Gemmel Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 This whole overspend as a result of 'constant' design changes is another urban myth invented and peddled by the NC bathers. Like ken all major projects, I am sure there has been some small detail changes that make it more expensive than if part of the original plans.... But 15mil? Seriously you believe that was down to such 'messing about'? if everyone cares to recall, the original work began when we were NOT in the prem... So were of a more modest level, but with room for additional phases in future. when we were promoted it was communicated that the club were going to press ahead with the next bigger phase, (as we had additional prem revenues) ... Seriously, anyone who actually believes we're turned a 15mil project into a 30 mil one through incompetence is letting their dislike of NC prejudice their opinion.... Which is nothing particularly new on here Frank my analogy wasn't to bash NC - You can see through my history that I have consistently praised him and what he achieved, albeit sometimes with the caveat of his less than finest moments. With regard to the training ground, there is / was undoubtedly some scope creep that (A pedant might question why pre agreed plans, based on pre approved budgets changed so much (on more than one occasion) and so significantly financially - but we can park that) delivered an improved training complex. However if you want to believe that not a single penny of the overspend was related to the chopping and changing of minds, dislike of how things looked "in real life" and a "start again and do it this way" attitude, then that is your prerogative - Just as it is for you to dismiss claims that the contractors walked off site, due to non payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 (edited) Two ways of looking at it. On a purely property level, if you spent £10k on your house, it should increase the value of your house by more than £10k. So in theory, spending £30m on it means it is now worth a lot more than £30m more than it was previously. But of course, that value is only realised if someone were to want to buy it, which is obviously unlikely for a training ground. So the second option is that we'll be judging it against the potential future value of Academy graduates and other players who we improve and either sell, or who contribute to future success. If we win (I know, I know) the league or get into the Champions League with input from Academy players or others who've benefitted from the facilities, then it will be 'worth' far more than £30m in years to come. Or the other way of looking at it is you asked for an extension on your house and budgeted £50k for it, but because you kept changing the spec, not paying the builder thus incuring penalties, adding things on that weren't in the budget, arguing with the builder, not forgetting changing the spec, so it took twice as long it ended up costing you £100k. Edited 6 June, 2014 by Turkish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 This whole overspend as a result of 'constant' design changes is another urban myth invented and peddled by the NC bathers. Like ken all major projects, I am sure there has been some small detail changes that make it more expensive than if part of the original plans.... But 15mil? Seriously you believe that was down to such 'messing about'? if everyone cares to recall, the original work began when we were NOT in the prem... So were of a more modest level, but with room for additional phases in future. when we were promoted it was communicated that the club were going to press ahead with the next bigger phase, (as we had additional prem revenues) ... Seriously, anyone who actually believes we're turned a 15mil project into a 30 mil one through incompetence is letting their dislike of NC prejudice their opinion.... Which is nothing particularly new on here You think "small detail changes" made the cost of the building work went from £15m to £30m?! That's a good one even by your standards Franco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 I had a similar issue in Amsterdam. They said 30 guilders (back in the day) but after a few small detail changes, you end up paying more than twice that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Or the other way of looking at it is you asked for an extension on your house and budgeted £50k for it, but because you kept changing the spec, not paying the builder thus incuring penalties, adding things on that weren't in the budget, arguing with the builder, not forgetting changing the spec, so it took twice as long it ended up costing you £100k. Yeah, that. You first post didn't give a lot away, but I should've guessed it would be more along those lines based on previous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 6 June, 2014 (edited) 1) Originally the main pavilion was going to look like this... That building is significantly smaller and lower in spec than what they have now built at Staplewood. 2) The original plans didn't include a large groundsman building 3) The original plans didn't include the security building 4) The original plans didn't include this... 5) The original plans didn't include the 3G pitch 6) The original plan didn't include a new training dome 7) The original plans didn't include the large number of new academy buildings around the farmhouse... 8 ) The original plans didn't include a signicant amount more done in terms of landscaping the site 9 The original plans didn't include them expanding into these fields.... It is all of these things that led to the cost going up! Not Cortese being indecisive on wallpaper choices in the offices. Edited 6 June, 2014 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 MLG, it doesn't have to be one or the other... clearly those things added to the price, but it seems there is a strong case that Cortese also contributed through the things that Turk refers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Didn't the original dome collapse and had to be replaced? That won't have come cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 (edited) Good to see the simpletons out in force - it's easy to understand why a project starting from a low cost base might double - in absolute terms, it only needs a minuscule increase in cost to achieve that effect. Trying to extend that logic to a multimillion pound project makes little or no sense at all. Substantive, structural changes accounted for the cost increase - inefficiency or waste might have made a difference but they were trivial in comparison. Whether those changes were necessary or a priority is a far more legitimate criticism. Edited 6 June, 2014 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 it's easy to understand why a project starting from a low cost base might double - in absolute terms, it only needs a minuscule increase in cost to achieve that effect. Go on then, explain that tautology, its easy after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Didn't the original dome collapse and had to be replaced? That won't have come cheap! I think the foundations had gone and repair wasn't much cheaper than building new. It was a relatively minor part of the cost though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Go on then, explain that tautology, its easy after all. Do you know anything about the fallacy of looking at relative changes from a low base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Do you know anything about the fallacy of looking at relative changes from a low base? Im agog to be taught by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 6 June, 2014 (edited) I think the foundations had gone and repair wasn't much cheaper than building new. It was a relatively minor part of the cost though. The old training dome cost £1.25m in 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/4909032.stm Edited 6 June, 2014 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 (edited) The old training dome cost £1m iirc many years ago. A replacement wouldn't be insignificant in cost in 2014. Its a Covair dome. http://covair.co.uk/double-skin-domes-prices/ Edited 6 June, 2014 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Substantive, structural changes accounted for the cost increase - inefficiency or waste might have made a difference but they were trivial in comparison. Whether those changes were necessary or a priority is a far more legitimate criticism. The cost more than doubled - it increased to £38 million. "Only" £4 million is attribtable to waste, the remainder was down to an expansion of plans and specification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Did a quick google search and found this article detailing some other premier league training centres and costs to build, although I did notice that other sources gave the cost of Spurs’ training centre as £30M as opposed to this link’s £45M. http://www.footballfancast.com/football-blogs/have-spurs-and-city-spent-their-money-at-the-right-time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 The cost more than doubled - it increased to £38 million. "Only" £4 million is attribtable to waste, the remainder was down to an expansion of plans and specification. Fair enough -which is my point. Criticising the expansion because it was unnecessary is one thing; criticising the project because it was done inefficiently is another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Its very good and a huge improvement. My only gripe is we paid more than necessary. Most of the clubs above us have better and most of the clubs below worse so we're about where we 'should' be. For comparison this is what Pochettino has gone to. http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/the-club/new-training-centre/ £30 million should have bought us a road sign as least as good as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 £30 million should have bought us a road sign as least as good as that. I was mainly thinking of the other 14 pictures, but take your point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Did a quick google search and found this article detailing some other premier league training centres and costs to build, although I did notice that other sources gave the cost of Spurs’ training centre as £30M as opposed to this link’s £45M. http://www.footballfancast.com/football-blogs/have-spurs-and-city-spent-their-money-at-the-right-time One significant difference is Tottenham training ground was brand new. Ours was already there. So they built a new ground at a new location in a more expensive part of the country for the same or a bit more, depending on what you read, than it cost is to refurbish one that was already there. And still some people persist that it's the cortese haters peddling a myth that it was massively over budget as part of their agenda :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 One significant difference is Tottenham training ground was brand new. Ours was already there. So they built a new ground at a new location in a more expensive part of the country for the same or a bit more, depending on what you read, than it cost is to refurbish one that was already there. And still some people persist that it's the cortese haters peddling a myth that it was massively over budget as part of their agenda :lol: Not forgetting that within that cost they had to purchase 77 acres of land near North London, they have 15 pitches to our 10/11 and the build itself is much bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 pls can everyone lay off nicola, it's not his fault he can't run a major civil engineering development. It was his first ever one! I'd like to see some of you bros come in with no relevant qualifications or experience and do a major civil engineering development & come in on time & on budget! Cut the guy some slack! I'm sure if he ever did another one he would prob only be £5-10m over budget & maybe only 6 months late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 One significant difference is Tottenham training ground was brand new. Ours was already there. So they built a new ground at a new location in a more expensive part of the country for the same or a bit more, depending on what you read, than it cost is to refurbish one that was already there. And still some people persist that it's the cortese haters peddling a myth that it was massively over budget as part of their agenda :lol: You really think Staplewood has only been refurbished? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Lemme help clear up some of the ignorant bull**** from some of the Cortese haters here. The training ground would have been constructed under a JCT contract, probably JCT05 or possibly JCT11, either way under a JCT contract it's pretty much much impossible to run up the sort of overspend on overheads alone that Turks, Buctootum etc. are alluding too. The 'Prelims' are submitted during the tender period agreed in advance as part of the contract and short of physically ripping work out and starting again will be what the Contractor will receive for delays etc. On a 15m Contract this would be in the low thousands per week of claimed and proven delay. Contracts just don't get signed if a Contractors Prelim figure is so high to account for the sort of overhead overspend that the blinkered are making out. The bottom line is, with additional design fees and contractors prelims we probably spent around 1 - 2mil more then we would have done if the final design had been built from scratch and that's comfortably mitigated by the rapidly changing and improving circumstances the Club found it's self in during that time. The easy decision would have been to have left the original design that was put together in league one alone...The brave and once again correct decision was to seize the opportunity while it was available and provide us with the facilities worthy of a top 10 premier league Club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 You really think Staplewood has only been refurbished? refurbish is the wrong word but drainage, power, water and gas were already laid down and the site was level. That should have lopped about 15% off the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 refurbish is the wrong word but drainage, power, water and gas were already laid down and the site was level. That should have lopped about 15% off the price. So demolition is for free then is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Lemme help clear up some of the ignorant bull**** from some of the Cortese haters here. The training ground would have been constructed under a JCT contract, probably JCT05 or possibly JCT11, either way under a JCT contract it's pretty much much impossible to run up the sort of overspend on overheads alone that Turks, Buctootum etc. are alluding too. The 'Prelims' are submitted during the tender period agreed in advance as part of the contract and short of physically ripping work out and starting again will be what the Contractor will receive for delays etc. On a 15m Contract this would be in the low thousands per week of claimed and proven delay. Contracts just don't get signed if a Contractors Prelim figure is so high to account for the sort of overhead overspend that the blinkered are making out. The bottom line is, with additional design fees and contractors prelims we probably spent around 1 - 2mil more then we would have done if the final design had been built from scratch and that's comfortably mitigated by the rapidly changing and improving circumstances the Club found it's self in during that time. The easy decision would have been to have left the original design that was put together in league one alone...The brave and once again correct decision was to seize the opportunity while it was available and provide us with the facilities worthy of a top 10 premier league Club +1, A man that knows what he speaketh about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 refurbish is the wrong word but drainage, power, water and gas were already laid down and the site was level. That should have lopped about 15% off the price. Oh yes, and all utilities diversions/upgrades are also for free are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 So demolition is for free then is it? No but the original buildings were small and most of the pitches already laid. That's a much lower cost than starting from scratch - clearing trees, levelling the ground and putting in services across a large site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Oh yes, and all utilities diversions/upgrades are also for free are they? Why act the tw at? Clearly adding to and extending existing is cheaper than bringing them in completely new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Why act the tw at? Clearly adding to and extending existing is cheaper than bringing them in completely new. not always bro, if you had bird with small tits it would be cheaper to get a whole new bird with big tits than to add to and extend the tits of ur existing bird. trust, i have looked into this in great depth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 not always bro, if you had bird with small tits it would be cheaper to get a whole new bird with big tits than to add to and extend the tits of ur existing bird. trust, i have looked into this in great depth Just get those wacky glasses from ASDA for a quid. Makes everything look enormous. You got to concentrate though, glance upwards at the nose or zits and Mr Softees chimes start calling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Good to see the latest excuse being trotted out that the original design was done when we were in league one, so therefore assuming it's be league one standard but now in the premier league we need a premier league training ground. Ignoring the fact the plan was to be in the premier league within 5 years so the original design would have been based on that plan of being a premier league club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 lol! Can't argue with that Bearsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 lol! Can't argue with that Bearsy. qualification is if ur married of course. If small tits bird has you nailed down to JCT form of contract then basically ur bollocksed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Abroad Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 pls can everyone lay off nicola, it's not his fault he can't run a major civil engineering development Italians are notoriously bad with engineering jobs. Last time I was in the Italian capital, half the place was crumbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Why act the tw at? Clearly adding to and extending existing is cheaper than bringing them in completely new. Unless you know what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Unless you know what you are talking about. I do, so I guess you are then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Good to see the latest excuse being trotted out that the original design was done when we were in league one, so therefore assuming it's be league one standard but now in the premier league we need a premier league training ground. Ignoring the fact the plan was to be in the premier league within 5 years so the original design would have been based on that plan of being a premier league club. Who said anything about it ever being "League One standard"....Are you seriously suggesting the Club should have taken a 30m punt on a training ground while we were in League One based purely on "plan" to get to the prem in 5 years?....I guess you are...I'll leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 This could be an interesting discussion if people dropped the attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Why act the tw at? Clearly adding to and extending existing is cheaper than bringing them in completely new. Not always.....In fact on many Commercial projects, existing utilities cant cope with the increased demand and need to completely replaced with new anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Who said anything about it ever being "League One standard"....Are you seriously suggesting the Club should have taken a 30m punt on a training ground while we were in League One based purely on "plan" to get to the prem in 5 years?....I guess you are...I'll leave it there. I thought you said you had me on ignore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 True - but thats usually when a site is to be used for a more energy or water intensive purpose - eg changing from an office to manufacturing site, or the utilities installation ts old and capacity hasnt kept pace. Staplewood was relatively new anyway and is being used for the same activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Is this your first day here? lol, I know... every so often I like to try my luck and see if people actually take a step back and consider what they're coming out with. It's usually in vain but hey, at least I gave it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 lol, I know... every so often I like to try my luck and see if people actually take a step back and consider what they're coming out with. It's usually in vain but hey, at least I gave it a go. St George and I are now being civil to each other. I think you're Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 "Costs to double shocker" Some saints fans vent their anger as news emerges that the costs of the new training & academy have more than doubled. One fan was quoted as saying " it's totally outrageous, the club decide to vastly increase the size/extent and quality of the facilities from the original plans and now they say its going to cost over twice as much, i just wish they would stick to the smaller less ambitious plans, i mean who do we think we are, lets not get ideas above our station" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 lol, I know... every so often I like to try my luck and see if people actually take a step back and consider what they're coming out with. It's usually in vain but hey, at least I gave it a go. Hey Minty, now that you’ve brought peace and harmony to this thread, don’t suppose you could pop over to Brazil and have a quiet word with Lallana could you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djharvey Posted 6 June, 2014 Share Posted 6 June, 2014 I am responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for what you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now