As you say it’s not that simple, not all delays are the developers fault.

The most likely outcome would be some sort of favour. Something like tidying up the North stand rear, rather than cash.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/r ... RzAsjbgrks Interesting comments regarding the west stand, regarding a viewing terrace

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/r ... RzAsjbgrks Interesting comments regarding the west stand, regarding a viewing terrace

Sounded interesting that. Could offer a unique viewing experience and the chance to offer some increased capacity.

Our new owner is unbelievable.
Even in the 60 ‘s I cannot recall such positivity coming from the club.he seems to be totally in harmony with the supporters.
Looking forward to the ride ahead!

Goes without saying but it will very much centre around the nature of the contract used to procure the works and who has contractually signed up to take the risk.

I believe some delays were the result of discovery of asbestos during the demolition phase and others significant ones were due to the labour issues, particularly bricklaying resource.

The contractor was involved with the project from a very early stage, however they did walk away for a while during the development phase so I would think the terms to get them back to the table would be fairly low risk on their side. I do know the MD of the contractor has done a number of stadium facilities in the past and lost money on them so again I would think the contract would have been traditional rather than design and build meaning the club would take on most of the risk.

Trojan Horse wrote:Sounded interesting that. Could offer a unique viewing experience and the chance to offer some increased capacity. A bit like the one at The Watersheddings when Oldham played there: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... sresct%3D1

Trojan Horse wrote:Sounded interesting that. Could offer a unique viewing experience and the chance to offer some increased capacity. A bit like the one at The Watersheddings when Oldham played there: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... sresct%3D1

LyndsayGill wrote:A bit like the one at The Watersheddings when Oldham played there, only better. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... sresct%3D1

LyndsayGill wrote:A bit like the one at The Watersheddings when Oldham played there, only better. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... sresct%3D1

The contract was a fixed price. To protect us from long delays and increased costs.
But I don't suppose revenue loss for a delay is quite so simple as its hard to prove what was lost.

He used the phrase, hospitality view.

Could that be an indication that the hospitality boxes could be moving from the south side to there, freeing up space in the south end, for development down the line

I would imagine what we have at the south will remain and that the West will be worked on as a new project.

Moving costs for the south and foundation for the boxes would be high and then you’ve the added pressure and cost of doing the south (Effectively upgrading 2 stands at once).

There’s nothing wrong with the south and it generates income too. More likely just do some works on the west. It doesn’t need to be top class state of the art really either but certainly something practice and able to generate a better experience long term and some extra finance.

The south will be a long term plan I would envisage. Eventually in the next 5-10 years I would imagine a new stand with hospitality glass boxes along the top/back will be how that goes. It wouldn’t need all the rooms and facilities as they’re all in the new east stand.