5 year plan

[Unknown user]

33 minutes ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

 

 

You're on to something. 

 

The Old, crumbling smaller stand was better. 

We should have kept it. 

 

?

Fair questions though, we were told it would cost 11 million and be complete within months, neither were close to being true in the end. 

Was there enough of a business case to justify a Skyline lounge that can't see the castle and doesn't exactly seem ti ve in much demand? Does it scream good governance that the toilets had to be immediately redesigned or that the seats weren't ordered in time? Does it suggest good management that we never thought of a TV studio til after and had to cut holes in the back wall to accommodate it?

 

I'm glad we have it, it was absolutely necessary and it's better than what we had before, but it's most definitely not a shining beacon of good management. 

[Jammy T]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Fair questions though, we were told it would cost 11 million and be complete within months, neither were close to being true in the end. 

Was there enough of a business case to justify a Skyline lounge that can't see the castle and doesn't exactly seem ti ve in much demand? Does it scream good governance that the toilets had to be immediately redesigned or that the seats weren't ordered in time? Does it suggest good management that we never thought of a TV studio til after and had to cut holes in the back wall to accommodate it?

 

I'm glad we have it, it was absolutely necessary and it's better than what we had before, but it's most definitely not a shining beacon of good management. 

 

That’s construction projects for you....

 

It was always inevitable we would go over budget.

 

The fact that we have but managed to deal with it should be applauded not derided.

[Phil D. Corners]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Fair questions though, we were told it would cost 11 million and be complete within months, neither were close to being true in the end. 

Was there enough of a business case to justify a Skyline lounge that can't see the castle and doesn't exactly seem ti ve in much demand? Does it scream good governance that the toilets had to be immediately redesigned or that the seats weren't ordered in time? Does it suggest good management that we never thought of a TV studio til after and had to cut holes in the back wall to accommodate it?

 

I'm glad we have it, it was absolutely necessary and it's better than what we had before, but it's most definitely not a shining beacon of good management. 

 

I’ve worked on enough big projects to understand plans and assumptions change. If you wait for the perfect plan then you would never get started. 

 

I think the management has done well. You pick a few minor items on what was a successful project. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Phil D. Corners said:

 

I’ve worked on enough big projects to understand plans and assumptions change. If you wait for the perfect plan then you would never get started. 

 

I think the management has done well. You pick a few minor items on what was a successful project. 

Minor items? The stand isn't finished yet, it's millions over budget (we'd allowed for as much asd 1 million overspend) we have large, unnecessary, unused spaces.

The architect was fired and the project manager's no longer working for the club.

Again, I'm happy we have the new stand, it was a move we needed to make, but no one can tell me it's an example of good governance and management. 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

1 hour ago, I.T.K said:

 

You could easily benchmark our governance against the former. Pie man, Romanov etc.  

 

The stand is delayed and over budget because the architects did a rush job and the plans were later revised. 

 

With the larger capacity, new shop, and bar I'm confident its already making more money than the old stand.  

 

I'm not convinced benchmarking against 2 regimes highly noted for their mismanagement is the most reliable way to access it in fact I'd probably put that behind the current "Ann's a brilliant business person therefore ..." benchmark

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

1 hour ago, JamboAl said:

All contributors to FoH appear to have done their own tests as they keep faith by continuing to contribute.

I don't know if it's raking in the revenue YET and, more to the point, you don't either.  Maybe the next accounts will tell us unless you have some insider knowledge before then.

My understanding is that it is not complete because of certain changes to the original plan and AB's reluctance to take us back to our debt-ridden days to expedite completion.  I don't think she wants a Scottish Parliament type fiasco.

 

you're right I don't know - just asking the question

 

which to be fair you haven't really answered - you've given a civil opinion and possibly partially answered so thanks for that

 

 

 

[Phil D. Corners]

16 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Minor items? The stand isn't finished yet, it's millions over budget (we'd allowed for as much asd 1 million overspend) we have large, unnecessary, unused spaces.

The architect was fired and the project manager's no longer working for the club.

Again, I'm happy we have the new stand, it was a move we needed to make, but no one can tell me it's an example of good governance and management. 

 

The spaces aren’t used as the stand is not finished as the plans were changed. For example the TV box was moved from the corner to the back of the main stand. The offices planed for the main stand will remain in the wheatfield. 

 

Lets wait till next season when it will be fully finished. It was the plan to make use of the stand 24/7. 

[I.T.K]

17 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

I'm not convinced benchmarking against 2 regimes highly noted for their mismanagement is the most reliable way to access it in fact I'd probably put that behind the current "Ann's a brilliant business person therefore ..." benchmark

 

It was just bench marking against the last two Hearts regimes. 

 

Who would you choose? 

[JamboAl]

20 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

 

you're right I don't know - just asking the question

 

which to be fair you haven't really answered - you've given a civil opinion and possibly partially answered so thanks for that

 

 

 

Why don't you wait for the next accounts and if you are a shareholder you can get yourself along to the AGM and ask your questions?

If you're not a shareholder you are not really entitled to know.

[Prof]

5 year plan - The cup final is a lifeline for CL and his supporters. The reality is that our football this season has been dreadful and that’s why we are sixth in the league. My own view is that Hearts under CL is going backwards because of misguided loyalty by the owners and a group of fans who think CL can turn things round. The one thing we can take pride in is that the club should now be financially secure. However footballing wise all our teams from the academy upwards are mediocre as far as their respective leagues go. 

[Johnny Sandiego]

10 hours ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said:

even the happiest of clapper appears to be conceding that on the park needs to improve but the standard line seemingly mostly going unchallenged is how fantastically well run we are off it

 

are we?

 

discounting pledges and benefactors are we doing so great? is the stand pulling in tons of additional revenue etc yet?

 

weve been heavily reliant on naismith a loan player financed by a benefactor?

 

do all the numbers add up or is it just assumed to be fine because mrs budge is an amazing business person?

 

The doom merchants could also look at it another way, because of Mrs Budge's execelent reputation and years of building solid business relationships, we have been able to attract benefactors to fund gaps in whats been the biggest off field project in the last 20 years. 

 

Additionally we have also managed to keep a reasonable if not great team on the park, and whilst 5th or 6th is not the long term aim at least we have had a couple of cup runs to go along with it during the transitional period.

 

Finally, we could actully wait until the next accounts are out to see the impact the new stand has had before just throwing an opinion in that its not generating any money. No one knows the full details on that side yet.

[Unknown user]

 

29 minutes ago, Phil D. Corners said:

 

The spaces aren’t used as the stand is not finished as the plans were changed. For example the TV box was moved from the corner to the back of the main stand. The offices planed for the main stand will remain in the wheatfield. 

 

Lets wait till next season when it will be fully finished. It was the plan to make use of the stand 24/7. 

 

At the start, if someone had written down "what does success look like?" it wouldn't have included Forget to order seats, Go millions over budget, Take much longer than planned, Rebuild toilets, Fire architect, Remember TV studio etc.

 

Now I'm not obsessed about it, I have my thoughts on the matter but I don't go on about it because overall I think the current regime are pretty special. We've got away with the overspend if rumours are true, thank goodness, but after everything we've been through I won't apologise for holding the biggest infrastructure project of our generation to a high standard.

 

I think too much went wrong for this to be considered well managed so I can't help disagreeing with that assertion when it comes up but we got away with it, and that'll do. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Smithee

[Sid]

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

At the start, if someone had written down "what does success look like?" it wouldn't have included Forget to order seats, Go millions over budget, Take much longer than planned, Rebuild toilets, Fire architect, Remember TV studio etc.

 

Now I'm not obsessed about it, I have my thoughts on the matter but I don't go on about it because overall I think the current regime are pretty special. We've got away with the overspend if rumours are true, thank goodness, but after everything we've been through I won't apologise for holding the biggest infrastructure project of our generation to a high standard.

 

I think too much went wrong for this to be considered well managed so I can't help disagreeing with that assertion when it comes up but we got away with it, and that'll do. 

The club was a basket case. “The Project” was a mass of projects. First team. Academy. New stand. General infrastructure. We had volunteer ground staff!  Ann stood up to the plate.  Put her money on the table. Took on all of the projects. While successful businesswoman, footballing matters and stadium builds were not in her CV. 

She openly admits the task was too big and has subsequently deferrred parts of it (eg completion of main stand). 

Given this backdrop, It was enevitsble that  errors would be made. The size of the project meant big errors. Where these occurred, she held her hand up (and in certain circumstances found millions to fix). 

I cant fault any of her actions. 

No-one else was willing to take this on. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Sid said:

The club was a basket case. “The Project” was a mass of projects. First team. Academy. New stand. General infrastructure. We had volunteer ground staff!  Ann stood up to the plate.  Put her money on the table. Took on all of the projects. While successful businesswoman, footballing matters and stadium builds were not in her CV. 

She openly admits the task was too big and has subsequently deferrred parts of it (eg completion of main stand). 

Given this backdrop, It was enevitsble that  errors would be made. The size of the project meant big errors. Where these occurred, she held her hand up (and in certain circumstances found millions to fix). 

I cant fault any of her actions. 

No-one else was willing to take this on. 

 

And like I say, I'm satisfied with how things ended up, but there are undeniably reasonable questions about how well it was managed.

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

Fair questions though, we were told it would cost 11 million and be complete within months, neither were close to being true in the end. 

Was there enough of a business case to justify a Skyline lounge that can't see the castle and doesn't exactly seem ti ve in much demand? Does it scream good governance that the toilets had to be immediately redesigned or that the seats weren't ordered in time? Does it suggest good management that we never thought of a TV studio til after and had to cut holes in the back wall to accommodate it?

 

I'm glad we have it, it was absolutely necessary and it's better than what we had before, but it's most definitely not a shining beacon of good management. 

 

 

Construction projects regular go over budget. 

It's not an exact science. 

 

To use that against the club is flimsy and petty imo and serves absolutely no purpose, at all. 

 

It's fantastic and tangible proof of our progress of the pitch. 

 

It also meant we were staying at Tynecastle, a big deal for many. 

It will generate extra income for decades to come. 

 

Some folk talk-like Romanov and the new stadium , some folk act like Ann. 

 

If we win the sc, it will be tangible evidence of progress on the park. 

 

A perfect double to celebrate the success of the five year plan.

 

Shame it will seem irritate so many Hearts fans as well. 

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sandiego said:

 

The doom merchants could also look at it another way, because of Mrs Budge's execelent reputation and years of building solid business relationships, we have been able to attract benefactors to fund gaps in whats been the biggest off field project in the last 20 years. 

 

Additionally we have also managed to keep a reasonable if not great team on the park, and whilst 5th or 6th is not the long term aim at least we have had a couple of cup runs to go along with it during the transitional period.

 

Finally, we could actully wait until the next accounts are out to see the impact the new stand has had before just throwing an opinion in that its not generating any money. No one knows the full details on that side yet.

 

did someone say it wasn't generating any money ?

 

interesting if they did

[Jammy T]

1 minute ago, Olly Lee's left boot said:

 

 

Construction projects regular go over budget. 

It's not an exact science. 

 

To use that against the club is flimsy and petty imo and serves absolutely no purpose, at all. 

 

It's fantastic and tangible proof of our progress of the pitch. 

 

It also meant we were staying at Tynecastle, a big deal for many. 

It will generate extra income for decades to come. 

 

Some folk talk-like Romanov and the new stadium , some folk act like Ann. 

 

If we win the sc, it will be tangible evidence of progress on the park. 

 

A perfect double to celebrate the success of the five year plan.

 

Shame it will seem irritate so many Hearts fans as well. 

 

???

[JamboGraham]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

At the start, if someone had written down "what does success look like?" it wouldn't have included Forget to order seats, Go millions over budget, Take much longer than planned, Rebuild toilets, Fire architect, Remember TV studio etc.

 

Now I'm not obsessed about it, I have my thoughts on the matter but I don't go on about it because overall I think the current regime are pretty special. We've got away with the overspend if rumours are true, thank goodness, but after everything we've been through I won't apologise for holding the biggest infrastructure project of our generation to a high standard.

 

I think too much went wrong for this to be considered well managed so I can't help disagreeing with that assertion when it comes up but we got away with it, and that'll do. 

 

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

And like I say, I'm satisfied with how things ended up, but there are undeniably reasonable questions about how well it was managed.

 

I agree with much of what you say. I think though that the reasonable questions have already been asked and answered either at AGM's, Shareholder/Supporter events and via interviews with the press. I think the club have been acceptably open and transparent about the mistakes, challenges and resolutions on the main stand project. If there are still reasonable questions to be asked then the club have already demonstrated that they are willing to answer them. That's strong governance in my view in response to poor project management.

 

I would be concerned if our club had a number of additional construction projects to manage but thankfully we don't. It's a once in a lifetime project for a football club and for me the end justifies the means with the new main stand.

 

There is some delicious irony on this 5 year plan thread given that there was no reference or mention of rebuilding the main stand back in 2014.

 

 

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, JamboGraham said:

 

 

I agree with much of what you say. I think though that the reasonable questions have already been asked and answered either at AGM's, Shareholder/Supporter events and via interviews with the press. I think the club have been acceptably open and transparent about the mistakes, challenges and resolutions on the main stand project. If there are still reasonable questions to be asked then the club have already demonstrated that they are willing to answer them. That's strong governance in my view in response to poor project management.

 

I would be concerned if our club had a number of additional construction projects to manage but thankfully we don't. It's a once in a lifetime project for a football club and for me the end justifies the means with the new main stand.

 

There is some delicious irony on this 5 year plan thread given that there was no reference or mention of rebuilding the main stand back in 2014.

 

 

I basically agree although there are still concerns for me, the skyline looks in danger of being a white elephant and cost updates are no longer forthcoming.

 

But as I said above, I trust those in charge of the club to have our best interests at heart so as long as it appears to be under control I'm sound.  Like you say, we're unlikely to be tackling anything like this again in the near future so if we're good then no harm done. 

[Francis Albert]

I think overall we are in a pretty good place. But the idea that what has gone wrong with numerous aspects of the new main stand is just "what is to be expected in any construction project" is laughable.

 

 

[Thomaso]

8 hours ago, Jammy T said:

 

That’s construction projects for you....

 

It was always inevitable we would go over budget.

 

The fact that we have but managed to deal with it should be applauded not derided.

 

Spot on! ?

[Thomaso]

6 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

And like I say, I'm satisfied with how things ended up, but there are undeniably reasonable questions about how well it was managed.

 

Do you think somebody should be punished for this “mismanagement “??? ?

[soonbe110]

9 hours ago, Prof said:

5 year plan - The cup final is a lifeline for CL and his supporters. The reality is that our football this season has been dreadful and that’s why we are sixth in the league. My own view is that Hearts under CL is going backwards because of misguided loyalty by the owners and a group of fans who think CL can turn things round. The one thing we can take pride in is that the club should now be financially secure. However footballing wise all our teams from the academy upwards are mediocre as far as their respective leagues go. 

It’s all about opinion though isn’t it? Re your final comment , how do you explain fact that we have just won the Reserve cup with a team stocked with u-17,18,19 players? Comments like your final sentence suggest you just have an anti Levein agenda and don’t let facts get in the way of that. 

[soonbe110]

5 hours ago, JamboGraham said:

 

 

I agree with much of what you say. I think though that the reasonable questions have already been asked and answered either at AGM's, Shareholder/Supporter events and via interviews with the press. I think the club have been acceptably open and transparent about the mistakes, challenges and resolutions on the main stand project. If there are still reasonable questions to be asked then the club have already demonstrated that they are willing to answer them. That's strong governance in my view in response to poor project management.

 

I would be concerned if our club had a number of additional construction projects to manage but thankfully we don't. It's a once in a lifetime project for a football club and for me the end justifies the means with the new main stand.

 

There is some delicious irony on this 5 year plan thread given that there was no reference or mention of rebuilding the main stand back in 2014.

 

 

Agree. I doubt  that if someone had listed the progress since 2014 in a plan, in 2014, no-one would have thought it plausible or possible. Excellent progress in just under 5 years. Flaws, mistakes yes but excellent progress to the point where financially and infrastructure wise we are probably in better shape than ever before. I expect the next set of accounts will confirm. 

Playing-wise progress maybe slower than many want but getting out of championship first season has set unrealistic expectations. We weren’t really ready for that squad wise and financially. SC win would even things out. 

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

 

Do you think somebody should be punished for this “mismanagement “??? ?

I'm not really a punishment type of dude, but I don't think the stand build was particularly well managed and I'll probably continue to calmly explain why whenever anyone claims it was.

[Jammy T]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I think overall we are in a pretty good place. But the idea that what has gone wrong with numerous aspects of the new main stand is just "what is to be expected in any construction project" is laughable.

 

 

 

On the stand thread I mentioned that the procurement model chosen by the club (no main contractor) was high risk.

 

I was right.

 

On that thread - way before the costs went over budget I predicted the costs would go over budget.

 

At least 3/4s of construction projects go over budget/time and this one was higher risk than most.

 

I appreciate we don’t agree or get on in respect of much but trust me I am entirely 100% correct on this point as a matter of fact and you are wrong.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Jammy T said:

 

On the stand thread I mentioned that the procurement model chosen by the club (no main contractor) was high risk.

 

I was right.

 

On that thread - way before the costs went over budget I predicted the costs would go over budget.

 

At least 3/4s of construction projects go over budget/time and this one was higher risk than most.

 

I appreciate we don’t agree or get on in respect of much but trust me I am entirely 100% correct on this point as a matter of fact and you are wrong.

I am not sure why I am wrong when you say the procurement model was wrong

Seems a pretty fundamental error. Then add in things that in any procurement model shouldn't have gone wrong - forgetting to order the seats, not spotting the toilets were inadequate for 7000 people, not spotting that the Skyilne Lounge's view was restricted to Tynecastle High, that a number of seats would have restricted views, that we didn't need to replace the Gorgie Suite as the main.corporate hospitality  venue, that we didn't need to move offices from.the Wheatfield side,  (for that matter that we didnt need to.replicate dressing rooms in the Wheatfield which seem to work ok with long delayed dressing rooms in.the main stand which have take nearly a year and counting to.complete, and  that the new stand  would overall cost 50% more (and counting) for a lower spec.

 

Overall Ann has done a great job. But the main stand project really hasn't been her finest hour.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Thomaso]

54 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I am not sure why I am wrong when you say the procurement model was wrong

Seems a pretty fundamental error. Then add in things that in any procurement model shouldn't have gone wrong - forgetting to order the seats, not spotting the toilets were inadequate for 7000 people, not spotting that the Skyilne Lounge's view was restricted to Tynecastle High, that a number of seats would have restricted views, that we didn't need to replace the Gorgie Suite as the main.corporate hospitality  venue, that we didn't need to move offices from.the Wheatfield side,  (for that matter that we didnt need to.replicate dressing rooms in the Wheatfield which seem to work ok with long delayed dressing rooms in.the main stand which have take nearly a year and counting to.complete, and  that the new stand  would overall cost 50% more (and counting) for a lower spec.

 

Overall Ann has done a great job. But the main stand project really hasn't been her finest hour.

 

 

 

 

 

Ann was badly advised on predicted cost and design by the Architect.

You may wish to lay the blame at her door for appointing him, however she was basically dropped in the shit and had to work miracles to turn what could have been a complete disaster around.

[Jammy T]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I am not sure why I am wrong when you say the procurement model was wrong

Seems a pretty fundamental error. Then add in things that in any procurement model shouldn't have gone wrong - forgetting to order the seats, not spotting the toilets were inadequate for 7000 people, not spotting that the Skyilne Lounge's view was restricted to Tynecastle High, that a number of seats would have restricted views, that we didn't need to replace the Gorgie Suite as the main.corporate hospitality  venue, that we didn't need to move offices from.the Wheatfield side,  (for that matter that we didnt need to.replicate dressing rooms in the Wheatfield which seem to work ok with long delayed dressing rooms in.the main stand which have take nearly a year and counting to.complete, and  that the new stand  would overall cost 50% more (and counting) for a lower spec.

 

Overall Ann has done a great job. But the main stand project really hasn't been her finest hour.

 

 

 

 

 

I didn’t say it was wrong. I said high risk.

 

An explanation was given that we had tested the market for a price with a main contractor which came out around £18m which we couldn’t afford.

 

We therefore had to cut out the middle man and go down the construction manager route with all construction management ‘in house’ - no passing of risk to a main contractor. 

 

So higher risk but if not it wouldn’t have been built.

 

I’m sure I said early on in the thread that I wouldn’t be surprised if our actual spend wasn’t far away from the main contractor’s estimate by the time we finished, but I might be mistaken and can’t be arsed searching for it.

 

I had a bit of an argument with someone clearly involved in the build about this (sounds like Thomazzo) who assured me that we had a great in house team and there was no particular risk taking it in house in the manner we did.

 

Anyway, water under the bridge and as I said we have done immensely well to deal with the overspend and the club should be applauded for maintaining a top 6 place notwithstanding a £6m overspend when we don’t have any credit facilities 

[Jambo-Fox]

The impression I’ve formed (rightly or wrongly) is;

 

1. we we got an architect to design a stand

..... and .....

2. we got an architect to design a building that contained, a shop, ticket office, changing rooms, restaurant, a bar, reception area, offices and several function rooms ..... 

...... but ......

nobody told the architect that the stand and building were to be adjacent to and compatible with each other!!!

 

However perhaps it was thought that a decent architect would have been able to connect the dots ......

Edited April 18, 2019 by Jambo-Fox

[Prof]

14 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

It’s all about opinion though isn’t it? Re your final comment , how do you explain fact that we have just won the Reserve cup with a team stocked with u-17,18,19 players? Comments like your final sentence suggest you just have an anti Levein agenda and don’t let facts get in the way of that. 

Yes it’s nice to win cups but ALL our teams are mid table. League position is a far better measure of team performance and the sad fact is after 5 years we have not progressed. And yes I’m anti Levein - we need an expert tactician and a far better support staff including better scouts and a new training regime. CL and his team are none of these. Look at today’s news-  two more players out for rest of season - when did we last have a consistent team? The old cliche  that CL is a Hearts man is wearing thin and is now just a feeble excuse for mediocrity.

[JamboGraham]

12 minutes ago, Prof said:

The sad fact is after 5 years we have not progressed.

 

Sorry but this where every anti Levein rant falls apart. The fact is 5 years ago we were a 2nd tier club, we are now an established top 6 club again. That fact cannot be defined as anything other than progress.

 

To simply stick your head in the sand and say there has been no progress after 5 years is idiotic.

 

 

[soonbe110]

54 minutes ago, Prof said:

Yes it’s nice to win cups but ALL our teams are mid table. League position is a far better measure of team performance and the sad fact is after 5 years we have not progressed. And yes I’m anti Levein - we need an expert tactician and a far better support staff including better scouts and a new training regime. CL and his team are none of these. Look at today’s news-  two more players out for rest of season - when did we last have a consistent team? The old cliche  that CL is a Hearts man is wearing thin and is now just a feeble excuse for mediocrity.

Don’t think any club sets out to win the reserve league. It’s all about keeping squad players fit, bringing youngsters on, playing trialists, rehabbing injured players. 

Our first team league position is much better than five years ago. Our cup progress is now at the point where we have a semi and final in one season, not something that has ever been a regular occurrence for us.  We have a bunch of internationalists in the squad, five years ago virtually none.  I could go be but not wasting any more time. 

Your anti Levein focus is blinding you to clear facts. No-one is saying we are wonderful at present on the park but to suggest zero progress in five years is just plain stupid. Remember where we were. 

[Thomaso]

12 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

The impression I’ve formed (rightly or wrongly) is;

 

1. we we got an architect to design a stand

..... and .....

2. we got an architect to design a building that contained, a shop, ticket office, changing rooms, restaurant, a bar, reception area, offices and several function rooms ..... 

...... but ......

nobody told the architect that the stand and building were to be adjacent to and compatible with each other!!!

 

However perhaps it was thought that a decent architect would have been able to connect the dots ......

 

The Club gave the Architect a detailed brief on what the requirements/facilities were for the new stand.

[Thomaso]

12 hours ago, Jammy T said:

 

I didn’t say it was wrong. I said high risk.

 

An explanation was given that we had tested the market for a price with a main contractor which came out around £18m which we couldn’t afford.

 

We therefore had to cut out the middle man and go down the construction manager route with all construction management ‘in house’ - no passing of risk to a main contractor. 

 

So higher risk but if not it wouldn’t have been built.

 

I’m sure I said early on in the thread that I wouldn’t be surprised if our actual spend wasn’t far away from the main contractor’s estimate by the time we finished, but I might be mistaken and can’t be arsed searching for it.

 

I had a bit of an argument with someone clearly involved in the build about this (sounds like Thomazzo) who assured me that we had a great in house team and there was no particular risk taking it in house in the manner we did.

 

Anyway, water under the bridge and as I said we have done immensely well to deal with the overspend and the club should be applauded for maintaining a top 6 place notwithstanding a £6m overspend when we don’t have any credit facilities 

 

If I recall correctly Thomaso explained the reasons for going down the in house construction manager route  ie rush to go ahead to meet the councils deadline for the nursery meaning there was no time to go out to main contractor tender. Like any construction procurement route it did carry risk.

Thomaso also made the point that in his opinion the construction manager (and certain subcontractors) did a fantastic job pulling the project together in the face of lack of architects design and flawed cost plan.

[mitch41]

3 hours ago, JamboGraham said:

 

Sorry but this where every anti Levein rant falls apart. The fact is 5 years ago we were a 2nd tier club, we are now an established top 6 club again. That fact cannot be defined as anything other than progress.

 

To simply stick your head in the sand and say there has been no progress after 5 years is idiotic.

 

 

You are wrong and right. The Levein part and progress on the pitch is wrong.

The progress bit about the 5 year plan excluding the football is right, well nearly.

After we came out the Championship many fans were willing to give Neilson then 

Cathro a go but we haven’t got to where we should be in fact no where near. 

Yes the Scottish Cup Final is a fantastic chance to win a trophy but winning 

will in no way hide the fact that Hearts are led by a management that just 

won’t be able to take the club up to where we should be.

We need a new plan to take us in the right direction which has to include a clear 

out of the Riccarton staff and management.

Edited April 19, 2019 by mitch41

[Prof]

2 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Don’t think any club sets out to win the reserve league. It’s all about keeping squad players fit, bringing youngsters on, playing trialists, rehabbing injured players. 

Our first team league position is much better than five years ago. Our cup progress is now at the point where we have a semi and final in one season, not something that has ever been a regular occurrence for us.  We have a bunch of internationalists in the squad, five years ago virtually none.  I could go be but not wasting any more time. 

Your anti Levein focus is blinding you to clear facts. No-one is saying we are wonderful at present on the park but to suggest zero progress in five years is just plain stupid. Remember where we were. 

Under RN- 5 years ago Hearts won the Championship with a record points and goals total. The next year we were third in the SPFL. In the next season (2016/7) we were second in the SPFL when RN left in December and finished 5th in the SPFL under Cathro (CL’s choice as manager). Last season we finished 6th under CL with Hibs 18 points above us. This season we are mid table likely to finish 5th or 6th. 

Please explain how that represents progress.

[The Doc]

Smithee’s bang on with his comments about the stand.

 

I’ve been privy to some stories (which won’t be repeated on here) regarding its build and it’s no exaggeration to say people would be shocked.

 

Delighted it’s here, delighted we were able to make it happen. Fairly underwhelmed/disappointed with the execution. Far too many mistakes.

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, The Doc said:

Smithee’s bang on with his comments about the stand.

 

I’ve been privy to some stories (which won’t be repeated on here) regarding its build and it’s no exaggeration to say people would be shocked.

 

Delighted it’s here, delighted we were able to make it happen. Fairly underwhelmed/disappointed with the execution. Far too many mistakes.

 

Oh dear.

I've got a secret but I'm not telling you what it is.

[The Doc]

32 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Oh dear.

I've got a secret but I'm not telling you what it is.

 

I see no benefit in sharing.

 

 

 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

5 hours ago, JamboGraham said:

 

Sorry but this where every anti Levein rant falls apart. The fact is 5 years ago we were a 2nd tier club, we are now an established top 6 club again. That fact cannot be defined as anything other than progress.

 

To simply stick your head in the sand and say there has been no progress after 5 years is idiotic.

 

 

That is simplistic nonsense- the club team was easily capable of  surviving in the top level post Championship and with a few reinforcements was always going to be in a good place. The club decided to raise the bar (fair enough) and really went for it. For some reason RN decided to leave and he was replaced with the guy CL always wanted and the rest is history. The core business - having a (relatively) successful football team has been on a down ward path for the last two seasons. In your own words, To simply stick your head in the sand and ignore this is to ignore reality. The football hasn't progressed in the last two years and the club has spent a fortune doing so.  It has also totally changed its model to the extent it has appointed its DoF as MANAGER.   Now, that isn't progress. 

 

[frankblack]

7 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That is simplistic nonsense- the club team was easily capable of  surviving in the top level post Championship and with a few reinforcements was always going to be in a good place. The club decided to raise the bar (fair enough) and really went for it. For some reason RN decided to leave and he was replaced with the guy CL always wanted and the rest is history. The core business - having a (relatively) successful football team has been on a down ward path for the last two seasons. In your own words, To simply stick your head in the sand and ignore this is to ignore reality. The football hasn't progressed in the last two years and the club has spent a fortune doing so.  It has also totally changed its model to the extent it has appointed its DoF as MANAGER.   Now, that isn't progress. 

 

 

That is complete nonsense.

 

Your agenda has clearly clouded any points you think you made.

Edited April 19, 2019 by frankblack

[JamboGraham]

30 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That is simplistic nonsense- the club team was easily capable of  surviving in the top level post Championship and with a few reinforcements was always going to be in a good place. The club decided to raise the bar (fair enough) and really went for it. For some reason RN decided to leave and he was replaced with the guy CL always wanted and the rest is history. The core business - having a (relatively) successful football team has been on a down ward path for the last two seasons. In your own words, To simply stick your head in the sand and ignore this is to ignore reality. The football hasn't progressed in the last two years and the club has spent a fortune doing so.  It has also totally changed its model to the extent it has appointed its DoF as MANAGER.   Now, that isn't progress. 

 

 

Of course it’s simplistic. It’s an undeniable fact that mid table in the top tier is progress over competing in the 2nd tier, that is our progress over 5 years. The poster I was responding to said, “the sad fact is after 5 years we have not progressed”. That is not a fact as it is clearly wrong unless being in the top tier rather than the 2nd tier can in anyway be recognised as being a backward step? Your post on the other hand acknowledges progress then a change. My point was that once again an anti-Levein rant has chosen to exaggerate in order to try and express a point that is entirely worthy of debate in its own right. That point is the stagnation or regression in the past 2.5 years. Even then there is a debate to be had as we have now increased our total points each year over the past 3 seasons. So is that stagnation, regression or even extremely limited progression? Let’s debate it, let’s discuss it. But let’s not debate it by trying to pretend that it’s been 5 years of failure when the first 2.5 years was clear progress. The inconvenient truth for so many who simply cannot tolerate Levein is that to truly debate our performance over the past 2.5 years requires an acknowledgement that the same Levein provided unquestionable progress for the initial 2.5 years.