[Official] Nils Koppen appointed Technical Director

[buster. 5,184]

3 hours ago, Devil's advocaat said:

Aye, pretty much what I was told too.

Shit happens!

 

Problem was that there was no contingency set-up.

[Devil's advocaat 1,540]

47 minutes ago, buster. said:

Shit happens!

 

Problem was that there was no contingency set-up.

Nope, problem was it wasn't ordered in time. No need for a contingency, if you give yourself a chance, and I'm not sure you can have a contingency on bespoke extruded steel, it's not something anyone has lying around, and if you want someone to hold it in their inventory, you're paying for it.

[CammyF 8,079]

36 minutes ago, Devil's advocaat said:

Nope, problem was it wasn't ordered in time. No need for a contingency, if you give yourself a chance, and I'm not sure you can have a contingency on bespoke extruded steel, it's not something anyone has lying around, and if you want someone to hold it in their inventory, you're paying for it.

There were 4 problems 

 

1. Steel wasn't ordered in time.

2. Even if steel was ordered in time, the project was underestimated and wouldn't have finished before the season started.

3. There wasn't a contingency plan in place.

4. The board lied to the fans in close season saying they were "on-track" (before having to admit the project was behind schedule).

 

[stewarty 2,025]

My info was that one of the firms invited to quote for the copland work rejected to respond to the tender because, in their opinion, there was no realistic way for the steel to arrive in sufficient time for the work to be competed ahead of the season.  It was a firm that is friendly to and contributes to the club commercially, a firm that the club has used before and continues to quote for other business from us.

 

Because of their desire to help, they even offered to bring the steel in and store it till next close season so that the work could start as soon as the last ball of the season was kicked at Ibrox.  However, this also was rejected in favour of a different supplier that promised that they could in fact deliver... and we know how that went.

 

All of that points to a failure of management oversight, and that buck stopped with Bisgrove as CEO; as well as the Board for failing to have sufficient oversight of what Bisgrove and the executive management team were up to.

 

 

 

 

[Scott7 6,002]

4 minutes ago, CammyF said:

"on-track"

They didn’t say on time, though.

 

Much as you would like to throw up your hands about the Board again I’ll make a guess that rather than any individual director or directors trying to do it, the design, construction and supervision were all contracted out. That means architects, engineers, surveyors and contractors.

 

In light of what Devil’s advocaat says above, what would your contingency plan have been?

[Scott7 6,002]

1 minute ago, stewarty said:

However, this also was rejected in favour of a different supplier

Did that company have a decent past history or was it an opportunistic bid?

[stewarty 2,025]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

Shit happens!

 

Problem was that there was no contingency set-up.

The contingency would likely have been to delay the project till the steel was received.   However the club had promised for several years to start this work and there was pressure to get this project over the line given the likes of Bennett staking their reputation on delivering this promise.   Which in turn brings us back to Board oversight and whether they were receiving accurate assurances in relation to how the project was progressing, including the sourcing of key materials.

 

In turn that brings us back to leadership and the Board being willing to have an honest conversation with supporters about what they can realistically achieve.  If they had come to us and said: here are the circumstances, there are aspects that are outwith our control, so we need to delay till next May... I think the criticism would have been far less than what it was.

[stewarty 2,025]

5 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

Did that company have a decent past history or was it an opportunistic bid?

I didn't get that level of detail, but the source is good in terms of the link to the supplier who rejected to bid for the work. 

 

You'd have to ask why they uniquely could promise to deliver on this when other, apparently reputable firms, said it wasn't possible.

[CammyF 8,079]

19 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

They didn’t say on time, though.

 

Much as you would like to throw up your hands about the Board again I’ll make a guess that rather than any individual director or directors trying to do it, the design, construction and supervision were all contracted out. That means architects, engineers, surveyors and contractors.

 

In light of what Devil’s advocaat says above, what would your contingency plan have been?

The buck ultimately stops with the board. They have now admitted that the project was never finishing on time. Steel or no steel.

 

They decided to tell us everything was fine, project would be completed before our 1st home game, only to have to, hours after telling the same to a fans group, tell us that it wasn't going to be completed on time. 

 

To compound matters, we had no contingency plans in place and had to go cap in hand to SFA and rent Hampden. 

 

During the initial renovation of Ibrox, we played with stand(s) closed. Not ideal, what at least we were playing at Ibrox. 

 

You can attempt to shift the blame to whomever you want, but the buck stops with the board. 

[Scott7 6,002]

11 minutes ago, stewarty said:

You'd have to ask why they uniquely could promise to deliver on this when other, apparently reputable firms, said it wasn't possible.

Question of reputation.  You wouldn’t hire O’Reilly with an uncovered yard somewhere if Reliable Fabrication Worldwide plc had  declined to tender. You might let the work to Well Founded Construction Ltd. though.