Aces51

We know from Philip Rising's comments on here that MCC have had this statement for more than sufficient time to make a detailed response if they so wished. Nobody can force them to comment and they knew that if they didn't only one side of the story would be published. We also know from Philip Rising that, in his opinion, all of the facts put forward by David Gordon are supported by documentary evidence. Now that the article has been published anybody who was involved and disagrees with anything said can come forward with their evidence. We shall see if anybody does.

Last year for the Colts Belle Vue charged £10 for adults, £8 concessions and everyone under 18 free. Considering the surroundings and quality of the racing it was excellent value. Unfortunately, I can't say that I saw many children in the crowd.

If you follow your madness of holding a test meeting at the same time as the actual meeting you would also have to hold meetings at the same time of night in every possible weather conditions other than heavy rain, as you wouldn't know what the weather was going to be like on the Saturday. Otherwise, tests could have been held during the previous week when the weather was warmer and all would have been ok, come the meeting and the problem, caused by the change in temperature, would still have happened. As for the problems seen during the day on the Saturday, the opinions of track staff, riders and officials was that it wasn't sufficient to call off the meeting. It was much later, when the riders changed their minds. Also, don't forget that the referee takes control some time before the meeting starts and obviously he must have thought, even at that time, that it could go ahead.

It could be a good idea but not if all those referees are in charge who we now see pulling back prefectly good starts because they imagine someone must have moved. There lies the road to unfair disqualifications, lots of controversy and delays whist riders make their complaints. It's 2017, time for a foolproof system using modern technology which will instantly identify if anyone moves before the tapes are released. Apologies Star Lady for pretty much repeating what you said. That will teach me to break off partway through a post to have a cup of tea. Your post wasn't there when I started.

I think Lawson would probably settle for being second best in the world.

I said the same on the NSS thread. It's terrible being so cynical isn't it.

Against all the odds they had achieved what many thought impossible by persuading the council to build the new stadium. Are you seriously suggesting that they should have walked away because the council were insisting that they and only they would control the construction process. It was the council's money and perfectly understandable that they insisted on full control.

If the announcement by the council is made tomorrow could that be anything to do with the Speedway Star also publishing their article. If I were cynical I might think they were trying to shift the spotlight to the good news and bury the bad. The comparison is more akin to someone else paying for the house and you are the first tenant. They probably wouldn't let you onto the building site. DG and CM were not allowed to speak directly to the contractors let alone stand over them watching what they did.

That was exactly be situation. They either accepted it or no stadium and the end of the Aces. Ok, so there were serious problems with the track but in the end we have an excellent stadium and racing track. That wouldn't have made any difference unless by chance it had been held on a day when the atmospheric conditions caused the water to rise to the surface. There was an extensive practice held after the first lot of remedial work and everyone thought the problem had been solved. It was only a change in the weather that showed it hadn't.

And what would you have done when despite whatever arguments you put forward the council said no?

If any promises were made by any of the prospective new owners it must have been on the conditional basis of them being the successful bidder. You can't expect the new owners to be bound by what others may have said but I do have tremendous sympathy for Richie and would like to see him in the team because of the loyalty he has shown,

I would very much like to see Richie in the team because of his loyalty over the winter but I suspect that those who asked him to stay loyal may have been one of the unsuccessful bidders. You can't blame the new promoters if they weren't the people making the promises. The article in the Speedway Star today said that it appears that Richie was one of those included in the team building plans so perhaps there is still hope that he will be.

Food for thought on the cost argument. Manchester is not one of the more affluent areas of the country and yet it seemed to me that last season there were always more adults in the grandstand, paying £20, than in the south and west stands, paying £17. There may be all sorts of possible reasons but it is difficult to get away from the fact that if cost is a major reason in keeping people from attending, either because of affordability or value for money, then you would expect that the vast majority of people would have been in the cheaper stands.

My recollection is that David Gordon and Chris Morton put forward the explanation that the track was fine the day before and that it was a drop in temperature on the day that caused water to rise to the surface when they attended the SCB for the hearing into the opening meeting. If memory is correct I think that was reported in the Speedway Star, I know I read it somewhere because it was as a result of that and other information I gleaned that I made a number of posts last summer putting forward that explanation. Just think about it. It is agreed there were problems with those bends leading up to the meeting, it was believed that remedial work could be done to the track surface that would solve the problem and on the Friday it appeared that the problem had indeed been solved and we now know that was confirmed by Reeve and Bridgett. On the Saturday, the weather changed and because of the problems with the track base, which nobody knew about, water rose to the surface and caused the cancellation of the meeting. This same scenario was repeated after the first attempted repairs were carried out, an extensive practice was held and the track was fine but the weather changed and again water rose to the surface. So far as the rumours prior to the meeting, they were true in so far as there were problems with the track but none of the people repeating those rumours seem to have been aware that work had been done which appeared to solve the problem and that the track had been inspected by SCB officials who thought it would be OK for the meeting. Certainly none of the rumours I saw made any mention of those matters or indeed that any of the riders repeating them had actually been to the track. I believe Phillip Rising and do those with doubts really believe he would name Reeve and Bridgett and say he has seen documentary proof if it were untrue.

We were told the rule book would be completely rewritten for this year. Weren't they going to get a group of referees to do it? Maybe that explains any delay. I am looking forward to this new, simplified, straightforward and unambiguous version. It will be worth the wait if it stops some of the shenanigans and the discretion of the management committee to ignore it if they so wish by the, in the best interests of the sport, get out rule. I do hope I'm not being too naive.

So when you said "Remember that some promotions refused to sell tickets for the British Final because of what they knew" what you meant was " I am aware of some concerns, and other promotions might have elected to keep out of it, given what had gone on before it. That is for others to consider." Then you have the temerity to criticise those who thought you meant what your original words actually said.

Gordon and Morton always spoke well of Matt Ford, not sure why. Maybe that was their downfall.

You miss the point. Tsunami is telling us that some promoters refused to sell them apparently, because of what they knew, whatever that was. That implies that they were requested to do so, you can't refuse if you haven't been asked. We know that anybody could have bought them online from Belle Vue but I suspect that some fans would prefer not to do that and instead be able to buy them at their local track rather than on the night, particularly so if they wanted particular seats.

They did design the shape of the track but had no say in the construction that was between the council, the builders and apparently their sub contractors.

Perhaps Tsunami who first mentioned it.

I don't think it is as black and white or polarised as you suggest. I don't think that many of those who feel some sympathy and gratitude to Gordon and Morton for getting the stadium built would claim they are entirely blameless, in fact haven't they themselves said that mistakes were made. Equally, I think that many of those who condemned them at the time of the opening meeting and when their licences were withdrawn can now accept that at least some of their problems were made much worse by the failure by others to ensure that the terracing on the back straight was built and the construction problems on the 3rd and 4th bends. What I do find appalling, if true, is that other promoters were working against them as early as when the British Final tickets went on sale in April or May and that, so far as we know, the BSPA did nothing about it. Why try to harm another promotion, how does that sort of attitude help the sport? It certainly fuels suspicions many Belle Vue fans had about the attitude of some members of the BSPA after the it was nothing to do with us, it was all Belle Vue's fault and has done great damage to the sport, press release made immediately following the disasterous opening meeting and before any investigation and before all the facts were known. Yes, the full story of what really happened last year needs to be told, whether it will is another matter. However, the main thing now is to get the new promotion in place and for those who feel threatened by the NSS to realise that this showpiece stadium and brilliant race track are vital to the success of the sport nationwide. Let's also hope that Swindon can soon join the NSS as 21st century stadiums and templates for what is needed for the sport we all love to move forward and grow.

And who was it who sold the vision to the council, persuaded them to spend the money and put in 10 years hard work to ensure it was built? That is what took real skill and determination and is something which no other promoter or the BSPA have had the vision to achieve elsewhere. They've usually previously insisted on an experienced promoter shadowing a new promoter so it would be unusual if they didn't this time. It would be good to see George Carswell involved and I hope a role can be found for him. Perhaps with the Colts or the Academy, if that is still in the plans.

That would be the calamity morons who actually got the stadium built and who kept the Aces going despite the financial losses incurred during the years at the dog track. Without them there would be no stadium and no team to save. It will be interesting to find out just what constructive part Chapman has played in all of this. Rice and Southwell have connections to David Gordon so I suspect their involvement had nothing to do with Buster.

I think the objections by the Council to the Speedway Star article tend to point in that direction. However, I doubt we shall ever get the whole story. Personally, I feel we owe a huge debt of gratitude to Gordon and Morton for their vision and the hard work they put in to achieve what many thought impossible. Mistakes were made last year but they certainly weren't solely responsible for what happened and may not even be the main culprits.

Yes. Nice one Phil. Think I may have made a spelling mistake though.