As some of you may be aware: there was a fans forum at LP and obviously the issue of cladding was bound to come up!
Our resident note taker from Redvee, Talk Some Sense, went to it tonight and this is what was said on the matter in his words:
'Cladding/stadium - Some aspects are not satisfactory, he says that. Finance is now as we all know in place to solve the issue and it will happen at the end of the season. He explained how the club bought the stadium as a package, didn't have the greatest involvement in design and bulild and the involvement they had was more to do with 'rugby' issues i.e dressing rroms etc. They are looking into this legally but the key thing is they are going to look to fix things and have fnances in place to do so'
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 11:09 pm Posts: 2787 Location: In Dire Straits
I agree, dunno what she was reading.
Saints' statement is a pretty honest one. It's an admission that the original plans were agreed upon and paid for on the basis that the roof was to be as it is and for the gaps to be unclad. They have then admitted that following their own experience and the feedback from the fans that the initial design plans were insufficient to provide the level of comfort required. So this has brought up legal and contractual issues. They have then obviously gone back to the companies involved in the design work and are not happy with their response, hence the statement about considering legal action. They have then CONFIRMED the cladding will be done, at substantial cost in the off season.
Reading between the lines it would seem perhaps it was identified as a potential issue during the design phase and the club signed off the designs without cladding on the basis that is would cost £x to fix. It's then transpired it was required and it would cost significantly more.
Well done to Saints for making the statement and being as honest as they can be over it. Hopefully the legal and contractual issues can be resolved and the cashflow impact isn't too severe. I'd hate for this to restrict the club's ability to progress on the field.
(In other news, shows they are clearly at least reading the forums and listening to the fans, so well done to Mike Appleton or whoever it is that is doing that)
A good analysis I thnik. I'm not sure what was actually stopping them from commenting about it ""The Club has had to refrain to date from public comment on the intended additional cladding to Langtree Park due to legal and contractual restrictions." - It could have said "yeah we will do the cladding but it will be in the close season etc etc" without too much detail.
With regards to the named project advisor company which Saints are considering possible legal action against; as a person who works in a credit industry I never fail to be amazed how some businesses ran by very intelligent people, when undergoing major projects, continue to make the mistake of putting their future and faith in the hands of companies which are financially unsound. The company in question according to public records has been insolvent (i.e total liabilities exceed total assets) for at least the last 4 years and is less than worthless. I just hope Sainrts took suitable guarantees and/or insurance as this comapny is worth SFA.
RLFANS POSTS: 4,272,451 - RLFANS CURRENTLY ONLINE:274 - TOTAL MEMBERS: 74,622 - RECORD ONLINE: 4,468 on 08-02-2014 11:02:59 Google Analytics Unique Monthly Users : 119,394 (May 2015)
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or it's subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.