes the hit when the inevitable happens.

Credit where it's due, the council has done a good job of pretending all's well when it clearly wasn't. A ridiculously compliant press helped enormously however, and Reform's complete and utter dereliction of duty effectively gave them a ticket out of jail. For a few months at least.