[fishini]

alfie, on Nov 13 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I have been keeping a close eye on whos getting the work at the new stadium. Firstly theres Gleesons, the construction managers, who in fairness have been the main party working along with the club (chairman) to take the project from concept to implimentation. The architect, ward mchugh associates who have experence in stadium work and also the chairman of the company (who is a CFC fan) is a friend of the clubs chairman; they were always going to get the job. Then theres the sub contract packages. The electrical and mechanical installation is being carried out by Moorwood electrical, whos MD is a friend of the architect, and was introduced to the chairman; which enabled them to tender the project and they was the clubs preference, although not the most cost effective solution.

What prompted me to write this, was when i found out from a good realible source within the consultants team, the community areas, which will be fitted out once a funder is in place. It seems a project management and construction management (CM) company has already been earmarked for the CM work in the community areas, even though funding is not in place? The company is mascot management, from sheffield, made up of wednesdayites. Nevertheless, whats worrying to me is that again, the architect and also the electrical contractor have a 'relationship' with this company who seem to have been put forward. Mascot management, do alot of work with moorwoods, both parties recommending each other to clients and have recently started working along side ward mchugh associates as well. It all just seem a little bit close to home. What i dont understand is, there doesnt seem to be any process followed in the selection of the consultants, it seems to be a case of who you know, and i begs the question, is it a case of you scratch my back and i will scratch yours?

Secondly, why is there no chesterfield companies involved, surely the expertise can be found in the city, and giving out work to local companies, especially companies who have supported the club through thick and thin, must be good for the town and the club?

This has and always will go on. Only industrial companies such as my own tender work out and will only choose the best option for the company but not always the cheapest.
You worry about nothing

[moondog]

alfie, on Nov 13 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I have been keeping a close eye on whos getting the work at the new stadium. Firstly theres Gleesons, the construction managers, who in fairness have been the main party working along with the club (chairman) to take the project from concept to implimentation. The architect, ward mchugh associates who have experence in stadium work and also the chairman of the company (who is a CFC fan) is a friend of the clubs chairman; they were always going to get the job. Then theres the sub contract packages. The electrical and mechanical installation is being carried out by Moorwood electrical, whos MD is a friend of the architect, and was introduced to the chairman; which enabled them to tender the project and they was the clubs preference, although not the most cost effective solution.

What prompted me to write this, was when i found out from a good realible source within the consultants team, the community areas, which will be fitted out once a funder is in place. It seems a project management and construction management (CM) company has already been earmarked for the CM work in the community areas, even though funding is not in place? The company is mascot management, from sheffield, made up of wednesdayites. Nevertheless, whats worrying to me is that again, the architect and also the electrical contractor have a 'relationship' with this company who seem to have been put forward. Mascot management, do alot of work with moorwoods, both parties recommending each other to clients and have recently started working along side ward mchugh associates as well. It all just seem a little bit close to home. What i dont understand is, there doesnt seem to be any process followed in the selection of the consultants, it seems to be a case of who you know, and i begs the question, is it a case of you scratch my back and i will scratch yours?

Secondly, why is there no chesterfield companies involved, surely the expertise can be found in the city, and giving out work to local companies, especially companies who have supported the club through thick and thin, must be good for the town and the club?

They are choosing contractors they know and trust, can't see a problem with that, although if current locally based club sponsors (does thick and thin mean this) have lost out this may backfire commercially, is this what you are saying ?

This post has been edited by moondog: 13 November 2009 - 07:39 PM

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

alfie, on Nov 13 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I have been keeping a close eye on whos getting the work at the new stadium. Firstly theres Gleesons, the construction managers, who in fairness have been the main party working along with the club (chairman) to take the project from concept to implimentation. The architect, ward mchugh associates who have experence in stadium work and also the chairman of the company (who is a CFC fan) is a friend of the clubs chairman; they were always going to get the job. Then theres the sub contract packages. The electrical and mechanical installation is being carried out by Moorwood electrical, whos MD is a friend of the architect, and was introduced to the chairman; which enabled them to tender the project and they was the clubs preference, although not the most cost effective solution.

What prompted me to write this, was when i found out from a good realible source within the consultants team, the community areas, which will be fitted out once a funder is in place. It seems a project management and construction management (CM) company has already been earmarked for the CM work in the community areas, even though funding is not in place? The company is mascot management, from sheffield, made up of wednesdayites. Nevertheless, whats worrying to me is that again, the architect and also the electrical contractor have a 'relationship' with this company who seem to have been put forward. Mascot management, do alot of work with moorwoods, both parties recommending each other to clients and have recently started working along side ward mchugh associates as well. It all just seem a little bit close to home. What i dont understand is, there doesnt seem to be any process followed in the selection of the consultants, it seems to be a case of who you know, and i begs the question, is it a case of you scratch my back and i will scratch yours?

Secondly, why is there no chesterfield companies involved, surely the expertise can be found in the city, and giving out work to local companies, especially companies who have supported the club through thick and thin, must be good for the town and the club?

So long as it all gets done at a good price i can't see what is wrong with recommending other companies that's how it goes. If you have trust in a company why wouldn't you do that if you have worked with them before? It's only like soemone saying to me i want some work wear etc and me saying give MP Spire a pm he will sort you out etc

This post has been edited by Ernie Ernie Ernie: 13 November 2009 - 09:03 PM

[dalekpete]

All the major contracts went out to tender as it was only when these came in that an accurate cost for the build was established. It is perfectly reasonable that some of the contractors will have been partners in the past as they tendering in similar fields of work.

In terms of the smaller contracts for fitting out these are now being looked at. There have been events for our established business partners about the stadium.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

alfie, on Nov 13 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

I have been keeping a close eye on whos getting the work at the new stadium. Firstly theres Gleesons, the construction managers, who in fairness have been the main party working along with the club (chairman) to take the project from concept to implimentation. The architect, ward mchugh associates who have experence in stadium work and also the chairman of the company (who is a CFC fan) is a friend of the clubs chairman; they were always going to get the job. Then theres the sub contract packages. The electrical and mechanical installation is being carried out by Moorwood electrical, whos MD is a friend of the architect, and was introduced to the chairman; which enabled them to tender the project and they was the clubs preference, although not the most cost effective solution.

What prompted me to write this, was when i found out from a good realible source within the consultants team, the community areas, which will be fitted out once a funder is in place. It seems a project management and construction management (CM) company has already been earmarked for the CM work in the community areas, even though funding is not in place? The company is mascot management, from sheffield, made up of wednesdayites. Nevertheless, whats worrying to me is that again, the architect and also the electrical contractor have a 'relationship' with this company who seem to have been put forward. Mascot management, do alot of work with moorwoods, both parties recommending each other to clients and have recently started working along side ward mchugh associates as well. It all just seem a little bit close to home. What i dont understand is, there doesnt seem to be any process followed in the selection of the consultants, it seems to be a case of who you know, and i begs the question, is it a case of you scratch my back and i will scratch yours?

Secondly, why is there no chesterfield companies involved, surely the expertise can be found in the city, and giving out work to local companies, especially companies who have supported the club through thick and thin, must be good for the town and the club?

Saw a Moorwood van coming out of the B2NET on Monday afternoon.

[Frank Thacker]

Given how well the place is coming along, I suppose it could just mean that the right choices were made for the right reasons.