Aces51

According to the updates Poole 513, Swindon 23!

Poole are definitely strong again but it is early days, I don't think Swindon are as bad as they are looking today. As for Belle Vue I am optimistic we'll have a good year but we're not as good as some think, our reserves are nowhere near the strongest and with this format matches are often won and lost by the reserves.

Somebody commented elsewhere that David Gordon said on local radio that they were hoping to do further work on the track then hold a practice on Saturday before making a decision about Monday. I didn't hear it so can't confirm what has been reported. However, I can't see that much would have been done with the rain yesterday and the forecast from tomorrow onwards doesn't look too good. Hopefully, the forecast is wrong and they can get the practice in tomorrow.

For what it's worth I don't think CVS did think the information had come from a fan on Twitter, I give him more credit than that. I think it more likely he thought it had come from a credible source, maybe at the Cradley forum as reported on here. Your theory that Belle Vue's supposed charade was to avoid fans thinking the problem was more serious than first thought doesn't hold up. The reality is that many on here were expecting tomorrow's match to be cancelled,so had already decided it wasn't a problem with a quick fix. A cancellation announced on Monday would have matched their expectations. Also, consider that from reading David Gordon's press release it seems that legal proceedings were a possibility, no doubt relating to whoever was responsible for the problems on Saturday and any future losses from cancelled meetings. It would in those circumstances harm his case to say or do anything which wasn't true or which showed that he hasn't done everything he could to minimise any losses, ie by doing everything possible to get Fridays match on. Anything which indicates that Belle Vue said the match was cancelled before the inspections and eventual decision to cancel on Wednesday can only be harmful if proceedings are necessary and makes it even more improbable that Belle Vue were consulted or had anything to do with the statements by Wolverhampton and Edinburgh.

I may be a Belle Vue supporter but at least I can be objective. You may recall that at the time of the hosepipe affair I condemned their actions and said they deserved what they got

In reply to Orion. Maybe because they held their hands up and admitted it when they did wrong, more than can be said of some promotions. That, coupled with the fact that anyone looking objectively at what has happened this week can see that it is far more logical to believe that what Belle Vue have done was not a pointless charade that had no benefit to the club. However, I accept that those with an agenda and those who have shown they are over a long period that they are anti Belle Vue will grasp whatever straws they can to try to harm the club.

Belle Vue supplied the clarity on Monday by explaining the cause of the problem and that an inspection would take place on Wednesday. Far more risable is to think this was some sort of charade which they followed through on Wednesday having already decided to cancel and presumably told at least one other club. As I said before, why would anyone do that. If the decision to cancel was made previously then far easier to announce it. Nobody would have been surprised and brownie points would be gained for an early decision. We know this rumour was started by a fan on Twitter on Monday, far more believable that Wolves and Edinburgh were taken in by it and didn't bother to check.

That was brave. I would never have had the courage to ask John Perrin for money, even if he owed it me.

Obviously, some have an agenda to pursue but it really is amazing that people are willing to base their criticism on a rumour started by a Cradley fan on Twitter. These people need to ask themselves why, if they had already cancelled the meeting, would Belle Vue make a statement on Monday that remedial work had started and that they would inspect the track on Wednesday, on Wednesday announce that they had inspected the track and would carry out a further inspection later that day and if all was well hold a practice the following day before deciding about Friday and finally that after the further inspection and taking account of the weather today, called it off. What motive could they have, what benefit would they gain? If they had decided on cancelling the meeting on Monday far easier for them just to say so. The the clubs who made the premature announcement are connected by venue, promotion, or in the case of Edinburgh by track curator and riders. They were taken in by the rumour. They should first of checked with Belle Vue, there is no excuse for not doing so and I doubt anyone with an ounce of intelligence and being objective is going to believe that they did, were then told it was cancelled and that Belle Vue having done that continued with a charade of press releases and made up track inspections. The fact the meeting was eventually cancelled is immaterial. What those clubs did was wrong and if the meeting had gone ahead could have had an affect on the attendance. No club should make such an announcement until the home club has made a decision.

If people go back to the Belle Vue statement of the 21st March they will see that David Gordon said, “We will be making a separate statement about re-staging and refunds for Saturday when we have taken advice about the contractual obligations that the other parties are subject to.” As with many other aspects of this unfortunate saga some seem to think, even when an explanation has been given, that things are much easier to resolve than they actually are.

The match isn't running to suit. It is in the fixture list for Friday, Belle Vue are going to make a decision tomorrow. Most of us are used to having to wait to see what the weather is on the day of the match before deciding whether to travel. I think I'd be more concerned at the moment about the misinformation from other clubs. If the match does go ahead then that could have a significant affect on the attendance. I'm sure the SCB are setting up the investigation.

According to Belle Vue's main sponsor no decision has yet been made. The David Gordon statement said that an inspection would be made at 9am this morning and a decision would be made, not that it would be announced at 9am. It sounds to me that a decision one way or the other is not clear cut and that further work and or testing is required.

You're doing exactly what the BSPA/SCB has done, deciding guilt before knowing all of the facts. I prefer to wait and believe in the presumption of innocence on which our system of justice is founded. If I think the findings of any enquiry are wrong there will be no conspiracy theory from me, it will be plain and simple, that those making the determination were biased and the evidence for that is literally now in black and white. What sort of open and democratic organisation censors a right of reply from those it has accused. I daresay you'll be thinking of replying along the lines that you know enough to decide but plainly that is now known to be untrue. Until yesterday who knew that the problem was the sub base, nothing to do with the track needing time to settle. Any advice the promotion may or may not have received from the "experts" about the cause of the problem has proved to be wrong.

On a slightly different aspect, interesting to see that an edited version of David Gordon's press release now appears on the BSPA website. Interesting because his comments about the BSPA/SCB statement appear to have been censored and do not appear. My confidence in an impartial investigation grows by the minute.

Hasn't the situation now changed completely. From what I have seen all of the comments from riders and on this forum revolve around the lateness of laying bends 3 and 4, the weather and the track needing more time to settle. It also seems that whatever advice was or wasn't given to the promotion was on that premise. We now know none of that is the problem, the problem is with the sub base, so no amount of time allowed for the track to dry out or settle would make any difference. If the meeting had been postponed for a week or more the track would appear to be ok but because the underlying problem hadn't been repaired would have again cut up when it was tested. I have no doubt that the promotion believed the track was ok using both their experience and having carried out the practice session on the Friday. As Philip Rising has said, the initial laps of the practice on Saturday also gave the impression that everything was OK, you can see that from the short Clean Cut video. I cannot believe that the riders would have gone through a charade of the parade and opening ceremony if they believed it was then going to be abandoned, nor do I believe would the promotion. If there is anything good to come out of Saturday perhaps it is that it has resulted in those bends being dug up and the problem being identified.

I agree that a more conciliatory opening paragraph would have been better and your version certainly would protect their legal position. However, I think they were right, providing they can support what they say, to give more detail of the history, respective responsibilities of those involved, why they cannot immediately deal with refunds, that the source of the problem is now known and that remedial work has started. When have I denied it happened, don't make things up. I have no knowledge of it happening, you are the only person who has mentioned it so it is perfectly reasonable to ask for details about so important an allegation. As for the BSPA,reading their statement and what David Gordon has said it would seem that they don't know all of the facts. I also take account of the hypocrisy of their comments when no similar action has been taken over similar incidents, some of them in shared BSPA events.

I don't know that Meredith didn't work on the track after Wednesday. I do know that people were working on it on Thursday morning but I couldn't specifically say if Colin was one of them. Now how about an answer to your claim that they are advised not to hold the meeting? As for taking sides I think the wisest course would be for all of us to wait until all the facts are known but what is clear is that the BSPA have shown their lack of judgement by public condemming the club without being in possession of all of the facts and then expecting anyone to believe they can carry out an impartial investigation.

Oh Dear, seems a bit childish for you. How about an answer to my question, who was it who advised them not to run the meeting and when did I say you couldn't have an opinion? Orion made the point that you normally support promoters, my point was that it is not necessarily individual promoters but the BSPA.

I suspect virtually every track has done that at some point. They knew there had been problems with bends 3 and 4 but successfully tested them on the Friday after the contractors had finished working on it. We now know the problem lies with the sub base so it could be that affected the track during Saturday. None of the riders seemed to be giving particular attention to those bends during their track inspection so maybe the problem wasn't apparent until they rode it. In fact if you watch the beginning of the practice rides it is difficult to see the riders having any problem.

Wasn't there also a problem with an EL Best Pairs meeting at King's Lynn. I also must have missed similar investigations and critical BSPA statements about the ELRC at Coventry, both BSPA shared events. Perhaps it only merits SCB and BSPA investigations if Belle Vue are involved.

Don't talk rubbish. This wasn't a normal situation. This was a new stadium. It was a part of the contract that the building company would build the track and Belle Vue have no authority over the contractors until the stadium is handed over to them. They couldn't tell the contractors what or, what not, to do.

He is doing, he's supporting the BSPA. Those are the people who in this instance issued a statement blaming one of their members without first bothering to find out the facts. There is no way now that they can carry out an impartial investigation.

His could he oversee it if Belle Vue had no control over the contractors.

You've alluded more than once that they were advised not to go ahead with the meeting. Can you tell us who by, what was said and when this took place? I think you're right about the statement being framed as it was for legal reasons but nothing to do with actions against them in the small claims court but action they may have to take against others. So far as I understand it David and Chris have a considerable stake in the new stadium. Do you recall the long list of financial backers that David put forward and they are repaying the cost of the stadium to the council over a substantial number of years.

You've alluded more than once that they were advised not to go ahead with the meeting. Can you tell us who by, what was said and when this took place?