Halifaxtiger

At no point have I said it was fact,just my opinion. As I have said above, I really don't know. If anybody wants to take that as fact, that is their doing, not mine. I have 'strong, credible' suggestions that it was down to him, but I have had another that said it was not. Unlike yourself who have said 'The key point is that it was far from being all about Steve' which is an assertion, not an opinion, I have made it clear that I don't know.

I don't think that is true but I can't really give any explanation for that. Certainly Peter Morrish has expressed concern at the lack of stand alone clubs in the league. I am operating on hearsay, Rob, but I have had three opinions on this one. Two are from people I have a great deal of time and one I don't know from Adam but who seems very well informed. One very much supports your view, the others do not. Bluntly, I am not sure who to believe The only thing I find surprising is that if this isn't about Steve Ribbons and is largely about Mildenhall, why are they now considering a further bid - you would think that that would be a straight rejection.

I don't think that even their most vitriolic critic can accuse the BSPA of closing Weymouth down. That seems to be a matter of a landlord who just doesn't want the speedway there. Where Mildenhall are concerned, from posts on here it seems as though some believe that they aren't wanted full stop. The thing is though that the new bid to resurrect the Fen Tigers has been received 'positively' by the BSPA which suggests to me that it was Steve Ribbons they didn't like, not Mildenhall as such. We'll see.

Taken from the Cambridge News: New hope for Mildenhall as big names enter the frame by David Crane Mildenhall have been given a glimmer of hope just a week after being told the club had not been accepted into this year’s National League. Former Fen Tigers, King’s Lynn and Ipswich rider Kevin Jolly is in negotiations with two big names in the sport to form a new promotion. And, most crucially, Jolly has received a positive response from the British Speedway Promoters’ Association about his application. He said: "It is happening very quickly and we have a few things to sort with (stadium owner) Dave Coventry, but it is looking promising at this stage. "I think we could have a decent team and get an academy development growing, which will be very exciting." Jolly, who has been monitoring the Tigers’ situation since they folded seven months ago, saw his joint plans with Steve Ribbons to take over Mildenhall rejected by the league’s promoters last week. Fingers crossed

Just to set you straight on Neil 'Nikko' Day. He doesn't 'claim' to try and help young riders, he actually puts his money where his mouth is, year in year out. In fact, I have just come off the phone from a young riders father for whom Nikko has met half of an expensive tuning bill. He is Mildenhall through and through and was at least partly involved in the bid to take over the team, despite the fact that he now lives well over 100 miles away. Its little wonder, then, that he got upset and angry over the circumstances of the refusal decision. Its ridiculous to suggest that anyone being critical should take on a promotion, or that they don't have any credence if they are not prepared to do so. I suggest you have a quick look at your contributions on the pages of this forum, because from what I have read you have very little room to suggest that anyone else makes themselves look a fool by what they post for all to read.

I'll try and answer both of your posts in one. What Terry Waters, his son, Dave Coventry, or any other individual stands to lose isn't the issue where I am concerned. Its what the thousands that watch the stocks and the hundreds that watch the speedway will lose which is more the point. You will note that I said 'noisy earshot'. That means a serious disturbance, not some background noise that might be expected from any such amenity and lets not forget that the stadium is at the end of the air force runway - when a plane goes over, you can't hear the speedway bikes. If this person (or anyone else)moved in after the stadium was built (ie mid 1970's) they knew it was there. Consequently, they knew about the noise before moving in. If they moved in later, then they would have known about the stock cars and Moto X as well. Until you can provide a cogent and reasonable response as to why they moved in the full knowledge of the existence of the stadium and its uses, your argument will not convince anyone on this forum (or, I suspect, any other reasonable person). Lets not forget that the stadium is miles from major habitation and, as I have said, is in a noisy place anyway. Its difficult to imagine a more appropriate place for it to be. In my view, what we have is an extremely selfish individual who expects everything around them to change, no matter how long it has been there or how many people enjoy its existence. They are not satisfied with the council's recommendations or Dave Coventry's attempts to make matters easier for them and if such persons always had their way nothing would ever be built and huge numbers of amenities would be torn down. What I will not deny is that the actions that have been perpertrated against them are absolutely appalling,wholly unjustifiable and are almost certainly provoked by their stance (although proving that will be difficult). Whoever has taken these acts may just find that their stupidity could cost the stadium and its continued existence very dearly indeed.

To answer your questions the court case is about noise. I just don't understand how it can be taken seriously or hope to succeed in the circumstances but that's looking at it logically, though, and the courts don't see it that way. The grounds stated for refusal are financial and the possibility that the stadium might not be available for speedway. Planning permission restricts the use of the stadium as far as I am aware.

I don't think the points limit is an issue - at least not to that extent. Most NL fans (be they from stand alone or double up tracks) would accept 40pts, and that's certainly a lot higher than Rob Godfrey, for example, wanted last year. I don't wish to doubt your word but I have had 5 opinions on this from people who claim they know the truth. Those opinions differ quite considerably, so I retain an open mind on this subject.

Not quite right, Ray. The reason this person has not tried to stop the noise from the airbase is simply because they can't. You can bet your life that if they could they would have done. What you have to understand in this is precisely where West Row stadium is - its literally in the middle of nowhere, with less than 20 houses within noisy earshot. Given that the end of the runway is right opposite the track, its difficult to imagine a more appropriate position for a place where stocks, Moto X & speedway take place. Its true to suggest there is noise late at night and during weekends. What you have to remember is that planning permission has been granted by the local authority and Dave Coventry has complied with many restrictions and recommendations that they have made. Clearly, they think that the circumstances are OK. What you can't get past is that this person moved in in the full knowledge that the stadium and the Moto X track where nearby. As I have said before, you don't move into a lighthouse if you don't like the sea, and their unjustifiable selfishness threatens the enjoyment that hundreds get from the speedway and thousands get from the stocks.

Do you actually know how the vote went or is this wild speculation ? That is true. The council, though, did differentiate between the speedway and the stock cars when serving noise orders. Whatever Jonathan Chapman might have said, he didn't get one. The speedway takes about 3 hours at most on a Sunday afternoon and rarely after 7.30pm, and the noise is intermittent. The stocks go on until midnight occasionally and when I stayed over at the stadium once the track was still being graded at 2am. I think the stocks and the moto cross rather than the speedway are the problem but I doubt if that will be taken into account.

I don't think we will know this until the BSPA actually state the precise grounds for the refusal - and not just something as general as money and the stadium - and I don't think they will do that. To my mind,and even allowing for reasonable confidentiality, that does them no good because there could be totally acceptable grounds for their decision that entirely rebut Steve Ribbons case. What's worse, it leaves them constantly open to allegations of selfishness and underhand practice that could be entirely untrue. One thing is certain and that is Mr Ribbons has damaged his own standing with Mildenhall fans by his outbursts on here. Even if you felt that his initial action to lay open his side of events was correct (and I do) a willingness to be personally abusive is absolutely unacceptable from someone who wanted to run a speedway club, whatever the provocation.

Just read the background to that case and based upon albeit limited information it does seem similar. I just don't understand the logic. It seems to set a precedent that any person, anywhere, can close down anything. It means that a person can move next door to a cat food factory, complain about the smell and have the factory closed down. Lets face it, if you don't like the sea, you don't move into a lighthouse. My first question to anyone in such a situation here is if you don't like noise, why did you move in, particularly bearing in mind that the speedway track is right at the end of runway of a RAF air base ?

Wrong of me to criticise, but I suspect that a lot of NL riders don't use new tyres anyway. I am sure his Dad will correct me, but I suspect the only time Oliver Rayson uses new tyres is on the rare occasions that I might buy him one.

I certainly would, Iris. But 'league membership' or 'promotional rights' fees aren't among them. What have they got to do with the financial security of the track ?

Aside from the fact that I am not sure where you got £10k from, nor did Steve Ribbons. There's no way that he can be held accountable for what has happened in the past. If they wanted a bigger bond, why not just say so at the outset and state that that is because of what has happened in the past ? Every Mildenhall fan would have understood that. I think Iris is dead right. The decision to exclude Mildenhall is nothing to do with finances or the stadium, its about spite and vindictiveness.

I think the difference is that Coventry/Peterborough are merely being asked to comply to legislation that will apply to the rest of the league. Mildenhall are being asked to comply to conditions that certainly seem to be set out for them and them alone. I wonder if Hackney Hawks or Stoke Potters (or any other new club for that matter)have been asked for a 'league membership' or 'promotional rights' fee.

I think its fair point to suggest that Mildenhall represent a risk given what has happened in the past and to ask for stronger guarantees from a potential promoter. The thing is you don't do that a week before the AGM and over the phone, you make it absolutely clear as soon as someone gets involved then everyone knows where they stand before they start making actual plans for a takeover and informing everyone that that is likely to happen. More to the point, have Leicester ?

I think we will undoubtedly get something but there's absolutely no way that it will be in enough depth or answer the points that Steve Ribbons and other posters here have raised. Steve has put them in the public domain, so as far as I can see the BSPA have every right and reason to respond in the same way, rebutting his arguments and stating their case in full. They won't do that. If questioned, they will probably refer to confidentiality but there will remain the strong suspicion that their actions simply cannot be justified. I don't think there is a single forum member that would dispute that their decisions are at least partly based upon pure selfishness and whether faces fit. Openness and transparency wherever possible breeds trust, the opposite mistrust. Its little wonder that over 80% of speedway supporters want some form of independent control of the sport. Your first point is my major issue, too. Its about inconsistency, spite and selfishness having a place in decision making when they should be entirely absent. Being clear from the start has been raised by Nikko and Neil and you're all correct.

Good post You'd think that the BSPA would do everything possible to help a prospective promotion, wouldn't you ? Here, they seem to have done quite the opposite.

The thing is Screm is that it seems to me that the reason for Mildenhall not being in the NL is because Steve Ribbons face doesn't fit. That's pretty hard to stomach.

Malcolm Vasey, Jonathan Chapman, Dave Hoggart, Rob Godfrey Jayne Moss & Dale Allitt are all more or less regular contributors to this forum and quite often don't mince their words. That's another BSPA rule : one law for one, one law for another.

I am glad that Steve Ribbons has chosen to post his thoughts on here and in some detail, becuse we certainly won't get that from the BSPA. What we will get is a short statement about the stadium and finances, completely disregarding many relevant questions that are undeniably applicable. In addition, aside from Speedy Star, I am not too certain where he might have put his case publicly and to those who are particularly interested. What a heinous crime that someone comes on here and posts details out in the open that should be made public anyway. Why on earth should Mildenhall fans be denied the full reasoning for the decision to refuse to allow their track to open ? Maybe there are reasons for these conditions. One thing is certain, though: we will never get to know what they are.

I have said elsewhere that BSPA decision making is shabby, inconsistent and selfish and this has elements of all three. Why has Steve Ribbons been refused a promoters licence if he has never had it withdrawn, suspended or revoked ? Has David Hemsley paid £5,000 for 'promotional rights' at Leicester ? Since when has the BSPA had the right to charge for such rights ? Why has a league membership fee been charged when that has never apparently been the case before ? Why have the ongoing difficulties with the stadium been mentioned, when it would be a simple matter to either allow Mildenhall in on the proviso that the action was successful, or merely defer a decision until it is ? I would fully share a desire to ensure that sufficient finances were in place to avoid a repitition of last years mid season closure. It might even be the case that the bond required is increased because of a possibility of a significant risk. But for heavens sake lets be up front about it and not try and charge spurious figures under stupid headings for that purpose. You can't help but think that the BSPA will do anything in their power to stop a new promoter (or quite possibly this new promoter)reviving an old track, when in fact it should be very much the opposite. As soon as it was clear that Steve Ribbons was intent on taking over, everything that could be done should have been done to make a successful takeover possible by making clear what would be expected, indulging in dialogue and trying to clear hurdles. Nothing of the kind has been attempted. Having said that, I don't know why I am surprised by that. I have never heard a good word about Peter Morrish (whose responsibility that would be)and probably never will.

I'd say commonwealth riders on 7.00 and be a little more flexible on the points limit (either up or down)depending on how many teams are in and what the pool of riders are, but otherwise I agree.

That's a very useful looking outfit and an absolute vindication of Rob Godfrey's decision to run an NL side.