'New Stand update'.well an update

[Thomaso]

3 minutes ago, McCrae said:

Not at all. The lack of push back from the club regarding time scales displays inexperience and poor project management skills. 
If the  excuse for not fully scoping out the project before it was started is that we had to because the Council forced us to make a quick decision it’s a pretty poor one.

Through out the build of the new stand it has been managed poorly. Forgetting to order the seats is a great example of basic mistakes being made by people running the project that don’t have the skills to take the job on.

Same old stuff that has been responded to ad naseum.

[stevie1874]

On 05/01/2020 at 20:46, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Do you think I spend my time wandering about all the completed stadia developments in the UK to make comparisons to our own? I know you're just defending your own work, but I've spent enough time inside that Main Stand to know the fan areas look pretty basic. 

 

Or are you going to tell us the supporters who're meant to fill it every other week weren't the main consideration for this thing?

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. 

[McCrae]

6 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

Same old stuff that has been responded to ad naseum.

Doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

 

My point is clear, the main stand build has been poorly managed.  Do you disagree with that?

 

 

[awadooningorgie2]

9 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Therein lies the issue that those questioning the costs are arguing about. 

 

If the "budget correction" was £6m as suggested, then would the club have embarked on such a development at a cost of £18m, or would they have gone for something less ambitious, but more affordable.

 

Assuming that the original estimates were so far out (c. 50%) then the club has yet to admit that failing as being the mot significant element of the increased expenditure. All that we have told is that the club has upped the quality of the finish and spent money on additional items.

 

Despite the £6.8m from benefactors (more than the suggested budgeting correction), the club still has debts attached to the development and a further £1.5m minimum to complete the job.

 

We will likely never know if:

 

A. The benefactors would have contrbuted as much to the cause if the increased expenditure had not occured

B. The club may have taken a more frugal view to some of the extras if they did not have this additional external backing.

 

As has been stated already, let's see what the financial position is at handover. 

[Thomaso]

31 minutes ago, McCrae said:

Doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

 

My point is clear, the main stand build has been poorly managed.  Do you disagree with that?

 

 

You keep referring to “poorly managed”.

The fact is the project was superbly managed by the Project Manager in the face of cost constraints, a ridiculously tight programme and an incomplete design by the Architect.

He did not forget to order the seats - that was down to the Club.

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

You keep referring to “poorly managed”.

The fact is the project was superbly managed by the Project Manager in the face of cost constraints, a ridiculously tight programme and an incomplete design by the Architect.

He did not forget to order the seats - that was down to the Club.

 

You're arguing a different point to the one he's making though, there's a big difference between the project manager doing a good job within the constraints and the project being well managed by the club.

I have no idea if the project manager did a good job, I'll take your word for that, but I can see as hard fact that the club hasn't managed the project particularly well, whether that be down to naive expectations, poor advice, bad luck, bad judgement or whatever. 

[davemclaren]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

You're arguing a different point to the one he's making though, there's a big difference between the project manager doing a good job within the constraints and the project being well managed by the club.

I have no idea if the project manager did a good job, I'll take your word for that, but I can see as hard fact that the club hasn't managed the project particularly well, whether that be down to naive expectations, poor advice, bad luck, bad judgement or whatever. 

I’ve no idea how it was set up but it does seem strange that, even though he apparently wasn’t directly managing that aspect, that the project manager didn’t manage the key dependency of enduring the seats arrived on time. Unless there was false information given to him. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Thomaso]

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

You're arguing a different point to the one he's making though, there's a big difference between the project manager doing a good job within the constraints and the project being well managed by the club.

I have no idea if the project manager did a good job, I'll take your word for that, but I can see as hard fact that the club hasn't managed the project particularly well, whether that be down to naive expectations, poor advice, bad luck, bad judgement or whatever. 

I think a better term would be that the project was badly administered by the Club rather than managed.

Take my word (if you wish) for it, the Project Manager faced horrendous issues and he deserves our thanks to pull the project through.

[Bad Religion]

9 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I’ve no idea how it was set up but it does seem strange that, even though he apparently wasn’t directly managing that aspect, that the project manager didn’t manage the key dependency of enduring the seats arrived on time. Unless there was false information given to him. 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

Surely it’s as simple as the person at the club responsible for issuing the purchase order for the seats not doing their job properly. If my memory serves me correctly this person was relieved of their duty as a result of this. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Bad Religion

[Thomaso]

8 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I’ve no idea how it was set up but it does seem strange that, even though he apparently wasn’t directly managing that aspect, that the project manager didn’t manage the key dependency of enduring the seats arrived on time. Unless there was false information given to him. 🤷🏼‍♂️

The Project Manager was told the Club had contacts with the supplier and they would order the seats direct.

He asked at progress meetings if the seats were on order and Scott Gardiner said they were...... 😏

[Thomaso]

2 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

 

Surely it’s as simple as the person at the club responsible for issuing the purchase order for the seats not doing their job properly. If my memory serves me correctly this person was relieved of their duty as a result of this. 

Correct

[sam?]

7 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

You keep referring to “poorly managed”.

The fact is the project was superbly managed by the Project Manager in the face of cost constraints, a ridiculously tight programme and an incomplete design by the Architect.

He did not forget to order the seats - that was down to the Club.

Was it full turnkey PM role or site based Project manager, Id fully expect my PM's to be fully in control of all costings, materials, procurement, programming, deliveries ? Who accepted the ridiculous tight program, It surely needs to be the project manager albeit with input from client either that or the PM has stuck his head in the sand from client pressure and agreed to the unrealistic programme and isn't doing his job.

 

Also any of my PM's let a project run nearly 100% over original budget he'd be for the high road asap; this is obviously debatable in this case though as the original scope has changed quite a bit (100% is crazy amount though).

 

The tender process allows the PM/Client to understand if the tenderer s are reasonable as they should all be relative close if priced correctly.  We as client put comments back to the tenderer then ask for BAFO final offers. 

 

Once best and final offer in we agree contract and sign up with Contractor, if the price spirals after that it is up to their QS to put his case over for further payments as they are legally obliged to complete contracted works, they take the hit if tendered incorrectly.

This is standard Project Management which works in most construction projects, it seems to have been a little adhoc around the Tynecastle project slightly amateurish if being brutally honest.

 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

I think a better term would be that the project was badly administered by the Club rather than managed.

Take my word (if you wish) for it, the Project Manager faced horrendous issues and he deserves our thanks to pull the project through.

 

Maybe it would be a better term but there doesn't seem to be much confusion, no one else seems to be talking about the project manager as opposed to how the club managed the project.

[davemclaren]

20 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

The Project Manager was told the Club had contacts with the supplier and they would order the seats direct.

He asked at progress meetings if the seats were on order and Scott Gardiner said they were...... 😏

👍😎

[Footballfirst]

27 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

Surely it’s as simple as the person at the club responsible for issuing the purchase order for the seats not doing their job properly. If my memory serves me correctly this person was relieved of their duty as a result of this. 

 

He wasn't sacked as such, but his contract was not renewed.

[McCrae]

51 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

 

He did not forget to order the seats - that was down to the Club.

 

The club is responsible for the overall success or not of the main stand build.

 

It does not matter what individual did or did not do. AB has overall accountability/responsibility for this.  

 

The stand was neither built to budget or on time. 

[Bad Religion]

18 minutes ago, sam? said:

Was it full turnkey PM role or site based Project manager, Id fully expect my PM's to be fully in control of all costings, materials, procurement, programming, deliveries ? Who accepted the ridiculous tight program, It surely needs to be the project manager albeit with input from client either that or the PM has stuck his head in the sand from client pressure and agreed to the unrealistic programme and isn't doing his job.

 

Also any of my PM's let a project run nearly 100% over original budget he'd be for the high road asap; this is obviously debatable in this case though as the original scope has changed quite a bit (100% is crazy amount though).

 

The tender process allows the PM/Client to understand if the tenderer s are reasonable as they should all be relative close if priced correctly.  We as client put comments back to the tenderer then ask for BAFO final offers. 

 

Once best and final offer in we agree contract and sign up with Contractor, if the price spirals after that it is up to their QS to put his case over for further payments as they are legally obliged to complete contracted works, they take the hit if tendered incorrectly.

This is standard Project Management which works in most construction projects, it seems to have been a little adhoc around the Tynecastle project slightly amateurish if being brutally honest.

 

 

With respect, this has been done to death. Incomplete design, strict time constraints and the project being priced incorrectly by the QS from the beginning have led to the estimated revised summarised costs as provided by @Cruickshank for Scotland below:

 

QS flawed budget - £12m

Budget correction - £6m

Plant Room - £1.5m

Hybrid Pitch - £1m

Design changes - £1.5m

 

Out turn cost - £22m

[davemclaren]

37 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

 

Surely it’s as simple as the person at the club responsible for issuing the purchase order for the seats not doing their job properly. If my memory serves me correctly this person was relieved of their duty as a result of this. 

That may well be what happened but it’s still the project manager’s responsibility to oversee that it is on track. Sounds like there was a bit of misinformation being passed back to him. 

[Thomaso]

1 minute ago, sam? said:

Was it full turnkey PM role or site based Project manager, Id fully expect my PM's to be fully in control of all costings, materials, procurement, programming, deliveries ? Who accepted the ridiculous tight program, It surely needs to be the project manager albeit with input from client either that or the PM has stuck his head in the sand from client pressure and agreed to the unrealistic programme and isn't doing his job.

 

Also any of my PM's let a project run nearly 100% over original budget he'd be for the high road asap; this is obviously debatable in this case though as the original scope has changed quite a bit (100% is crazy amount though).

 

The tender process allows the PM/Client to understand if the tenderer s are reasonable as they should all be relative close if priced correctly.  We as client put comments back to the tenderer then ask for BAFO final offers. 

 

Once best and final offer in we agree contract and sign up with Contractor, if the price spirals after that it is up to their QS to put his case over for further payments as they are legally obliged to complete contracted works, they take the hit if tendered incorrectly.

This is standard Project Management which works in most construction projects, it seems to have been a little adhoc around the Tynecastle project slightly amateurish if being brutally honest.

 

I was in the construction industry for 40 years so I know how it works. Other factors were at play on the Tynecastle project however.

With regards to the PM he was not responsible for the hopelessly low budget put together by the QS who he had no control over - he did not stick his head in the stand and reported to AB that the budget was unrealistic - so do you think he deserved to be for the “high road”?

Likewise with the programme. He did not put together a programme of his choosing. AB demanded a finish date and he expressed his concerns however told her he would give it his best shot - his fault again was it?

With respect you miss the point with regards to the tender process. Costs did not spiral after a tender was accepted - the costs spiralled against the QS budget when tenders were submitted!

In most work packages even the most competitive tender was way above the QS cost plan.

 

[Thomaso]

4 minutes ago, McCrae said:

 

The club is responsible for the overall success or not of the main stand build.

 

It does not matter what individual did or did not do. AB has overall accountability/responsibility for this.  

 

The stand was neither built to budget or on time. 

Agreed

[Thomaso]

2 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

That may well be what happened but it’s still the project manager’s responsibility to oversee that it is on track. Sounds like there was a bit of misinformation being passed back to him. 

There was and Scott Gardiner paid the penalty for that 

[graygo]

42 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

I think a better term would be that the project was badly administered by the Club rather than managed.

Take my word (if you wish) for it, the Project Manager faced horrendous issues and he deserves our thanks to pull the project through.

 

If the person you are talking about is DF then I've already thanked him. 👍

[Thomaso]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

If the person you are talking about is DF then I've already thanked him. 👍

👍

 

Knowing the effort and commitment he put into the job to deliver the stand I find it a bit annoying that he comes in for stick on here from those frankly not ITK.

[graygo]

Just now, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

👍

 

Knowing the effort and commitment he put into the job to deliver the stand I find it a bit annoying that he comes in for stick on here from those frankly not ITK.

 

[sam?]

26 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

 

With respect, this has been done to death. Incomplete design, strict time constraints and the project being priced incorrectly by the QS from the beginning have led to the estimated revised summarised costs as provided by @Cruickshank for Scotland below:

 

QS flawed budget - £12m

Budget correction - £6m

Plant Room - £1.5m

Hybrid Pitch - £1m

Design changes - £1.5m

 

Out turn cost - £22m

With similar respect, the poster you quoted referenced the PM as doing a good job; it was to that where my reply came from. The guy obviously has some insight on the conditions worked under and I am trying to get a further insight into how professionally this project has been run?

 

You note the QS's flawed budget?

Who's QS ? The tenderer, did we only have one quote (as if not all contractor tenderer s must have got it spectacularly wrong) or did the Client (Hearts) have a QS who decided the price then we invited contractors to try and hit that target ?? Project management suicide if that's the case; deemed to end this way if the case?

 

These are the questions that we should be asking as it seems a bit like "hey ho" we spunk-ed nearly the same amount of cash that put us into administration under the previous regime on a new stand. Costs spiraling out of control spending benefactors and FOH members money through poor management should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure a club languishing at the bottom of the table aren't wasting money that could be spent on playing staff to ensure continued top league football.

 

I'd like to think FOH committee are asking the exact same questions in the Boardroom to find out how £3,000,000 of their members hard earned cash has been wasted with poor management, for a project in the cold light of day doesn't seem that complex.

 

A new stand and all other utilities required for bars, nurseries etc. and forgot the need for a new Plant Room .. LOL you couldn't make that up !!

 

I usually find if something I feel has been done to death, I don't comment any further on but that's just me. This for me has not been done to death in the slightest the apathy from stakeholders particularly FOH on a 12 month project doubling in cost is frightening.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, sam? said:

With similar respect, the poster you quoted referenced the PM as doing a good job; it was to that where my reply came from. The guy obviously has some insight on the conditions worked under and I am trying to get a further insight into how professionally this project has been run?

 

You note the QS's flawed budget?

Who's QS ? The tenderer, did we only have one quote (as if not all contractor tenderer s must have got it spectacularly wrong) or did the Client (Hearts) have a QS who decided the price then we invited contractors to try and hit that target ?? Project management suicide if that's the case; deemed to end this way if the case?

 

These are the questions that we should be asking as it seems a bit like "hey ho" we spunk-ed nearly the same amount of cash that put us into administration under the previous regime on a new stand. Costs spiraling out of control spending benefactors and FOH members money through poor management should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure a club languishing at the bottom of the table aren't wasting money that could be spent on playing staff to ensure continued top league football.

 

I'd like to think FOH committee are asking the exact same questions in the Boardroom to find out how £3,000,000 of their members hard earned cash has been wasted with poor management, for a project in the cold light of day doesn't seem that complex.

 

A new stand and all other utilities required for bars, nurseries etc. and forgot the need for a new Plant Room .. LOL you couldn't make that up !!

 

I usually find if something I feel has been done to death, I don't comment any further on but that's just me. This for me has not been done to death in the slightest the apathy from stakeholders particularly FOH on a 12 month project doubling in cost is frightening.

FOH seem apathetic about everything, not least our league position 

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

FOH seem apathetic about everything, not least our league position 

 

I can confirm that FOH are unhappy about our league position. We can put that one to bed now.

Maybe you missed the bit in their bumf where they explicitly said that they would not interfere or comment on footballing matters.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, graygo said:

 

I can confirm that FOH are unhappy about our league position. We can put that one to bed now.

Maybe you missed the bit in their bumf where they explicitly said that they would not interfere or comment on footballing matters.

No I saw it. It’s just tremendously arrogant to think that they can operate like that.

[BelgeJambo]

Is it just possible that the Benefactor(s) has had a say and agreed to cover the higher spec finish?

[graygo]

8 minutes ago, sam? said:

With similar respect, the poster you quoted referenced the PM as doing a good job; it was to that where my reply came from. The guy obviously has some insight on the conditions worked under and I am trying to get a further insight into how professionally this project has been run?

 

You note the QS's flawed budget?

Who's QS ? The tenderer, did we only have one quote (as if not all contractor tenderer s must have got it spectacularly wrong) or did the Client (Hearts) have a QS who decided the price then we invited contractors to try and hit that target ?? Project management suicide if that's the case; deemed to end this way if the case?

 

These are the questions that we should be asking as it seems a bit like "hey ho" we spunk-ed nearly the same amount of cash that put us into administration under the previous regime on a new stand. Costs spiraling out of control spending benefactors and FOH members money through poor management should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure a club languishing at the bottom of the table aren't wasting money that could be spent on playing staff to ensure continued top league football.

 

I'd like to think FOH committee are asking the exact same questions in the Boardroom to find out how £3,000,000 of their members hard earned cash has been wasted with poor management, for a project in the cold light of day doesn't seem that complex.

 

A new stand and all other utilities required for bars, nurseries etc. and forgot the need for a new Plant Room .. LOL you couldn't make that up !!

 

I usually find if something I feel has been done to death, I don't comment any further on but that's just me. This for me has not been done to death in the slightest the apathy from stakeholders particularly FOH on a 12 month project doubling in cost is frightening.

 

FOH voted almost unanimously to divert that money to the new stand, assuming that you are one of the members who voted against it, did you question it at the time?

[graygo]

3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

No I saw it. It’s just tremendously arrogant to think that they can operate like that.

 

It's not arrogance at all and it's something we agreed to overwhelmingly.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, graygo said:

 

It's not arrogance at all and it's something we agreed to overwhelmingly.

I’d assume because nobody in their wildest imagination thought we would ever be this badly managed.

 

Things have changed. The credibility of the regime is shot. FOH needs to reflect this

[Section Q]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

That may well be what happened but it’s still the project manager’s responsibility to oversee that it is on track. Sounds like there was a bit of misinformation being passed back to him. 

I'm happy with the new stand and like my seat despite the on going financial/budget shortfalls. I've got less issues with the project manager and forgotten seats than I do with our present footballing situation. The stand will eventually be finished, we'll own our part in the club, and we'll be debt free. Just hope we're still in the top tier.

[Thomaso]

19 minutes ago, sam? said:

did the Client (Hearts) have a QS who decided the price then we invited contractors to try and meet the target price

 

This is basically what a happened 

[Bad Religion]

24 minutes ago, sam? said:

With similar respect, the poster you quoted referenced the PM as doing a good job; it was to that where my reply came from. The guy obviously has some insight on the conditions worked under and I am trying to get a further insight into how professionally this project has been run?

 

You note the QS's flawed budget?

Who's QS ? The tenderer, did we only have one quote (as if not all contractor tenderer s must have got it spectacularly wrong) or did the Client (Hearts) have a QS who decided the price then we invited contractors to try and hit that target ?? Project management suicide if that's the case; deemed to end this way if the case?

 

These are the questions that we should be asking as it seems a bit like "hey ho" we spunk-ed nearly the same amount of cash that put us into administration under the previous regime on a new stand. Costs spiraling out of control spending benefactors and FOH members money through poor management should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure a club languishing at the bottom of the table aren't wasting money that could be spent on playing staff to ensure continued top league football.

 

I'd like to think FOH committee are asking the exact same questions in the Boardroom to find out how £3,000,000 of their members hard earned cash has been wasted with poor management, for a project in the cold light of day doesn't seem that complex.

 

A new stand and all other utilities required for bars, nurseries etc. and forgot the need for a new Plant Room .. LOL you couldn't make that up !!

 

I usually find if something I feel has been done to death, I don't comment any further on but that's just me. This for me has not been done to death in the slightest the apathy from stakeholders particularly FOH on a 12 month project doubling in cost is frightening.

 

I have no idea who the QS is/was but I think the answer you're looking for lies somewhere within the section of your paragraph in bold. Once the tender began for specific packages, it became apparent that the actual cost was going to significantly exceed the initial costs provided by the QS. 

 

What we have now is a stand constructed for approximately £18m rather than the projected £12m. Have we got value for money? In my opinion, we have.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Bad Religion

[sam?]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

FOH voted almost unanimously to divert that money to the new stand, assuming that you are one of the members who voted against it, did you question it at the time?

 

that is not the point I'm making, I have no concern putting money in 2018 into the Tynecastle Redevelopment Fund so you are assuming wrongly. Just because you decide to divert money to a project you shouldn't be ignorant to how that money is invested into that project.

 

the point now is in 2020 we are hearing of the poor management of this project from top to bottom and where the money was used, whether it is forgetting a plant room or a press area in the rain or no access or egress for Directors box. We cannot in blind faith handover money. If the project was manged correctly, the money would not have to be diverted into redesigning seating areas, plant rooms, jobs starting with  incomplete designs, needing to hire extra match days at Murrayfield due to seat delivery lead in times. On completion if the project is managed correctly they shall go through the proper lessons learned procedures and feedback to the stake holders the findings to ensure these things should not happen again if at a latter date some further funding is needed.

 

When we are asked to handover millions of pounds some due diligence should be taken into account on how projects are going to be administered.

 

[Thomaso]

6 minutes ago, Bad Religion said:

 

I have no idea who the QS is/was but I think the answer you're looking for lies somewhere within the section of your paragraph in bold. Once the tender began for specific packages, it became apparent that the actual cost was going to significantly exceed the initial costs provided by the QS. 

 

What we have now is a stand constructed for approximately £18m rather than the projected £12m. Have we got value for money? In my opinion, we have.

 

 

 

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!

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, sam? said:

 

that is not the point I'm making, I have no concern putting money in 2018 into the Tynecastle Redevelopment Fund so you are assuming wrongly. Just because you decide to divert money to a project you shouldn't be ignorant to how that money is invested into that project.

 

the point now is in 2020 we are hearing of the poor management of this project from top to bottom and where the money was used, whether it is forgetting a plant room or a press area in the rain or no access or egress for Directors box. We cannot in blind faith handover money. If the project was manged correctly, the money would not have to be diverted into redesigning seating areas, plant rooms, jobs starting with  incomplete designs, needing to hire extra match days at Murrayfield due to seat delivery lead in times. On completion if the project is managed correctly they shall go through the proper lessons learned procedures and feedback to the stake holders the findings to ensure these things should not happen again if at a latter date some further funding is needed.

 

When we are asked to handover millions of pounds some due diligence should be taken into account on how projects are going to be administered.

 

This never all came to light in 2020.

 

You're right about the due diligence but surely the time for that was before handing the money over?

 

By the way I don't think anyone is claiming it wasn't a botch job just that it is what it is and we need to look forward not back, it's not like we are going to be building another stand anytime soon and can use the lessons learnt.

[sam?]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

This never all came to light in 2020.

 

You're right about the due diligence but surely the time for that was before handing the money over?

 

By the way I don't think anyone is claiming it wasn't a botch job just that it is what it is and we need to look forward not back, it's not like we are going to be building another stand anytime soon and can use the lessons learnt.

We decided in good faith that we did not require that due diligence because we all wanted a new stand.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing !!

You never know when funding might be needed for other things not necessarily a stand, you'd just want that confidence that it is being used frugally.

 

[heatonjambo]

11 minutes 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!

will be working on the sketches I promise!

 

but can yo answer a couple of questions.

 

1. Why was there incomplete architects info? What’s on the planning portal is awful. Who decided that was ok?

2. Who decided to build e new Stand over the existing rather than simple knock down and rebuild?

 

cheers

[graygo]

1 minute ago, sam? said:

We decided in good faith that we did not require that due diligence because we all wanted a new stand.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing !!

You never know when funding might be needed for other things not necessarily a stand, you'd just want that confidence that it is being used frugally.

 

 

fair enough.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

will be working on the sketches I promise!

 

but can yo answer a couple of questions.

 

1. Why was there incomplete architects info? What’s on the planning portal is awful. Who decided that was ok?

2. Who decided to build e new Stand over the existing rather than simple knock down and rebuild?

 

cheers

I think point 2 was driven by minimising time without a main stand. 

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

fair enough.

It is in one way but it’s hard to envisage us doing anything so complex or big again in the next 40 years. 

[Thomaso]

11 minutes ago, heatonjambo said:

will be working on the sketches I promise!

 

but can yo answer a couple of questions.

 

1. Why was there incomplete architects info? What’s on the planning portal is awful. Who decided that was ok?

2. Who decided to build e new Stand over the existing rather than simple knock down and rebuild?

 

cheers

These are questions only the Architect can answer. I was not part of that decision making process.

[graygo]

6 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I think point 2 was driven by minimising time without a main stand. 

 

Yes, either play with 3 stands which wouldn't cover the number of season ticket holders or play more games at Murrayfield, either option would cost us a fortune.

Edited January 7, 2020 by graygo

[Thomaso]

7 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I think point 2 was driven by minimising time without a main stand. 

Actually you are correct Dave.

[heatonjambo]

32 minutes 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!

 

6 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

These are questions only the Architect can answer. I was not part of that decision making process.

sorry CfS

 

didn't Realise you where involved.

 

anyhow back to work for me.

 

will try and get something out for around 7-30pm tonight for all of us to have a laugh at!

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

👍

 

Knowing the effort and commitment he put into the job to deliver the stand I find it a bit annoying that he comes in for stick on here from those frankly not ITK.

 

I dont think he has come in for stick, most of us aren't talking about him, don't even know his name. I get that you're defensive of your mate but it's the club and leadership that are under examination, and rightly so IMO.

[Thomaso]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I dont think he has come in for stick, most of us aren't talking about him, don't even know his name. I get that you're defensive of your mate but it's the club and leadership that are under examination, and rightly so IMO.

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!

[McCrae]

4 hours ago, HMFC86 said:

Apologies if I’ve missed it but has it been confirmed what we are actually doing with the second floor? More suites/offices? Or something fans can use?

 

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.