Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Its a pity the 100 MPH gales did'nt venture a bit further north. That stand would look superb without its roof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Its a pity the 100 MPH gales did'nt venture a bit further north. That stand would look superb without its roof.

---

They probably would have wanted that for insurance purposes.
Wonder how much it cost them to insure it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrinityHibs

The first 2 could have cost less as FTB constructed them on a separate trades basis. James Clydesadale appointed a project manager who oversaw the sub contractors which cut out main contractors profit, significantly reduced the preliminaries and secured enhanced sub contractors discount for FTB due to direct payment. There was a suggestion at the time that corners were being cut which Clydesdale denied. He then went on to say that FTB not only paid him additional cash for the PM but also paid him a full Architects fee which very few other clients did. You have to ask why? I believe Clydesdale did other work for FTB but have no idea what if any fees were paid for that!!!! I do not believe their stands are any less well constructed than any other stand constructed at that time. However when you compare the two grounds you do realise what an exceptional job STF and RP have done in producing a first class environment to play and watch football.

---

Melville dundas were the main contractor on that job, were they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by degenerated

Melville dundas were the main contractor on that job, were they not?

---

Maybe the first stand definitely not the second. Mercer was going thro his separate trades stage at that time and getting things built on the cheap. Main issue was getting an acceptable warranty to satisfy the lender as there was no single point of responsibility. I was pretty sure he did the first stand that way as well but you are as likely to be correct as it is a good few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

They probably would have wanted that for insurance purposes.
Wonder how much it cost them to insure it.

---

It was mentioned some months ago that insurance was costing [over] £300,000 a year for that stand alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

Absolutely astounding Mikey. I'm out country just now so v limited access but para 5 should be cut & pasted & sent to journos & the council. On a serious note here that old stand has the potential to cause a major disaster. Who will accept responsibility if a genuinely dreadful event occurs? We have a stand which 10 years ago did not conform to safety standards re exiting, has an asbestos roof with holes in it, has structural issues & has a wooden floor with a higher fire risk! Yet it remains open to the public 10 years on, that is shameful.
ps, on a lighter note I didn't realise the netting to stop debris falling had been in place for over 10 years now, what a joke of a club!

---

Although that document was clearly caged to try and convince the mutants that Murrayfield could work, the paragraph on the main stand is incredible.

Structurally unsound, asbestos roof in a state of disrepair (as if netting is a suitable mitigation for asbestos risk!), non-compliant access and egress, made of wood. The stand is - without even exaggerating - a disaster waiting to happen.

I remember being in it for the semi in 2007 and being shocked at how terrible it was. I doubt much has been spent in the way of maintenance since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bawheid

Although that document was clearly caged to try and convince the mutants that Murrayfield could work, the paragraph on the main stand is incredible. Structurally unsound, asbestos roof in a state of disrepair (as if netting is a suitable mitigation for asbestos risk!), non-compliant access and egress, made of wood. The stand is - without even exaggerating - a disaster waiting to happen. I remember being in it for the semi in 2007 and being shocked at how terrible it was. I doubt much has been spent in the way of maintenance since.

---

And to think they have a hospitality suite in that stand as well. Gas heaters and all. Big team ma arse

The netting is to keep the pigeons IN. It's only the bird **** keeping the roof together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

It was mentioned some months ago that insurance was costing [over] £300,000 a year for that stand alone.

---

In BDO's report expenditure report insurance costs for the first 6 months of administration were £ 15,439.00 .

I would guess that would only cover public liability and staff accidental injuries. Don't think they can get/considerate it worth it to insure the Wonga Dome.

The creditors list does not seem to have an insurance company named either. Paid up front or un-insured :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

In BDO's report expenditure report insurance costs for the first 6 months of administration were £ 15,439.00 .

I would guess that would only cover public liability and staff accidental injuries. Don't think they can get/considerate it worth it to insure the Wonga Dome.

The creditors list does not seem to have an insurance company named either. Paid up front or un-insured :confused:

---

If it was paid in full before admin then the policy would still be active? Therefore may not show up on BDO report?

No matter how this pans out, the next generation of yams will blame their Uncledaddies for the mess they're in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bawheid

Although that document was clearly caged to try and convince the mutants that Murrayfield could work, the paragraph on the main stand is incredible.

Structurally unsound, asbestos roof in a state of disrepair (as if netting is a suitable mitigation for asbestos risk!), non-compliant access and egress, made of wood. The stand is - without even exaggerating - a disaster waiting to happen.

I remember being in it for the semi in 2007 and being shocked at how terrible it was. I doubt much has been spent in the way of maintenance since.

---

To those that remember watching events unfold at Bradford, 29 years ago. Paper rubbish under the stand, a discarded fag....

http://bradfordcityfire.co.uk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

To those that remember watching events unfold at Bradford, 29 years ago. Paper rubbish under the stand, a discarded fag....

http://bradfordcityfire.co.uk/

---

Thing is it will be insured for well more than it's worth. There would be those behind the scenes hoping it does burn down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golden Fleece

To those that remember watching events unfold at Bradford, 29 years ago. Paper rubbish under the stand, a discarded fag....

http://bradfordcityfire.co.uk/

---

In The Football Grounds Of England And Wales published in 1983, in the section on Bradford City, the author Simon Inglis wrote "Underneath the seats are flaps which open to reveal piles of accumulated litter" The fire occurred about 2 years later on 11 May 85.

The problems at Valley Parade prior to the fire seem to mirror many of those now at Tynecastle. And Hearts have had a 10 year warning of impending disaster but seem to be totally unconcerned!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

In The Football Grounds Of England And Wales published in 1983, in the section on Bradford City, the author Simon Inglis wrote "Underneath the seats are flaps which open to reveal piles of accumulated litter" The fire occurred about 2 years later on 11 May 85.

The problems at Valley Parade prior to the fire seem to mirror many of those now at Tynecastle. And Hearts have had a 10 year warning of impending disaster but seem to be totally unconcerned!

---

I don't think they are unconcerned, they just can't afford to do anything about it. I'm pretty sure their plans for a 400,000 seater multi purpose superdome was all smoke. I think it was a matter of spend £5-10m they didn't have on a new stand or draw up plans for a new stand to keep the health and safety people off their backs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

I don't think they are unconcerned, they just can't afford to do anything about it. I'm pretty sure their plans for a 400,000 seater multi purpose superdome was all smoke. I think it was a matter of spend £5-10m they didn't have on a new stand or draw up plans for a new stand to keep the health and safety people off their backs.

---

If Hearts were concerned they would have closed their main stand. Then again it is Hearts we are talking about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

I don't think they are unconcerned, they just can't afford to do anything about it. I'm pretty sure their plans for a 400,000 seater multi purpose superdome was all smoke. I think it was a matter of spend £5-10m they didn't have on a new stand or draw up plans for a new stand to keep the health and safety people off their backs.

---

Exactly.

This has been the excuse for about the last 6 years.

" Why make us spend money bringing the old stand up to safety standard when we are going to pull it down as soon as you give us planning permission for a new stand ".

The million pound plus the imbeciles spent on design fees for a pie-in-the-sky mega stand could have given the pre-war relic another 20 years of use.

The upper part of the stand, the bit with the wooden deck should be closed when the season finishes as a minimum requirement.

These chumps have a simple choice. act like a rationale, well run club and pgrade the infrastructure to make it safe, comfortable and 21st century, or put every penny they steal into players they can't afford so they can beat the Hibs. No contest.

Tough year ahead for the Yams with no Hibs glamour game to look forward to :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bawheid

Although that document was clearly caged to try and convince the mutants that Murrayfield could work, the paragraph on the main stand is incredible.

Structurally unsound, asbestos roof in a state of disrepair (as if netting is a suitable mitigation for asbestos risk!), non-compliant access and egress, made of wood. The stand is - without even exaggerating - a disaster waiting to happen.

I remember being in it for the semi in 2007 and being shocked at how terrible it was. I doubt much has been spent in the way of maintenance since.

---

I was last in main stand for a game vs them in the 90's. I was horrified at the conditions, particularly as people were smoking in the toilets. I've refused to go there ever since & also barred my family from going to that stand. It really should be shut down now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Exactly.

This has been the excuse for about the last 6 years.

"Why make us spend money bringing the old stand up to safety standard when we are going to pull it down as soon as you give us planning permission for a new stand".

The million pound plus the imbeciles spent on design fees for a pie-in-the-sky mega stand could have given the pre-war relic another 20 years of use.

---

Did they actually spend one million on design fees or did they string along the Architect with promises of the commission once the stand received planning permission?

Either way, spending a million on the old stand would do little to solve the safety issues. A ball and chain is the only way to deal with that!

STV news...

Gary Locke calls out prospective Hearts owner on her plans for the club.

Clever boy, hound your only real backer even before the 'rubber stamp' makes its appearance. And I thought it was the biggest supporter movement in history, not the Anne Budge show?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_ginger_hibee

STV news...

Gary Locke calls out prospective Hearts owner on her plans for the club.

Clever boy, hound your only real backer even before the 'rubber stamp' makes its appearance. And I thought it was the biggest supporter movement in history, not the Anne Budge show?

---

Just coming on STV shortly.

Update coming up apparently. Bet it's pish :wink:

Here's the FOH response

http://progress-sc.com/wp-content/up...ruary-2014.pdf

£6m debt after admin? Better than we hoped. :-)

It is vital that supporters understand that is likely £6m needs to be raised over a five year period ?

I'm assuming the £6m figure is the running costs plus bidcos money

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...medium=twitter

"BBC Scotland can reveal"

:faf:

Raising £6m while rebuilding an entire squad, at least 1 season in the championship and also needing a new main stand. Aye nae bother.