Non-Believer Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Matter referred to Michael Coleman's Economic Review Committee. We're all saved then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 <emoji face plant> my summation of what's happened from media and this thread... IOMG (DED) put out tender and sample contract Vision 9 accepted by Tynwald as preferred tender Vision 9 promoting on basis they've been awarded contract. No contract signed as IOMG arguing internally about terms of contract, IOMG have not awarded the contract to them. Vision 9 pissed off as expense/time spent on tender, on assumption that DED tender was complete and all aspects considered. Vision 9 shouldn't have started promotion of event (incurring costs in addition to tender costs) without written signed contract agreeing the terms. Result IOM reputationally damaged as apparently can't put a properly considered / authorised tender process together. Vision 9 reimbursed for costs of tendering, reputational damage really shouldn't be, as why would you spend anything further until you had a signed contract? I watched the paul moulton interview with the guy.. yes it may cost taxpayer £100 per person to put on, what was not clear was what Vision 9 thought they were being paid for 10 year promotional contract, and what that would cost the tax payer.... Bit of sympathy for Vision 9 as it would appear they've been lead down the garden path a bit, but why lift a finger (incur more expense) before a vaild, written contract in place? Quite incredible that this is the SECOND time the award for promotion of the TT has been fucked up. hey ho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 Matter referred to Michael Coleman's Economic Review Committee. We're all saved then. I wonder if he can cut the mustard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 Quite incredible Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 <emoji face plant> my summation of what's happened from media and this thread... IOMG (DED) put out tender and sample contract Vision 9 accepted by Tynwald as preferred tender Vision 9 promoting on basis they've been awarded contract. No contract signed as IOMG arguing internally about terms of contract, IOMG have not awarded the contract to them. Vision 9 pissed off as expense/time spent on tender, on assumption that DED tender was complete and all aspects considered. Vision 9 shouldn't have started promotion of event (incurring costs in addition to tender costs) without written signed contract agreeing the terms. Result IOM reputationally damaged as apparently can't put a properly considered / authorised tender process together. Vision 9 reimbursed for costs of tendering, reputational damage really shouldn't be, as why would you spend anything further until you had a signed contract? I watched the paul moulton interview with the guy.. yes it may cost taxpayer £100 per person to put on, what was not clear was what Vision 9 thought they were being paid for 10 year promotional contract, and what that would cost the tax payer.... Bit of sympathy for Vision 9 as it would appear they've been lead down the garden path a bit, but why lift a finger (incur more expense) before a vaild, written contract in place? Quite incredible that this is the SECOND time the award for promotion of the TT has been fucked up. hey ho... There's a common denominator to this and the Signature fiasco......? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 <emoji face plant> my summation of what's happened from media and this thread... IOMG (DED) put out tender and sample contract Vision 9 accepted by Tynwald as preferred tender Vision 9 promoting on basis they've been awarded contract. No contract signed as IOMG arguing internally about terms of contract, IOMG have not awarded the contract to them. Vision 9 pissed off as expense/time spent on tender, on assumption that DED tender was complete and all aspects considered. Vision 9 shouldn't have started promotion of event (incurring costs in addition to tender costs) without written signed contract agreeing the terms. Result IOM reputationally damaged as apparently can't put a properly considered / authorised tender process together. Vision 9 reimbursed for costs of tendering, reputational damage really shouldn't be, as why would you spend anything further until you had a signed contract? I watched the paul moulton interview with the guy.. yes it may cost taxpayer £100 per person to put on, what was not clear was what Vision 9 thought they were being paid for 10 year promotional contract, and what that would cost the tax payer.... Bit of sympathy for Vision 9 as it would appear they've been lead down the garden path a bit, but why lift a finger (incur more expense) before a vaild, written contract in place? Quite incredible that this is the SECOND time the award for promotion of the TT has been fucked up. hey ho... There's a common denominator to this and the Signature fiasco......? skelly ?? useless cunt ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, I'm thinking more in terms of the lack of contractual arrangements; and/or failure to establish. Very deja vue...who would have form in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Minister for Fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 No, I'm thinking more in terms of the lack of contractual arrangements; and/or failure to establish. Very deja vue...who would have form in that? Hiya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 <emoji face plant> my summation of what's happened from media and this thread... IOMG (DED) put out tender and sample contract Vision 9 accepted by Tynwald as preferred tender Vision 9 promoting on basis they've been awarded contract. No contract signed as IOMG arguing internally about terms of contract, IOMG have not awarded the contract to them. Vision 9 pissed off as expense/time spent on tender, on assumption that DED tender was complete and all aspects considered. Vision 9 shouldn't have started promotion of event (incurring costs in addition to tender costs) without written signed contract agreeing the terms. Result IOM reputationally damaged as apparently can't put a properly considered / authorised tender process together. Vision 9 reimbursed for costs of tendering, reputational damage really shouldn't be, as why would you spend anything further until you had a signed contract? I watched the paul moulton interview with the guy.. yes it may cost taxpayer £100 per person to put on, what was not clear was what Vision 9 thought they were being paid for 10 year promotional contract, and what that would cost the tax payer.... Bit of sympathy for Vision 9 as it would appear they've been lead down the garden path a bit, but why lift a finger (incur more expense) before a vaild, written contract in place? Quite incredible that this is the SECOND time the award for promotion of the TT has been fucked up. hey ho... There's a common denominator to this and the Signature fiasco......? IOM Govt,a cluster of buffoonery,clownery and general ineptitude the likes have never been seen before. It now becomes very clear why Skelly was sent back to DED to wallow in the shit his Dept had created in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 I think it's good. Why do we need to pay a private firm to do what we already employ people in government to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 <emoji face plant> my summation of what's happened from media and this thread... IOMG (DED) put out tender and sample contract Vision 9 accepted by Tynwald as preferred tender Vision 9 promoting on basis they've been awarded contract. No contract signed as IOMG arguing internally about terms of contract, IOMG have not awarded the contract to them. Vision 9 pissed off as expense/time spent on tender, on assumption that DED tender was complete and all aspects considered. Vision 9 shouldn't have started promotion of event (incurring costs in addition to tender costs) without written signed contract agreeing the terms. Result IOM reputationally damaged as apparently can't put a properly considered / authorised tender process together. Vision 9 reimbursed for costs of tendering, reputational damage really shouldn't be, as why would you spend anything further until you had a signed contract? I watched the paul moulton interview with the guy.. yes it may cost taxpayer £100 per person to put on, what was not clear was what Vision 9 thought they were being paid for 10 year promotional contract, and what that would cost the tax payer.... Bit of sympathy for Vision 9 as it would appear they've been lead down the garden path a bit, but why lift a finger (incur more expense) before a vaild, written contract in place? Quite incredible that this is the SECOND time the award for promotion of the TT has been fucked up. hey ho... I'm pretty sure there would not have been a sample contract, except for usual IOMG T&Cs which would have been made available at the tender process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted November 29, 2016 Author Share Posted November 29, 2016 I think it's good. Why do we need to pay a private firm to do what we already employ people in government to do? Why indeed. The TT is a bit like an uninsured old dog in poor health, but lingering on for an age while it's owner keeps ploughing money into veterinary fees. Eventually there's be no money left and it's you or the dog. Sometimes it's better for everyone to just put the wretched beast out of it's misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parchedpeas Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 It certainly makes it look like a hot potato that the Government want to shift onto someone so that when it falls apart, there will be no blame attached to our local representatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Bean Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 As someone has mentioned, this will be an interesting test for Farmer Quayle. If he has balls he will ask Skelly to stand down graciously, and offer Corlett the same and to both go quietly, therefore acting in the best interests if the Island. What's the odds he does though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.