[Official] John Bennett steps down with immediate effect for health reasons

[CammyF 8,079]

2 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I think Scott7 meant the adverse consequences of Hampden being announced quite late on, not the fact the we had to play there.

 

That few weeks between the initial announcement about Ibrox not being ready and Hampden being announced caused a lot of messageboard debates but not much else.

But I was talking bout the overall negative consequences of using Hampden. 

 

The late noticed caused negative consequences for those who travel distances (Ulster Bears in particular).

 

Personally, my Dad and another 5 members of our bus never went to Hampden due to mobility issues. But those issues would have been same no matter when it was announced 

 

[Gonzo79 15,292]

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

Hampden may have been the only solution, so why wasn't it agreed way before it was? Why did we wait so long given the reality was that industry standards suggest all projects over run?

 

This was your post that Scott7 responded to, asking about consequences.  You were referring to the delay in the announcement confirming Hampden.  

 

Perhaps the SFA were being twats.  Perhaps the club were looking at other options.  

[CammyF 8,079]

5 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

This was your post that Scott7 responded to, asking about consequences.  You were referring to the delay in the announcement confirming Hampden.  

 

Perhaps the SFA were being twats.  Perhaps the club were looking at other options.  

But in that section of my post I never mentioned negative consequences.

 

Yourself and Scott both said that delays were well known in building projects, so why didn't we agree contingencies when the project commenced? 

Edited September 20 by CammyF

[Gonzo79 15,292]

2 minutes ago, CammyF said:

But in that section of my post I never mentioned negative consequences.

No but Scott7 did.  

 

I'd imagine a few Bears were put out by the uncertainty and that's never a good thing but other than that, what difference did the delay make?  If it made no difference, what's the point in complaining about it retrospectively?

[CammyF 8,079]

5 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

No but Scott7 did.  

 

I'd imagine a few Bears were put out by the uncertainty and that's never a good thing but other than that, what difference did the delay make?  If it made no difference, what's the point in complaining about it retrospectively?

But I didn't, I never mentioned the negative consequences of the late announcement of Hampden. I mentioned the overall negative consequences of the move there. Plus the overall negative consequences of the project overrunning. 

 

Completely different. 

 

 

Edited September 20 by CammyF

[Scott7 6,002]

13 minutes ago, CammyF said:

But in that section of my post I never mentioned negative consequences.

This is what you said, old bean.

 

”Hampden may have been the only solution, so why wasn't it agreed way before it was? Why did we wait so long given the reality was that industry standards suggest all projects over run?”

 

An implication of adverse consequences, otherwise why ask the question? One of your complaints was delay in procuring an alternative venue.

[CammyF 8,079]

9 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

This is what you said, old bean.

 

”Hampden may have been the only solution, so why wasn't it agreed way before it was? Why did we wait so long given the reality was that industry standards suggest all projects over run?”

 

An implication of adverse consequences, otherwise why ask the question? One of your complaints was delay in procuring an alternative venue.

No, you've misunderstood.  I was complaining about the lack of contingencies.  That is a negative consequences of the overall process.

 

Let me be clear - if delays in building projects are common, then not having contingencies make it worse for the board.

 

Contingencies like having a plan B in place wel before the steel being delayed. Or having the steel ordered and stored before the project commenced. 

 

Simple and basic project management and project planning. 

Edited September 20 by CammyF

[compo 7,030]

I was told that Glasgow planning department didn't give this work in the east stand until the 24/25 June if that was the case client and contractors didn't leave   much time for any kind of contingency plan 

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

1 hour ago, compo said:

I was told that Glasgow planning department didn't give this work in the east stand until the 24/25 June if that was the case client and contractors didn't leave   much time for any kind of contingency plan 

If this is true then it certainly seems to make things a bit clearer as to who was at fault. The club & contractors would have known all along it was going to be a tight schedule. Now could it be our old chums from GCC played a part?

[MacK1950 2,376]

41 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Now could it be our old chums from GCC played a part?

Surely not???!!!💀