davemclaren Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 24 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: Some have had a pop at the project manager. I just want to set the record straight for him although I would not term him a “mate”. I agree the Club, Architect and QS deserve something stick! What about other contractors? 😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, davemclaren said: What about other contractors? 😎 I can only answer for one. The glass facade was built on programme and to the agreed budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: I can only answer for one. The glass facade was built on programme and to the agreed budget. 👍😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 25 minutes ago, McCrae said: The decision not to decide at the time of getting quotes what we were planning to do with the second floor is a contributing factor to the cost over run. Its impossible for a QS to get that part of the job accurately priced when they don't know what they are pricing for. The QS (flawed) cost plan was meant to take account of a basic fit out to all levels - floors, suspended ceilings, electrics, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1953 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: You are spot on. As I have confirmed on here on numerous occasions a Hearts supporting fan of mine who is MD of a major construction company priced up the plans at a price of £18m - that was the price we should have paid plus extra for the police box, hybrid pitch and some design changes. The £12m budget was pure fantasy! This all sounds very plausible although I know nothing about the construction industry so the question for you guys who obviously do know what you are talking about is this: If the original budget had been £18m (Excluding pitch, plant room etc) have we actually paid £18m for this work and have we had value for money. There still have to be questions asked as to how the figures were so far out but if we've paid a fair price for the work done I'll be happy with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heatonjambo Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: The QS (flawed) cost plan was meant to take account of a basic fit out to all levels - floors, suspended ceilings, electrics, etc. Ok, instead of working i did some quick sketches as promised for folks to mull over. Not sure what they quality of the PDF’s will be like but i can send a link to the Mods if need be to get better images. i used the drawings approved for planning on the planning portal as a means to take enable a quick comparison These sketches are by no means brilliant by any stretch of the imagination and will have flaws, but have been done to a show what can be turned around within a few hours to resolve some key issues. EG. Less roof less foundations less unnecessary circulation less glazing a tv studio provided aq directors suite with secure access the tunnel lined up with the centre line of the pitch!! time really shouldn’t have been that much of an issue. something really was wrong with the whole process. i await the in inevitable criticism 😩😩😩😩 Cheers IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf IMG_3039-converted.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnking123 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, heatonjambo said: Ok, instead of working i did some quick sketches as promised for folks to mull over. Not sure what they quality of the PDF’s will be like but i can send a link to the Mods if need be to get better images. i used the drawings approved for planning on the planning portal as a means to take enable a quick comparison These sketches are by no means brilliant by any stretch of the imagination and will have flaws, but have been done to a show what can be turned around within a few hours to resolve some key issues. EG. Less roof less foundations less unnecessary circulation less glazing a tv studio provided aq directors suite with secure access the tunnel lined up with the centre line of the pitch!! time really shouldn’t have been that much of an issue. something really was wrong with the whole process. i await the in inevitable criticism 😩😩😩😩 Cheers IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf 706.04 kB · 2 downloads IMG_3039-converted.pdf 146.22 kB · 2 downloads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Religion Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, heatonjambo said: Ok, instead of working i did some quick sketches as promised for folks to mull over. Not sure what they quality of the PDF’s will be like but i can send a link to the Mods if need be to get better images. i used the drawings approved for planning on the planning portal as a means to take enable a quick comparison These sketches are by no means brilliant by any stretch of the imagination and will have flaws, but have been done to a show what can be turned around within a few hours to resolve some key issues. EG. Less roof less foundations less unnecessary circulation less glazing a tv studio provided aq directors suite with secure access the tunnel lined up with the centre line of the pitch!! time really shouldn’t have been that much of an issue. something really was wrong with the whole process. i await the in inevitable criticism 😩😩😩😩 Cheers IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf 706.04 kB · 2 downloads IMG_3039-converted.pdf 146.22 kB · 2 downloads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 42 minutes ago, heatonjambo said: Ok, instead of working i did some quick sketches as promised for folks to mull over. Not sure what they quality of the PDF’s will be like but i can send a link to the Mods if need be to get better images. i used the drawings approved for planning on the planning portal as a means to take enable a quick comparison These sketches are by no means brilliant by any stretch of the imagination and will have flaws, but have been done to a show what can be turned around within a few hours to resolve some key issues. EG. Less roof less foundations less unnecessary circulation less glazing a tv studio provided aq directors suite with secure access the tunnel lined up with the centre line of the pitch!! time really shouldn’t have been that much of an issue. something really was wrong with the whole process. i await the in inevitable criticism 😩😩😩😩 Cheers IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf 706.04 kB · 6 downloads IMG_3039-converted.pdf 146.22 kB · 3 downloads Very interesting - well thought out. Hate the “less glazing” bit! 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 54 minutes ago, 1953 said: This all sounds very plausible although I know nothing about the construction industry so the question for you guys who obviously do know what you are talking about is this: If the original budget had been £18m (Excluding pitch, plant room etc) have we actually paid £18m for this work and have we had value for money. There still have to be questions asked as to how the figures were so far out but if we've paid a fair price for the work done I'll be happy with that. All I would say is that the MD of the major construction firm was a big Jambo and desperate to do the job. His estimating team worked out a cost of £18m which I think would have been competitively priced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1953 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: All I would say is that the MD of the major construction firm was a big Jambo and desperate to do the job. His estimating team worked out a cost of £18m which I think would have been competitively priced. Cheers CfS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 26 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: Very interesting - well thought out. Hate the “less glazing” bit! 😉 Could have delayed your retirement plans if we had went for that. 😎 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heatonjambo Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 13 minutes ago, davemclaren said: Could have delayed your retirement plans if we had went for that. 😎 58 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: Very interesting - well thought out. Hate the “less glazing” bit! 😉 assuming CfS that you where part of the Glazing Package!! I haven’t trawled through the whole thread in detail To understand all the issues you guys have discussed, but there really is something not quite right with how the stand has turned out in relation to design, cost and programme. a quick couple of hours scribbling has got a plan with a better arrangement of spaces. elevation!! Well might agree with you there 😊 i concur that £18m was a more realistic figure, but we really should have been building a stand to meet our needs for much less than this. Who influenced Anne on this? Do you Know? Again the architects information on the planning portal is very poor, and actually incorrect! i would love to know more info if you have any Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 26 minutes ago, heatonjambo said: assuming CfS that you where part of the Glazing Package!! I haven’t trawled through the whole thread in detail To understand all the issues you guys have discussed, but there really is something not quite right with how the stand has turned out in relation to design, cost and programme. a quick couple of hours scribbling has got a plan with a better arrangement of spaces. elevation!! Well might agree with you there 😊 i concur that £18m was a more realistic figure, but we really should have been building a stand to meet our needs for much less than this. Who influenced Anne on this? Do you Know? Again the architects information on the planning portal is very poor, and actually incorrect! i would love to know more info if you have any Ann went with the Architect who designed the other 3 much simpler stands. IMO that was a big mistake as he struggled with the construction details for the more complex main stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 8 hours ago, stevie1874 said: Not being Cheeky Phil but what facilities in the fan areas do you think should have been upgraded? I’ve not been in any of the suites so can’t pass comment but it’s a football stand where access via the turnstile, getting food and access to toilet facilities are all better than any other Scottish stadium I’ve been in. And where my seat is has a good view of the game. As a football supporter I’m happy with that and don’t require carpeted stairwells or gold taps in the toilets. A stand of the same capacity with all the features you describe (which as you say is all most fans ever see or use) could have been built for much less. If the original budget had been accurate (and it seems that that could have been the case with very simple checking of the basis of the original £11m estimate) then I doubt we would have embarked on such an ambitious and expensive project on such a tight timescale. One other point. Cruickshank for Scotland has come up with a breakdown of the additional cost and it is certainly a better explanation than the club has offered or even attempted. But without knowing what exactly was in the original scope and what has been deleted or changed at what net change in cost, the add-ons only give a part of the whole picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie1874 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said: A stand of the same capacity with all the features you describe (which as you say is all most fans ever see or use) could have been built for much less. If the original budget had been accurate (and it seems that that could have been the case with very simple checking of the basis of the original £11m estimate) then I doubt we would have embarked on such an ambitious and expensive project on such a tight timescale. One other point. Cruickshank for Scotland has come up with a breakdown of the additional cost and it is certainly a better explanation than the club has offered or even attempted. But without knowing what exactly was in the original scope and what has been deleted or changed at what net change in cost, the add-ons only give a part of the whole picture. I was pointing out that the fan areas that someone was moaning about not being luxurious enough was up there with the best in the country and more than adequate. As I’ve said I’ve not been in the suites , changing rooms, offices, Restaurant etc and would hope the extra money be it large is well spent. We have spent a lot of money but we don’t seem to have ran up any debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 hours ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: I can only answer for one. The glass facade was built on programme and to the agreed budget. Was the agreed budget competitive in comparison to similar type fits? Bearing in mind it was a stand out feature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 26 minutes ago, jake said: Was the agreed budget competitive in comparison to similar type fits? Bearing in mind it was a stand out feature? I was given a very tight budget for the facade......I’m a Jambo...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambos_1874 Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 When the Wheatfield, Roseburn and Gorgie were built, were they under or over budget and, if so, by how much? Same for the new East Stand at ER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Ach well. Could be worse. We could be Spurs. 400m initial estimate. 1bn final bill, and late delivery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 33 minutes ago, Jambos_1874 said: When the Wheatfield, Roseburn and Gorgie were built, were they under or over budget and, if so, by how much? Same for the new East Stand at ER. Much more basic stands so every chance they were on budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 39 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said: I was given a very tight budget for the facade......I’m a Jambo...... Does that mean to fit or to procure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 34 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said: Ach well. Could be worse. We could be Spurs. 400m initial estimate. 1bn final bill, and late delivery. Annual revenue - £380m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: Annual revenue - £380m So they can afford theirs just like we can afford ours? The discussion is about it costing more than originally planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaso Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, jake said: Does that mean to fit or to procure? Both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said: So they can afford theirs just like we can afford ours? The discussion is about it costing more than originally planned. I’d wager that over the years, Spurs will be better placed to fund an overspent property project than us. Their profit was almost £200m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ToqueJambo Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said: I’d wager that over the years, Spurs will be better placed to fund an overspent property project than us. Their profit was almost £200m That's not the discussion. We can afford our stand. No-one is worried about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, ToqueJambo said: That's not the discussion. We can afford our stand. No-one is worried about that. Why did you say ‘could be worse’ then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heatonjambo Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Francis Albert said: A stand of the same capacity with all the features you describe (which as you say is all most fans ever see or use) could have been built for much less. If the original budget had been accurate (and it seems that that could have been the case with very simple checking of the basis of the original £11m estimate) then I doubt we would have embarked on such an ambitious and expensive project on such a tight timescale. One other point. Cruickshank for Scotland has come up with a breakdown of the additional cost and it is certainly a better explanation than the club has offered or even attempted. But without knowing what exactly was in the original scope and what has been deleted or changed at what net change in cost, the add-ons only give a part of the whole picture. This is where i am at FA. We do appear to have went too far regarding specification and aspirations etc. the 3 other stands (as simple as they are) serve the purpose better than any stadium (for atmosphere) in Scotland. a paired back, simply planned stand would have been much closer to the aspiration of the original £12m budget and still have had an exciting facade. delays and timescales shouldn’t have really effected this. even CfS appreciates the sketch layouts😀 Shown earlier. it just seems such a waste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) To some extent, I believe it has become AB's vanity project. Vanity may be overstating it, but I definitely believe that she will view it as her visible legacy to the club in years to come. We have heard about her insisting on higher spec finishes, how proud she is of the skyline lounge, how she wants the 2nd floor fitted out to similar standards, other clubs praising the directors lounge. All that cost money. How much we don't know, but she has spent it in the knowledge that she had additional funds available from the "benefactors". Did the benefactors also bail her out of the poorly costed original plans, in addition to paying for the higher spec items and separately providing addition funds for the playing budget? It certainly looks that way. Edited January 7, 2020 by Footballfirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull's-eye Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 1 hour ago, ToqueJambo said: Ach well. Could be worse. We could be Spurs. 400m initial estimate. 1bn final bill, and late delivery. I've been in both, the new Spurs stadium is worth the money and our new stand is worth the money. Both worth the wait as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Shillyshally Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: To some extent, I believe it has become AB's vanity project. Vanity may be overstating it, but I definitely believe that she will view it as her visible legacy to the club in years to come. We have heard about her insisting on higher spec finishes, how proud she is of the skyline lounge, how she wants the 2nd floor fitted out to similar standards, other clubs praising the directors lounge. All that cost money. How much we don't know, but she has spent it in the knowledge that she had additional funds available from the "benefactors". Did the benefactors also bail her out of the poorly costed original plans, in addition to paying for the higher spec items and separately providing addition funds for the playing budget? It certainly looks that way. Or to put it another way, we may have a much better quality product available!e for future use because of Dr Budge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Magic Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 41 minutes ago, Ricardo Shillyshally said: Or to put it another way, we may have a much better quality product available!e for future use because of Dr Budge. As first attempts go, it’s a pretty bloody good first attempt!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 I remember Caravan Bob and his Murrayfield flood plain for a new stadium nonsense. To be honest, Caravan Bob made more sense than half the posters on this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 11 hours ago, heatonjambo said: Ok, instead of working i did some quick sketches as promised for folks to mull over. Not sure what they quality of the PDF’s will be like but i can send a link to the Mods if need be to get better images. i used the drawings approved for planning on the planning portal as a means to take enable a quick comparison These sketches are by no means brilliant by any stretch of the imagination and will have flaws, but have been done to a show what can be turned around within a few hours to resolve some key issues. EG. Less roof less foundations less unnecessary circulation less glazing a tv studio provided aq directors suite with secure access the tunnel lined up with the centre line of the pitch!! time really shouldn’t have been that much of an issue. something really was wrong with the whole process. i await the in inevitable criticism 😩😩😩😩 Cheers IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf 706.04 kB · 38 downloads IMG_3039-converted.pdf 146.22 kB · 17 downloads We didnt want the tunnel in the centre of the pitch, it's off centre so the home dugout is centred, giving our management team the best possible view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Smithee said: We didnt want the tunnel in the centre of the pitch, it's off centre so the home dugout is centred, giving our management team the best possible view. Good to know our management team had its pulse on what was important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FruitJuice Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 11 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said: I remember Caravan Bob and his Murrayfield flood plain for a new stadium nonsense. To be honest, Caravan Bob made more sense than half the posters on this thread! I don't think that boy was the full six berth. Has he retired to the Bahamas with all his riches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.