"the Club will invest further in the necessary cladding in order to protect fans from the elements to the extent necessary and practical. This is the case even though the projected cost is likely to be materially higher than first advised. This will now have to go ahead in the close season"

That sounds to me like a pretty solid confirmation that the cladding will go up and will go up in the off season. Beyond providing precise dates I don't really see what more you can expect at this stage. What seems to have been left deliberately ambiguous, however, is what the extent and nature of the cladding coverage will be.

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)

On first reading it - at work so obviously not carefully enough - I read it to mean that assessing the cost of the cladding will have to go on in the off season rather than actually constructing the cladding but that isn't what is written. I just didn't spend time enough reading it. However, I do agree that they have been ambiguous as to how much cladding will go up. No idea what 'necessary and practical' means. Could mean anything.

Very glad the club have issued the statement and the legalitise make perfect sense.

Totally satisfied and all that was required to tell fans that the issue was being addressed. Well done Saints.

Wasn't the initial idea to place in the corners of the North stand and both the East and West? I'm not sure if that was just speculation though.

Fair play to Saints for communicating, at least now we know where we stand and questions won't be raised until the end of the season now.

But I think voting for a new stadium is taking it a little too far blobby. Surely we should give this one a go first cladding or no cladding?

I read variations on that theme, yes. The corners were key I think as that appeared to be where the wind was most destructive.


I think that was the plan. There is a fans forum tomorrow night at which McManus is one of the panel.

Solid confirmation. Nothing more to be said, some people will still moan though.

Well done Saints on finally communicating with us!

My gripe with the whole affair is that Saints just haven't publicly said anything on the matter and we've had 4/5 months of silence on the issue when they said it would be started by Feb or some point.

I'm happy now that it feels like the club is not sweeping the issue under the carper etc, but I'd be disappointed if it get's to the stage where Saints are silent on the issue all the way through the off-season and then we are in the same position this time next season...I'll give the club the benefit of the doubt though!



I'd say that is a fair assumption of what has probably happened. Reliance on a statement which results in a financial loss is something that I did through Uni this year...

All this and, according to Sadfish, only 6 people were dissatisfied.

As some of you may be aware'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' '"

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.