//
you're reading...
Financial Integrity, Football, Moral Integrity

Amazingly the only Glasgow City Council Geotechnical department study on Westthorn ever done is a couple of pages from 1998

Isn’t it incredible that even though Westthorn has been subject to an EU State Aid complaint in 2013 involving Glasgow City Council, Celtic and the Scottish Government that the only ‘geotechnical report’ produced by the council is a 1998 3 page Geotechncial Desk Study Preliminary report lacking any evidence to base any conclusions. Really the report is 1 1/2 pages of text with another page taken up with a map.

Here are the main paragraphs to get the gist of how ‘detailed’ this report was:

GCC Geotechncial report 1998 1

GCC Geotechncial report 1998 2

GCC Geotechnical report 1998 3

Again like the URS Desk Study 2004, “Site not visited”.

“No information”, “no direct evidence”.

Contamination: “No Direct evidence”. “possible in the infill to the former reservoirs” – we saw that there is only Made Ground near the access road and next to John Dewar site both at boundaries of Westthorn, there is none in the middle because the reservoirs were built from ramped walls from the surface which were then demolished back to the surface. 

Again the URS report 2004 attributed factors including a Claypit, a well and a Brick Works to Westthorn when they were on Barrowfield, Celtic’s existing training ground.

Two professionally poor Desk Studies just amplifies the lack of any foundation of reality in those URS report Abnormals of £6 million. 

Why was there No Detailed Glasgow City Council Geotechnical Report?

Was the Geotechnical dept sidelined from the Westthorn process? If so why?

Did they have a different opinion hence they were not allowed to write a report?

Or is there a report that has been hidden because of the opinion held therein would impact greatly on the whole foundation of Westthorn’s eventual price?

Surely if the council was selling surplus council land, their own Geotechnical department would be front and centre in ensuring that ratepayers get their proper value for that surplus land?

The process of selling the land started in 2004 and went to 2009 before Celtic actually bought the land so there was plenty of time for the Geotechnical dept to do a detailed report themselves and oversee a proper up-to-date site investigation.

No, the council said we have the 1 1/2 pages from 1998 Desk Study full of holes and we have Celtic’s URS Desk Study from 2004 with Abnormal costs pulled from mid air without any backed up detailed calculations in the URS Appendix.

We also had an old site investigation with multiple water tests not even UKAS accredited in the Nicholson Report – Ground Investigation – May 2000 – part 7:

Nicholson non UKAS 1

and

Nicholson non UKAS 2

These non-UKAS accredited tests were performed on several sites and you have to ask the question ‘What really is the point of non-UKAS accredited tests?’.

Throwing old reports together with very little confirmed evidence is not a professional way to calculate the abnormal costs on a multi-million pound block of land. Unless you are grasping at straws to bring the price down.

Glasgow City Council Looks Compromised Either Way

We were told, eventually after much disinformation and outright lying by Richard Brown Executive Director of DRS , that the council’s Geotechnical department did not do their own detailed report on Westthorn at the time of negotiation of the sale, but did they verify Celtic’s URS Desk Study 2004?

Is there an internal assessment of the URS Desk Study 2004? If not why not? It would have been the first thing a proper Geotechncial department would do if the only geotechnical report your council were relying on came from the party the land was being sold to. So where is that assessment?

If they did not, you have to ask was the probity of the transaction above board? Why exclude a reliability check and balance to be performed by the internal Geotechnical department within the council?

So either the council’s Geotechnical department was involved and did not make an assessment of Celtic’s URS Desk Study or they were excluded completely from the Westthorn valuation and abnormals deductions process.

Or in the very worst case, there was a report and it’s been suppressed for corrupt purposes? Considering that initially Glasgow City Council said they had done their own geotechnical report then said they only used Celtic’s URS Desk Study could you really rule out that it’s there but suppressed?

In all scenarios, Glasgow City Council looks like it compromised the Westthorn transaction.

©footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com 2017 CC-by icon

Advertisements

Discussion

No comments yet.

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: