So what exactly is the problem with using the still functioning old dressing rooms as stop gap? They was good enough for SL last season.

I would imagine the water issue might not be confined to just the east stand. It could in actual fact be causing issues beyond just the north stand.

Surely the problem arises when we have a large crowd for a game and the water provision cannot cope. Perhaps if we had only 3-4000 crowd the system could manage but our success has brought the problem to the surface at this stage. Better now than later. The major developments required thorough stress testing which could only be done when operating with a large crowd. Fortunately, these have been discovered early and can now be resolved.

Looks like work ongoing in the carpark!!

New water pipes ??

yes the car park is getting dug up for new water supply, paid for by matt. What a shambolic state of affairs he's been left in. 11 million for what we've got is a disgrace and poor value. Electric ,water supply, re do the changing room floors and put lockers in, walls not right, banisters on cheap and decor. A crumbling mess of a northstand which wants re doing. I've no idea who's to blame the club, the builders or designers or all three but it's money
What could be used on other things. We're lucky tk have this bloke in charge.

Cost cutting has implications, its a constant battle in the field and more often than not the QS wins, but it's ultimately a short term saving. Whether there was a design to increase the diameter of the supply and we chose not or it wasn't even on the agenda I don't know.

Fundamentally, Carter and Minards are not construction professionals so will have taken advice from the architects, engineers and main contractor.

£11m was never enough to do what needed doing "properly" its blatantly obvious that shortcuts and cost savings have been made to compromise finish, who made those decisions isn't clear, but a decent project manager would have prevented them from occurring, that is for sure.

Well I guess the problem is, if you have a limited budget and prices change you have to make decisions.
If they'd done this better who knows what other part wouldn't have been right.

But ultimately, it's a foundation to build on. They needed to get it done.
And I'm not sure this is all Ellis's cost yet. There are guarantees and insurances to go through yet to see who pays I'm sure.

That's a reasonably pragmatic way to look at it, however being involved in the construction industry for the last 36 years I have learnt a few things and the main one to remember is that we don't need to be worried about these shortcuts, its the ones we don't know about that we need to worry about. As for ME picking up/not picking up the cost of rectification, it all depends on a number of things. The main being the initial contract and retainers (if there even was any) and where the instructions came from to cut these corners/costs


Saying all that I do have100% faith in ME and I'm very glad that it isn't an accountant in charge anymore of making the next decisions moving forward

What I don't understand is that with updates given by JM during the build, it definitely came across that Trinity were liable for any rise in steel price (even after contracts let) giving way to an erosion of project scope as the build went on. I've never worked on a "cost plus" contract and only ever know them to be for complex and unique projects (Nuclear Power Stations, HS2 etc).