Issues Of Multiplex And Wembley Stadium

Multiplex is well known for litigation of construction industry.  As a private company, British construction was marketed before the disaster.  At the end of 2003, the prospectus of multiplex contained only references of half-sentences to Wembley, which did not have any mention of the project risks and design.  Near 20 percent rout in the securities price of multiplex was a large problem. $68.3 million write-down was announced and was said that claim about $11 million would be resolved in near future when break even position would arise (Bbc.co.uk, 2016). Many shareholders saw this as the opacity habit of hard to shake in the history of the multiplex. Bovis Lend was the joint venture partner of multiplex who was to be out of the race because of the technically complex job and the incomplete parameters of the design. Moreover, the financial reward also was very slim.

These problems were not resolved totally. Initially, it was trying to solve the issue but the corruption was tending for the death of many.   Uncertainty and additional delays took the life of many people. This type of issue can never to resolve as the main problem lies at the top centres of the organisations. Multiplex faced many legal actions against them where Cleveland Bridge and Mott MacDonald was principally involved.

A few construction problems emerged during their project. The first problem was between Multiplex and steel contractor Cleveland bridge. The construction is delayed by a various number of events that are staying in dispute between Multiplex, Honeywell and many other organisations. As the projects are delayed, Multiplex has undertaken some re-programming and they transferred the program to Honeywell. The second adjudication to the parties came into existence. The consequences of the issues are the subject of debate and dispute. The business problems has been reduced here and for this reason the project risk also declined. In this way the financial activities were designed in a systematic manner (Jefferies, 2002, p.356). By implementing the effective legal environment successful business has been formed in a proper manner here. However, the parties engaged in Wembley stadium announced that they have agreed to an understandable settlement of all disputes. This agreement avoids all kinds of lengthy legal contract issues or the breach of the contracts. All the parties are now committed to working together. However, the contract issues of Multiplex led to two high-profile court cases. Multiplex it has been blamed for these losses of project problems (Arbouw, 2005, p.31).

To reduce the effect of contract problems, Multiplex is now striving not to adhere to strict legal contract issues. They are of the opinion that strict contracts lead to more breach of contracts (Telegraph.co.uk, 2016). The accurate design of the stadiums or executing high profile projects becomes difficult while working with the more strict legal contracts. Multiplex, hence, avoided working on a lump-sum basis. As multiplex is facing several legal problems for this reason the HR department as well as the management team has taken the effectiveness for reduction of the business risk (Klinger, 2006, p.4). Multiplex by adopting the strategy of not engaging with severe contract rules is, however, benefitted. The development of Multiplex is a major surprise to the world today. Its loss from Wembley dropped vehemently (Klinger, 2006, p.4). Its losses made the real total cost of the stadium. In addition, they are successful in achieving some extra cash for their project. They are trying to recover from the failure situation for which the cost ratio can be measured here in a proper manner and thus the entire industry can able to meet its challenges.

Safeguard procedures often imply economic development of an organisation by not harming people or other organisation. As a safeguarding measure, Multiplex could have increased relationships with other Stadiums and made its partner. In this way, Multiplex could have stepped closer to make the safe. The effective partnership business strategies which were taken by Multiplex construction become effective for the business and hence the proper business decisions were chosen in a successful manner. This procedure may give Multiplex an opportunity to share the moments of financial crisis (Jefferies, 2002, p.356). To save from further breach of contract issues, Multiplex should extend its supporting hand in terms of equal shares. For making the reduction of the risk factor here the British Government has also taken the effective step for maintenance of the legal environment (Jefferies, 2002, p.356). That would have become the state of the art culture incorporated by Multiplex for the first time. Not only could these, Multiplex have taken the support of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) that could have rendered them financial support any time.

Arbouw, J., (2005). Multiplex over-arches. Company Director, 21(9), p.31

Bbc.co.uk (2016), News, Available at: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4735812.stm[accessed on: 12 Aug, 2016]

Jefferies, M., Gameson, R. and Rowlinson, S., (2002). Critical success factors of the BOOT procurement system: reflections from the Stadium Australia case study. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), pp.352-361.

Klinger, B., 2006. Beyond the multiplex: Cinema, new technologies, and the home. Univ of California Press.

Telegraph.co.uk (2016), Multiplex losses head skywards with soaring Wembley woes, Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2928727/Multiplex-losses-head-skywards-with-soaring-Wembley-woes.html[accessed on: 12 Aug, 2016]

Theguardian.com (2016), Construction Wembley stadium, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/mar/16/construction.wembleystadium[accessed on: 12 Aug, 2016]