Grand Central

On the whole I agree. It's been happening all week at Wimbledon. And in Speedway it's just the same with BT as it was Sky before. I cannot understand the obsession with studio chat nor with inane interviews with barely coherent riders. Whether English is their first language or not. You NEVER learn anything of interest at all. And these dopey airheads they keep picking up for the pit chat ...words fail me. As they so often do them. Natalie is the best we have had so far. But still pretty pointless. Scott is not good at all. And I'm afraid Suzi has been woeful. Was she always this bad? Shouty and Kelv are not faultless by any means. But sticking with the world feed and getting rid of all the rest would be so much better. But there is one small mercy. No Ermolenko. We must be grateful for that alone.

In a very different way, though.

Comparing the coverage of the Vastervik round with that from Kings Lynn. Have to say the camerawork from Sweden was far superior. The camera positioning with much lower angle to the track gives a much better 'spectator-like' view of the racing and a greater feeling of speed of the action. The (seemingly) british fixation with mounting cameras way too high on the home straight so that we get a 'drones-eye' view of a race is much poorer. And the ridioculous obsession, in this country, with use of the first bend super high crane is just dreadful.

God God.. it's only minutes into this and Ermolenko is p!ssing me off with his totally useless drivel. And on top of that the camerawork is appalling.

I know I am a bit weird ... but can't agree on the camera angle issues here. Just had a quick look back at last years Sky coverage from Wimborne Road and they seem to use a camera angle from the home straight that is way too high. So looked back at many previous years and realised that Sky always seemed to have that angle far too high. And yet I never noticed it. It gives you a very artificial view that 'takes you away from the action'. And I absolutely hate the high crane that they use on the first bend at some tracksthat gives a view that 'flattens' the action in a quite bizarre way. I'm all for the way BT are covering it. Only problem - I admit - is the stand roof in picture. But so far, so much better for me all round.

You would think that they might wish to contrive having the World Champion involved. But then again it is Hancock. So not surprising they have dodged that one.

The weirdiest thing about the Royal Mail .. is how different their service is claimed top be for different businesses. I have worked in the same NHS anxillary business for 30 years; the last twenty in ownership. In that time there has been a massive move to courier servives for boxes sent to us daily. The servive has ranged from quite good to appalling. And when something goes missing it is a nightmare to get restitution even with high value stuff and supposedly 'tracked' methods. I have never, myself, needed to use couriers to send out my items. In the last twenty years I have NEVER had one single Royal Mail letter or packet go astray. That would be out of probably somewhere near 10,000 sent. EXCEPT when I send a doctors letter. 50% of those are claimed by the surgeries to have never arrived. And a similar number of letters from hospitals via the Mail are also said to be 'lost in the post'. It's almost supernatural.

Not really true. From the very first meeting in 1929 at Hyde Road it WAS 'Belle Vue. But Speedway in Kirky Lane the year before in 1928 was never 'Belle Vue' That was a 'retro fit' from 1988 when the Aces moved in. But not historically accurate.

They get their arse into gear at 7.15 OR EARLIER. And complete the easy peasy simple task of gettng those 200 in for 7.30. Promoters are total idiots for not sorting this out. And sycophantic supporters who make excuses for them are actually worse.

I think the Star folk just did it for a laugh. With it being the April 1st issue, and all. Getting two of the most unsuccessful managers of the modern era to give an insight into their 'knowledge'. Surely, if they had the first idea what made a winning team, they would have put more of them together It did feel a bit like we were 'mocking the afflicted' by putting the poor old dears up for public ridicule. But entertaining nonetheless.

Just had a look at the website and looks as if it has already happened. Getting rid of that nasty thing of the last few years and back to the 'proper' Ace.

" BVA raised issues with the track sub base at turns 3 and 4 on 17th March 2016 (2 days prior to the Grand Opening Event)." I haven't heard that specfic claim before. Not that BVA just had an issue with 'the track', on two turns. But with the sub base itself. Two days BEFORE the GOM event. I thought the sub-base issue was only revealed to BVA in the days following the GOM when the 'test holes' were dug. I notice that MCC do NOT say in what form was this 'raised' by BVA and, more particularly, with whom?

Yes that is the way I remember doing it in the past . Edit the original post and I think you get an extra option to edit the thread title as well.

I know this thread is well intentioned. But it is doing the new regime a potential disservice at the moment. PHIL as OP will you please change the thread title. The meeting is on APRIL 1st NOT March 26.

There is no doubt that the wounds are open and the pain excrutiating for Fred. Unfortunately I doubt that there will be an outcome that offers the healing he needs.

Honestly ? Even within a just couple of paragraphs refuting any bias.. It is impossible to avoid seeing that 'slant' in one directon only.

Is it not a little silly to keep updating this thread WITHOUT changing the thread title to give the correct date of this meeting?

As Philip Rising has been such a staunch ally of the David Gordon cause. The least you could do was pay £2.90 for the magazine itself.

Nice little article in The Star this week by regular guest columnist David Gordon. Good to hear his version of events at last as they have been so poorly covered in the past.

Even if you were in the majority. A Petrochemical giant would not make any net gain from the sponsorhip to make it worth while ? 25,000 regular attendees. ? maximum of 100,000 watching Sky; now much less on BT. It's the equivalent of Apple launching their latest iphone at events in Church Halls and taking out half-page ads in a selection of Parish Magazines

Really ? That BP, Shell, Texaco or Esso would get a increase in 'public awareness' to be cost effective. By sponsoring the piddling sport of Speedway. As this thread shows Speedway Supporters will go and get the cheapest deal on anything. I bet most buy their fuel at Tesco, Asda and Morrisons. No amount of sponsorship would overide 1p a litre saved. No one wants to advertise on Tv in a Speedway programme. They have to give it away. It is cloud cuckoo land to even think of major companies sponsoring our sport. Regional Truck Hire that's about the pinnacle of what we can expect. And then be damned grateful.

Who goes to the shops and buys Oil ? It is 2017 not 1975.

Yes, it did make me think about that issue. At first glance, and wearing my sexist hat, I thought Vitality their main sponsor may be some sort of female hygiene product. But it is actually health insurance. In fact most of their sponsors of the last few years have been major players. They do have their share of the 'female-only' product sector but where they have really scored is promoting the wider 'female heath' connection. Showing sponsors just how they can put them in front of the high-spending 'women interested in their health' sector very cost effectively. And there lies the Problem. The Speedway demographic is fairly valueless to most big spending sectors of the market. What can the Sport offer even for a niche company. Worthers Original, Fisherman's friends, Tena Pads, Orthopedic chairs, Viagra. I suppose there are possibilities ?

Hey, it's not 'what I would like' to be published. I just read in DGs words more than he perhaps really suggested. So OK he has no new information that that has not already been published. That's fine. And fair enough I take all those points on the wording used and just what is really meant by them; as opposed to the inferences they intend people to make. Perhaps wrongly. All very clever. By all. That is what PR is for. The reality is that the 'compensation' due to BVA remains dependent on the outcome of those confidential negotiations. That the liquidators, not DG, will have with parties that do not agree with each other and neither do with BVA over the 'material' issue. I could say that we await the outcome of that. But we will never know.

That appears a fairly reasonable resume of the report before council, what was said at the meeting and the position the council take. And unlike other reports previously it puts 'one side' alongside input from the other players. ISG continue to dispute the claim that they used the wrongly graded materials. BVA continue to insist that they have evidence that the Council actually knew that the wrong material was being used. MCC state in the report that it was BVA that were aware of a change to the materials from specification and had not got council approval. That will lead to some lively negotiations beween the three parties MCC, ISG and the BVA liquidators on that disputed bill. Just how much will MCC have to stump up to ISG that they are witholding, just how much will ISG be able to argue down the claim for losses; how much will BVA liquidators take in a fee for their part in any negotiation. And finally how paltry will be the amount coming to the liquidators to actually pay the creditors of BVA? But it will be secret, unforunately. Glad I am not a Manchester Council Tax payer anymore. PS The next installment should be DG actually publishing the evidence he mentions of MCC's culpabilty. That should liven things up.