Halifaxtiger

I agree with GC up to a point because it simply isn't a case of 'nobody else is prepared to comment'. It carries David Gordon's view and says that MCC disagree with him but they won't say why. So, of all the players in this basically two have had their say and the rest haven't been asked. Crucially, that includes the BSPA & SCB because they are accused of some pretty underhand tactics. It could also have included Gordon Pairman (whose bid was rejected), Alan Bridgett(who inspected the track) and even the real culprits, ISG. Having said that, I found it informative and given the documentary evidence have little doubt that David Gordon's view is substantially the truth. It'll be interesting to see the council's report on the subject when (and indeed if) it is published.

I agree with almost all of this but Beowulf makes an excellent point (which you seem to have ignored): If it is of 'shocking quality' why are you still watching it ? I could point out that if the viewing figures stay reasonably good (according to flagrag, anyway) there is no motivation to change the way things are. That means that those who think its crap but continue watching anyway are doing absolutely nothing to assist the likes of me (and may others) who are critical and think that more could be done to improve live meetings.

Wild horses wouldn't drag him away from that, Chris

Famous last words Reading my updates from mid May last season, I commented that it was colder for the Mildenhall meeting than the 'Russian Front'. Wrap up well is my advice if you are going early season. Its one of the few tracks where I have had a 'fog off' as well - and that was in July . My old mate Mr Brading still blames me for that I'll be surprised if the whole experience isn't one of your best. By far and away my promotion of the year in 2016.

I'd say it is far worse for them if they try to cover it all up. It will come out (in this case sooner rather than later) and while Speedy Star can be ignored by the Council the Manchester Evening News (who are interested) most certainly cannot.

I have some sympathy with Morton & Gordon here. Its entirely possible that the BSPA did put the pressure on but I think they would have been very loath to shut the team down anyway, and lets be honest it might not have been for one season only (especially bearing in mind that the works on the stadium rather than the track still hasn't been completed). I think that if there is additional rent to pay because of the need to meet the costs of temporary facilities I would accept that. But that would be a proportion of the costs - and a small one at that - only, a sort of good will gesture to engender a better relationship.

So they should, at least to a degree. Its never really been a case of the stadium being finished but who pays for the facilities to bring it up to scratch if it isn't. That's down to the landlord, not the tenant. The council can use the 'several hundred thousand pounds' they withheld from the contractor to pay for it.

Always been a supporter of a points limit myself but that is an excellent idea.

That's where I look, although I always check places where I have stayed before first. Travelodges aren't as cheap as they make out even if you book substantially in advance and take the cheaper, non refundable rate.

Seems an outrageous amount to me but I suspect if it was case of paying that or closing the team down it might not seem so pricey. It doesn't matter if they are being built. What matters is whether the speedway club will have to pay for them.

I don't think there is an issue with whether the stadium was fit for purpose last season. The very fact that the SWC meeting and EL Grand Final were held (very successfully) indicates that even with the temporary stands and toilets you can run speedway meetings there, so while it is obviously the case that the additional work needs to be undertaken at some point there is nothing stopping the Aces and Colts running even if the stadium is as it was in November. The thing is more to do with the cost and who is required to pay for any temporary measures. I have little doubt that that was resolved before the new owners completed their takeover.

I am a little surprised that the MEN isn't interested in this stuff. Most local newspapers can't wait to put the boot into councils, and that's when the council has done nothing wrong.

Thanks Phil Quite a few of us are making assumptions based upon limited information. Not unreasonable in my view, but they become suddenly superfluous when someone who has access to far more detailed information sets us straight. I am not an avid speedway star reader, but I am not going to miss that one when you publish it. ​​I would say that no rent being due when they were using the stadium wouldn't cut much ice with me (unless their expenditure and a reasonable rent reduction for the faults exceeded the agreed amount, that is).

Come on. We can't all make posts as sensible, intelligent and factually accurate as the one above, can we ?

To be fair to Gordon & Morton, they had little choice but to move in. The only other option was shutting the Aces & Colts down for a season. I do agree, though, that paying absolutely nothing was most unreasonable. For all its faults, they used it as their home base throughout the season and that means that they should have paid something.

I have to say, Phil, that I was told that they knew there were problems the night before. Its hard for me to accept - and I daresay it will be for others - that the condition of the track was only noted on the actual afternoon and evening of the meeting and there had not been a single problem at any time prior to that. That's just a little bit too convenient. It also seems to me that paying no rent at all but using the stadium (whatever its faults) anyway is also hard to stomach. Not paying the full amount, maybe, but absolutely nothing ? On a final note, I do hope that your article will be as impartial as possible. If you are publishing documents that bolster David Gordon's position without allowing fair rebuttal its little wonder the council are unhappy. This can't be a defence of Gordon & Chris Morton, but a genuine attempt to get at the truth of the matter. EDIT : I have just noted your post about asking the council to comment but being ignored. If that's the case, it is not you who will make your article seem biased but them.

That's not good. For years I have read (and admired and liked) your posts about NL speedway in general and King's Lynn NL Speedway in particular. Losing someone of your passion is disastrous and I genuinely hope that you can find a way round so you can continue to attend. It really is a poor show that NL fixtures can't be publicised more than 4 weeks before the start of the season.

Sure about that ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-36746494 You only have to read some of the comments on here to know that they were still being laughed at even after building had commenced, never mind during the long years before that. As I have said, certain members of the BSPA were among those laughing. Make no mistake, the existence of the NSS is substantially down to Gordon & Morton.

Dead right Maybe they didn't fund it, but it almost certainly would not have been built but for the efforts of David Gordon and Chris Morton - and this was in the face of scepticism, cynicism and downright derision from other promoters and fans across the country.

Given Buster Chapman's remarkable interventions at Leicester and Coventry I doubt very much that his role was negative. It would be very wrong if Chapman went into this with any form of prejudice against a potential promotion simply because they were friends with David Gordon. Lets face it, Tony Rice is the calibre of businessman that makes those in charge of all the other tracks across the country look distinctly small time (one internet report said his salary at Cable & Wireless was £700k per annum) and it would have been a true disaster if his takeover bid had been endangered because of such an attitude. I know that certain members of the BSPA (not Matt Ford) both dismissed and ridiculed the plans for the NSS so it doesn't take a lot to believe that some were jealous. I certainly blame the council and ISG for the failure to complete the stadium to the standard required and, as that was almost certainly a contributing factor to the Belle Vue promotions inability to meet its liabilities, they must take a share of the blame for the failure of the Gordon/Morton promotion as well. It wasn't, but a major part of it was.

The gentleman concerned was as disappointed, frustrated and angry as any of us.

Spoke to a club promoter a week or so ago and he told me he had 'no idea' when they would be published.

Actually, there are 19 teams in the top flights of British Speedway. That's 133 riders. Without Belle Vue & Leicester, there are 17 riders doubling up. I suspect there will be about 22 in the final line ups, so to amalgamate the leagues you need 22 new riders and that doesn't take into account replacements for injury. That's a tall order without, as GB says, flooding the league with NL performers (and there are 17 of them doubling up anyway). Having said that, SCB is spot on. There has to be a will to reduce the number doubling up (and hence cut the ridiculous dependence on guests and rider replacement) over the next few seasons and there was an opportunity to start in 2017 with the reduction in teams. It hasn't been taken.

It is, but that's probably the smallest gap its ever been. Its almost certainly one of the reasons why Somerset and Rye House moved up. Switch Ipswich/Peterborough and Belle Vue round and you have a regional split with the possibility of all teams at the same strength.

I suspect he has connections with Sheffield................