Mace says faulty wiring behind Spurs stadium delay

John48

Active Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
542
#41
& now we've had a burst water main in the building affecting the electrics (report in the Mirror), how does a water main burst at this time of year?
 

King Yid

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
182
#42
& now we've had a burst water main in the building affecting the electrics (report in the Mirror), how does a water main burst at this time of year?
Just had a look at the video on the Mail website. It’s not a buried main that has burst due to freezing. It’s a leak on a pipe at high level within a Plantroom - either a joint has blown off or someone has drilled or cut through a live pipe thinking it was empty.

Piss poor planning if the latter really.
 
Last edited:

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
5,312
#45
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were LD’s but with Mace in the capacity of a Construction Manager and the Trade Contractors being in direct Contract with THFC, I don’t think Mace will be contra-charged and have to seek recovery from the at fault Contractor? THFC would claim damages via the mechanisms set out within the respective Trade Contracts, with substantiation provided by Mace and possibly the Cost Consultant too.

Mace would only have damages raised against them if THFC could prove that the delay(s) were as a result of Mace action/inaction, and in all likelihood, damages would have to have been raised against the Trade Contractor(s) in the first instance and the claim successfully defended by the Trade Contractor(s) in order to provide the substantiation that Mace were at fault.
Depends on what the contract with Mace states. You don’t employ a Contract Manager then take the risk of a failed programme delivery on yourself.
I’m not familiar with how the contract is set up, or even which contract format has been used, but in 31 years of Contracting, I’ve yet to see a contract where the Principal Contractor isn’t held liable, by the Client, for a failed delivery, especially when it comes to building stadia, of which I’ve been involved in only 2 admittedly, the O2 and the Emirates with McAlpine. But I do know the details of the Wembley build by Multiplex, which was why McAlpine walked away from it.

If the legal team have set up a Contract where THFC have taken on the greater risk, they need to be hung, drawn and quartered!
 

King Yid

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
182
#47
Depends on what the contract with Mace states. You don’t employ a Contract Manager then take the risk of a failed programme delivery on yourself.
I’m not familiar with how the contract is set up, or even which contract format has been used, but in 31 years of Contracting, I’ve yet to see a contract where the Principal Contractor isn’t held liable, by the Client, for a failed delivery, especially when it comes to building stadia, of which I’ve been involved in only 2 admittedly, the O2 and the Emirates with McAlpine. But I do know the details of the Wembley build by Multiplex, which was why McAlpine walked away from it.

If the legal team have set up a Contract where THFC have taken on the greater risk, they need to be hung, drawn and quartered!
I don’t disagree with you, however it would be unreasonable for the Client to assume zero risk - in a lot of cases LDs are capped as I’m sure you’re aware. Similarly, if the Contractor deems a contract too risky they won’t sign up.

As you say, none of us know the finer points of the Contract. In all likelihood, they would’ve used the NEC3 or 4 standard forms as I think you mentioned earlier and perhaps certain clauses would’ve been added, omitted and amended to suit the risk profile of the respective parties so you may still end up with a fairly bespoke agreement.

To be honest, none of the above really matters as long as we end up with a kick ass stadium that is built correctly!
 
Top