Jump to content

'New Stand update'.well an update


CJGJ

Recommended Posts

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? 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Thomaso

    65

  • davemclaren

    48

  • Francis Albert

    33

  • soonbe110

    33

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

👍😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

4FABCABE-E81D-407F-8D23-F95ACF0CCD16.jpeg

IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf IMG_3039-converted.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

4FABCABE-E81D-407F-8D23-F95ACF0CCD16.jpeg

IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf 706.04 kB · 2 downloads IMG_3039-converted.pdf 146.22 kB · 2 downloads

:berra:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad Religion
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

 

 

4FABCABE-E81D-407F-8D23-F95ACF0CCD16.jpeg

IMG_3040 (5 files merged).pdf 706.04 kB · 2 downloads IMG_3039-converted.pdf 146.22 kB · 2 downloads

 

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

4FABCABE-E81D-407F-8D23-F95ACF0CCD16.jpeg

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! 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ToqueJambo
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Footballfirst

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 by Footballfirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricardo Shillyshally
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user
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

 

 

4FABCABE-E81D-407F-8D23-F95ACF0CCD16.jpeg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...