Right, the poster of the original thread has deleted it. That was his choice and nothing to do with BBP so I've reopened it for sensible discussion only. Any silliness and our moderator (and that isn't me, by the way) has been asked to squash it at once.
top of page
bottom of page
I have observed with interest the continuing chronicles of K7. I simply find it astounding and unbelievable how it is possible the RM can essentially have everything and then nothing.
· There was an agreement in 2013, albeit not signed (which is not a requirement in English law if there is proof there was an agreement) that allowed the BBP to run and maintain the boat but also saw them donate their parts to the RM. In essence the RM would have owned K7 in its entirety.
· Then there was an attempt to reach a new agreement in 2019. At this point the RM had to accept they were joint owners. In that agreement the RM added a clause about only having K7 run if their steering committee permitted. Unsurprisingly BBP rejected that part of the deal but from the evidence I’ve seen were more than happy with the remainder of it. I suspect the RM didn’t want to remove that clause as it was a very sneaky way to gain control, hence why they have since refused any further negotiations.
· In 2020 Ms Campbell ‘demanded’ the return of the boat. That catastrophically backfired.
· Since then, there has been several open letters published by the RM to demand the boat back which detail how they cannot possibly work with the BBP and how they will not mediate.
It would seem that the Trustees of the RM were in the best possible position with all the bargaining power and have now got nothing except the Bluebird wing. Even that seems to be filling up with the detritus of DC’s life and some of that tenuous at best. It is the reverse of a business agreement. They had all the cards and have simply gambled/given them away. In the commercial and business world this would be a drastic misstep and would invite the raising of 1 or more P45s.
The question remains, are the current trustees working in the best interests of the RM or is this personal? If so, they need replaced. The decisions taken have, for want of a better term been ‘commercial suicide’. The whole situation reminds me of the 1990s when the unchecked risks of an over ambitious, risk-taking and driven individual brought down a bank. They say pride comes before a fall…