Now appears that other works on redeveloping the ground have to be taken into consideration as per Francis Flynn, if we are going to see s new stand and terraces put in I'd nearly do without the lights for a while

Richieq (Meath) - Posts: 3734 - 17/11/2015 16:01:53    1807997

I just still can't understand why sub-standard work isn't being sorted out for free. It's all very fishy.
Ground improvements should certainly take priority, but the 2 shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

SmallHouse (Meath) - Posts: 291 - 17/11/2015 16:24:26    1808010

I can understand why it's taking so long to get the lights up and working, we have known about this problem since the start of the summer or before and still we are waiting on reports as what can be done.. I wouldn't hold my breath on this CB getting it done right, seen as the meeting room in Dunganny is to small to hold the convention in December.

CheCastro (Meath) - Posts: 13 - 17/11/2015 16:46:27    1808014

Yes the new stand (first official announcement) for a long while must take priority and it looks like the terracing will also be done and maybe done first due to asbestos roofing, but that can be dismantled in a environmentally safe manner these days.
But the question remains what happened with original lights? Was there a guarantee? How long was that for? Who manufactured the lights? Are they still trading? If yes then these works should be done for free , if however it was the installation that cause the problem then the contractor is liable and pt and cb should ensure they (original contractor) for properly qualified intallers.
All this is pretty basic stuff and common building /electrical law . The only reason it could not happen is if there was a nudge and a wink agreement, ie get this gear at knock down prices from a fella who says they fell off back of a lorry and get micky down the road to put them up, sure didn't he fix the fuses when the blew blah blah blah. If the latter is the case or something of that nature then thus is a criminal matter that must be investigated by relevant authorities. They ain't up that long there has to be some sort of order of works been carried out successfully etc on file. These two projects can go hand in hand. There is no reason for it to be either or. Unless current cb are hiding something.

royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 17/11/2015 17:17:01    1808022

I agree with you 100% there smallhouse. There are still a lot of questions that have not been answered. In fact a lot of questions that apparently still haven't been asked. I suppose the local papers don't want to rock the boat too much, but one would think that a good journalist would be able to ask a few searching questions, including:
1. Which company were appointed to carry out the work.
2. Who made the decision to appoint that particular company.
3. Did that company have the required experience and track record at carrying out that type of work.
4. Was there any link between that company and the county board, or with individual members of the county board.
5. Who signed off on the work?
6. Did the work pass a health and safety inspection at the time?
7. What exactly has happened in the meantime to make the floodlights unsafe?
8. Could this have been foreseen at the time, and if so, why was it not?
9. Was what happened as a result of negligence on behalf of the company?
10. If so, why was this not picked up on at the time?

12. Is the delay in obtaining funds from Croke Park for putting up the floodlights again in any way due to a distrust from Croke Park as to how the whole thing was done the first time around.

I fully accept the possibility that there is a completely innocent explanation as to what happened, and that no-one is at fault. Sometimes things just happen, and no one is to blame. But the lack of transparency and answers on all of this, does leave a bit of a stench around the whole thing.
I do agree that developing Pairc Tailteann should be a priority. But as someone who has always contributed to any fund-raising done by the county board, I have to say that I would be reluctant to put my hand in my pocket again, until I knew exactly how my money was being spent.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 17/11/2015 17:41:07    1808028

Agree with Smallhouse,it seems it was a (F) up by whoever constructed it,it doesn't make sense why they cannot do it for nothing! Unless they don't want that company sorting it out..

ziggy32001 (Meath) - Posts: 8354 - 17/11/2015 17:56:03    1808033

1. Which company were appointed to carry out the work......... Some crowd from Cavan
2. Who made the decision to appoint that particular company...... The County Board in 2006
3. Did that company have the required experience and track record at carrying out that type of work...... Hopefully Yes by all accounts that is why they got the contract
4. Was there any link between that company and the county board, or with individual members of the county board.........
5. Who signed off on the work?...... We hope The engineer/architect employed
6. Did the work pass a health and safety inspection at the time? Yes has to have done
7. What exactly has happened in the meantime to make the floodlights unsafe?.... Neglected to check H&S on reglar basis as required
8. Could this have been foreseen at the time, and if so, why was it not?.... Somebody should have checked Anybody could have checked but it looks like Nobody actually checked
9. Was what happened as a result of negligence on behalf of the company?..... Hardly really they I reckon did the job to spec at the time. Otherwise it would not have passed. Lack of Follow up checks must have been the problem.
10. If so, why was this not picked up on at the time? ... Neglect most likely or ignorance not really knowing what was required

12. Is the delay in obtaining funds from Croke Park for putting up the floodlights again in any way due to a distrust from Croke Park as to how the whole thing was done the first time around..... No would not think so grants in the 1st place would have only been paid on Certs etc supplied. It takes time to prize dosh from HQ.

numberedjerseys (USA) - Posts: 348 - 17/11/2015 18:46:40    1808048

Thanks for the replies Numberedjerseys. Are they just your opinion, or do you know all of this for certain?

From what you are saying (as someone else said earlier), the floodlights were installed perfectly back in 2006, according to all health and safety requirements there at the time. However the regulations have since changed, and they were no longer up to the new regulations, so had to be taken down and put up according to new regulations. I think that is what you are saying - apologies if I have put words in your mouth.

If that is the case, then I have absolutely no issue with that, as I said earlier. However I have one problem with that explanation.

Why is it that Pairc Tailteann is the only ground in the entire country which has fallen foul of the new health and safety regulations.
We can't have been the only ones to have put up floodlights which conformed to the old standards. There must be dozens of grounds around the country which did so. So why is Pairc Tailteann the only one which now has problems?

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 17/11/2015 19:54:21    1808081

I think the lack of attention since they were put up may be a problem, there should have been regular checks of foundations, bolts etc to ensure structural certainty, rustproof where necessary or strengthen the structures where necessary. It appears that (and I have heard this as a reason on the grapevine) that the pylons or lights got little or no attention since they were put up. I have always felt that redevelopment of the ground would lead to relocating the lights so in all honesty there is little point in putting them back up until it is decided what space and scope the redevelopments will take and where floodlight pylons will fit into that plan. Obviously something is moving in terms of PT overall and I suppose if we've learnt that in itself tonight we've learnt something good.

Richieq (Meath) - Posts: 3734 - 17/11/2015 20:46:16    1808104

My opionions

numberedjerseys (USA) - Posts: 348 - 18/11/2015 08:26:50    1808121

NumberedJerseys - have you read the statement? It doesn't appear that you have. Let me quote you a couple of lines.

"It was also noted that some of the monopoles were constructed with the pole off-centre on the foundation. These foundadions did not appear adequate to support the loading from the poles."

So the foundations were weak, and the poles were placed off-centre. The whole thing was a botched-job. Simple as that.

SmallHouse (Meath) - Posts: 291 - 18/11/2015 08:55:10    1808132

I don't like the noises I am hearing from Francis Flynn about the plans for Pairc Tailteann.

"We have to decide if the lights are re-erected or upgraded and how it might impact on other work at Pairc Tailteann. The old stand is past its sell-by date but one of the big problems is there is asbestos on the roof.
We may upgrade the terraces first so we can still take a considerable crowd while work on the stand is going on."

It sounds like they are intending to keep the ground open, and do it up bit by bit. Completely the wrong option in my opinion. The whole thing needs to be upgraded. Bite the bullet, shut the thing down completely for a year, and go and get the work done properly.
Is everyone supposed to go up on the terrace when the stand is closed? What about the elderly fans - are they expected to stand? In the wind and rain?
Ashbourne is a decent ground with proper seating that can hold a good sized crowd. Realistically it would do for O'Byrne cup and league games (and we rarely get championship games anyway). Bring the games there, and start renovating Pairc Tailteann properly. Whatever it costs it costs. The work has to be done - just get on with it.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 18/11/2015 12:06:59    1808220

The NOM terrace and stand should be the priority (not hospital end, which is hardly ever needed).

GlasagusOr (Meath) - Posts: 1348 - 18/11/2015 12:28:32    1808228

apparently there was additional welds put on the poles after they were erected which removed the galvanized finish, thus leaving them susceptible to rust, weakening the structure. This as well as shoddy foundation work, poles being placed off center on foundations were the main reason they were taken down.

County board must have seen a failure with them, very strange the way they look for a random test after they being up this long, something must have caught someones eye to trigger an inspection. Lucky their wasn't an accident.

County board be best selling everything in Navan and building a new stadium in dunganny where there is still a huge area of land to develop. To get that asbestos taken off the roof in PT and disposed of will cost millions before we even start building something new. Only a matter of time before that roof starts breaking apart and then we'll be forced to close PT nd will have nowhere to go.

begining (UK) - Posts: 300 - 18/11/2015 12:32:59    1808229

I agree,you are better off shutting PT down for a year and doing the work proparly,or actually building a new ground in Dunganny for example or maybe upgrading another ground..

ziggy32001 (Meath) - Posts: 8354 - 18/11/2015 13:41:32    1808248

It depends on what scale of work they are planning to do, an original proposal I saw online about a year or so back outlined work in three phases with the first phase involving new terraces at both goal ends, phase two involved upgrading the existing terrace with dressing rooms and media facilities transferred there with a possibility of seating being added also and the final phase being the replacement of the stand. If plans follow that course of action then a phased redevelopment is possible given that dressing rooms, media facilities and seats would be added to the existing terrace although whether or not a roof was included in that I'm not sure. Remember half the ground (goal ends) are shut down as it is, apart from a glorious resurrection last June v Wicklow, so work on redeveloping those areas will not lead to a loss of capacity or major disruption and if the existing terrace is redeveloped before the stand then a lot of the "comforts" can be transferred there. I suppose again we need communication on the matter, its all our monies so yeah we should know what the plan is and what timescale were looking at, perhaps at Convention we might have some announcements on the matter.

Richieq (Meath) - Posts: 3734 - 18/11/2015 14:39:58    1808274

I see Setanta wont be showing any meath games next year in league,used to always get at least 2.

thelutch (Meath) - Posts: 1047 - 23/11/2015 17:03:57    1809301

Carrying out the works on a phased basis appears the credible option and shutting down PT should not be considered.

browncows (Meath) - Posts: 2342 - 23/11/2015 20:07:46    1809365

23/11/2015 17:03:57
thelutch
County: Meath
Posts: 511

1809301
I see Setanta wont be showing any meath games next year in league,used to always get at least 2.

Yeah no Saturday night games = no Setanta

Richieq (Meath) - Posts: 3734 - 23/11/2015 20:18:07    1809370

For any future redevelopment should the focus not be on seating instead of terracing.
Given the debacle between Portlaoise and Nowlan Park would it not make sense to increase the seating capacity to guarantee more big games in future.

RoyalBadger (Meath) - Posts: 571 - 24/11/2015 16:39:09    1809576