The Trust did ask WNC this question and this is a quote from the reply
"On the ‘no stand, no land’ point, it is correct, and was noted at the meeting, that the Council has moved on this point as the process of negotiation and offers developed.
It was not a change that the council sought, but was a change in the terms of the higher CDNL offer"
The thing is, when it comes to the detailed negotiations of the contract (I.e. beyond the HoT stage) you have to have a bit of give and take. I used to work with a lady who was a master negotiator. The first time I reviewed a contract with her I was amazed. She altered just about every term in our favour and then sent an amended copy back to them. It was a huge international IT company we were dealing with and I commented that they would never agree to 90% of what we were asking for. No, she said, I know.
When we reviewed the contract with them, sure enough, one by one they refused to change most of the points and we relented. Then we got to the bit we really wanted changed. No, they said, can't do it.
"Oh come on, you need to give some ground on some of our points, my friend replied "we've backed down on
all these other points..."
And do you know what? They did. She got exactly what she wanted from the deal by requesting and then backing down on all these things she didn't really care about just so she could win the one point she really did care about. They even managed to sound magnanimous about acquiescing to her on it!
My point is, it doesn't help in negotiations to have all your cards on the table from the off. That way you have something to give in return for all the other stuff you want changing. Maybe that's why they wanted the guarantee about the ground removed from the HoT documents, because as bargaining chips go, that's a whopper!!
