Grand Central

Opening meeting with so many Aces missing. Surely this is an April Fools Day Joke?

I notice on the SGB website that they have put up a short video of a winter race at Scunthorpe. The Tapes Up production is described as being "licensed by GSI/BSPA agreement". So whatever else is happening behind the scenes with TV contracts. Any hopes that the Russell stranglehold on media rights is over may be premature. Shame.

We do not know the actual full terms of the contract the BSPA has with Sky. Although jchapman may do so more than the rest of us. But we 'sort of know' that the BSPA is obligated to produce a minimum 8 team League that was at the time of agreement termed 'Eilte'. And the renumeration (per match or whatever) sky paid would be laid down, I expect, in relation to that. The change of name to the SGB Premiership MAY still be as acceptable to Sky as the 'elite' monker was. But the 'eite league replacement' has a team strength set at ONLY 50 lower league points. That is not 'elite' at all (and is not meant to be) when compared to the team strengths Sky were being offered at the time the contract was signed. The 2017 Top League is starting with teams that are, at best, just the strength of those teams at the top of the 2016 Lower League. I have said before that the changes to team building rules this winter are totally sensible for the sport itself. But for an organistaion like Sky. I doubt it very much. It would be surprising if there were not a contract clause dealing with this eventuality. And IF Sky were run with this argument to get out of the remainder of the contract. Who could reasonably defend against it? And why shouldn't BT or someone else pay less for any subsequent deal. The BSPA ARE offering a lower standard product, after all. We all know it, so will they.

The changes this close season are a little bit more than just rebranding. The use of 'lower league' averages to determine team strengths. Combined with just a (lower league) 10 point difference between the Premiership and Championship team strengts. Would make it difficult to argue that there was anything 'Elite' available any more. PS I am not criticising the changes here, they are necessary to keep British Speedway alive. But the sky moneymen will not be fooled by just the semantics of 'titles' when there has been a real (albeit correct) dilution of the overall rider quality they would be paying for.

Just to add to rmc's post above. I have Virgin Media's XL package which includes BT Sport but it does not HAVE to include the extra cost of the Sky Sports and Movies packages as seems to be suggested here. At various times I have chosen to have them, currently I do not, but still have BT Sport included. I hear allsorts of annecdotes about Virgin medias customer service and I had always had brilliant experiences myself right back to when they took over from ntl. Until last year when a box failed. The sub continent folk were abysmal on the many attempts to solve the issues with my two boxes and they just kept making it worse. But I twigged that they also seem to alternate with a Scottish call centre as well. Especially at weekends and late nights. The couple of calls I had with those guys went fine and sorted everything out quite easily.

That might explain the Friday night BSPA meeting that Mick Horton said was about bigger issues than just Coventry. A swap from Sky to BT for those of us who get BT free at the moment appears great.. No need to get Sky Sports re-connected next month, so quite a saving. But I fear just what sort of reduced deal BT may have been able to drive with the BSPA. That may not be so great.

Is there some new sort of media training that has passed me by? Where the it is now deemed advantageous to use the F word as often as possible in interviews. Not, as I thought, that you just come over as an ignorant oik. Best ignored.

Actually ouch on this I agree with you entirely. These are all expensive items that must add up to a hefty sum. If these were bought and owned outright by the 2016 ltd company, just how they may end up in the hands of the 2017 owners will have to have been done in a legally sound manner. Do you know what has actually happened in this regard?

They bought the stadium outright. And retain it as an asset. There can be no comparison in the situations.

I In my last post I did not offer any comment on the 700k loss assessor calculation.I was only discussing the 500k debt that the new owners are 'accepting'. 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?

I would assume that the £500K, debt that the new promoters have 'accepted' is not the sum total of the debt of the 2016 promotion. Or have hardy any direct relation to it. The unpaid rent of £350,000 plus other MCC expenses incurred in 2016 may form part of the 500K. And the BSPA will have got in there to get their expenses covered; including the unpaid 'speedway debts'. I cannot imagine that many other creditors of the 2016 promotion will have had much say in this at all. One would expect that the astute business men that the new owners are, would not be so foolish as to then just accept a straight summation of these figures. They would have negotiatied it 'down' to 500K. Until someone leaks more documents the rather 'back of the envelope calculations' we are offering could be massively wide of the true mark

But your's is definitely the best. You're quite a wordsmith on the quiet.

Some of those mentioned here certainlty did smoke enough of some stuff to have seriouslly stunted their growth.

So absolutely NO upsetting the applecart. All sorted.

Absolutely right. I was making no distinction between one set of promoters, or another. Nor between one set of Belle Vue Promoters and another set of Belle Vue Promoters. I have no allegiance to any of them My distinction was between those promoters who are decent enough to believe that the riders should be paid and then do so promptly. And any of those scumbags who do not, or believe that they are the lowliest of priority in their business. Plus their behind-the-scenes facilitators and online apologists who are no better.

Absolutely right. An assurance that they 'will get paid' being the best that can be offered at this late stage is pretty disgusting. Is this who 'we' are in Speedway? That we would support those who treat people this way? Utter disgrace.

Yes, The Sunday People led their three week 'Speedway Bribes Sensation' story in September 1984 with a double page spread that heavily featured Simon Wigg. It is moot whether they would have gone to print with the rest of their 'twit-bits' had it not been their good fortune to have an opening splash featuring England's only world finalist of that year. On another thread the question is asked 'When did Speedway's decline start?' For many it was around this time.

So, Fred, there is some reason for optimism. That rental of the entire stadium giving the potential for 'selling' much more this time to meet the bills could be a game changer. But only if they can realise that market fully, which must be a big 'if'. And there may still be huge pitfalls if the Stadium build is still not completed to full specification. I suppose we may find out next week if the new guys have struck the right sort of deal on all that.

Just trying to move the discussion along a little ... What does the future hold, realistically, for Speedway at the NSS? It would seem 'clear' that those in the 'in the know' here regard MCC as being untrustworthy blackguards. Just as Mr Gordon does. He certainly puts forward a strong argument about being very harshly treated by them. To the point that they made a viable speedway promotion just about impossible. And this is despite him being able to produce paperwork, reports and agreements that SHOULD have prevented them being able to act in that reprehensible fashion. For 2017 there are new people with strong business records that show that they may be better equipped to deal with such 'despots' in City Hall. But it is the same MCC that are entering into further agreements with these new parties. Are those agreements and arrangements to be so much more watertight in 2017 than DG's in 2016? Do those 'in the know' here have confidence that there is to be a better outcome this time?

I expected slightly more than just David Gordon's sole voice. Yet again. This article is just a prettied up version of the ugly creature released online several days ago. Nothing more. It covers just a very narrow band of ground and discusses none of the myriad of issues surrounding the 2016 debacle that have excercised so many here. No quotes, opinion or information from any other named voice actually invlved, other that DG's, is included. Be it corroborative or contradictory. Total silence from Morton, Carswell, Meredith, Lemon, Bridgett, Reeve, Chapman, BSI or any rider or other creditor. Nor is a single probing question asked of the man. Just his 'statement' is transcribed. We have moved three-eigths of an inch further in our understanding. There is obviously much more to come.

I've just read the Speedway Star's coverage of David Gordon's version of events. MCC's spokeman says that they do not accept Mr Gordon's versions of events. That is the sum total of where we still are.

Daft old cliche. Totally inapplicable in this case.

I imagine that that that is a question best asked of DG and CM as they made that choice. No single person at the council was ever going to be personally out of pocket like them. If they have really suffered huge financial losses as individuals I would be surprised if they felt that it was a wise one, now, at least.

Only because those were the idiotic terms they signed up to. Just as, according to them, they later signed up to clauses etc that were equally daft.

Because you can never trust builders (or many other contractors) not to cut corners as soon as you take your eyes off them. In addtition that last section was being done just towards the end of the build when all manner of other 'finishing' was being done and the date of the GOM was fast approoaching. If my house was riding on it I would be togged up with hard-hat and hiviz EVERY single day in those last couple of months making sure that it was not going to go t!ts up. They would have had to manhandle me off site when I had so much riding on the work of so many others. And I bet CM and DG wake up in the middle of the night time and time again, wishing that they HAD done that.