Hi there! On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:05:36 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > On 26/10/12 09:53, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote: >>> =================================================== >>> = Meeting Le Camp 20121025 (heiserhorn and gismo) = >>> >>> == General discussion == >>> * They likes the project. >>> * They do not like the idea of other venues investigation at this time >>> of the discussion. >>> >> Because they feel betrayed or because they feel there is still room for >> negotations or because they just don't understand that we cannot afford >> their current offer? >> >> > > I would like to know more about the context of this comment - did > someone tell them another option has been proposed, or had they > discovered it themselves? We told them that we were again evaluating other options because of budget concerns. Please note that they were aware from the very first meeting that before the bid we looked for various possibilities, which at that time included cities (Genève, Lausanne and Zürich) and similar resorts (Fiesch and Melchtal). > It may be worth emphasizing to them that (a) the option wasn't located > by those negotiating with Le Camp, and (b) it only arose when we started > to have serious budget concerns, not just to try and shave 5% off the > price or some other gimmick. Point a is useless: they clearly understood since the beginning that they are not negotiating with a single person, but with a project. Point b is IMHO useless as well: the serious budget concerns have never started lately, but it was there since the beginning, check the budget in the bid. This is why they were very surprised that we still have not confirmed sponsors. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgpukLYJdqcX5.pgp
Description: PGP signature