Lxxx Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 22 hours ago, Max Power said: I feel sorry for Skelly, he is charged with probably the most difficult department to manage in as much as it has to be imaginative and take chances in a way that other departments do not. We have had countless threads on here where ideas to diversify the economy have been discussed. We have all ended up laughing at each others suggestions as not being workable and the DED have to do it for real. Other departments have a clear mission which is measurable against the service they offer and the cost. I don't feel sorry for him at all. The man is an idiot in a position of power. Those two together aren't a good combination. I get we have to be innovative, have to push boundaries, have to be nimble to attract investment but we need to do it sensibly, not churn out one bad idea after another just to be seen to be doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 a manx style center parcs is the way forward, good for the vat share as well...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 and a theme park..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 21 hours ago, notwell said: I doubt it. They didn’t have a huge case to enter into litigation. They tendered for something and at the due diligence stage it fell apart. With nothing material signed . At best they could have an adult conversation about their costs but that’s about it. The bigger cost is the number of years wasted on it imho I thought we were told that vision on had an implied contract which was binding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 37 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I thought we were told that vision on had an implied contract which was binding? Depends on who your legal representation is I guess. As it's an Isle of Man contractual issue and therefore under our legal jurisdiction they might have been the latest to have found out that the manx legal system and government drink from the same trough and scratch each others backs when necessary to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Lxxx said: 41 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I thought we were told that vision on had an implied contract which was binding? Depends on who your legal representation is I guess. As it's an Isle of Man contractual issue and therefore under our legal jurisdiction they might have been the latest to have found out that the manx legal system and government drink from the same trough and scratch each others backs when necessary to do so. I'll bet that you aren't wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 42 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I thought we were told that vision on had an implied contract which was binding? Nothing was "implied" other than Vision Nine had been ticked up by Government as the preferred option. That isn't a contract that is going to stand up in a court of law. What are they going to sue for? There was no guarantee they would be successful or make money. At best they could sue for costs they incurred if they could prove that time could have been called earlier on it thus saving them costs. I suspect in the background an adult conversation will have happened and something agreed around costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, notwell said: 53 minutes ago, dilligaf said: I thought we were told that vision on had an implied contract which was binding? Nothing was "implied" other than Vision Nine had been ticked up by Government as the preferred option. That isn't a contract that is going to stand up in a court of law. What are they going to sue for? There was no guarantee they would be successful or make money. At best they could sue for costs they incurred if they could prove that time could have been called earlier on it thus saving them costs. I suspect in the background an adult conversation will have happened and something agreed around costs. I think we all know that even more taxpayers money will be given up to keep the peace. I am pretty sure that I read a headline that said "Vision Nine" awarded contract.......................... That's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Just now, dilligaf said: I think we all know that even more taxpayers money will be given up to keep the peace. I am pretty sure that I read a headline that said "Vision Nine" awarded contract.......................... That's all I'm saying. The fact you're quoting Isle of Man media and expecting it to be a bastion of correct information is questionable at best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 20 minutes ago, notwell said: I suspect in the background an adult conversation will have happened and something agreed around costs. Here's a couple of million now fuck off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 4 minutes ago, Lxxx said: The fact you're quoting Isle of Man media and expecting it to be a bastion of correct information is questionable at best Skelly said the same on the radio too, unless I am very much mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, finlo said: Here's a couple of million now fuck off! Right oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, notwell said: 17 minutes ago, finlo said: Here's a couple of million now fuck off! Right oh. What's your take then, because I will take some convincing that large sums are not changing hands over this farce and skelly's stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 18 minutes ago, finlo said: Here's a couple of million now fuck off! Totally agree Finlo. They won’t be suing as they’ve probably already been paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 15 minutes ago, dilligaf said: What's your take then, because I will take some convincing that large sums are not changing hands over this farce and skelly's stupidity. I've said already. At best they will have perhaps had some of their costs met if it was agreed that the plug could have been pulled earlier. As it stands they tendered for a contract.and ultimately were not awarded it. That happens all over government every week. I'd hazard a guess at a couple of hundred grand at best. It could actually be nothing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.