Bigunks. Nobody is saying that EOPL are directly involved with...

Bigunks. Nobody is saying that EOPL are directly involved with the MLA.
BUT, the TO agreement MUST include details of employment and training , apart from compensation. As EOPL are doing ALL the WORK, they will be the ones that are supplying the labour and that's where the employment and training comes in.
LNY won't have ANY workers to employ or to train, they only have to come up with the compensation and we saw that they couldn't negotiate that with the Landowners without having to go through the legal processes and just avoided going to the Land Court.
So, while we have absolutely no knowledge as to what stage the negotiations with the TOs has reached, who is to say that it is the compensation or the training and employment that is holding up the process? Until we know that, BOTH EOPL and LNY are suspects and EOPL does have to provide the latter terms that have to be agreed to by the TOs and to be part of the MLA.
And can anyone here tell me that the deal with EOPL is not a screaming ripper for them? They are practically an equal j/v partner without all the responsibilities that go with it.
The deal with LNY is their forte, their job, what they do! And not surprisingly, they have already signed off on it.
BUT, they are part of the TO agreement whether they like it or not. I'm sure that EOPL are delighted with the terms of their agreement with LNY and equally certain that they know what's involved with TO agreements.
The fact that LNY has not confided in any way with its shareholders suggests that the only problem is not with the TOs who have a great deal to gain by signing the agreement. EOPL has a great deal to gain by the ML and, indirectly, the TO agreement, so, is it just LNY management that is screwing up with the compensation bit like they did with the landowners?? They've got form!!!