-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
If any of this is true Baldy better have them on the line of the tens of millions this will cost us.
Wasn't there a video floating round before of someone doing lines in our new stadium?
This confirms all my suspicions of this being a poorly organised project.
If you move the even rows half a seat across, the ones then jutting out into the aisle would have to be removed. So you're lose one seat every other row. If you didn't take that seat out it would mean the aisle was too narrow.
You even say yourself, "the aisles would be that much wider", well where is that space coming from? The only way you can make aisles wider is by taking out seats.
Anyway, the whole idea is largely unnecessary in a football stadium as unlike a cinema or theatre you're often looking to the sides anyway - you're not always looking forwards as the ball moves around the whole pitch.
Yes, you'd effectively lose one seat in every row to prevent the last seat from the odd row protruding into the aisle (which I doubt would be allowed in a stadium full of staggering drunks). Widening the aisles would have the same effect.
I can't be bothered to work it out but that would mean a significant loss of capacity and therefore income, which certain people wouldn't be very keen on
...and I guess THIS is why I've never been asked to design a stadium!
I'll just stick to poncing about in furry creature suits on *Star Wars!
*BLATANT!!
I work in the building services industry and can say I haven't seen a project managed the way it has been on this stadium (if true). Generally, you have a main contractor such as Mace who would then appoint all the sub-contractors such as Imtech (electrical) and whoever was carrying out the mechanical works. It seems in this case Mace were used to oversee but had no real control as all the sub-contractors were hired by the club. Bizarre.
It's ridiculous.
It effectively removes all power from their hands and makes them redundant. If they can't put pressure on a sub contractor due to not even being in charge of the contracts, how can they effectively do anything?
With over 3,000 workers on the site at times there are bound to be a large number of people who regularly abuse drugs and/or alcohol.
I bet that if the police tested all the workforce one morning, especially a Monday morning. they would find a hundred or more 'under the influence'.
Same would go for many building sites and big offices with thousands of employees.
Simply confirms my opinion the CS is just writing stories fir the clicks and ad revenue they get.
But Mace's power comes from being able to tell the sub contractor that they are appointed by Spurs to oversee/manage the project so if the sub contractor is failing to carry out the contract then Spurs will penalise them to the extent that the contract allows.
The sub contractor also knows, given Mace are a big company, that they may be placing in jeopardy future work where Mace are involved - which the subby would know is not a good idea
You've answered your own question there. Wider aisles mean less room for seats in adjacent blocks. It's a knock on effect. No different than wider seats or rows with increased legroom.
I agree that it's better for the spectators, but standard seating is more efficient financially for the owner. If stadiums were built for the entertainment of spectators, you'd absolutely see staggered seating as the norm. But they're built to make money - so you get the optimization of most seats in least space, within reason.
Does that not fuck up any penalty clauses for failures etc? I mean, if MACE have no control over anything then how can they be fully held to account when things go tits up?
If this is the case, then why would they take those risks (other than possibly to shave a few quid off the bill)
Good news is that there is very little in the CN article.
The Spurs stadium is a big story in construction, and on a slow news day its an ideal topic to write a story on, even when there's no real news.
Edit: interesting comment posted on that article...
As a senior project quality control manager who has managed some of the worlds most prestigious projects, i walked away from this project after just 6 weeks because of the following
1. The job was being run by non managerial staff brought in by Base construction on behalf of Daniel Levy.
2. Fire safety was being ignored on closures.
3. Agencies were sending Romanian post men disguised as construction men.
4. Leadership from Directors down didnt want experienced men. They wanted shouters and people who would put in the hours regardless what they could do.
I approached the top people with photos and a list of why this would fail and they didnt give a hoot.
I wrote to agency concerned and all everyone was interested in was £££££ not the project.
I am now on a similar project which is on the same route.
Something has to be done soon or the consequences will be grave.
I am interested in helping sort this out if anyone is willing to listen
Last edited:
A danish newspaper ran coke tests on washsinks etc in the toilet stalls in the Danish Parlaiment. I believe over half of them had traces of coke.
And that's disregarding other substances
I tend to agree with this line because if you click on the link now you can only read it if you subscribe to Construction News, er....No thanks!
I've read the comments following it's posting, and I guessing the article says the site resembles something like this.....
Last edited: