Well yes it is, but I'm unsure how much more the club could have done with this statement tbh. Yes, it's a statement that lacks any real substance, but if there is nothing to report and fans DEMAND some sort of update (see the thread over on redvee.net which is full of moans) then that's exactly what you'll get: an update saying very little.

I'd rather the club consider the proposals carefully and then choose the right option that will benefit the ground in the long term, rather than rushing into something that may just lead to further problems.

We just have to be a little more patient and a little less cynical about what goes on at the club. The question is WHEN will it get done, as opposed to IF it will get done.

It's more a "We don't want to jump in without thinking everything through, make another mistake, get pilloried by fans for it, then have to spend more money [again] trying to put it right"

Suspect they're also looking at maximising the contribution from the architects/contractors - and this will depend heavily on how the design was sold to Saints.

Aye, it's all fair enough what they're saying. But I'd rather they didn't call it an update and get me all excited when it's just telling us what we already know.

I don't think it's that certain. There is clearly a cost implication that the club is against paying for. I can't imagine any of the parties involved in construction or planning sticking their hand up to pay for the work either. I don't see this ever being solved, it's one of those that will just rumble on until people get used to it and then be forgotten about it, with a catalogue of 'updates' blaming other people.

The lack of cladding wasn't a design oversight, lets face it. It was a cost cutting measure from Saints that backfired on them spectacularly when there was such extremely bad weather for the first few home games. Had those home games been reasonable weather, this whole issue would have never come up.

I'd suggest you don't know WTF you're talking about. If you think that McManus and others looked at plans which had a full cladding, shook their heads and said "Nah, scrap the cladding and we'll save £x... sod the supporters, they won't notice getting wet." then you're a loon.

More likely is the designers either assured Saints that the design would not lead to extensive drenching of fans, or it was simply not mentioned by the architects and Saints didn't pick up on the potential problems.

It is an update, just because it does not give a final answer does not mean it's an update.

It is also a sign that this is far from being kicked into the long grass and it's still on the agenda.

I know in the world of instant access and everyones opinion being both valid and factual, people struggle with not getting instant answers. But as far as updates go I'm happy with the club just letting us know on occasion that it has not been forgotten.

We can't ask for any more unless we are willing to put our own hands in our pockets and say damn the costs I'll pay what ever is needed. Any sound business is going to get the best deal possible and if that means getting others to pay a contribution so be it.

An update is when something new is reported. This is pretty much the same article that got released in September(?). Therefore, not an update.

Am I? Am I really? It would hardly be a shocking revelation if a cash strapped business cut corners and made compromises on such an expensive purchase. I'm not criticising the club for it necessarily, in fact if they didn't do it deliberately it puts them in a worse light, as it would mean they were all pretty much incompetent in not recognising that having enormous holes would, just maybe, lead to water getting in. I'd still go for it being a cost saving measure, because one stand was built fully clad, which makes this insistence that the floating roof and enormous holes were a deliberate design feature look a bit silly. It's also worth noting that there have been a couple of new grounds built and designed by the same company we used, that are essentially identical to Langtree Park and which are fully clad on all stands. These were already in the building phase when Langtree Park was opened, which again adds weight to the suggestion the cladding was removed from the design as a cost saving measure.

McManus has done a great deal for the club and we should all be very grateful for that. But that doesn't make him some sort of god, he makes mistakes, as any business leader does. If he sorts this issue, great, if not I'm not bothered really as I have a coat and waterproof shoes so I won't get wet anyway.

Yup. It's an attempt to keep the ferral inhabitants of the internet forums from getting into too much of a frenzy. Clearly nothing has changed on the issue since it first came up. Saints don't want to pay for it, neither do the designers or builders as they had the final designs signed off without cladding.

I'm willing to put money on it not getting done this year, they will come up with the excuse that the time frame prevented us from fling it.

As ive said all along, they don't want to do it because it costs money.

They are giving the fans the latest information on the situation, the fact that the situation hasn't changed doesn't mean it's not an update.




From a company that lost a great deal of money in the last few years, are you surprised? You own a business don't you? How easy is it for a company making a loss to finance a large loan these days? From what I hear, not very.

Perhaps all the fans moaning about it will accept a 20% increase on season ticket prices and gear to go towards paying for it without complaining about prices rising?

Yes I own my business but I've never made a loss, I've always been in profit

I can see your point but if this problem isn't put to bed ASAP then people will stop going. If they get soaking wet every week then I think fans might not go.

For example - say we was playing Hudds Friday, its throwing it down but its a sky live game, will people stay in or go in and get wet ?

Running my own business also makes me very very aware of health & safety, IMO the wet concrete floors are massive safety issue, the concrete slabs are power float finish meaning its smooth making it slippery. Where the is blame, the us a claim.

Also, I know for a fact the concrete mix for rhe floors in concourses are not for outside conditions like cold, snow and rain. If the is a continued amount of water on that concrete floor, I'm pretty certain few years down the line it will break up. The whole floor would then have to be dug out and re-slabbed.

IMO saints need to come up with something as its only going to come back and bite them in the end and could prove very expensive.

One national journalist mocked it today nicely in twitter, for me it tends to sum the game of rugby league currently!

update
Verb:
Make (something) more modern or up to date.
Noun:
An act of bringing something or someone up to date, or an updated version of something.

Just because they're telling us about it, doesn't make it an update. An update suggests by it's very nature that something has changed, which it hasn't. I've never had a conversation with someone where they have updated me on the fact that nothing has changed.

I have no idea why I'm even getting into this to be honest, it doesn't really matter.