Some interesting points from other websites I've been following discussions on have formulated a 'What if...?' scenario, I'll try and summarise.
If we believe the implication this was an insurance job how would it be done? How would the plan have gone so wrong?
I have no idea how you commit an intelligent arson job that would get the job done while covering tracks. I assume any kind of device set to ignite a spark on a timer would have been found in the aftermath. My first thought was perhaps that a timer that was meant to go off at 3:45am had been set wrongly and went off at 3.45pm. That theory seems too outlandish but then I couldn't think of another scenario.
Perhaps there was someone tasked with starting the fire under the stand and had gone during the match to test starting a fire, to see how quickly the rubbish would catch fire and the fire caught faster than thought and spread faster. Again, I think this is probably a little far fetched. Would anyone really be that stupid, who knows. Never underestimate man's stupidity.
Through discussion and comments on other MBs the theory that seems the most plausible is that the stand would have been planned to be burnt down that night after the game. It was common knowledge that there was a build up of litter under the stand, I believe the club had been warned about it by the fire services and they were supposedly coming the day after to check that standards were being met. Thus, it was on record that there was a danger of fire in the stands. Thus, there was a ready made blame to cover questions of arson. A dropped match or cigarette during the game had smouldered under the stand and eventually a fire had started and spread.
The question someone raised elsewhere was how did it start and spread so quickly with such ferocity. It was mentioned that the chairman's other eight fires had been in places storing foam rubber, soft toys, foam cushion, plastics... all materials that would go up in flames quickly. Knowing that the ground was a fire hazard, and knowing attitudes to public smoking in the 1980s, how did the dropped cigarette theory not happen before? Maybe the wrong cigarette, fell in the wrong place at the wrong time. But surely this must have happened before at games? What could have been different on that day - if additional flammable materials had been added to the area under the stands in order to ensure a fast and devastating fire when it was deliberately started later that night were present?
This is just speculating a theory to see if the implications in the Guardian piece could believably be carried out. It does seem feasible to me. Believable? You would like to think not, but you don't need to be a complete cynic to believe the idea that a businessman might burn a property down to claim the insurance. That is a fairly well-known tactic. If you are being asked to believe it about a businessman who has had eight previous fires at failing buildings/companies? However, you would then need to ask how he was not caught. How would you get away with that without a cover up involving club officials, the police, the local council, the fire services? Is that believable? Authorities covering something up in Yorkshire?
Apparently the Guardian has another extract published today. Would they save a bigger revelation for Day 2 of their serialisation I wonder?
