Even by Birmingham City Council’s woeful communications standards, the Wholesale Markets saga has been handled appallingly.

Leaders of the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition have consistently been caught on the back foot since the summer when a proposal to relocate the markets to Witton fell through, a victim of plummeting land values and the credit crunch.

If the deal had succeeded, the market traders would have been leased a glistening purpose-built home paid for by the sale for development of the current city centre Pershore Street site.

But in a major tactical failure, the coalition allowed news to seep out that it was determined to press ahead with redeveloping Pershore Street and that the markets would just have to move – when nobody had the slightest idea where a new site might be found, or how the relocation could be financed.

It became clear that although the council would assist in searching for a new home, there could be no question in the current circumstances of bankrolling the move in its entirety.

And in the furore that followed, council leaders compounded the chaos by insisting loudly that the Wholesale Markets will remain in Birmingham, but were unable to explain how this might be achieved.

There is a political adage worth remembering: never mess with market traders or taxi drivers, because it always ends in tears.

The 73 traders who operate the markets have launched one of Birmingham’s best propaganda exercises in recent times, which moved up a gear with the publication of a research study called Birmingham Wholesale Fresh Produce Markets: The Essential Catalyst.

The document sets out the value to the city and regional economy of the markets, which enjoy a £275 million turnover and, it is claimed, support 15,000 jobs.

This would place the collapse of the markets on a par with the end of MG Rover, a comparison that was unwisely dismissed as nonsense by Tory and Liberal Democrat councillors earlier in the year.

The traders' slick campaign has managed to attract support from an eclectic gathering, including Birmingham luminaries Prof Carl Chinn and the Michelin-starred chef Glynn Purnell.

One of the stallholders’ main arguments is that the disappearance of cheaper wholesale food in Birmingham would deliver a hammer blow to the city’s fast-growing quality restaurant scene.

It is of course possible to feel some sympathy for the market traders, who have faced an uncertain future for the best part of a decade.

But one huge unanswered question remains, which if the council had the cute communications skills it thinks it has, it would have been asking with some vigour.

Given that the 73 operators at the market each enjoy an average turnover of £3.6 million, and are described as “substantial medium-sized companies” in the Essential Catalyst report, why can’t they get together, go to the banks for a loan, and pay for their own new premises?

If the Wholesale Markets are as popular as is claimed, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they are popular, then it ought to be possible even in these straightened times to acquire long-term funding off the back of a sensible business plan demonstrating how turnover would increase if the markets were to move to a more appropriate location.

In this way the traders could seek a favourable deal involving council-owned land in a better place than the cramped Pershore Street site, and take control of their own destiny.

There is a clue in the Essential Catalyst study as to why this is unlikely to happen.