Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:54 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

7.425 metre of roof removed??
That’s over 24 feet of roof and is a significant amount of change, why?

To save money. The over hang is behind the stand. Value engineering again but this at least its not affecting spectotors. Its more of a visual downgrade.

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:05 pm  

The Avenger wrote:

7.425 metre of roof removed??
That’s over 24 feet of roof and is a significant amount of change, why?

It's obvious isn't it?

Cost saving in an area that had no real value anyway.

There is an economic crisis on the go.

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:09 pm  

Khlav Kalash wrote:

To save money. The over hang is behind the stand. Value engineering again but this at least its not affecting spectotors. Its more of a visual downgrade.

Correct bso why do some choose to make a huge drama out of a non existent crisis. The only downgrade so far that genuinely affect the rebuild is that of the North stand reduction. Everything else is purely cosmetic.

Even the reduction in the North stand capacity will have no effect on revenue as I think it will be some time before we exceed a capacity of 7,600 on anything like a regular basis and when we do then we address it at the time.

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:21 pm  

vastman wrote:

It's obvious isn't it?

Cost saving in an area that had no real value anyway.

There is an economic crisis on the go.

On the face of it, this is odd.
Why the sudden need to make amendments? You've already alluded to reducing cost?
But why?
Wouldn't the club have agreed a fixed cost with the developer before the works started?
And agreed the details of the job in prior knowledge of the available budget?

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:29 pm  

gowerthegroap wrote:

On the face of it, this is odd.
Why the sudden need to make amendments? You've already alluded to reducing cost?
But why?
Wouldn't the club have agreed a fixed cost with the developer before the works started?
And agreed the details of the job in prior knowledge of the available budget?

Not on material cost they won't, in most cases all costs are estimates, rarely are they fixed. All developments generally go over budget due to delays and unforeseen costs, but in the current climate its not a possibility it's an absolute certainty.

No developer will build at a loss, that would be stupid, so it's always an estimate rarely a fixed cost. It simply wouldn't work and wouldn't benefit us, the last thing we want is for our construction company to go bust half way through.

We have two choices. Find more money and we clearly can't or cut costs. I'd also suggest this isn't the end, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there are not a few more to come. We simply couldn't have started building at a worse time, that's just a fact.

P*sses me off as much as anyone else but it's just how it is.

[PopTart]

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:39 pm  

I think it's the value part too.
If that was seen to be bigger than we needed why waste the money.
No different to any other project. Requirements are adjusted based on current situation.

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 5:03 pm  

Costs are only going one way, we have a finite pot of cash, the value of which is ever decreasing the longer the build goes on. Much as an Energy company will not give you a fixed cost, or if they do they will inflate it to protect themselves, a contractor in the current climate will have mechanisms in their quote to cover risings costs, or they will submit an elevated figure to cover increases. Pure bad timings unfortunately. The designs were done some years back based on £12m budget, the reality of the build 3 years later is hitting home.

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 5:50 pm  

vastman wrote:

Correct bso why do some choose to make a huge drama out of a non existent crisis. The only downgrade so far that genuinely affect the rebuild is that of the North stand reduction. Everything else is purely cosmetic.

Even the reduction in the North stand capacity will have no effect on revenue as I think it will be some time before we exceed a capacity of 7,600 on anything like a regular basis and when we do then we address it at the time.

It’s amazing how mentioning the reduction in roof overhang when asking about the fan Zone going ahead, as this was hoped to raise revenue on match days, could raise so much debate. I’ve no problem with the club cutting building costs where practical, I know the redevelopment is a vital part when/if IMG announce licensing in the very near future.

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:34 pm  

vastman wrote:

Correct bso why do some choose to make a huge drama out of a non existent crisis. The only downgrade so far that genuinely affect the rebuild is that of the North stand reduction. Everything else is purely cosmetic.

Even the reduction in the North stand capacity will have no effect on revenue as I think it will be some time before we exceed a capacity of 7,600 on anything like a regular basis and when we do then we address it at the time.

Who’s made a huge drama about it?

If it was aimed at me I don’t know why.
I just thought 24 feet of roof seemed a lot and asked a question which instead of a normal straight answer I got your usual condescension and derision

Re: Stadium redevelopment part 2 : Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:37 pm  

gowerthegroap wrote:

On the face of it, this is odd.
Why the sudden need to make amendments? You've already alluded to reducing cost?
But why?
Wouldn't the club have agreed a fixed cost with the developer before the works started?
And agreed the details of the job in prior knowledge of the available budget?

Have a look at Harris Construction gone bust millions on the books in work but material costs have bust them.