caicosbeachclubowners.myfineforum.org Forum Index caicosbeachclubowners.myfineforum.org
A forum for the owners of properties at Caicos Beach Club, South Caicos
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Caicos Beach update
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 50, 51, 52  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    caicosbeachclubowners.myfineforum.org Forum Index -> Caicos Beach Club
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
gh



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 83



PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:14 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

CAICOS DIVER wrote:
gh wrote:

CD, on what basis was our money "grossly mismanaged", also what proof do you have that investors have been lied to ?


Did your contract stipulate building a partially completed resort?
Did it say they have the right to stop building until the airport is complete?
I am sure all the investors assumed it would be completed with money provided for each residence. Why are they now looking for more money?

To presume you were lied to and conclude this has been mismanaged is not much of a stretch at all.


My contract didn't have anything about hurricanes or systemic government corruption in it.

It was always the developers intention to coincide the resort completion with the airport completion, that's just sound business logic and makes complete sense. The Airport completion schedule was out of the developers hands even though they volunteered to do much of the work themselves. Our resort is a dependent project so obviously our timeline has shifted significantly.

None of the points you make indicate any actual mismanagement of funds, the money was largely used to pay staff and buy building materials. If it wasn't then you tell us what they did with it. Dont forget it forms the basis of your legal action.

As we all know the project was interrupted by extreme weather conditions and corrupt politicians which caused a significant protraction, the money ran out and they had to seek further financial backing. The developers may or may not have been transparent with their business decisions, none of us will ever know and I'm not defending that but like any business that's their prerogative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oliver



Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 122


Location: Kent, England

PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously the developer who did inject funds, and having also spent our deposits to get the building up as seen, was unable to fund further. We must remember that besides the the weather and corruption delays the world was also in the middle of a financial crisis with banks pulling back from any sort of project lending and presumably the developer was impacted on this deal and his others assets. We are still experiencing the tail of this with Scotia pulling out and needing repayment.

Not sure I expected the buildings up with just my 30% deposit but did presume the developer had funds. But who can plan for all those one-off events.

I think one needs to remember the examples of Spain & Dubai property crashes to see what can happen with these schemes. So please lets stop all the legality talk, nobody has the answers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gh



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 83



PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, CD 11.55pm on New Years Eve and you're posting on an internet forum, really ?

Investing in the Caribbean presents its own risks in terms of the possibility of extreme weather conditions. Our resort has withstood everything thrown at it. Government corruption exists the world over and isnt unique to this region. Indeed being a stable British Crown Colony (and not a sovereign country as you incorrectly stated) governed by English Common Law is a strong selling point of this entire development.

Anyone can be wise after the event and post drivel like.... "Really?? In hindsight how well did THAT "SOUND" business decision work out?? ".  That particular business decision was made with the best of intentions, clearly they cant predict the future only minimise risk.

In terms of "messing with their airport" an offer I understand was made to accelerate the airport completion which amounted to the non-specialist building work, personnel and materials, they're hardly going to volunteer to install complex radar and air traffic control equipment.

from my last post, "None of the points you make indicate any actual mismanagement of funds, the money was largely used to pay staff and buy building materials. If it wasn't then you tell us what they did with it. Don't forget it forms the basis of your legal action.". I still stand by this statement as you have yet to prove or come up with any kind of strong evidence of financial mismanagement of funds. Your lawsuit wouldn't stand up in front of Judge Judy. The onus isnt on me to prove how the money was used, how do do you thing the structures that are there right now were financed ?

The bridge rebuilding was purely a financial issue and sitting back finger pointing as to whose responsibility it is to fix it only results in unnecessary delays. The government weren't in a position to allocate the funds at the time, we were. Our developer had the necessary equipment skills and manpower to rectify the problem and did so. Get over it.

Lastly nobody has lost any money until an official decision has been made on the development so lets not get too far ahead of ourselves.

By the way I think there are a number of people on the forum interested to know if you are actually an investor or not, what's your situation CD ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gh



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 83



PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CAICOS DIVER wrote:
You can of course continue to defend this project and those in charge and stand by all their business decisions to this point. The only thing that gets you is STILL and unfinished resort that is obviously out of money and excuse after excuse of why it is not moving forward.

No matter what your opinion is, there are numerous valid reasons for filing suit with sound legal basis and standing.

So in your opinion nobody has lost any money until an "official" decision has been made? That has already been done by stating the resort will not have any more work done until the airport is complete. You along with many others just refuse to acknowledge what is reality.

BTW I remember years ago of the promises of an upgraded airport. Just because you read a recent news article that it is back on track means nothing until it is actually seen. Again, what you and many fail to see is that the airport does not need to be finished before the resort. It is nothing but an excuse........


CD I'm no apologist for the developers, in fact I've identified many of their shortcomings in previous posts. Its also no secret that the project is out of money until the new funding is finalised, when that situation changes the development will  move forward. Why are you the only person that feels the airport doesn't need to be finished prior to resort completion ? do you not think that a finished airport wouldn't be able to supply more vacationers to the report ?

I've already pointed out your speculative assumptions as to how the funds were managed and why they would form the foundations of a weak legal challenge. You still haven't divulged if you're an investor or not, if you are then (for the second time) why not get the legal ball rolling ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gh



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 83



PostPosted: Thu Jan 01, 2015 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Finished airport would of course make it more convenient however given economies of scale it makes much more business sense for the development to coincide with its completion.

I have no desire to search through your previous postings so why not make it simpler for everyone else by responding to the simple question put to you, are you an investor or not ?

being evasive on the matter simply undermines your credibility, even further.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oliver



Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 122


Location: Kent, England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If CD is an investor is has clearly made up his mind that the money is lost. His points are not unfair but just repeat what has been said beforehand by others many times. We all agree that this project has had an unhappy history but no point repeating this. IMHO I am still thankful there is something we can hope about, it could have all gone down many times in the past.

Irrespective we are where we are, importantly still with an investment until told otherwise told.

PS - We need the airport to get volume in, existing transport links won't fill our hotel or attract those wanting one-stop access.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gh



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 83



PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CAICOS DIVER wrote:
First and MOST importantly, transportation is TOTALLY irrelevant to this issue as portions of this project are only 50% complete. There is NO resort open to get guests into.

Oliver wrote:

PS - We need the airport to get volume in, existing transport links won't fill our hotel or attract those wanting one-stop access.


100% FALSE

Here are the links to flights and ferrys to South Caicos......

http://www.intercaribbean.com/winter-domestic-schedule

http://tciferry.com/south-caicos-ferry

Current weekly capacity.......approx 120 on the ferry....easily massively expandable with demand, and approx 400 with flights, again easily expandable as they have an EMB-120.

That plane currently only runs 1 flight per day to Grand Turk and could easily be used to South Caicos for many additional flights with a capacity for 30 passengers each flight.

IF the resort opened today it would not get 100% capacity for a very long time. Likely 25-50% of the 490 rooms used for a period of time would easily be accommodated with the current transportation.

There are many many travelers who need to take short inter island flights or ferry's and have no problem doing so to get where they are going.

Like I said, both your assertions are 100% FALSE and using the airport as an excuse is laughable.


Well Tony (or would you prefer Mr Harrison ?) you've chosen to evade the simple question of whether you actually have a vested interest or not in this development. Your lack of response points to a 'No'.

Completion of the airport is a vital for the European market, direct flights on bigger planes makes simple economic sense. Vacationers don't want to be hopping on to ferries or catching another flight from Provo. A completed airport forms a significant part of the resort marketing, particularly for the non-US markets. The ferry service looks great but its convenience and direct travel that interests most.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CHUCK



Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Posts: 129


Location: WINNIPEG CANADA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:28 pm    Post subject: Concept Reply with quote

Our developer originally approached the Turks Government with their concept and plans to build on South Caicos. At that time there were contracts obligating us and them to certain requirements. Some of which are pretty cool and I will share them with you all one day. The main contract was the airport expansion to fit our developers needs.
 Some of you may or may not know that our developer has a resort they built, sold units, and I believe still   manage in Florida. They bring tourists from over seas mainly England. The resort is a mile away from Disney World and fairly close to Paramount studios and the aquarium.
 The complete concept was to fly tourists to Florida to stay at that resort and visit those attractions and then fly them to South Caicos. The main selling feature of going to SC is football as well as the whole beach thing.. The idea was mostly  targeted to UK tourists. The plan was to bring parents and their children first to Disney World etc. then to our resort for football schools using football stars as a draw.
 Thus the pictures of the two footballers on the cover of our resort site and marketing. I've been told by one of our sales people that he had sold units to 60 footballers. Quite believable as I have been told they have money to burn similar to our hockey players in Canada and the US. If they had hockey schools at our resort with hockey stars teaching our resort would be sold out with Canadians alone not 25%-50%.Might be hard to keep the ice frozen though. LOL.
 So making a long story longer this is why the airport is contractually obligated by the government and being insisted upon by our developer. I'm sure this will be deemed laughable by some (or one) but it is the truth as I know it. I'm sorry I may be repeating my self on this concept story but I think its important to help understand things. It would be nice to hear from anyone else that was told similar.
 I will be sending this post out to all on my list. Hope this helps some.
   Happy New Year to all
     Chuck and Marilyn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rusty



Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 33



PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CD, I went back (over three years ago) and read your first posts and indeed you said you were only interested in renting to see if you would like to retire there. If you would have just admitted that point, people could understand your prospective better.

Pushing for a lawsuit that you would not be involved in nor at risk of loss is a completely different prospective than someone that has monetary interest.

When you didn't fess up you became a disingenuous scammer of sorts in my opinion. You should have reiterated the point that you are not vested in this project.

It does explain why you believe the airport is not relevant though.


Last edited by Rusty on Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gh



Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 83



PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CAICOS DIVER wrote:
gh......I see you have resorted to posting personal info on a public website......how illegal and sad and pathetic of you. You find yourself on the losing end of a discussion and resort to despicable childish behavior. Try acting your age instead of your shoe size.........


Tony,

Personal information ?, your true identity ?. That's hardly against the law in a public internet forum. There's nothing libelous here, you were simply asked a straightforward question which, for for some bizarre reason decided to evade. If I'm wrong then I'll keep an eye out for my extradition papers. Its highly unlikely I'll be spending the next 60 years in the 'State Pen' with an ISIS cellmate. If this is the extent of your legal prowess then good luck with the other futile action that you're trying to encourage on here.

I think anyone who follows football wont be taking these particular players endorsements seriously, they're both quite unpopular in their own right. Without wishing to bore anyone that doesn't follow UK football there's more than a bit of history between these two players (involving a racial slur) to the extent that they wont even share a pre-match handshake.

Congratulations for pointing out the fact that the resort isn't even finished (yet), I'm sure there are few investors who aren't already aware of this. The developers have their own marketing people so sorry to disappoint but I'm not on the payroll. I have just as many misgivings about their conduct and where they've fallen well short as anyone else on this forum. As for being on the losing end of an argument you haven't come back with anything credible to date.

Nobody made the assertion that there wasn't transportation to the island, in terms of convenience vacationers don't want to waste expensive holiday time making the extra flight / boat trip (and all the additional waiting around that this entails) to SC. It makes the marketing much more effective if they can boast direct flights (especially from Europe).

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    caicosbeachclubowners.myfineforum.org Forum Index -> Caicos Beach Club All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 50, 51, 52  Next
Page 51 of 52

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum