Dave, the financial reading of the term 'assets' is the narrowest of readings.
I am surprised and concerned that neither you nor the governors as a body seem willing to value the good reputation of the college as an 'asset', which it most certainly is. Without this, the newly refurbished buildings will be empty and the college will have to close.
I'm sure they have taken it into account. The rules and regs that they have to adhere to talk about "best value" (or similar statements), not highest price. For example £11mil in a lump sum upfront might be considered a better deal than, say, £12mill spread over the next 5yrs. And similarly, the College might be able to justify taking a slightly lower price from a housing developer instead of the higher price from a supermarket by factoring in reputation, community engagement, etc, etc. But if the numbers being talked about on here are even remotely accurate, we're not talking a slightly lower price, we're talking 30%, 40%, 50% less. In which case the College Governors can't take the lower price.
I don't think it does the reputation of MIA any good to be constantly bashing the College. In fact the latest statement from MIA, as highlighted by Dave, basically says, we know you've got no choice, but we're gonna have a go at you anyway. I think if the College is going to be a focus of the No campaign, then we'd better served by analysing the figures, and showing that actually the College don't need to sell.