Grand Central

Oh, yes, there is no doubt it was agreed between the parties. But it still remain a nonsense 'courtesy' title of no substance whatsoever. No doubt the marketing men, when they get going under the new regime, will attempt to squeeze as much mileage out of it as they can. And good luck to them. I'd use any old blarney to sell the place if it made it financially viable in the long term. The funny thing about the council meeting was all the talk of the 'Belle Vue franchise' and 'franchisees'. We all know what they mean but it's just terminology Speedway does not use itself. But it was how those 'mandarins' view it.

Quite right, that is what I picked up on as well. We can speculate all we like (and will) on the reasons why BT Sport want to wait until June. But I think we can safely say it is not a technical reason as flagrag has answered that. I very much doubt it it was the desirable first choice of GoSpeed or the BSPA. It's BT Sports choice, for their own reasons, and in the position where TR found himself with Sky 'gone' it was probably just the best deal he could get. So he took it.

Where have you seen this ? It was a tweet by Natalie Quirk that said it started with the British Final ... she may have meant just her own contribution (?) Many people have ridiculed such a late start (if true) replying to the Speedwaygb tweets; but I haven't seen a denial of it. PS Today's Speedway Star offers a little enlightenment (Surprisngly ha ha) The quote from TR himself that says "There will be 18 shows throughout the summer and into the autumn ..." So that would (sort of) confirm that late start.

I know that this has often been said. But I have increasingly thought that this is a right load of old flannell. Perhaps SOMEONE can come up with some document that shows this to be true... but I seriously doubt it. Todays Council meeting agenda called it 'Belle Vue'. They talked about Belle Vue. No one mentioned NSS. No single individual at MCC really gives the feeling that this 'naming' is an issue. It is Belle Vue. Better still 'The Zoo'. To my mind the NSS it is just a vanity project on that score. And the vanity (pair) has left the building for 2017.

All eminently sensible. And clearly that is what the CEO of MCC was making clear at the Council meeting today. It is just little shame that is not the impression that many Aces supporters who have been following this story had got. They thought they had been told something just a little different. Lets make 2017 the year of transparency, eh?

Absolutely certain. If you visit the MCC website the webcast is avaliable, it is point 16 on the agenda about three-quarters of the way through

Interesting to watch the Executive Committee meeting this morning on their webcast. Whole thing lasted just a few minutes on this item. Richard Leese ... Called this a salvage job; where almost all problems were down to the previous franchisees who let MCC down badly (a brief throwaway that partly the contractors were at fault). The new franchisees he saw as far better placed to succeed. Eddie Smith ... Confirmed that the report would go before a scrutiny committee in May. The only councillor to speak ... Asked for more oversight of the new franchisee as the problems of last year could have been mitigated if more was known at the time. Sir Howard Bernstein agreed that the new people were credible and much better placed to make a go of things this year. One specific point that I had not fully picked up on in the report was made very clear by Sir Howard. That is that Bellvue 2017 ONLY have the Speedway franchise for the NSS. They have NOT been given a lease on the Stadium as a whole. MCC are to work with them this year on just working out whether a business plan can be made viable for them GETTING the lease in 12 months. All very interesting

Considering the long-proven propensity of Speedway followers to stay at home on Sky Mondays. How will this adversely affect the cash flow of tracks in both divisions if there is BT Speedway on our screens twice-a-week after their June start. Sounds potentially disastrous.

Fascinating reading. Revealing in so many ways.

No not at all. I actually think that point 3.9 in todays MCC report is probably accurate as to the situation. " In July 2016 BV Arena Ltd submitted a claim against the City Council under the commercial agreements for their alleged losses purported to be due to the failure of the track. They did not pursue a claim against the contractor under the collateral warranty. Discussions were instigated by the City Council with ISG to resolve all issues in relation to the works and a confidential settlement is still being negotiated with ISG and the liquidators of the Belle Vue Group of Companies which is subject of an offer to the liquidator. "

But then again 20% of £0 is £0. So will that be GoSpeed's fee this time?

I am not doubting you did. But I imagine they were as surprisied as me that you do not undertand what happens in these situations. The Pay Less notice was MCC's opening salvo in their attempt to reduce the amount they pay ISG. They went in with the highest figures available which were BVA's loss assessors report plus all the various fees listed. And withheld that total amount from the payment made then. BUT THAT WOULD NEVER BE THE END POSITION. Despite it being represented in print as such. The Council do not have a unilateral right to set the terms in that way. ISG would get loss adjusters and other professionals to attempt reduce the council's figures. And, eventually, a negotiated 'reduction' to the ISG bill will be agreed and BVA would get a much smaller compenstaion figure than their loss assesor came up with. Now, of course it is ISG, MCC and BVA liquidators that are to negotiate this out, not BVA themselves. I would imagine that will result in the eventual figure arriving in the BVA account and available to creditors to be smaller still

.Phil ... Look at point 3.9. That has not been resolved yet. You only had sight of the Payless notice NOT the final position on that. To my mind that was a central flaw in your article that I have raised here many times. And when it is settled we will know nothing. It will be between ISG', MCC and the liquidators. And secret.

So... The rent was £350,000 per annum so the pro rata outstanding for the tenure from early March to end October would work out to be £224,000 remains unpaid and may need to be written off. The April Pay Less notice showed significant fees that the council had incurred at that point for other services and these have now risen to £126,000. But ISG did remedy the defects to the track without extra cost to the council. Am I close ?

Hey, in this almighty cock up I cannot find much to believe from either side at all We have only heard one side of the story at a time. And until today ONLY Gordon's side. Now we have more, differing, information. But nothing that appears any more gospel than his. Both sides only seem to want to report the bits of the story that please their 'own side' And gloss over the parts that don't show themselves in a good light. So the arguments have not been properly tested. Right now an obvious direct discrepancy is over who knew what about the track construction before the GOM. Just last night the BBC report suggested that it was the council who knew what the problem with the track was, but withheld it from BV. Today MCC report that they have documentation that shows BV that knew a change to materials being used and that the council did not give approval. As I said on the other thread... I don't believe for one moment that CM knew nappies were being used to build the track. Which is the inference of the MCC position ! It just takes quite a leap to believe anyone in this saga. And definitely not at face value.

You are right to question this. Surely David Gordon had this excuse under copywrite ?

Thanks for adding that, I was going to do that myself, after I read it more thoroughly. Still not resolved, as I suspected before the report was released. The 'pay less amount' was only the opening shot in that process. As this is to be a confidential agreement we will probably never know just what the arrangements will be Common sense would seem to indicate that BVA liquidator will get an awful lot less than £700K. And what they do get will go into the black hole of debt. Hopefully some creditors will feel a small benefit.

WOW. Section 3 is painting a totally new picture on the GOM debacle. 3.4 is quite extraordinary. " It has come to light that the owners of Belle Vue Group Companies were aware of the proposal to use alternative material. However, the Council were not made aware of this change of material and the express consent of the Council was not obtained. " That is a totally 'out of the blue claim' that no one had even suggested before. What evidence can they have of that. After all ISG were under contract to MCC not Belle Vue. It beggars belief that Chris Morton would have been 'aware' that the track base was being constructed using nappies, doesn't it ?

Sorry but that just does not answer the query I raised. EDIT The link to the MCC report on the NSS thread will no doubt provide hours of debate for all. As expected they mention nothing of the matters just under discussion here. http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/22847/14_belle_vue_speedwayupdate Item 3.4 is a stunner "It has come to light that the owners of Belle Vue Group Companies were aware of the proposal to use alternative material. However, the Council were not made aware of this change of material and the express consent of the Council was not obtained."

We are back to the Pay Less Notice again so can I just re-post what I wrote a couple of weeks ago that went unanswered at the time .... " But just on that point of the 700k deduction in the Pay Less notice of April 2016. Do you know if ISG actually ever accepted that as the final settlement in the matter? I would doubt that they would. At least not without a fight. Firstly it was regarding a loss suffered by a third party, not MCC, so that may not form part of the contract between MCC and ISG. It may never have been accepted as a 'pay less amount' by ISG may still be unresolved? Secondly, this sum of 700k was 'only' a loss ASSESSOR'S evaluation who work for their client to maximise their claim. It is usual for the person receiving such a claim to appoint a loss ADJUSTER who does everything they can to reduce that claim level substantially. The parties then have to battle to an agreement or go to law. Does anyone KNOW what the final settlement between MCC and ISG was in the end? " Can anyone enlightens us?

That is why lawyers look at these things before publication I suppose.

That may well be 'alleged' by someone. But let us all note that the BBC have carefully avoided saying exactly that. Reducing the allegation to just knowing about the issues. Not advanced knowledge of the underlying cause.

I thought that Gordon and Morton 'knew about issues with the track' in the week before the opening meeting. It was just that they did not know the cause until repair work started after the GOM. What is new here?

I take the point completely about getting the PCM 'done' ASAP this year for the ticket situation. The truth about the PCM is that for many years of its staging at Hyde Road it was often a very mediocre field. It was not one of the 'top' individuals of that era. For the few years it ran in the seventies Aces plus a Sheffield/Hull contingent and other middle order men. Perhaps we should not get carried away with emotion.

Even now it seems as if they are working with one hand tied behind their back. Personally I would have wanted to start the new era with a team match, with a full team. So that Belle Vue supporters could get behind the Aces as a group from day one. And blow away the past traumas together. One can only hope that the local goodwill to make this new start work will be enough to turn out in numbers. Almost without caring who is actually on the card.