It's irrelevant. The match was scheduled at WHL and rearranged for TV. It is totally up to Spurs to make sure the ground has a safety certificate before agreeing to rearrangement of the fixture. They didn't and so a postponement is not an act of God, so Spurs are liable and it is highly likely (very high 95%+) that they would lose a group action in court.No, I'm just not accusing them of deliberating defrauding people, as you are. Brave. Reckless, to the point of insanity, but definitely brave.
I don't think anyone can deny that scheduling completion of a massive building project without a contingency plan for commonly occurring delays is poor management, though. Surely you can see that, because that's what everyone else sees.There’s an awful lot of conjecture and misinformation about this stadium issue circulating on this thread, of which the above is a typical example.
I know that Spurs is not a popular club among City fans (to put it mildly!) and I dare say that the same misinformation would be circulating on Spurs forums if the shoe was on the other foot. But I hope you don’t mind if I offer the view from the other side which, naturally enough (having followed this project in every detail for 10 years and having access to those who are closely involved in it), is rather more informed about the true circumstances.
Until the beginning of this week, the stadium was fully on course to open on September 15th. I have seen comments about how unfinished the stadium still looks externally. But the only major job that remains to be done is the installation of a perforated aluminium cladding. In the bowl, most seats are installed and the pitch area requires only the top layer of turf. Both jobs could comfortably be completed within a week. The roof is all but finished. And work on access areas around the stadium is well advanced. There quite a lot to do internally but fit out can progress at a rapid pace. All in all, even if there would still be a fair bit to complete after September 15th, everyone at Spurs was fully confident that the stadium would open as planned.
But testing and commissioning at the weekend revealed an issue with circuitry specifically relating to fire alarms. There are apparently some 10,000 circuits in the stadium and now, on the say so of the BCO, each of them has to be checked. That is as things stand. If you can be bothered to read it, I’ve posted below what I have been told by a senior project manager who is highly experienced in the field of major construction projects. It well illustrates the difficulties that routinely blight construction projects and that Spurs now face:
It's irrelevant. The match was scheduled at WHL and rearranged for TV. It is totally up to Spurs to make sure the ground has a safety certificate before agreeing to rearrangement of the fixture. They didn't and so a postponement is not an act of God, so Spurs are liable and it is highly likely (very high 95%+) that they would lose a group action in court.
Consequential loss applies here.For ticket costs. Your ticket specifically excludes consequential loss in the terms and conditions - go and check it and you'll see. And there's still no such thing as a class action in English law.
where have you heard this?They have 400 electricians on site today getting paid 600 pounds a day for an extended shift Spending a quarter of a million pounds a day this week on sparks!
Consequential loss applies here.
City fans have to travel and/or get accommodation to go to a game. It Is standard practice for fans to book accommodation and travel as soon as the a fixture date is confirmed by TV.
For games that are cancelled due to the weather you are correct as Spurs have no control. But here they are in total control. They assumed a safety cirtificate would be signed off.
You're not listening. Tickets haven't even been sold!Again. It is specifically excluded in the terms and conditions of your ticket. It is quite literally there in black and white, with that exact phrase.
Now, you may be a legal genius able to take them to court over it, but given every ticket purchaser agrees to these conditions, I'd say good luck with that. I've yet to ever see a case that considers those terms unfair.
where have you heard this?