06-02-2022, 09:16 AM
(02-02-2022, 09:48 PM)mikey393 Wrote:A bank normally gets a valuation in order to lend, most of the time the surveyor doesn’t even get out of the car. You can pay to get a survey but it’s a fairly generic report with the surveyor protecting themselves saying ‘might have damp’ so they don’t miss anything and get sued. The problems found with the ground have been discovered when things have been removed whilst doing work.(02-02-2022, 07:40 PM)briefcase_wanchor Wrote: My firm belief is that the Eisners due diligence was woefully short of where it should have been, especially with regard to the state of the ground. Yes they knew there were issues but not the full extent and for that we can add extra years into their timeframe for on-field progress. I’ve seen dd into a football club purchase first hand and these issues would have been identified if it had been carried out to the right standard.
I totally agree with the due diligence as a full structural survey should have been taken out by a commercial surveyors.
It's very much like buying a house the bank/building society insist on a survey & full report before they'll lend against the property.
It sounds like this didn't happen as they didn't take out a bank loan against the ground?
The ground looked dreadful on Monday night with all th eenforced empty spaces.
Not sure what the attendance was?
The more I think about it the greater reasons for moving.