The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


The Clause on Property Prices set at 74 Prices.

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby YFred » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:04 pm

But who, it can only be GC side or the TC side. No individual can be blamed for this. It's the team. The question is which one?
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby iceman » Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:13 pm

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.
iceman
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Originally from Limassol now living in Kyrenia

Postby YFred » Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:17 pm

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.
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby iceman » Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:54 pm

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
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Originally from Limassol now living in Kyrenia

Postby Oracle » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:03 pm

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?


Whilst you explain your ridiculous claim to iceman ... kindly also explain your view of "Turkish lands in the south" ....
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Get Real! » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:07 pm

Y-Fronts should stop posting his rubbish altogether…
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 48333
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Postby Oracle » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:13 pm

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 :lol:
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby YFred » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:21 pm

I can't discus things with people who discuss castration on this forum on account that they are so shallow.

If either of you know the answer, enlighten us. If not. You know w hat to do.

Regarding lands. Plenty of TC' with land in Limasol Larnaca and all that dearest. Should have a Said TC instead of Turkish and did that upset your little greek mind my dear.
I do apologise for my mistake of huge importance to you. I forgot how you are stickler for correct geography and grammar.

Also GR can enlighten us where he stands on the Turkish Army issue, today.
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby YFred » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:23 pm

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?


1 donum of Limasol or Larnaka land is worth a lot more than 1 donum of Karpas land. Very simple.
I take it you have no idea who suggested it then?
Last edited by YFred on Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby Get Real! » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:32 pm

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 :lol:

:lol:

I'd like to see a special, more serious CyProb area, restricted to say 3..5 members from each side being selected democratically to represent their side, to tackle a range of issues.

The current “free for all” CyProb section standard keeps going rock-bottom and one has to wade through tons of crap to get to an interesting piece. Some people can’t even bloody spell! You’d think that good communication skills would be a bare minimum in here let alone everything else… :roll:
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 48333
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests