Just seen this posted in a Spurs stadium thread, thought it might be of interest, since I've seen a few ask if the two year build suggested by some at EFC is realistic. Also some points about major contractors not being willing to set-up fixed-priced contracts...
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/...its-the-deadline-thats-wrong/10039197.article
A few interesting articles on that site at present, not least the one where Spurs confirm that have (so far) paid Mace £100m for 'construction management services' which Mace themselves go on to state primarily relate to refundable expenditure like hoardings, welfare facilities and the like.
You must be getting a bit concerned about the cost implications of this stadium by now?
The margins involved in deciding whether these big stadium investments are beneficial or not are plainly pretty narrow, hence they are so difficult to get going. You must surely be on the verge of tipping into 'not financially beneficial' territory now.
I appreciate the cost implications of the remedial works are currently uncertain, but you would have to expect they will be pretty eye watering), however, even leaving that to one side you still have:
Lost revenue from the new stadium this season;
Costs of hiring Wembley and generally dissappointing attendances;
Unnessary lost income from demolishing part of White Hart Lane mid season to accommodate the (failed) short construction window;
Unnessary costs of running a 24 hour site in a period of labour shortages to accommodate the (failed) short construction window;
Unnessary additional interest costs from covering these extra costs.
I'd be astonished if, when the dust has settled, this doesn't effectively end up leaving you £250m+ worse off over the life of the stadium than you were expecting when you commenced construction.