Clucking Stunts
- Thread starter Andydevon
- Start date
Sponsored Links
We don't know what the contract says, somyou are making rather a lot of assumptions.
EU paid $400 million upfront, so it seems rather unlikely their would be no detailed contract.
Sponsored Links
Yes but also I very much doubt AZ would enter a contract that garunteed x by x date.
Notice how the EU aren't going after Pfizer whom they have a much bigger contract with and they paid much more money to who have also had production set backs.. but so happen to be German.
Having read the interview with az and comparing that to the language being used by the EU it is apparent that the EU I know who I would believe.
Anyone ever had one of them shouty customers who just have zero reasoning ability, and no matter how much fact or evidence you put in front of them to state reasons for delays they just aren't satisfied and no matter what you do you will always be the bum hole... That's the EU and AZ.
More like Big Brother. From what I have read, and hopefully understand, the EU paid a large sum upfront for vaccine supplies but they were told they would not be supplied until the infrastructure was correctly in place and ready to run. They have failed to put it in place in the 3 months they said they would whereas the UK has. AZ have said they will not up their supplies until those conditions are met because they vaccine couldn't be stored correctly for the maximum time that is allowed for it to be stored before it became unviable. AZ are therefore supplying to those customers who can use their quotas in the required time frame.
It's a customer that paid $400 million upfront
Until the contract is in the public domain we don't know the truth
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Precisely. Those comments from conny, sxturbo, munroist, lower, et al, are purely and simply their own speculation, or biased speculation that they have read and have accepted due to their own cognitive bias.
We do not know what was in the contract. There is a non-diisclosure clause in the contract so EU cannot publish it. AZ can publish and I understand that discussions are ongoing about what should/will be redacted.
Additionally, AZ are/were inexperienced in this field.
If AZ over-promised and under-delivered, they are contactually at fault. If EU misunderstood the contract, then they are at fault.
Where would you place your bets?
Why don't AZ publish the contract and finally expose the EU for their own failings, if that is the case?
All of these comments about product nationalisation are simply xenophobic nionsense. The disagrement is between a supplier, AZ and a customer, EU.
Unless the UK government were/are involved, it's purely a disagreement between a private supplier and a customer.
Similarly, the comments about EU blocking exports is again fake news designed to generate division. The original EU comment was about monitoring exports, not about blocking. The discussions today are about licensing exports, not about blocking exports.
well lets look at what we know, and what is actually true.
the EU spent 300 million up front not 400 million.
the money upfront was to upscale production, AZ have spent this on getting 4 plants in Europe up and running.
due to production issues, the yield from the virus spore vats is not enough to produce the quantity the EU wish for, and requires changes to process and procedures and further staff training. This is from the head man @ AZ.
AZ say they only have a best effort contract, EU says they don't and AZ have misinterpreted the contract.
The EU are acting in a way that appears o be smoke and mirrors, jump and scream and make threats shout the loudest in the hope they get their own way. Only AZ have presented facts, the EU have presented only bluster and frustration. Reading the language coming from AZ and that of which coming from the EU they are polar opposites, AZ is calm and collected, EU is erratic and frustrated.
The EU have requested AZ release the contract details, but the EU could do this themselves so why haven't they? more bluster probably
Other AZ plants around the globe have all had the same upscaling issues and have faced delays, Australia being one of them, the EU is not unique in it's case.
Pfizer have reduced supplies temporarily, of which the EU had by far the most invested and i would presume they have signed a similar contract to AZ, but conveniently they have got away with the shock and aw bluster from the EU, is this because they are German? the cynic in me wants to believe this.
No company in their right mind would sign a contract guaranteeing supply when at the time the vaccine hadn't even completed trials, mass production implementation had only just started, there is other countries whom had already signed contracts and those contracts take precedence over newer contracts.
there isn't biased speculation, it is what is presented to us, and the points above have been printed in various media outlets and all say the same.
the EU spent 300 million up front not 400 million.
the money upfront was to upscale production, AZ have spent this on getting 4 plants in Europe up and running.
due to production issues, the yield from the virus spore vats is not enough to produce the quantity the EU wish for, and requires changes to process and procedures and further staff training. This is from the head man @ AZ.
AZ say they only have a best effort contract, EU says they don't and AZ have misinterpreted the contract.
The EU are acting in a way that appears o be smoke and mirrors, jump and scream and make threats shout the loudest in the hope they get their own way. Only AZ have presented facts, the EU have presented only bluster and frustration. Reading the language coming from AZ and that of which coming from the EU they are polar opposites, AZ is calm and collected, EU is erratic and frustrated.
The EU have requested AZ release the contract details, but the EU could do this themselves so why haven't they? more bluster probably
Other AZ plants around the globe have all had the same upscaling issues and have faced delays, Australia being one of them, the EU is not unique in it's case.
Pfizer have reduced supplies temporarily, of which the EU had by far the most invested and i would presume they have signed a similar contract to AZ, but conveniently they have got away with the shock and aw bluster from the EU, is this because they are German? the cynic in me wants to believe this.
No company in their right mind would sign a contract guaranteeing supply when at the time the vaccine hadn't even completed trials, mass production implementation had only just started, there is other countries whom had already signed contracts and those contracts take precedence over newer contracts.
there isn't biased speculation, it is what is presented to us, and the points above have been printed in various media outlets and all say the same.
The EU came late to the queue at the vaccine market, demanding they be served first. It took the EU so long to decide they wanted the vaccine whereas the UK made its mind up and ordered. Now the EU has thrown the dummy out of the pram.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
UK already did.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
£'s, €'s or $'s?
There'll be a discrepancy on exchanges.
The money was for a future supply of vaccines.
I'm glad you have such insight. Perhaps more than the EU investigators, who have inspected the plant.
We can now wait for the legal eagles to inspect it and give us their version, and I don't mean them on motorcycles.
And it has worked, the contract has been published.
There's nowt like a bit of unbiased viewpoint.
And that is nothing like an ubiased viewpoint. Bam! Bam!
Sorted.
Etc, etc. #
I'm not going through all your nonsense post.
Except perhaps this bit:
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Fake news.
Sponsored Links
