K7 To Be Dismantled - ???

The idea of 'trolling' is to mislead or distract from the topic, hence to prevent discussion.

I know it could look bad to some but the role of a moderator here may be advantageous. If one could delete (better to move) Eastman's post on the basis of 'trolling' and similarly all the replies to his post, and the topic could remain sensible.

Personally I invite Eastman to contribute with constructive comments and questions which can be debated. By implication if he just rudely intervenes, as above, with banal and aggressive statements then his post serves no purpose and should be deleted (moved) before it appears or better be moved to another topic (called 'Trolls and Children' ?) by the moderator.

The poor moderator will come in for criticism but in practice nothing need be actually deleted and the otherwise adult debate my continue.

How very appropriate(engine 711s village idiot comment) now knowing who BTG is …..you would think he would pick a slightly more “under the radar” screen name .

No need for popcorn. It really isn't that interesting but speaking to Peter today it appears that his questions to the RM have again gone unanswered so we may have to pursue that one.

Pass the popcorn please , better make it an extra large as well . Here we go again …….my mother bless her soul used to say …….if you don’t have anything nice or constructive to add to the conversation ……..say nothing . Wouldn’t it be nice if others would follow suit .

Care to elaborate? Explain the smoke and mirrors suggestion, perhaps? Outline what you feel is rubbish so we can see where you're coming from. Otherwise you may as well say, the earth is flat, then run off.

It doesn't need goodwill, it needs professionalism. We've all worked with people we wouldn't necessarily get along with but it's easy enough to do. As for stepping back, I've been leaving the negotiations to the rest of the crew for some time now. Since 2019, in fact. Remember it was Peter and Jordan who put together the Zoom meeting - I had nothing to do with that. Then another well-meaning individual stepped up with an offer of independent brokerage and that person was immediately passed to Peter, who you will recall, also asked all the right questions of the museum when they tried to claim that it was us who had failed to come to the table having turned down the 90 day offer. Once again I stayed well out of proceedings there. I did the RAC thing but that was because Neil asked me if I would and as Neil is a top bloke I was happy to oblige but otherwise I'm out of it and happy working on the Group-B rally cars that I put down 20 years ago to try my hand at a wrecked boat. Let others do the negotiating from here.

What some probably won't like, though, is that our team knows exactly what has to be delivered so no matter which of us does the negotiating nothing will be significantly different. Yes, the words used might be different and the individual delivering them will be whoever steps up on the day but the message remains unaltered.

And as for all this 'let the courts decide' nonsense... I'm yet to see an offering on that matter from anyone who appears to have the slightest inkling of what that involves. Who is going to issue proceedings and for what? The RM can say we're not giving them their bits back and we'll be right back at them for trying to wriggle free of what they very publicly agreed with us and we'll all be locked into a five year legal wrangle that will cost half a million quid with the trustees having refused to mediate and therefore potentially exposing themselves to personal liability in the event of an adverse costs order. And that's without their obligation to the Charities Commission to stay away from litigation unless all other options have been explored and exhausted. Obviously there are still a great many unexplored options remaining.

And the first thing a court would do anyway is adjourn for a while and 'suggest' we have a mediation, which under those conditions will be expensive when the opportunity to do it on the cheap is right under everyone's noses.

And how do I know this? Because I spent eight years locked into High Court civil litigation in two separate cases in which I was named as Respondent.

Both were baseless and the first was abandoned outright and I was awarded 100% costs, something my legal team had never seen before, and the second was settled for pennies in the pound at mediation because the claimant realised very late in the day that they were throwing good money after bad. I've been there, seen it, done it and the tee shirt probably went to be used as dusters years ago. It's brutal and draining and unhealthy in the extreme but a very exciting challenge at the same time. And that's only civil court because in two previous lives I have also testified as an expert in the Crown Court in the fields of vehicle security and underwater exploration.

Go to court? Let's do it.

Update from the BBP, elsewhere in this website. Added in case people have not seen it.

I read with interest Gina's comments on FB. However, the most interesting statement was the "the museum would always be on the back foot". Therein lies the problem. Instead of seeing it as an opportunity to work with the people who know K7 best and openly admitting it is beyond the RM capabilities (which Gina stated) they have turned it into a power struggle, backed by the CFHT. They have yet to name their partners but seeing as there is only 1 team that knows K7 well, I am doubtful they will have the expertise needed. A glance back at old diary entries show the breadth of knowledge BBP has as they’ve worked on her for 20 plus years. You cannot buy experience. I’m also quite sure transparency is essential when running a charity so perhaps they should reveal these partners if not to reassure the public that K7 would be in safe hands should it have to come to pieces.

Gina discussed 'a divorce' as there are 3 parties in this affair.... legally there are 2. The RM and the BBP. The RM know fine well they cannot go to court for several reasons. Firstly, they refuse to mediate and any lawyer in the land will tell you that will go against them in court. Secondly, they know fine well the BBP own the new parts and if they don’t it would simply have been to get a court order and it would be in the RM. Thirdly, the offer to mediate is on the table and if they choose court over mediation, they could be in breach of Charity Commission laws/directives. Finally, they also know the BBP is not legally obligated to the DoG. The RM have yet to answer why they and BBP can’t be joint owners, but I speculate that the CFHT have more to do with that. It would seem, having read the RM’s open letter, that despite the fact the BBP have offered their parts back, the latest angle for them is to imply the BBP are deliberately withholding parts. In fact, the BBP is willing to put K7 on display in the museum, but it is the RM’s failing to meet their obligations to BBP as to why K7 remains where she is. I suggest they carefully go through previous posts/correspondence to verify facts. I do find the ‘let a judge decide’ statements a little naive. It takes a very long time to get in front of a judge it is not simply walk into a court and tell the judge your grievances and all the problems are sorted. There are many costly hoops to jump through before any court hearing. You need a strong stomach and very deep pockets.

It continues to be a very sad state of affairs but there is some hope as I saw on Twitter BS is quite prepared to step back and let others negotiate. I would also suggest the RM does the same. Mr Carroll dwells on the past which quite frankly is unhelpful and unprofessional.

Ok, this statement makes it very clear. The RM (and the CFHT) want to keep K7 alive and running - just not with Bill. They want the boat, all the parts, all the work, they want to do all the things Bill wants to do - but just kick Bill out? That's not going to happen that way. They should have thought about that before they had K7 restored by Bill and his volunteers.

So it will come down to the 3rd option: K7 will linger unfinished in Northumberland until a judge makes a decision. That decision one of the sides will not accept, will appeal. How many judicial instances are there in the UK? How long is this going to take?

Sorry, rarely read such stubbornness. Very disappointing.

Correct me if I’m wrong but the Ruskin Museum as a registered charity is legally obliged to engage in mediation as part of its resolution process ? If this is correct then why has it not happened ? if mediation is a requirement and it fails then the courts have the final say ?

Same old regurgitated drivel about the DOG and a few legalese terms thrown in for good measure .

It's in on their website. It is an open letter to the BBP.

@JfromJAGs the meeting was a one-of, and the first in a series of Magneto 'briefings' that are intended to bring matters of interest to a wider audience. We were encouraged to see that all parties were prepared to participate although the challenges ahead look difficult to overcome with the distrust that exists between the parties. .

Does anyone know what the plan is? Are there more of such meetings planned?

It might start with the general understanding that the Bluebird Project was - and must again be - a joint alliance of the CFHT, RM and Bill Smith (and friends) to ensure the future of K7.

I mean, they should just take a look at where they stand today: what has been achieved is surely much more than they had dreamed in their wildest dreams 20 years ago. The project is practically finished: there is a museum wing, K7 is almost completely restored and has even been driven again. For God's sake - what else do you wish for?

To make this clear - I'm with probably 90%+ of the K7 enthusiast who want to see K7 alive on the water once per year or maybe even every 2-3 years - but she should be cept alive and should not just sit dead in the museum. K7 should always wear a perfume of kerosene and oil.

As Cerberus pointed out the “Ownership” thing is a smokescreen . The RM and CFHT have decided they simply can’t get along anymore with BBP and want either the whole thing as is or they are prepared to accept “the wreck” .

In my mind the CFHT should have no involvement any more as they gifted “the wreck” ie signing over responsibility of it to the RM . Anyways I’m not going to be dragged into this all again on here , it will just degenerate like all other discussions on the subject .

From the video it’s clear that both the RM and CFHT want nothing to do with BBP so it’s going to end up in court and a lot of unnessacary money will be spent to determine the future of K7

@healeynut62 If there was absolute clarity from Bill that they have no desire to own any part of K7 then, as the lawyer indicated in the Briefing, there would be reason to move forward. But Bill is claiming ownership of the parts of the boat that they have fabricated and restored and this claim is rejected by the RM. As others on this forum have pointed out, until that is resolved I don't see how anything moves forward. Either Bill puts ownership of the restoration elements on the table for discussion or it goes to court at which point Bill will lose out - either because he wins and gets to remove those parts he put on the boat, or he loses and the boat goes to the RM, and there is no role for BBP or Bill.

At the moment Bill physically has the boat, but and, as he says in the briefing, he is looking for RM to put something 'tasty' on the table to bring him to it. I don't see RM doing anything accept waiting and then testing ownership in court. At that point, Bill loses. RM have identified other parties who have the skills to re-build and maintain the boat...

I take no sides in this, and I would like to see a situation where ownership rests entirely with RM, but a role for the BBP in running and maintaining the boat is found and is binding for a minimum period.

As Bill has quite clearly stated both on the video and in other media BBP does not want to own or part own K7 . All they are asking for is to be the preferred maintainer and running crew for K7s future and until that is in writing and agreed to on legal documents signed by all involved then K7 will remain where she is ……

If K7 goes into the museum without a formal agreement then the doors will be locked behind BBP and that will be that ,and considering the work and time and effort that has been put into K7s restoration it is simply wrong to exclude the team who are wholly

responsible for basically rescuing K7 from dissolving completely at the bottom of Coniston Water .

I think the ownership is a smoke screen. As I understand it the RM had a contract in 2013 that actually gave them title to the new parts which they seem to have rejected. It would have been more prudent to use that as a basis to form a new contract and negotiate from there. However, they appeared to have chosen to say that didn’t exist. That is their decision but from what I can glean they had something whereas now they have nothing. The ownership does not matter as the BBP appears quite happy that K7 goes into the museum and they can bring it out and operate for a part of the year. No one has to own all of it in order for it to work. There are many examples in museums where this is the case, and it works perfectly harmoniously. Of course, the one party that does not benefit is the CFHT, which is the crux of the matter. They seem to have forgotten they gave the wreckage to the museum so legally they have no leverage on what occurs. In reality the CFHT don’t want the BBP involved as they cannot use K7 as they wish. They already tried to change the DoG for their benefit.

While this argument has rumbled on what the CFHT have forgotten is that Donald was put back into the public’s awareness in 2001 when the craft was raised and while it was being restored his memory lived on. Now the boat is not running or being displayed he is once again disappearing from public memory and back into the obscurity of history.

I've just watched the whole video, and thanks for hosting it Geoff. I was very surprised how polite everyone was until the last five minutes so, well done Neil.

It appeared to me that RM and Don Wales really don't want to look Bill in the eye let alone work with him, and that their continuous referring back to the past renders any meaningful negotiation almost impossible.

As others have said ownership is the issue, that's it, unless that is finally resolved amicably or legally (I though it had?), K7 will fast become history, again.

However, I thought there was a glimmer of hope when Bill said something to the effect of he'd talk about ownership if something tasty was reciprocated. Come on everyone, get round the table, one last effort.

@Engine 711 Yes, I agree. If ownership is going to be determined it is likely to be via the courts. If that goes in favour of the RM, then it is likely to mean that BBP's involvement will cease. If it goes in favour of the BBP, then it is likely the boat will be taken apart. Either way I think ultimately Bill Smith and the BBP will come away with either nothing or a few parts and a footnote in the history of the restoration.

But, if the BBP were to enter negotiation without a precondition on ownership, then I think a resolution which reverts ownership to RM but in return gives BBP some rights on maintenance and running, that would be a result in my view.

@Engine 711 thanks for taking the time to review the whole video. I agree - the future rests on who owns the parts added by the BBP. The Ruskin continue to assert that, as Bill offered to repair the boat at no cost and hand it back. then he has no right of ownership. Bill insists that the parts sourced and paid for by the BBP do in fact belong to the Bluebird project.

You say that the BBP are willing to work with the RM and that the Ruskin and family trust are not prepared to reciprocate. But, from my understanding, Bill is only prepared to enter into discussions on the precondition that his ownership of the parts supplied is acknowledged. If that were dropped as a precondition, then I do think progress could be made. The lawyer in the video confirmed this. If not, then Bills olive branch is a red herring. If the case goes to court then what will be decided is the ownership of those parts supplied by Bill and the BBP. The Ruskin are not going to surrender their assertion of ownership at this stage.

Magneto's view is that both parties should enter into mediation with NO preconditions.

I watched all of the YouTube video, last night.

This morning I think I can draw some conclusions.

1. The key word for the whole thing is Ownership. Each party has a different view on this. The RM/CFHT side think they own the whole of K7 - including all the parts sourced, bought or made by the BBP. The BBP believe they own the parts that they sourced, bought or made.

2. The 2nd issue is people being able to work together. The CFHT and the RM - in my view - indicated they are simply unwilling to work with the BBP. The BBP on the other hand are willing to work with the RM & CFHT.

IMO those are the 2 issues. Both could be resolved by 'reasonable people' talking to each other & resolving to move forward. Could be... But in my view, they will not be. Sadly.

Meanwhile I am unclear if K7 is (currently) being taken apart - or not. Can anyone tell me....? Nothing from the BBP, for a while now.

The video and Magneto's comment on the situation can be found on the magneto website here

The video should be released tomorrow via the Magneto website and newsletter

The video should be released tomorrow via the Magneto website newsletter

Is there a timeline for when the details will be made public ?

@Cerberus Thank you for attending the Magneto briefing this morning. For the benefit of other members, I am the Managing Director of Hothouse Media, publishers of Magneto, and the team that put together the briefing at the RAC this morning. I come with no prejudice, just with a desire to see K7 as an icon of British engineering and sporting prowess preserved for the future.

We were very grateful that all of the main parties to the K7 dispute were prepared to set out their understanding of the timeline from the tragedy in 1967 to the situation the boat finds itself in today. Contrary to the views of @Cerberus I felt that all participants handled themselves in a professional manner and all views were aired. It is, without doubt, a highly charged issue and those leaving the RAC were left in no doubt about the obstacles that remain to come to a positive conclusion that leaves all parties satisfied.

Before people jump to the conclusion that the account from one attendee was 'fair and comprehensive', I would suggest you wait and make your own judgement when we make it available for everyone to view. I will post on this forum when it is available.

Well, that was an interesting morning at the RAC Club….

I was intrigued to hear first-hand both sides of the argument about Bluebird. Present were Mr D Wales, Mr G Carroll (from the Ruskin Museum), Mr Neil Shepherd (esteemed author on everything Campbell) and Mr Smith (BBP). As far as I can ascertain nothing new was said but I will sum up the thrust of the meeting.

As predicted the DoG was raised. I am not sure why they seek to rely on this as it appears they are well aware that the BBP are not party to it but nevertheless Mr Carroll continues to use this as his weapon of choice. In all fairness I don’t think Mr Wales or Mr Carroll understand that no matter how much they shout about the DoG it has nothing to do with the BBP and is an agreement between The Campbells and The RM. It was apparently drawn up by the BBP lawyers but that seems of little consequence as it could have been drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he would not be party to it either. I would suggest that both Mr Wales and Mr Carroll clarify their understanding of it with higher minds than theirs as their constant wibble about it is tiresome and has got them nowhere either today or in the past. Surely if it was binding to the BBP the RM’s lawyers would have made more of it.

Interestingly there was a lawyer present, and it was my understanding he was there with Mr Wales and Mr Carroll. He did attempt to argue people had donated on the understanding that K7 was going into the museum. This argument was swiftly put to bed by Mr Smith who explained BBP raised their own money through the sales of various pieces of merchandise to buy material for sponsons etc and they quite rightly owned those parts. He also rectified that it was not a ‘claim’ (as the lawyer put it) but in fact they did own those parts. I trust this point had already been addressed previously through correspondence with lawyers from both sides. The lawyer went quiet on this matter. Interestingly, what I was unaware of was that on the RM’s Wikipedia page it states BBP owns some of the boat and that article had been in the public domain for at least for 10 years. Mr Carroll went very quiet. It was also raised that many of the donations by industry were made on the understanding it would be run by the BBP – my question is what happens if the BBP aren’t involved? I assume they are within their right to request their donations back and does that include donated aluminium, engines and even paint? If so, what exactly will b?

Overall though the tone of the meeting was set by Mr Wales and Mr Carroll. I am not getting into who said what but they both decided to embark on a personal tirade about their treatment at the hands of the BBP. This came across as most unprofessional. I would also like to remind Mr Wales of remarks that were overheard by various parties from him on the steps of the RAC club about Mr Smith a while ago. I think a little less alcohol and more discretion would be prudent. People in glass houses… Mr Smith made a valid point and stated that in many walks of life we are forced to work with people we don’t like and would not choose to collaborate with, but this is about the greater good and the bigger picture. The public wants to see the K7 we have already run by the BBP and housed at the museum. As professionals it is their job to ensure that this occurs as they are both answerable to the public.

The crux of the whole meeting though was the surfeit of unprofessionalism by Mr Wales and Mr Carroll. Mr Smith remained stoic, calm, professional and factual throughout. I simply left feeling that maybe it is time that better more professional people worked on behalf of the RM because from today’s outburst I have very grave concerns. I understood that this meeting was to be made public for those who unfortunately couldn’t attend. I look forward to hearing other’s thoughts on today’s meeting once they have heard the recording.

Read the statement of the RM dated 24th of Sept. - Maybe the supporters of the BBP should make very clear that we have no interrest in working with the RM or even viewing what they did with K7 once they forced the BBP out!

I've often wondered who is behind the BSC on Facebook, it's clear that it is the CFHT. Their agenda is married to the Campbells and the Ruskin Museum. What's his name, Ginna's bloke says it'll be two years to re-build, oh my goodness they have absolutely no idea what they are getting into - somebody will be very much poorer afterwards. They say a fool and his money are easily separated.

My FB comment was deleted by the Bluebird Supporters Club because I speculated how long it might be before we see The Qualcast Kid at the helm of K7. It was only on there for 5 mins!

Not surprised, here. Its just how they are.

The Awkward Squad.

What a shame. A great opportunity to reset completely dashed.

The problem, I think is that the amount of nastiness that has come out from the CFHT mainly, does not go away. Keep[ them out - and maybe - the RM & BBP might be able to talk. But - both sides need to engage, honestly & openly.

It does seem that the vast majority of un-harmonius chat on twitter and facebook has diminished substantially. So let's hope that by pausing and sending a very clear message, BPP and the Ruskin Museum can actually have a quiet discussion about what a good compromise for all concerned could look like.

Personally, I think that it's best everyone steps back and stops speculating. We need to allow things to cool off, and water to flow under the bridge. We the supporters also need to down fists, as continually being at each others throats isn't helping anything - it simply inflames things further. We need to recognise our differences; be able to agree to disagree, and help both the BBP and the RM to work together to achieve the common goal of caring for K7 into the future harmoniously. I know I've played my part in the "Us Versus Them" arguing and debates, and I'll admit fault too. The BBP team are right about going quiet. We the supporters need to stop and reset too. There are plenty of related subjects that can be discussed, but the bickering has to stop.

Not sure how realistic the RM's deadlines are. They were an edict or demand, to the BBP - not a agreed or negotiated way forward. That would be....

I assumed BBP is just going quiet.

I have confidence that the team will meet those deadlines as set by the museum as far as making their bits available, though this wisely wont be published.

As the days pass there will be less and less of BBK7 existing as a whole boat. If reason prevails early then it can be reassembled and the museum can have a display. Otherwise, by the 28th day, the BBP will be ordering new materials and have a couple of years in reconstruction and the museum will have their parts, a gigantic problem and will rue the day they ordered BBK7 to be dismantled.

I hope the 'dreary' crew are now quiet and reason prevails - the earlier the better!

Disclaimer: the same disclaimer as andyjscull's post.

A wise decision. Not sure if it works out, but unless a judge orders dismantling and returning the pieces belonging to the RM the BBP team should try to keep things together as they are and should fight for a positive outcome. Both K7 and the BBP deserve this.

So, whoever came up with this idea: thank you!

Can be found here:

https://www.bluebirdproject.info/post/position-statement-23-sept-2021

I cannot fault your logic, here.

Lets sit back at watch.......

I have been looking at my crystal balls and this is what I see:

I see the originally recovered parts of K7 removed, not to the Ruskin Museum, but to a facility elsewhere.

I see a former cabbage salesman waving a chequebook on behalf of the CFHT.

I see K7, not restored faithfully to original specifications but cobbled together into an engineless, visually approximate replica.

I hear the Ruskin Museum asking: “May we display her now?”.

I hear the reply: “Not until you agree to amend the deed of gift, because half the boat is ours now”.

I see K7 spending six months a year in the Ruskin Museum and six months on tour, in the company of an old teddy bear.

I see two cousins counting their Ill-gotten gains.

I hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the town of Coniston, along with cries of “oh deary!”.

Disclaimer: None of this could possibly be true, because I am not a clairvoyant and my balls aren’t made of crystal.

I for one relish the opportunity to see and hear the "fake" Bluebird. Seeing and hearing Bluebird at Loch Fad in 2018 was a memory for a lifetime. The atmosphere at the lochside was incredible, and the BBP team very welcoming. My wife and I had intended cycling around Bute that day, and only intended stopping at Loch Fad for maybe an hour. The atmosphere was electric and we simply couldn't leave. Hours passed in no time. In the end, we deeply regretted leaving to get the penultimate ferry and had we to do it again, would have booked a hotel to savour every last minute. Whilst I don't agree with everything said by both parties, the treatment the BBP are now receiving is incredibly poor. It is clear to me that there is much more to this than meets the eye, and a cash cow is there to be milked by CFHT and sycophants. I feel Brian Eastham's comments should have a warning "do not read if diabetic" they are so sickly sweet with just as much infatuation with Donald as love for his daughter. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, but I fear I can predict it already. Best of luck BBP and look forward to seeing the fruits of your labours again.

I don't know anything about the back story to all this, but believe Bluebird belongs at the Ruskin. If you cannot get your act together to agree to this, then what was recovered is what we should have back, as well as everything that was donated to the "bluebird" and Campbell's memory not to you personally. Feel free to retain anything that was donated to you as an individual. Build your fake to make your own fortune if you wish, we want the true memories of a great man and a great team.

My guess is if K7 is dismantled now, then she will never ever run on water again. What a shame! I'm so glad I made it to Bute, saw K7 run and have met the BBP team.

Joerg (Germany)

I just see on another forum, that Brian Eastham has said 2 years - huge, huge pot of money needed for that !

We know from long experience that the whole Bluebird thing is a very niche interest. We post a video of us cleaning a switch inside a Vulcan and it gets a zillion views in moments. Post a video of Bluebird running and it gets a few hundred. Exciting though it is, it only has a relatively small number of enthusiasts. Of course it's very different when we were out on the water because all you had to do was get there and there was something to see but on a day to day basis it's a small thing and it has never generated anything like the sort of interest or income to buy expensive things. Creating sponsons, and that means sponsons of the correct standard to run on them, safely was a huge undertaking. They are boats in their own right at 12ft long each and they have over 200 parts in each of them. The cost of making those alone would be a healthy six figures and they won't be built quickly either. So then what do you say to the people who you would have help you? We were offered a pair of perfect sponsons, tried and tested and already built, but we didn't fancy those ones so will you help us build another pair?

Then there's the rest of the structure to put to rights, then there's the engine, pneumatics, hydraulics, electrical system and instrumentation. They'll need a new launching dolly and all the ground support kit, compressors, safety boats, etc. It's all been done but having blown out that opportunity in such a ludicrous and public manner the pool of people and organisations ready to offer assistance just got smaller.

They are going to need a big pot of money and it won't come from donations, that's for sure so let's hope someone has deep pockets.

Moving on....Regarding the ability of anyone to rebuild K7. If you've ever been involved in proper classic car or aircraft restoration you'll know the costs are astronomical if you engage professionals to do the work, or it can be cost effective with skilled volunteers and willing partners/donors, but it takes ages to re-learn some nearly forgotten skills.

I would take an informed guess that it could easily cost Ruskin around £0.5-1.0m to engage an appropriate contract engineering company, maybe more maybe less, but it's in that ballpark. That's also assuming they can source an engine in running condition., without which its a non-starter (literally!)

So either the Ruskin have done their homework, found an appropriate organisation, briefed them, got a quote, got an epic fundraising plan in place, and a project manger/liaison to deal with said company etc etc..........or they've bitten off more than they can chew.

I guess only time will tell, unless those in the know can explain this conundrum?

I wrote the following a while back...

A Theory:

The CHFT and the RM watched as the BBP ran a successful mission on Bute. This was clearly a lovely cash cow seen by members of the CFHT and so the desperate need to get it back into the RM. So back in 2018/2019 a certain member of the Campbell family wanted the DoG changed and to get the boat back in the museum. It ultimately cost the RM £45,000 in legal fees. Member/s of the Campbell family bailed the RM out as an anonymous donation. But as with many things the CFHT do there was a catch. Once the boat was back in the museum, they could then have access to it and cart if off to Beaulieu, boat shows etc. This would help line their pockets and the RM’s. The RM did not wish to acknowledge the BBP owned the new parts (which they’ve known for some time which published emails confirm this) and quite rightly won’t hand the completed boat over to them without a contract. They are still labouring under the misguided notion the BBP are part of the DoG. The RM are well aware that any contract would likely contain conditions that the boat can only be moved etc by the BBP and they cannot loan the BBP’s property to third parties i.e. the Campbells. This mean the RM is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They can’t have the completed boat and if they do the CFHT are out of the loop.

I fear in light of what the RM requested yesterday I feel my theory is playing out. I do believe the Campbell's are at the back of this and the 'new engineering partners' will no doubt be associated with the Campbell Family.