What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

L-man

Misplaced pass from Dier
Dec 31, 2008
9,979
51,364
Last update from the club was 9th Jan where they said we'd get another update within 2-3 weeks - 3 weeks later is this Wednesday coming. Hopefully get some good news early this week coming.

Maybe a triple signing unveiling on the pitch
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
Last update from the club was 9th Jan where they said we'd get another update within 2-3 weeks - 3 weeks later is this Wednesday coming. Hopefully get some good news early this week coming.

Maybe a triple signing unveiling on the pitch

In typical spurs fashion, if that happened someone would start the pitches sliding back making our new triple signings fall between the gaps breaking their legs and missing the rest of the season :LOL::cautious:
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
There are still plenty of posts either predicting or recommending that the club either will or should stay voluntarily in Wembley for the rest of this season.

As I have mentioned multiple times before, I think that's very unlikely, because of the huge marginal cost of playing each match at Wembley, compared to in our own stadium. At Wembley, we have to pay rent, so we don't get to keep all the ticket receipts. And we don't get the rents from the concessions. We are writing off weeks of rental income on the concessions at the new stadium. And we still have the fixed costs of the new stadium to cover, even when we aren't using it.

I've always insisted that the club will move to the new stadium at the earliest possible date, assuming the league agrees, even if it's just for the final few matches. It would save them millions of pounds.
 

longtimespur

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2014
5,830
9,949
There's a response to @stac on SSC by norskire.

Not positive news, just positive conjecture based on inaccurately described details.

The "high level report" he refers to sounds very much like the final submission, often referred to as "the manual", that the contractor has to hand over to the safety inspectors and which outlines all projected safety procedures based on all installed (and approved) safety installations. This is a very complex document and if it is indeed almost ready to be submitted then this is very good news indeed. When last I spoke to someone from River Park House the current state of play was that the contractor had negotiated modular installation approval so that this final submission would take least time to be assessed and approved, and this had been agreed from Haringey's side too. Ultimate use of the building as a sport stadium depends on this final submission, true, but it represents the final step of a long ongoing process in which vital safety installations have been modularly assessed, approved, certified and proceduralised.

The statement that council inspectors must wait for this "high level report" before they come onsite is flatly false. Modular inspection has already been underway since early December and has visibly progressed in that the club has been allowed to admit large numbers of public into the building on several occasions and in several areas, something they simply could not have done otherwise.

The suggestion that a "Canadian software firm" was they key to the entire remedial work receiving certification is mischievous to say the least, as is the suggestion that this firm redesigned some kind of overall control system for the building's entire safety installations. From what I understood the fire safety monitoring system has been enhanced to increase and intensify zonal monitoring and isolation, especially in the industrial/retail segments of the build, something that would have pin-pointed and highlighted wiring faults and similar under initial testing had it been in place, and would have also taken the entire system closer to overall approval status very much quicker had it been put into use from the beginning. It is this, I reckon, that has given rise to the bulk of the doomsday/sabotage bullcrap that has polluted the twitterverse in recent months.

The statement that the London Fire Brigade inspectors must wait for production of the manual is correct. This is standard legal practice.

The statement that some contractors are now operating at a loss is somewhat true. We are not privy to liability negotiations that have been ongoing since Mace first highlighted the remedial work required before they could authorise a handover. Insurance may cover some of these contracts, perhaps not all, and I doubt we will ever know the full details of how costs incurred by delay were actually itemised and attributed in this case. This is normal, as is the unfortunate fact that loss attribution based on liability will leave some contractors out of pocket or forced to recover costs through means not anticipated in the initial contract.

The suggestion that test events corresponding to use as a general access sport stadium can be held in February seems to correspond with what River Park House also are assuming - and in fact I would be even more optimistic than the Stacey source on this one, as the impression I have received from the council end is that they have already basically approved 99% of the installation and now, like everyone else, are waiting for production of "the manual" to close off their involvement. It is now eight weeks since they were put on notice to expect this submission, a process normally assumed to be around six weeks in these cases. This suggests to me that everyone at the construction end is leaving absolutely nothing to chance once the final submission is made.

The process after submission is very straightforward - basically the proceduralised manual is tested against reality as experienced during full test events and either works or doesn't. Material departures from safety regulations will invalidate the procedures outright. Other exceptions won't necessarily invalidate anything but will more likely lead to tweaks and tasks to be performed within certain times without affecting the building being put into use. Compared to other large builds this one by now in fact has far more of the material requirement already pre-approved before these test events than is the norm.

So Stacey is right to be happy, but a bit naughty in describing why he's suddenly turning all optimistic. It sounds like he's trying to get the latest "ITK" info he's gleaned to fit his previous misinformation that he's published to the masses. But I'm glad he's spreading cheer for once, and not his usual material of choice.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
I dont see how he can be giving out the info so i do question the accuracy because hes all over spurs social media which the club would patrol so anything contraversial could get blocked by the club

That said the veil work will be fininshed in a week and cosmetically the ground will be complete from the outside. I cannot see how that cannot mean we wont play there this season

Yeah I don’t know. I’ve learnt not to really trust much that’s said to do with the stadium off of Sc/coys and just hope it’s ready. There just seems to be too many people with axes to grind for this that and the other.

Edit: saying that, the post above mine is very detailed and sounds like good news if everything is working ok.
 
Last edited:

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
It's a pity that "norskire" writes in such tortuous surveyor-speak, full of jargon and complicated ways to say simple things, because it's obvious that there's a high level of knowledge and inside info there.

The only part of the whole screed that is related to my own knowledge is this bit:

"The statement that some contractors are now operating at a loss is somewhat true. We are not privy to liability negotiations that have been ongoing since Mace first highlighted the remedial work required before they could authorise a handover. Insurance may cover some of these contracts, perhaps not all, and I doubt we will ever know the full details of how costs incurred by delay were actually itemised and attributed in this case. This is normal, as is the unfortunate fact that loss attribution based on liability will leave some contractors out of pocket or forced to recover costs through means not anticipated in the initial contract."​

Again, that's a convoluted and slightly confused way to say something simple, which is that a lot of the contractors (and the club) are paying to redo stuff that wasn't done right the first time, without knowing whether they will be able to reclaim their extra costs from someone else, by establishing liability. But the contents are broadly correct: no one knows yet where the liability will land and, in the meantime, everyone's cash flow is being hammered.

That would imply that the rest of it, however confusing, is also broadly correct.

To which I would add these certainties: lawyers will get richer and insurers will do everything they can to wriggle out from under liability claims.
 

robertgoulet

SC Resident Crooner Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2013
3,610
12,552
There's a response to @stac on SSC by norskire.

Not positive news, just positive conjecture based on inaccurately described details.

The "high level report" he refers to sounds very much like the final submission, often referred to as "the manual", that the contractor has to hand over to the safety inspectors and which outlines all projected safety procedures based on all installed (and approved) safety installations. This is a very complex document and if it is indeed almost ready to be submitted then this is very good news indeed. When last I spoke to someone from River Park House the current state of play was that the contractor had negotiated modular installation approval so that this final submission would take least time to be assessed and approved, and this had been agreed from Haringey's side too. Ultimate use of the building as a sport stadium depends on this final submission, true, but it represents the final step of a long ongoing process in which vital safety installations have been modularly assessed, approved, certified and proceduralised.

The statement that council inspectors must wait for this "high level report" before they come onsite is flatly false. Modular inspection has already been underway since early December and has visibly progressed in that the club has been allowed to admit large numbers of public into the building on several occasions and in several areas, something they simply could not have done otherwise.

The suggestion that a "Canadian software firm" was they key to the entire remedial work receiving certification is mischievous to say the least, as is the suggestion that this firm redesigned some kind of overall control system for the building's entire safety installations. From what I understood the fire safety monitoring system has been enhanced to increase and intensify zonal monitoring and isolation, especially in the industrial/retail segments of the build, something that would have pin-pointed and highlighted wiring faults and similar under initial testing had it been in place, and would have also taken the entire system closer to overall approval status very much quicker had it been put into use from the beginning. It is this, I reckon, that has given rise to the bulk of the doomsday/sabotage bullcrap that has polluted the twitterverse in recent months.

The statement that the London Fire Brigade inspectors must wait for production of the manual is correct. This is standard legal practice.

The statement that some contractors are now operating at a loss is somewhat true. We are not privy to liability negotiations that have been ongoing since Mace first highlighted the remedial work required before they could authorise a handover. Insurance may cover some of these contracts, perhaps not all, and I doubt we will ever know the full details of how costs incurred by delay were actually itemised and attributed in this case. This is normal, as is the unfortunate fact that loss attribution based on liability will leave some contractors out of pocket or forced to recover costs through means not anticipated in the initial contract.

The suggestion that test events corresponding to use as a general access sport stadium can be held in February seems to correspond with what River Park House also are assuming - and in fact I would be even more optimistic than the Stacey source on this one, as the impression I have received from the council end is that they have already basically approved 99% of the installation and now, like everyone else, are waiting for production of "the manual" to close off their involvement. It is now eight weeks since they were put on notice to expect this submission, a process normally assumed to be around six weeks in these cases. This suggests to me that everyone at the construction end is leaving absolutely nothing to chance once the final submission is made.

The process after submission is very straightforward - basically the proceduralised manual is tested against reality as experienced during full test events and either works or doesn't. Material departures from safety regulations will invalidate the procedures outright. Other exceptions won't necessarily invalidate anything but will more likely lead to tweaks and tasks to be performed within certain times without affecting the building being put into use. Compared to other large builds this one by now in fact has far more of the material requirement already pre-approved before these test events than is the norm.

So Stacey is right to be happy, but a bit naughty in describing why he's suddenly turning all optimistic. It sounds like he's trying to get the latest "ITK" info he's gleaned to fit his previous misinformation that he's published to the masses. But I'm glad he's spreading cheer for once, and not his usual material of choice.

This guy really knows how to make you think his post is going one way (we aren’t close to ready) but ends up with post going complete opposite way (very optimistic).
 

Mackan110

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2019
353
587
Haven't read the whole discussion here but got 1 question.

Now when the stadium is delayed for almost 1 season. Will this cost the club money? (The construction) or is it ensured and an ensures company will pay for it?

Just wondering if spurs need to pay XXX- money because the contractor can't do it work or if an insurance company or something else will pay for the delay
 

mil1lion

This is the place to be
May 7, 2004
42,344
77,598
Funny that Stac was saying it was way off and that we wouldn't be in until next season. It sounds like he has realised he was wrong and is trying to turn it around.
 

littlewilly

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2013
1,670
5,181
It's a pity that "norskire" writes in such tortuous surveyor-speak, full of jargon and complicated ways to say simple things, because it's obvious that there's a high level of knowledge and inside info there.

The only part of the whole screed that is related to my own knowledge is this bit:

"The statement that some contractors are now operating at a loss is somewhat true. We are not privy to liability negotiations that have been ongoing since Mace first highlighted the remedial work required before they could authorise a handover. Insurance may cover some of these contracts, perhaps not all, and I doubt we will ever know the full details of how costs incurred by delay were actually itemised and attributed in this case. This is normal, as is the unfortunate fact that loss attribution based on liability will leave some contractors out of pocket or forced to recover costs through means not anticipated in the initial contract."​

Again, that's a convoluted and slightly confused way to say something simple, which is that a lot of the contractors (and the club) are paying to redo stuff that wasn't done right the first time, without knowing whether they will be able to reclaim their extra costs from someone else, by establishing liability. But the contents are broadly correct: no one knows yet where the liability will land and, in the meantime, everyone's cash flow is being hammered.

That would imply that the rest of it, however confusing, is also broadly correct.

To which I would add these certainties: lawyers will get richer and insurers will do everything they can to wriggle out from under liability claims.
One continuing regret, David, is that you don’t contribute to SSC. Your expertise would be welcomed there.
 

CoopsieDeadpool

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2012
18,257
70,419
It's a pity that "norskire" writes in such tortuous surveyor-speak, full of jargon and complicated ways to say simple things, because it's obvious that there's a high level of knowledge and inside info there.

The only part of the whole screed that is related to my own knowledge is this bit:

"The statement that some contractors are now operating at a loss is somewhat true. We are not privy to liability negotiations that have been ongoing since Mace first highlighted the remedial work required before they could authorise a handover. Insurance may cover some of these contracts, perhaps not all, and I doubt we will ever know the full details of how costs incurred by delay were actually itemised and attributed in this case. This is normal, as is the unfortunate fact that loss attribution based on liability will leave some contractors out of pocket or forced to recover costs through means not anticipated in the initial contract."​

Again, that's a convoluted and slightly confused way to say something simple, which is that a lot of the contractors (and the club) are paying to redo stuff that wasn't done right the first time, without knowing whether they will be able to reclaim their extra costs from someone else, by establishing liability. But the contents are broadly correct: no one knows yet where the liability will land and, in the meantime, everyone's cash flow is being hammered.

That would imply that the rest of it, however confusing, is also broadly correct.

To which I would add these certainties: lawyers will get richer and insurers will do everything they can to wriggle out from under liability claims.


David, I have to resort to Google just to check if most of the words you use in your (extremely informative) posts are real words.






Hopefully you know I'm just thick & having a giggle at your expense, whilst poking fun at myself. :p
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
Haven't read the whole discussion here but got 1 question.

Now when the stadium is delayed for almost 1 season. Will this cost the club money? (The construction) or is it ensured and an ensures company will pay for it?

Just wondering if spurs need to pay XXX- money because the contractor can't do it work or if an insurance company or something else will pay for the delay
Search this thread for "liquidated damages" and, if you want, my user name. Damages for late completion are written into the building contract. But actually implementing them is a vastly complicated commercial negotiation, sometimes ending in a court case.
 

hugrr

Gimme some gravey
Aug 17, 2008
11,465
15,136
There's a response to @stac on SSC by norskire

The suggestion that a "Canadian software firm" was they key to the entire remedial work receiving certification is mischievous to say the least, as is the suggestion that this firm redesigned some kind of overall control system for the building's entire safety installations. From what I understood the fire safety monitoring system has been enhanced to increase and intensify zonal monitoring and isolation, especially in the industrial/retail segments of the build, something that would have pin-pointed and highlighted wiring faults and similar under initial testing had it been in place, and would have also taken the entire system closer to overall approval status very much quicker had it been put into use from the beginning. It is this, I reckon, that has given rise to the bulk of the doomsday/sabotage bullcrap that has polluted the twitterverse in recent months.
Ok I think I understand their fuck up now.

Fire alarm loops should have devices called "short circuit isolators" fitted between detection zones, & when zones have over a certain amount of devices (20?) they should have additional of these fitted. These do exactly as they are called, if there is a short circuit on the cabling, the short circuit isolators either side of the short break the loop circuit, leaving the rest of the zones on the loop working ok (provided there is only one short on the loop). When these activate, you lose all the devices in the area where the wiring fault is, making it far easier to track down & repair.

Most manufacturers have these as standard in callpoints & interface units, so you can get by without having to specifically order any additional, as long as the device layout is set so a callpoint/interface are the first/last device on the zone. I can only assume this is not the case with Minerva kit, & either the designer failed to include separate short circuit isolators on the design (unlikely), or the installation team didn't know what they were & didn't bother fitting them (most likely).

I don't get why they would need expertise from Canada for that though, it's just another device on the loop, nothing fancy at all.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006
26,894
45,042
All being well I've got about twenty years left and I am willing to bet that these fire alarms will never be used in anger during my lifetime.
 

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,052
6,343
Ok I think I understand their fuck up now.

Fire alarm loops should have devices called "short circuit isolators" fitted between detection zones, & when zones have over a certain amount of devices (20?) they should have additional of these fitted. These do exactly as they are called, if there is a short circuit on the cabling, the short circuit isolators either side of the short break the loop circuit, leaving the rest of the zones on the loop working ok (provided there is only one short on the loop). When these activate, you lose all the devices in the area where the wiring fault is, making it far easier to track down & repair.

Most manufacturers have these as standard in callpoints & interface units, so you can get by without having to specifically order any additional, as long as the device layout is set so a callpoint/interface are the first/last device on the zone. I can only assume this is not the case with Minerva kit, & either the designer failed to include separate short circuit isolators on the design (unlikely), or the installation team didn't know what they were & didn't bother fitting them (most likely).

I don't get why they would need expertise from Canada for that though, it's just another device on the loop, nothing fancy at all.

A lad a works dad works for the company who are/were putting in the fire systems he said they have majorly fucked up the job was to big for them.
 
Top