PHILIPRISING

AS someone who worked for a national newspaper (Daily Express) at that time, attended every minute of the SCB Tribunal and had major coverage in the paper including inside page lead stories, I would attest to that.

YES, when the dust has settled on the new promotion. Some of the remarks on here about 'investigative' journalism make me laugh. We are not the police or even a national newspaper with the money, time and experienced guys in that field. It is hard enough producing a 48 page mag every week on limited resources. If people don't want to talk or limit what they say that is their prerogative. Gordon Pairman declined to embellish his original statement but there was hardly any need. MCC wouldn't comment. The SCB would only confirm that BV's licence was annulled to protect the speedway assets (riders) of the club from the hands of administrators should they be called in. I never said this was the end of the story and more will come out at a future date but nothing will be gained at this stage and until the future of speedway at the NSS is cut and dried. WOULD concur with that.

OFF the top of my head think Kelvin had the better record at Teterow and, of course, his father Martin won there. Might even have been the first time the event was staged there.

THINK Kelvin broke down on the last lap of a final in New Zealand when all he needed to do was finish the race to become World Champion for a fourth time.

HE was outstanding in junior Moto-cross and is actually riding in some senior (both in terms of rider and machine) event these days. Both Simon and Kelvin loved riding not just racing.

I SAID it was irrelevant in the context that the faults with the track would have surfaced, literally, anyway. If you read my comments in SS immediately after the cancelled opening night you might have a different view. But, subsequently, we have gone through what went wrong. Whether you believe it not is entirely up to you. We have asked the questions but apparently you don't like the answers. That is your choice.

FOR the record, and as per MCC's own documents, they didn't 'extract' the money from ISG they didn't pay them in the first place. YOU are obviously intransigent in your view regarding opening night, despite firm evidence to the contrary, but what else is a lie? And you know for a fact that Chris Morton has "nothing to do with David Gordon's take?" I don't think so.

I HAVE said all along that it would be for people to make up their own minds and I stand by that. But, for a moment, ignore all the words and what David Gordon had to say, and just look at the two documents we published. The one from MCC to !SG (12/4/16) states quite clearly the faults with the sub-base at the track, that inferior materials were used and the remedial work that was required. It also stipulated that the removed material should be kept for examination. It wasn't. Why? No prizes for guessing. The other document underlines the dis-satisfaction of MCC with ISG because they withheld around £700,000 in payment because of the track defaults and the losses incurred by Belle Vue (Gordon and Morton). We asked MCC what happened to that money and why nothing was offered to Gordon and Morton in compensation as they were the ones who suffered the financial hardship that ensued and subsequently caused them to run up the operating bills that they did. MCC did not reply. Comments about whether the opening meeting should or should not have gone ahead are to a certain extent irreverent. Sooner or later the faults with turns 3/4 would have manifested themselves and this sorry saga would have taken off anyway. As for some of orion's personal comments about me: I barely knew David Gordon before embarking on this project although I have obviously known Chris Morton for donkey's years. Unlike David, Chris wanted to keep a low profile because he hopes to have a continuing role at BV and I sincerely hope that he does. And, incidentally, I have not been editor of Speedway Star for over 20 years.

I AM hopeless with the regulations but is there a rule that a Premiership team cannot have more than two riders from a Championship one and BV already have Smith and Bewley who are contracted to Glasgow?

ISG not Gordon and Morton were responsible for building the sub-base for the track. No speedway experience required there. It was only the top surface, the icing on the cake as it were, that involved Colin Meredith, etc. Obviously Gordon and Morton were not going to watch while the sub-base on turns three and four was laid. They would assume it would be done to the specification required and as carried out on the rest of the track.

ONE of the first proper speedway interviews I did was with Gentleman Jim ... a lovely guy and a very useful number two in the Wimbledon line-up when that position was often key with opponents using tac subs in Heat 8 against him.

HAD to tone down and delete some references to conversations between the respective parties because we had no documents to back them up but still believe the material we have will prove conclusive. MCC provided a very short statement.

NOT happy about this. It actually isn't the finished article, which will appear in Speedway Star this week.

MY info is that the two directors of Belle Vue 2017 have appointed a CEO to run the stadium and Mark Lemon will be in charge of speedway matters. Most riders appear to have been signed which is why Ritchie Worrell knows that he is surplus to requirements. If I had to make a guess about why the full details haven't yet been made public it would be that the new owners will want assurances about the completion of the stadium to the original specifications.

BEEN saying that for decades.There is no continuity of teams now which is bad for fans too. One minute Joe Bloggs is your favourite rider, the next he is off somewhere else through no faults of his own.

GENERALLY between 80,000 and 100,000 ... occasionally more. Quite obviously most of these people have no interest in attending speedway meetings live.

IT wasn't seating ... it was terracing. The £18 grand was for the West stand ... first bend. A temporary grandstand (seats)) was installed at the west end of the stadium for the SWC and was sold out. A new company called Belle Vue 2017 was registered at Company's House on February 3rd. It has two directors, one of whom is a former CEO of Cable & Wireless. Both have been 'High-flyers' in some very big British companies. GOOD questions but another week has gone by with silence from MCC now deafening.

THERE was a problem with the track on bends 3 and 4 only, no one is denying that, but (and I was there in the afternoon) the feeling was that it would be just about okay but certainly not ideal. However, believe what you will, but it did deteriorate as a consequence of the weather and the sub-base. This is a fact and not conjecture as supported by the examination of what was under the track when it was dug up. NO

YOU guessed it ... but we have more. SORRY but I don't understand the question. The temporary seating on the east side was for the SWC only. The south side is terracing only and for people who do not want or can go in the grandstand. WHO says they are my or Speedway Star's mates. As I have said previously, we will publish what we know and you can THEN make up your own minds although you seem to have done so already. As far as I know and am told (not just by messrs Gordon and Morton) the riders didn't go the whole season without being paid and as far as their 'in-house speedway debts' were concerned others had higher figures.

THESE are figures we have acquired but so far not fully verified although certainly confirmed in the loss assessors statement ... Temporary toilets cost BV £10k per month, £70k to rent for the season, South terracing cost £65k to rent from March until October…and West £18k.There were many weeks when BV had no meeting and these facilities weren't even used. East Grandstand cost £60k just for 2016 SWC...which BV paid for as part of their agreement with BSI and would have been profitable had they not already run out of money and relied on BSI to ensure that the SWC meetings went ahead. ​It is also worth mentioning that the fact that the terracing under the south stand was temporary, the capacity in that area was reduced by council officials from 3,500 to 1,900. BSI admit that they could have sold at least another 1,600 tickets for the two days of the SWC race-off and Final, a loss of revenue of around £80,000. ​All this would have been unnecessary had the stadium been completed to the original specifications.

THEY are but like SS waiting for some legal points to be eradicated. EXPLAIN what you mean by "all the money?"

WE have a document from MCC to ISG listing, chapter and verse, the mistakes (an under-statement) made in completing turns 3 and 4 of the track. There is also a report by Arup, a renowned civil engineering company, commissioned by MCC but is subject to a non-disclose agreement which Messrs Gordon and Morton were compelled to sign. One of the questions we keep asking MCC, without any response, is why should that report remain a secret unless they, ISG or whoever have something to hide. But to the best of our knowledge, and we haven't seen the report, is that it only embellishes the MCC/ISG document that we do have.

I REPEAT, for the umpteenth, time, the problems with the track, caused by the sub-base and failure to break up the hockey pitch, only became apparent because of the very sharp drop in temperature that evening and the top surface on. bends 3 and 4 became problematic. Don't forget that the rest of the track was perfect. The reasons why that happened immediately became apparent when the faulty part of the track was dug up the next day and the material used as the sub-base (which was basically rubbish, possibly from a land-fill site) became apparent.

I HAVE never said it was everyone else's fault. In fact, I am not taking sides. I repeat, in case your grasp of English is at fault, the track was inspected on Friday and Saturday. Whether it was unfit earlier in the week is irrelevant. And was Havvy at the NSS to see for himself? Why would Gordon and Morton go ahead knowing that the meeting wouldn't take place and that they would have to refund all the money? Where is the logic in that? Having their promoters licence taken away was a direct consequent of the losses incurred because of the opening night debacle and what followed. The huge errors made with the building of the track on turns 3 and 4 were nothing to do with Gordon and Morton no matter what you think of them. And we have the documents to prove it. WE also have documents from a reputable firm of 'loss assessors' who have itemised the cost to BV Speedway as a result of cancelled or postponed meetings. And don't forget that Gordon and Morton had to pay for temporary terracing on the back straight, portaloos, etc., all of which should have been in place by the time the stadium was opened. And it was the contractors, ISG, who provided BV with an opening date of March 19 with the promise that all work would be completed by then. The remarkable thing is that the sum (several hundred thousand pounds) provided by the loss assessors matches exactly the sum MCC withheld from ISG as a result of the track defects. But no compensation was paid to BV Speedway. That's another document MCC aren't happy about us acquiring. GORDON and Morton will argue that they never "accepted or signed off" on the stadium so no rent was due but they took possession under a temporary agreement with rent being deferred until the stadium was "fit for purpose."