you're reading...
Financial Integrity, Football

Compare Abnormals on Commonwealth Games site vs Westhorn

This post will compare the actual abnormals remediated on the Commonwealth Games Athletes Village site and the ‘creative’ abnormals which gave Celtic PLC such a large discount on Westhorn/Westthorn.

Commonwealth Games Athletes Village

Commonwealth site industries

The map above is from the 1897 Parkhead Ordnance Survey. Let’s list the industries along the site from NE to SW:

Springfield Wire Works

Mauldslie Brick Works

Soap Works

Springfield Bleach Works

Dalmarnock Paper Works

Springfield Dye Works

There are a lot of metals and heavy duty chemicals being processed on site.

Remediation Costs for Commonwealth Games Athlete’s Village

Fortunately the contractor employed, VHE, tells us what the costs of remediation/clean-up of the site and the total site area in a Construction Scotland article   Quote from the article (my emphasis) says:

Specialist remediation contractor VHE has commenced work on the site for the 2014 Commonwealth Games Athletes’ Village in Glasgow.The contract for the initial remediation works to prepare 33 hectares of the development site is worth nearly £5.9m and anticipated to take up to 12 months to complete.

£5.9m to remediate a previously large heavily industrialised 33 hectare site.

Westhorn/Westthorn Site

Westhorn industries

Again from the same 1897 Parkhead Ordnance Survey map. Let’s list the ‘heavy industries’ on the Westhorn site. There are none.

There are only reservoirs which as we’ve seen before were built above the river. The ground was not disturbed. A claypit at Celtic’s Barrowfield ground next door can be seen. The same clay layer would have sealed the reservoirsThere have been no heavy industries on that site. And how did Glasgow City Council value the abnormals – the amount of remediation Celtic would have to perform on the Westhorn land and were deducted from the price of the land?

Glasgow City Council Geotechnical ‘Abnormals’

Westthorn GCC Valuation

The above is the reply from Glasgow City Council to a FoI. The total area of the site is 13.5 acres (5.4 hectares). Firstly this is reduced to 7 acres (2.8 hectares) because of a previously unknown blastzone. How could that be unknown to the GCC Planning? Dewars Whisky bond would have needed planning permission to erect their buildings next door. Still we’ll let their incompetence in reducing the value of council land go for the minute. Plus buildings can still be erected on blastzone – they have a value – it can be office works or car parks. But GCC gave this away completely for free. Celtic did of course get the whole 13.5 acres.

So we are left with 7 acres (2.8 hectares) ‘valuable land’ and using residential units valued (Yes the council used Residential valuation) at  £26,187.50 it is estimated that 160 units can be built on the 7 acres (2.8 hectares). Then the rabbit comes out of the hat. 

The Council’s own Geotechnical team (Note: Own team) estimate that ‘abnormals‘ of £3.5 million are on the 7 acres (2.8 hectares). This Geotechnical report produced in house and subject to several FoIs remains un-released & hidden by GCC.

Compare and Contrast

£6 million abnormals on the heavily industrialised 33 hectares of the Commonwealth Games site

£3.5 million abnormals on a clean 2.8 hectares of the Westhorn site sold to Celtic

Hmmm I rest my case on the Glasgow City Council Mi’lord. As well as being State Aid, a fraud has been perpetrated on the taxpayers of Glasgow by their own council. The biggest Abnormal standing out on the Westhorn site is the hidden Geotechnical report produced in-house by Glasgow City Council. That abnormality is sitting stinking & rotting.

Thanks to everyone who passed on some of the source materials.

 ©footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com 2014 CC-by icon



5 thoughts on “Compare Abnormals on Commonwealth Games site vs Westhorn

  1. Reblogged this on McMurdo Media and commented:
    FTH’s latest thoughts on Westhorn

    Posted by billmcmurdo | February 20, 2014, 5:31 pm
  2. I’ve been following your work from the get go and can’t thank you enough for revealing this disgusting scandal.

    Keep up the good work whomever you may be!

    Posted by GTM | February 20, 2014, 5:32 pm
  3. So based on the calculations used for the commonwealth site, the abnormals for Westhorn amounts to £500,000, not £3.5 million.

    Posted by Sprotson | February 20, 2014, 5:48 pm
  4. A British Geological Society Survey of Glasgow taken in 2001 / 02 suggest there may not even been any contamination at Westhorn at all

    Posted by Alan Parker | February 20, 2014, 6:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: