bill cobbett wrote:I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.
iceman wrote:bill cobbett wrote:I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.
I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.
YFred wrote:iceman wrote:bill cobbett wrote:I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.
I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.
I take the opposite view. Since the TC negotiating team personally had nothing to lose, as it was Denktases cronies that benefitted from the Cyprus problem, and coupled with the fact that there was no change of guards from the GC side, also taking into account the actual values of land where the Turkish lands in the south were valued much more than the GC lands in the north, It would be more davantages for the GC to suggest it.
But perhaps the real reason it was put there was to shoot the plan in the foot.
So the GC's would vote no.
But someone out there must now who suggested it and is not letting on.
iceman wrote:YFred wrote:iceman wrote:bill cobbett wrote:I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.
I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.
I take the opposite view. Since the TC negotiating team personally had nothing to lose, as it was Denktases cronies that benefitted from the Cyprus problem, and coupled with the fact that there was no change of guards from the GC side, also taking into account the actual values of land where the Turkish lands in the south were valued much more than the GC lands in the north, It would be more davantages for the GC to suggest it.
But perhaps the real reason it was put there was to shoot the plan in the foot.
So the GC's would vote no.
But someone out there must now who suggested it and is not letting on.
do you care to explain what you base your above claim highlighted in red?
iceman wrote:YFred wrote:iceman wrote:bill cobbett wrote:I suspect that those who put it in to the foul plan were those who would have had to pay for it and so it was in their interests to keep the cost down to this ridiculous minimum.
I agree...My guess is that since it is the TC side holding more than their share and will eventually have to pay compensation,then it is highly likely that this absurd clause could have been proposed by the TC side.
I take the opposite view. Since the TC negotiating team personally had nothing to lose, as it was Denktases cronies that benefitted from the Cyprus problem, and coupled with the fact that there was no change of guards from the GC side, also taking into account the actual values of land where the Turkish lands in the south were valued much more than the GC lands in the north, It would be more davantages for the GC to suggest it.
But perhaps the real reason it was put there was to shoot the plan in the foot.
So the GC's would vote no.
But someone out there must now who suggested it and is not letting on.
do you care to explain what you base your above claim highlighted in red?
Oracle wrote:Get Real! wrote:Y-Fronts should stop posting his rubbish altogether…
I'd venture to say there should be a clause to posting in CyProb, but I may be signing my own death warrant
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests