Sarge
God like member
At the Oxvox open members meeting a couple of Wednesday's ago, Jon Rycroft ( of Ox University- who at the time were looking after the maintenance of the pitch), gave quite an informative, revealing and concerning over-view of how the playing surface was deteriorating.
cut n paste from OxVox minutes of meeting as to what was said ..... as well as the revelation of a few days later that Oxford University would not be re-employed by Firoka/ Stadco after their current contract run its course
"On the pitch, Jon Rycroft commented that the pitch specification was not as expected and it had not been maintained fully, making the University’s short-term maintenance contract harder to follow through. He commented that the Club should have more information on the pitch setup. Edit: Since the meeting, Jon has informed OxVox that the University has not been retained by the stadium company beyond its current short-term contract. We do not at this stage know who has replaced them."
Which raises the question that now that the relaid and refurbished playing surface WASNT installed to the expected specification that WAS paid for, also, subsequently the playing surface WASNT maintained correctly, it equates that the installation company rip off whoever paid for the 'new' surface, as well as which our tax exiled slum landlord's representatives, it seems, were penny-pinching when it came to pitch maintenance too. Who is liable then? Jointly the playing surface installation company, by delivering less than they were paid to install, as well as Firoka/Stado for skimping on maintenance costs.... ( until OU flagged up the situation, & coincidentally (?) were informed their maintance contract would not be renewed after it expired, a few days following the aforementioned OxVox members meeting!!!)
Yet another of many areas where , ultimately, the breeze blocks tax exiled slum landlord has, and continues to shaft OUFC regarding 'services' .....any wonder theres a long running dispute about the service contract at the breeze block?
cut n paste from OxVox minutes of meeting as to what was said ..... as well as the revelation of a few days later that Oxford University would not be re-employed by Firoka/ Stadco after their current contract run its course
"On the pitch, Jon Rycroft commented that the pitch specification was not as expected and it had not been maintained fully, making the University’s short-term maintenance contract harder to follow through. He commented that the Club should have more information on the pitch setup. Edit: Since the meeting, Jon has informed OxVox that the University has not been retained by the stadium company beyond its current short-term contract. We do not at this stage know who has replaced them."
Which raises the question that now that the relaid and refurbished playing surface WASNT installed to the expected specification that WAS paid for, also, subsequently the playing surface WASNT maintained correctly, it equates that the installation company rip off whoever paid for the 'new' surface, as well as which our tax exiled slum landlord's representatives, it seems, were penny-pinching when it came to pitch maintenance too. Who is liable then? Jointly the playing surface installation company, by delivering less than they were paid to install, as well as Firoka/Stado for skimping on maintenance costs.... ( until OU flagged up the situation, & coincidentally (?) were informed their maintance contract would not be renewed after it expired, a few days following the aforementioned OxVox members meeting!!!)
Yet another of many areas where , ultimately, the breeze blocks tax exiled slum landlord has, and continues to shaft OUFC regarding 'services' .....any wonder theres a long running dispute about the service contract at the breeze block?
