Does anyone on this forum seriously believe there is sufficient goodwill and trust between the parties to this situation to enable a negotiated settlement that is acceptable to all? Unfrotunately the best route forward at this point is for the ownership situation to be established by the courts. The BBP has the most to lose from a legal battle as a loss will mean the entire boat will be handed over to the RM with no role for teh BBP and a win will just allow them to break up the boat at which point RM will appoint another party to rebuild it. The BBP has to wake up to this situation, whether they believe it is reasonable or not.

@JfromJAGs I agree that the initial documentation and agreements between the parties provide ambiguity and should have been made more clear, At the time I doubt the volunteers of a small museum in a Cimbrian village, nor Bill Smith thought too much about the legal ramifications of the agreements they were making in good faith and with limited advice. Whilst the Deed of Gift does not include Bill Smith, it does limit the ability of the Ruskin Museum to act. There are a lot of people on this forum that believe Bill Smith and the Bluebird project has a right of involvement moving forward, but I can't see where the legal obligation for that comes from. There may be a moral right because of the work put in, and it may make sense because of the technical knowledge gained by the bluebird project, but, in my mind, there is no legal requirement. Bill has the most to lose from this. Bill continues to suggest that The Ruskin need to come to him with an offer. They do not need to do anything. There is some uncertainty about the outcome of a court case, but the two outcomes are either that the court judges in favour of Bill and he gets to remove those parts of the boat that he restored or it rules in favour of the Ruskin and Bill loses everything. So Bill either ends up wth a pile of parts and The Ruskin appoint another team to complete the boat or the boat transfers in its entirety to The Ruskin. Either way Bill becomes a small footnote in the history of the project. In the opinion of Magneto Bill needs to come forward with a proposal which does not start with any pre-condition of ownership and in return The Ruskin come forward with an open mind about granting The Bluebird Project some rights on maintaining and running the boat. If not it will end up in court. As for the Campbell family, they gifted the boat and therefore have no legal voice in any discussion.

@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. .

@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.

@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.

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

@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.