Sandals Thread!

[Melchizedek]

Occupancy: 1000 rooms (80%)
Contribution: US$700 p/n (40% costs)
Profit sharing: ?

Feasible but is this realistic?

[Redman]

But we haven't reached the stage of having anything to fund.

You can't determine anything based on the MOU.

And this is my main issue.
You have already decided it isn't worth it....even though we all know zero in terms of the details needed to make that decision.
The MOU is too general to use in that manner.

Gortt can raise funding from anywhere.
At this point it remains unknown whether and how it would be funded.

Actually every single thing we needed to know was in that MOU, hence the extraordinary lengths the GORTT went to to keep it from US. The funding that the GORTT can "raise from anywhere" was going to be paid for by US......ALONE! Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting Sandals for seeking the most beneficial terms for themselves. My issue is with those who decided without telling us the details, that it was best for us. My issue is with a Minister in the GORTT sitting with a foreign company to announce their pull out and berating US for it.

I maintain that the detail that we all need, is NOT in the 9 page MOU.

I will also say that the detail-feasibility study, sizing,design,commercial arrangements,financing arrangements,profit sharing,concessions,local content rules, immigration rules, and taxation rules,infrastructure design and cost are all part of whether this is worth it or not.
None of these have been determined beyond the generalized framework of the MOU

The GORTT has ballzed up this process....start to finish.
That ballzing up is separate and distinct from the viability of the project.

I think properly done, it would be beneficial to the TnT tourism.

[sMASH]

pnm ballz up the country by saying 'ya kno, i could run this sh##... i goin and tell the queen to rock so... in the mornin'

[zoom rader]

pnm ballz up the country by saying 'ya kno, i could run this sh##... i goin and tell the queen to rock so... in the mornin'

I warned you all.

[RedVEVO]

^^

Hyatt is a PNM pick up bar .

The Sunday Lunch buffet is only fit for my Rottweilers.

[Redman]

The_Honourable"

Redman... you willing to go thru the MOU and tell us how it benefits T&T? Which is what Afra Raymond wants answered? Or you going to stick to the "MOU is nuh a big ting", "It eh legal", "is a lil agreement", "yuh cyah kno nuttin from ah mou", "dey eh get info yet to say what dey guh do", "look how sandals big on tv" like what pnm sycophants on fb spouting since Sandals gone?

Maybe you can say what is so negative in the MOU.

Clause 5 lays out what GORTT hopes to get-in general terms.
B-states that Sandals will give preference to local inputs etc etc etc


Elsewhere the MOU says that this MOU is not legally binding, but indicates the INTENT to get into a legally binding arrangement.

Further there is a confidentiality clause that requires written consent to disclose

No matter how you try to spin it, Growlers, Younglings and Butch wanted that MOU secret from the public. If it wasn't a big deal, why hide it until Afra reach to court?

They might have been wrong on that
-Maybe because its likely that people will extrapolate and assume the wrong things-and insist on getting data that is not decided upon??
-Maybe the court removes the liability of disclosure from either party?

Based on the intentions stated in the MOU, an agreement and contract would have been reached leaving the public out on its details. Those agreements and future financials would also remain secret from the public just like Hyatt, Hilton and Magdalena Grand agreements and financials

.
See above on assumptions.
It would have been more useful to all of us to put the pressure on at that time-so that we force proper execution, or on the assessment of proper info-prevent the deal from happening.

Btw... since Growlers say we don't have money cause kamla spend out everything and hence he need to borrow, that means taxpayers would have been saddled paying off any sandals loan. Very high chance he would have went to the chinese to get it.

-Saddled indicates that it is not a good opportunity-the premature conclusion,in absence of details.

If as you assume the deal is favorable to Sandals in an extreme way then why would Sandals (being the evil money satan that they are) walk away from the free lunch???

[De Dragon]

But we haven't reached the stage of having anything to fund.

You can't determine anything based on the MOU.

And this is my main issue.
You have already decided it isn't worth it....even though we all know zero in terms of the details needed to make that decision.
The MOU is too general to use in that manner.

Gortt can raise funding from anywhere.
At this point it remains unknown whether and how it would be funded.

Actually every single thing we needed to know was in that MOU, hence the extraordinary lengths the GORTT went to to keep it from US. The funding that the GORTT can "raise from anywhere" was going to be paid for by US......ALONE! Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting Sandals for seeking the most beneficial terms for themselves. My issue is with those who decided without telling us the details, that it was best for us. My issue is with a Minister in the GORTT sitting with a foreign company to announce their pull out and berating US for it.

I maintain that the detail that we all need, is NOT in the 9 page MOU.

I will also say that the detail-feasibility study, sizing,design,commercial arrangements,financing arrangements,profit sharing,concessions,local content rules, immigration rules, and taxation rules,infrastructure design and cost are all part of whether this is worth it or not.
None of these have been determined beyond the generalized framework of the MOU

The GORTT has ballzed up this process....start to finish.
That ballzing up is separate and distinct from the viability of the project.

I think properly done, it would be beneficial to the TnT tourism.

Ah, but when Goebbels sat shoulder to shoulder with Rainer to side with him against his own people, there was no such opinion put forth, and none subsequently for that matter, only stupid partisan sheit about "those who seek to get back in power" and "agendas" and sheit.
If the MOU couldn't pass the smell test, what were the chances of any contract?

[toyolink]

Chairman of Sandals Resorts International, Gordon Stewart, says it is up to the Trinidad and Tobago government to release information on the Tobago Sandals project.

in other words, mind your own effin business.

This where the whole thing was ear marked for the rubbish bin.

[Redman]

@Dragon
I agree -the communication was ballzed up.

however communication should be a derivative of the facts.
So
You tell me what about the MOU cant past the smell test.

[Melchizedek]

Occupancy: 1000 rooms (80%)
Contribution: US$700 p/n (40% costs)
Profit sharing: ?

Feasible but is this realistic?

Delve into these numbers deeper.

To maintain an occupancy rate of 80%, sandals would have needed an estimated 43,200 millionaire or faux millionaire couples to indulge in the project for at least 1 week per year.

That is 86,400 5-star tourist arrivals per annum.

That is almost double the expected 35 cruise ships arriving in 2018/2019 to tobago carrying a total of 45,000 tourists.

That is an increase of 22% of visitor arrivals for the whole of Trinidad and Tobago. GDP Annual Growth Rate in Trinidad and Tobago averaged 2.96 percent from 1991 until 2018. Don't have the figures for Tobago but according to a report from the Trinidad Hotel Restaurants and Tourism Association, international tourist arrivals to TT stood at 394, 650 in 2017, a drop from 408,782 in 2016, and 439,749 in 2015.

As an ambitious small country I would hope that this is not impossible... pragmatically it will be very challenging given our socio-economic circumstances and stiff Caribbean competition.

Clearly our politicking does not inspire the confidence to sell the tobago destination concept to the international market.

[De Dragon]

@Dragon
I agree -the communication was ballzed up.

however communication should be a derivative of the facts.
So
You tell me what about the MOU cant past the smell test.

Primarily, the Omerta like silence by the GORTT, but there was also the no-risk option that Sandals was to be granted along with the 25 year tax, custom duty exemptions. I know an MOU is significantly different from a signed, legally binding contract, but again, NO ONE from the normally loquacious Goebbels Young, to JUHN Scarfy has said, or even tried to explain how they were at least going to approach the negotiations. Added to the never ending stream of lies (Mottley's involvement) and the secrecy, makes me think that the MOU was going to rubber stamp the negotiation, rather than be the base point for it.

[zoom rader]

These fuvkers come here all wanting tax concessions while everyday workers have to pay taxes and fund these jackarses for their profit.

[Redman]

@Dragon
I agree -the communication was ballzed up.

however communication should be a derivative of the facts.
So
You tell me what about the MOU cant past the smell test.

Primarily, the Omerta like silence by the GORTT, but there was also the no-risk option that Sandals was to be granted along with the 25 year tax, custom duty exemptions. I know an MOU is significantly different from a signed, legally binding contract, but again, NO ONE from the normally loquacious Goebbels Young, to JUHN Scarfy has said, or even tried to explain how they were at least going to approach the negotiations. Added to the never ending stream of lies (Mottley's involvement) and the secrecy, makes me think that the MOU was going to rubber stamp the negotiation, rather than be the base point for it.

Communication failure leading your assumptions.

Those concessions would be on the back of the benefits TnT expected.... justifying the concessions,
you ignored the expectations on our side..that naturally balance the equation.
Theoretically.Since all of this is to be determined

[The_Honourable]

Have fun Redman. Afra explains it better and much more indepth than I can.

Arrangement – The MoU is not legally binding and is an outline of the intentions of the parties, who will enter Heads of Agreement (HoA); Technical Services Agreement (TSA) to stipulate the development standards and the parties’ roles; and a Management Agreement for the operation of the Resorts. The State’s interest is via Golden Grove Buccoo Ltd, which is the new State Enterprise established for this project. These main agreements will be for 25 years with an option to renew for a further term of 15 years. Of course, we do not know the contents of those agreements, but those terms are crucial to understanding this deal. What is the Business Case? Have projections been prepared?

Investment – “…All costs of constructing and outfitting the Resorts in a ‘Ready-for-Guest’ state including the cost of the soft and grand openings shall be for the account of the Government…” (clause 8 on pg 6). Although there are specific provisions for private equity financing, it is still arranged so that the State has to repay. That means that only Public Money is to be invested and placed at risk in this project. New wave Public Private Partnership. I tell you.

Incentives and Exemptions – Sandals is to get incentives and concessions as per clause 8 on pg 4. I consider that proposal to be against the public interest. Given that we are investing all the capital, how are we to get a return on that investment, if there are further concessions/incentives granted to the hotelier? But there are not only questions as to the rationale for these incentives/exemptions. The MoU seeks to insulate Sandals from all risk.

Level-up clauses – At clause H on pg 7, if any subsequent resort development is granted better incentives/exemptions/tax benefits those shall also be extended to Sandals by the Government. So Sandals is to have the best terms for its full stay here.

Non-Discrimination – At clause C on pg 6, the Government agrees not to establish any special law, regulations, rules or policy applicable only to Sandals, its creditors, guests or employees. That seems to me to be an attempt to contract-out of the reach of the future needs of public policy or indeed the will of the legislature and entirely unacceptable.

Tax Stability – The MoU appears to innoculate Sandals from any future impact in terms of changes in taxes, concessions or other incentives. At clause D (between pages 6 & 7) the State gives an undertaking to stabilise the tax regime applicable to Sandals, which discloses two points. Firstly, the tax regime applicable to Sandals will be different to that which is applicable to other investors. If that were not under discussion, why else would it be included as a point in this compact document? Secondly, can we negate the sovereign right of Parliament to tax the nation? Can we contract-out of the Social Contract?

Transfer Pricing – Transfer-pricing is widely-used by multi-nationals to shift earnings to low-tax countries so as to deny the countries in which the actual wealth is generated. Interestingly-enough, those types of detrimental transfer-pricing arrangements are expressly facilitated in this MoU at clause B (1) at page 5 in which “…The Government acknowledges that Sandals intends to establish subsidiaries, affiliates or associate companies to hold the Management Agreement, operate the Resorts and to otherwise perform its role…”.

We need open-book accounting provisions and limits on the intra-company transactions which engender transfer-pricing. Open-book accounting is a well-accepted approach which would allow us to end the decades of secrecy on the terms and performance of the existing State-owned hotels by normalising the access to and publication of that data.

Risk-Free investment – The project designs are being prepared by Sandals architects and in the event that the project does not proceed for any reason, all those fees are to be repaid by the State. (clause 6 on pg 4) Sandals is placing no money at risk.

Employment – Despite clause B5 at pg 6 stating that Sandals shall “…employ qualified T&T nationals…” there are further provisions which allow the employer to decide on staff “…at its sole discretion, be the final determinant regarding the suitability for employment of all candidate employees…such that the standard of the brands can be attained and maintained…” (clause 10 at pg 4). The next two clauses state that the Government will expeditiously grant as many work permits as are required.

Environmental aspects – Sandals is to “…meet all locally acceptable environmental standards and requirements in all phases of the operation of the Resorts…” (clause 4 on pg 6).

Agricultural and other inputs – According to clauses 6 & 7 on pg 6, Sandals is to ‘give preference to purchasing‘ local agricultural and other inputs, subject to the proviso that these are available in adequate quantity, quality and at comparable prices.

I am also concerned that the MoU included a Confidentiality Clause as its penultimate item. Why the need to underwrite secrecy, especially since it is now published and the deal is proceeding.

Source: https://afraraymond.net/2018/12/05/prop ... ndals-mou/

[The_Honourable]

Then we also have this:

[Redman]

I am having fun.

The fact remains that AR is correct.
His questions remain valid but unanswered and in some cases unanswerable since they are points of negotiation...as yet unstarted...or at least unpublished.
This negotiation's net result will be the deciding factor in the Good/bad determination.

We don't know.

Not knowing at this stage is ok......IF we force/demand/expect these issues to be properly explored when the project reaches that point.

Not knowing NOW is not a reason to discontinue.

[The_Honourable]

And Redman, to your points...

1. The opportunity "sounds" good until you dig in. Where do you think the money for sandals would have came from to start the project? The treasury? Obviously not because in the Powerpoint, Growlers said that we have to borrow to spend on projects... therefore it was a very HIGH chance he would have taken a loan further weakening our financial position.

2. Even if people did extrapolate and assume the wrong things, is it not the job of the Government to clarify and state the truth so that we the public can buy into the project? Are you saying the Government would have been unable to answer and rebut questions? What the government have a communications department for?

3. If yuh transparent, why we in court? Better yet, if yuh transparent, why you agree to a non-disclosure clause?

4. Put pressure on at the time? The pressure was there yuh know. The deal went south when the MOU became public and GORTT can't defend it. In Growlers 3hr rant last week, he never defended the MOU clause by clause.

5. While the free lunch is enticing, maybe Sandals realize that GORTT would have issues executing their part of the deal? (Growlers couldn't block the MOU). We do have an abysmal history when it comes to state projects and maybe they wanted more control. Can't get it now because MOU gone public, environmentalists asking questions, Tobagonian hoteliers asking how they not getting these sweet deals... plus election less than 2 years away and if a new party comes, high chance they might come down on the project, the BS exposed and the sandals brand get outed?

[assassin]

All of this MOU and negotiation etc etc is after the fact

How did we arrive at "Sandals" earmarked for No Man's Land?

Were EOIs issued or were international commercial resort operators invited to submit proposals to GORTT for the development of a resort at said location, lands to be provided by GORTT???

[sMASH]

same thing with the cancellation of the superfast: PATT change specs and change specs on the tender, until they pull out, cabinet come and blame PATT for corruption in tender/selection process, take it upon them selves to source boat, ocean flower 2 came and went inside that, and now we have donna mercedes. a damaged before commission, rejected river boat servicing a sea route, though the bocas.

[Redman]

1) the terms would be the basis for the GOTT take on this deal.
Crappy terms will not support financing.
The acid test would really be how interested the private sector is at the point where a term sheet is created.

2
Yep it's the GORTt responsibility to properly communicate.I don't know if poor comms is a reason to lose an opportunity .

3
All MOUs of this nature have confidentiality clauses.

4
Again comms and I will say a premature push for info.

5
Maybe Sandal's was speaking the truth. To them the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

We need to be an attractive destination for foreign and local investment...the public has their part to play.

[The_Honourable]

All of this MOU and negotiation etc etc is after the fact

How did we arrive at "Sandals" earmarked for No Man's Land?

Were EOIs issued or were international commercial resort operators invited to submit proposals to GORTT for the development of a resort at said location, lands to be provided by GORTT???

Well that was one of the 1st questions that came out back in 2016. Even though it was not illegal to choose via sole source selection, Growlers never properly defended his choice in Sandals. He only made a good case for it last week in his rant.

[RedVEVO]

Growley is a con artist .

He beg Sandals .. then when time to put out he decide to pull up his diaper and run .

Sandals will want tax free concessions with no protection and no vaseline .

[The_Honourable]

Hosein: Gov't needs to review what led Sandals to leave

Economist Dr Roger Hosein says the government needs to review what led Sandals to withdraw from the Tobago project before it approaches other investors.




Days after Sandals announced its exit from Tobago, a Caribbean tourism expert says Tobago is a sleeping giant in the regional tourism market.

The Caribbean hotel and tourism association also believes there was misinformation about the project, saying tax incentives are not giveaways.

All this as the prime minister is forced to take back a statement he made over Wendell Mottley being appointed to be part of the Sandals project.

[zoom rader]

Another PMM con job

[teems1]

Investment – “…All costs of constructing and outfitting the Resorts in a ‘Ready-for-Guest’ state including the cost of the soft and grand openings shall be for the account of the Government…” (clause 8 on pg 6). Although there are specific provisions for private equity financing, it is still arranged so that the State has to repay. That means that only Public Money is to be invested and placed at risk in this project. New wave Public Private Partnership. I tell you.

Honestly, I could live with plenty of the concessions that were going to Sandals.

However the cost of construction and outfitting to be the taxpayer's burden is a deal breaker. That project was going to cost billions upfront and then even more due to delays/corruption/nepotism/kickbacks.

Sandals is a billion dollar company. Them trying to put the initial risk/investment on taxpayers while privatizing profits is rank stupidity.

The amount of time it would have taken to recoup that investment, it's cheaper to pay the Tobago residents welfare.

[Redman]

So the head of CHTA says its unfortunate that Sandals left, too much mis information and that concessions have to be contextualizes against the benefits-and that even NY state offers tax concessions to lure new investment.

[88sins]

so, this geriatric version of Howard Wolowitz says
"these are not giveaways, they invest a tremendous amount of money in the development of the infrastructure" & that this happens "in developed countries all over the world, even in New York"

he eh see/read that MOU

Tax concessions are normal, but only if you spend you money, not if you want to insist the gov't spend public funds

[teems1]

so, this geriatric version of Howard Wolowitz says
"these are not giveaways, they invest a tremendous amount of money in the development of the infrastructure" & that this happens "in developed countries all over the world, even in New York"

he eh see/read that MOU

Tax concessions are normal, but only if you spend you money, not if you want to insist the gov't spend public funds

Many NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA/MLS stadiums are built using taxpayers funds. The profits usually end up in the franchise owner's pockets and they often threaten to move their team elsewhere.

The taxpayers begrudgingly take on this burden because they get a sports team in their city,

A resort is different beast, as mostly tourists would utilize it.

[pugboy]

I laugh when I heard him on the news last night

so, this geriatric version of Howard Wolowitz says
"these are not giveaways, they invest a tremendous amount of money in the development of the infrastructure" & that this happens "in developed countries all over the world, even in New York"

he eh see/read that MOU

Tax concessions are normal, but only if you spend you money, not if you want to insist the gov't spend public funds

[Miktay]

The CEO of Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association, Frank Comito, iz being intellectually dishonest.

When a US city offers concessions to factories or sports teams to locate operations in a jurisdiction most concessions are known quantities...even if theyre estimates.

The Sandals pullout was less about misinformation than it was about public disclosure and transparency. The public demanded to know details of the deal but the particulars were difficult to obtain. Afra Raymond had to threaten court action to have the MOU details released.

Thiz was prior GORTT modus operandi for forin investment. For eg. you cant find out the price of gas for some of the Pt. Lisas plants. Its not in the public domain. Its a State secret.

Contrast this with the case of the Miami soccer stadium. Note that Miami politrics iz notoriously corrupt. Yet residents of Miami got to vote on the proposal.

David Beckham's Miami Soccer Stadium Receives Public Vote

David Beckham's Freedom Park and Soccer Village proposal for Miami has received the public vote supporting the project. Designed by Arquitectonica, the proposal to bring a soccer club to the city has been under development for over five and a half years. The Miami public voted in favor of building the 25,000-seat stadium, community park and public soccer facilities. While negotiation with city officials is still needed, if approved, the project would create a home for the new Internaćional de Fútbol Miami soccer club.

The design for Beckham's stadium would transform the former site of Melreese Country Club next to Miami International Airport. The proejct would include a 23-hectare park, 25,000-seat stadium, commercial spaces and a hotel. As Beckham stated, "I started this dream five and a half years ago to bring a team to Miami, to bring a team to this great city." Internaćional de Fútbol Miami may begin playing as early as 2020, and would be the new major soccer club for Florida after Miami Fusion stopped in 2001.

The team owners would pay 4 to 5 million in rent to the city annually and pay state, county, city and school board taxes on 73 acres of rezoned land, an estimated 44 million in new annual taxes across all jurisdictions. Renderings for the development show the park running along the east side of the property, while retail and restaurant space would take a central position on the site next to the public soccer fields. The proposal also includes a new lake within the proposed parkland.

If negotiations with Miami are successful, the Freedom Park and Soccer Village is slated for completion in 2021.

https://www.archdaily.com/906406/david- ... ublic-vote