Otis
Well-Known Member
Maybe CA will turn up to this one and all the other parties won't.
Many on here then can't complain can they!
Maybe CA will turn up to this one and all the other parties won't.Glad they've done this. I guess we're seeing the real reason CA cancelled the meeting now. Oh, the duplicity hey Grendull.
CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likelyI don't know if I'm behind the info here but does that not include the commitment on the Indoor pitch usage that has been lacking?
CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
God, that was a pathetic dig for no reason whatsoever. You've got issuesDon't think so. If there is a proposal then send it through. Perhaps Armybike can e mail them and ask what these normal commercial terms are,
I'm sure he'd get a response - it's only CCFC that ignore his little e mails isn't it?
You'd expect such an offer to be in writing to cover both parties (granted a meeting may help agree some of the terms). Not the obvious after-thought like it is here.CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
Agree it looks like an afterthought, but is also after the meeting CA should have turned up at.You'd expect such an offer to be in writing to cover both parties (granted a meeting may help agree some of the terms). Not the obvious after-thought like it is here.
God, that was a pathetic dig for no reason whatsoever. You've got issues
For those who can't access the link here's a summary :finger:The agents response to the objection.
Agree it looks like an afterthought, but is also after the meeting CA should have turned up at.
No, I meant in general, you've got issues. You clearly revel in playing the pantomime villain on here, but I think it makes you look like a bit of a tool.With Armybike? A poster with many friends on the council. No of course I haven't.
Like I said. I think we're seeing the real reason CA didn't attend.
I can't open it, but are you saying it is basically this...For those who can't access the link here's a summary :finger:
No, I meant in general, you've got issues. You clearly revel in playing the pantomime villain on here, but I think it makes you look like a bit of a tool.
What about the ones about turning up to meetings? No issue with those digs?God, that was a pathetic dig for no reason whatsoever. You've got issues
I was thinking more along the lines that outdoor pitches will be lost to accommodate the kicking barn and that could be deemed an erosion of the green fields on the site and therefore contravene the original planning approval.
I struggled tooI can't open it, but are you saying it is basically this...
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
So how can wasps offer it us then? So more mistruths by the agent and wasps. They seem to be making it up as they go along. It kind of suggests why the Anderson wants stuff in writingI struggled too
Again I don't know if it was out there before but the indoor is available through the week for 3hrs per day after the hours of 3-00 pm
To be arranged through CSF not Wasps
Indoor barn will be Wasps owned, other facilities owned by CSFSo how can wasps offer it us then? So more mistruths by the agent and wasps.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Oh, they mean the existing not the barn? I can't open the link.Indoor barn will be Wasps owned, other facilities owned by CSF
Now I'm confused!CA's point was that it wasn't 'normal commercial terms' and that it had been offered after the email from Oxalis to the Council. His claim that normal commercial terms should include length of contract, break clauses etc. Stuff that can be worked out in a meeting most likely
Haven't they said a pool is going where the existing one is?Oh, they mean the existing not the barn? I can't open the link.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
That's what the objection said, its just paper talk no discussions or decisions have been had re the existing one behind replaced (yes we know that's a done deal too).Haven't they said a pool is going where the existing one is?
Standard isn't it?That's what the objection said, its just paper talk no discussions or decisions have been had re the existing one behind replaced (yes we know that's a done deal too).
Wasps and agents are on the PR offensive.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
That's what the objection said, its just paper talk no discussions or decisions have been had re the existing one behind replaced (yes we know that's a done deal too).
Wasps and agents are on the PR offensive.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
To be fair that should be standard contract basis. I didn't read that he was requesting them, just that the normal things that would be included an offer of contract have not been discussed or put in writing, therefore they had never offered us a normal contracted use or whatever term they used.Now I'm confused!
Something we're desperate to secure to guarantee our viability, yet requesting break clauses.
Now I'm confused!
Something we're desperate to secure to guarantee our viability, yet requesting break clauses.
Spot on. I really don't know what commercial lawyers SISU are speaking with but they would of advised them this isn't a basis for an objection. Probably the same numpties who they use for other matters...Planning matters include
Planning matters do not include
- how it fits in with the adopted Development Plan
- how the proposal fits in terms of design and use with the surroundings
- the effect on sunlight and daylight on neighbouring properties
- the loss of privacy to neighbouring properties
- the effect on parking, traffic and road safety
- noise and general disturbance to nearby residents' land
- ownership disputes
- personal circumstances or character of the person
- spoiling your view
- rights to light
- devaluing your property
- moral issues
- covenants affecting properties
- nuisance caused by building work
Awaits the thread getting hammered...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?