2112 Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 7 minutes ago, Kopek said: We're stuck with it, aren't we? If IOMG doesn’t pay or Tynpotwald doesn’t authorise additional monies, then it will take longer to complete, or may never be completed. Think of the repercussions, the reputational damage to the island. Sadly this is one huge mess from start to finish and a permanent memorial to political incompetence, and vain posturing by the ruling elite. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Gladys said: Really? So we entered into a contract with unlimited liability with no break clauses? We have discussed this before. These contracts have no such limitations. Termination yes. Break clauses no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 53 minutes ago, Kopek said: If there were get out clauses, then perhaps, in the early days they could have been used, still a loss but not as much as the overall cost!!! But someone would have had to admit to a mistake? However, Liverpools requirement for a 'cruise ship berth' still meant we would ahve lost the old Manx berth? Doesn't seem like the cruise ship berth is going to happen??? You can cancel the contract. At your peril. No pay, no terminal or just part of one the contractor would stop work and start the path to litigation. If the project manager deems you have to make a payment, you have to make a payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 21, 2023 Share Posted July 21, 2023 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: We have discussed this before. These contracts have no such limitations. Termination yes. Break clauses no. We have and I still cannot understand how we have got ourselves into a contract where there is no option but continue paying even if the nature of the work undertaken varies so much that it is costing 4 times that originally envisaged. Not sure how termination differs from a break clause really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 28 minutes ago, Gladys said: We have and I still cannot understand how we have got ourselves into a contract where there is no option but continue paying even if the nature of the work undertaken varies so much that it is costing 4 times that originally envisaged. Not sure how termination differs from a break clause really. Classic case of their lawyers being better than IOMG lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Amadeus said: Classic case of their lawyers being better than IOMG lawyers. No lawyers are involved. No one has sued anyone yet. The most obvious legal action would be IOMG vs the designer. That may well happen yet. This would be an allegation of negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted July 22, 2023 Author Share Posted July 22, 2023 Many of the problems appear to have arisen from difficulties with the nature of the ground in the location. The building itself is a new steel frame structure which should have presented no problems bar material price increases. It is my understanding that IoMG were well forewarned of these ground problems but that aside, whoever did the surveying should have picked up on these characteristics, to include the UXO, and flagged it up. Unless of course they did but IoMG were just too confident in their own knowledge and expertise to take any heed. I would personally have more faith in Lars Ugland's appraisal of the situation than anything issuing from the DOI. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Many of the problems appear to have arisen from difficulties with the nature of the ground in the location. The building itself is a new steel frame structure which should have presented no problems bar material price increases. It is my understanding that IoMG were well forewarned of these ground problems but that aside, whoever did the surveying should have picked up on these characteristics, to include the UXO, and flagged it up. Unless of course they did but IoMG were just too confident in their own knowledge and expertise to take any heed. I would personally have more faith in Lars Ugland's appraisal of the situation than anything issuing from the DOI. That is very possible the main issue. Combined together contributing to the massive outturn cost we have. 1. Ridiculous under estimated at the start. 2. Poor or even lack of initial investigation 3. No consideration of the scout of the thrusters and subsequent change if scope and specifications. 4. COVID 5. General underperforming of all involved. Edited July 22, 2023 by Happier diner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: Many of the problems appear to have arisen from difficulties with the nature of the ground in the location. The building itself is a new steel frame structure which should have presented no problems bar material price increases. It is my understanding that IoMG were well forewarned of these ground problems but that aside, whoever did the surveying should have picked up on these characteristics, to include the UXO, and flagged it up. Unless of course they did but IoMG were just too confident in their own knowledge and expertise to take any heed. I would personally have more faith in Lars Ugland's appraisal of the situation than anything issuing from the DOI. what ground problems exactly ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 49 minutes ago, Happier diner said: That is very possible the main issue. Combined together contributing to the massive outturn cost we have. 1. Ridiculous under estimated at the start. 2. Poor or even lack of initial investigation 3. No consideration of the scout of the thrusters and subsequent change if scope and specifications. 4. COVID 5. General underperforming of all involved. No. 2 - 110% insufficient site investigation, I don't think even ground radar was used to determine the substructure or lack thereof. I also think there was an element of pressure from either or both Peel Ports and Liverpool Council to free up the existing landing stage area for further development of the cruse terminal, which I believe is not now going to happen (or indeed if it was ever a real consideration)! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted July 22, 2023 Author Share Posted July 22, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, WTF said: what ground problems exactly ? Run up to last election, Lawrie Hooper told me that Peel Ports had had their own surveys done on the site in the past and had found it to be fraught with potential difficulties in nature. Hooper didn't expand on that but he did say that it was flagged up to DOI during lease/purchase negotiations, ie they knew full well about it. It was one of the reasons behind Peel's proposal to construct the berth they offered marginally further out the estuary rather than at Half Tide, they didn't want to get involved there. The proposed location wasn't acceptable to our powers-that-be so the decision was made to go it alone at Half Tide. Obviously things have come to pass that would appear to have vindicated Peel's outlook on the matter. Edited July 22, 2023 by Non-Believer typo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 35 minutes ago, WTF said: what ground problems exactly ? The lack of it! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 37 minutes ago, WTF said: what ground problems exactly ? It turned out that all the voids that the DoI had claimed were under the Prom had gone to live in Liverpool. (Among many other things). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 It’s the same story as the Prom. The DOI jettisoned their construction specialists to reduce headcount. The DOI then hired in clueless consultants who come up with a stratospherically shit design. The DOI plough on with the shit design, despite everyone saying it’s a shit design, because obviously the clueless consultants know best. The DOI then spends a fortune on remediation work for the shit design. The clueless consultants blame the DOI for “changing the brief”, even though the brief hasn’t changed, it’s just the initial design was shit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 22, 2023 Share Posted July 22, 2023 Ah yes, the classic: "Not my fault guv. "I got in the best people (public) money could buy!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.