notwell Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How can a contract not be amended if it isn't agreed by both parties and signed as such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 This is the reason the IOMG should be nothing more than a glorified administration entity with zero input into anything approaching commerciality, other than appointing qualified consultants from relevant organisations to advise on legally and contractually binding matters. Too many people in there with no real world experience playing around with other peoples money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How can a contract not be amended if it isn't agreed by both parties and signed as such? We have already discussed this. V9 were appointed by Tynwald and by implication had a contract. The written contract only serves to agree the detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How can a contract not be amended if it isn't agreed by both parties and signed as such? This contract is dead. Kaput. Finito. Finished. There isn't a prayer that this deal can be resolved, there had to be trust. Can you seriously trust IOMG? There is only way this will end up - Courts! There will be one winner - Athol Street lawyers, and we as taxpayers will be fleeced again. Still the money made from Pinewood shares will come in handy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Bean Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Whoever is to blame, one thing is clear. Thus us one more monumental fuck up that DED is associated with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted November 28, 2016 Author Share Posted November 28, 2016 Thus us one more monumental fuck up that DED is associated with. It's bigger than monumental. It's global. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted November 28, 2016 Author Share Posted November 28, 2016 Vision On with Tony Hart and Morph! Ah, you're admiring Vision Nine's arts and crafts creativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Can we tender for a company to come in and run DED for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Cost to taxpayer - £100 per TT Visitor. I believe that is the cost before any revenue is calculated. Things such as TV rights, sponsorship, economic benefit etc. etc. How much is the cost to the taxpayer after these rights trickle in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted November 28, 2016 Author Share Posted November 28, 2016 They (V9) claim having dealings with IOM government has caused "serious reputational damage." Not good. Cripes. If that is what Manx Radio are reporting you just get the feeling that this is really, as you say, not good. In fact, it's probably bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 So Tynwald said yes we will get vision nine in, but no contract had been signed to that effect? Still not seeing why "Get bent" isn't a valid response to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How can a contract not be amended if it isn't agreed by both parties and signed as such? We have already discussed this. V9 were appointed by Tynwald and by implication had a contract. The written contract only serves to agree the detail. Yes, but that details is the foundation for everything that follows. Tynwald appear to have only confirmed that they were comfortable (rightly or indeed wrongly) with Vision 9 as a counterparty. Anything else that happens is subject to contract and ratification. If I am building a house and i put the contract out to 4 parties - I get the 4 tenders back. If i'm then comfortable to work with X company i will advise them and then, subject to contract, we move forward. I'm not legally bound to use them because we might not be able to reach agreement on the details of that contract. What is different here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 But MHK's and MLC's announced the partnership from what I remember with a big fanfare !! Clearly it was more than a chatting about a possible promotion !! Either that or someone has jumped the gun in a massive way ! Why would they put info on there websight without some certainty it was happening .. will we arrive at truth .I don't think so sadly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 What is different here? The Isle of Man government is involved...how hard is it to see that its a cluster mess up in the making? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 It may well be. But what sort of company or deal is ever assumed to have been done with no contract in place? It doesn't matter that Tynwald ticked up Vision 9 as a counterparty. That, to me, is probably 25% of the job done. The hard part is formulating the framework and contract for finalising and signing. Vision 9 had no mandate to start splashing money about without the above being sorted. I'm not denying it's a mess. But let's not pretend the government are the major issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.