1 valve

I don't recall the then Chelsea owner saying much at all.

I agree Chris has made a rod for his own back by making the statement he did which led people to believe something was close to being finalised. However by the lack of further updates it would appear the matter has not been resolved in the indicated timescale. So for now there is nothing to report...But that does not mean that "its all gone T!ts up" just that for now there is nothing to report...one way or another. Folk may have there own opinions what no news means, and looking through this thread there's plenty of opinions on that front as well as what CL plans could/should/will be. As often stated on this forum we are all entitled to our opinions....But eventually, there will be only one decision made and that will be the one made by Chris himself. - And frankly, whatever that decision is, anything else said in the meantime would just fuel the fires of speculation and indeed may be prejudicial to any ongoing plans or negotiations.

Dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn’t. Frankly the most appropriate statement would/should be “No further updates will be issued until there is something in place to report”. Until that point. No news is indeed….no news.

Interesting conundrum. Definitely not attending as a director of BSPL. Fair to assume he could as a shareholder being the promoter of Ipswich. Not sure if that remains the case if he doesn't declare an intention to run in 2026 and license put on ice?

At least there still appears to be an actual base for a speedway track at Newcastle. One would need to be created at Sunderland & Nottingham stadiums, the latter not made easy by an apparent pond in situ on what would be the middle of bends 3&4.

Yes less tax is paid but ultimately the net profit (after tax) is also less because of the loss making company. In simple terms its actually good for a company to be paying tax (after correctly taking into account all of the available allowances) because that translates into a measurement of success.

You are correct. If company X makes a profit of 100 and company Z loses 50 then a person owning both companies would be worse off than if he only owned company X. He also doesn't get to offset the total loss of 50 in his tax return only the taxable value. So say he is due to pay 35% on his 100 profit i.e 35 he would be able to offset his loss of 50 x.35 = 17.50 giving a final tax calculation of 35 - 17.5 meaning he would pay only 17.5 instead of 35. So If he had one company that made 100 profit, after tax he would make 65 net. If he owned to companies, one making 100 and one losing 50 he would make 32.50 net Also worth considering that if a person owns two companies then they must be declared in the eyes of the taxman as being a part of a holding group or that a single person owns both.

For the majority of races didn’t he have Max F as his partner?

For the majority of races didn’t he have Max F as his partner?

Legally they are obliged to given a current contract/license exists.

As Ipswich trade at a profit the initial asking price would be based on the value of that profit with any interest and tax paid added back. This provides an Ebit (Earnings before interest & tax) figure which a multiplier is used to create a selling price. Example an Ebit of 10 with a multiplier of 6 would give a sales price of 60. Goodwill would be the difference between asset value and the sales price. Then comes negotiations where future forecasts and opinion on the likelihood of the business delivering same, higher or lower earnings in years to come. It’s fair to say that with Speedway being in an apparent perilous state, potential buyers would be looking at a possible purchase with a high level of risk attached thus a lower offer (valuation of goodwill) could be expected.

This question has been answered numerous times, not only in this particular thread but also in similar topics within the forum. In short a buyer would be purchasing the assets & goodwill to run speedway in Ipswich.

Because the lack of a license issued by the BSPL as one is already issued and owned by Ipswich speedway promotions Ltd - director Chris Louis.

If he chooses not to run in 2026 then the company he is selling will be liable for the contracted rent of the stadium. A good indication of what that cost would be is to allocate a significant portion of what is stated in the 2024 accounts as due to creditors within one year. so something between £30k/£50k. It is highly unlikely that there is not already a rental agreement in place for 2026 in which case should Chris choose not to run in 2026 if faces the decision of either paying the lease/rent or putting the company into receivership. The consequence being two fold. 1. No business to sell and 2. The need for a new promoter to start up a new speedway club. Maybe there is a mid-ground to this but nothing really favors Chris deciding the Witches sit out 2026.

Yes it works so long as the riders involved are not contracted to clubs in Sweden & Denmark (Tues & Wed) & Poland (Fri Sat & Sunday) in which case those clubs have first call on the riders concerned.

Yes it works so long as the riders involved are not contracted to clubs in Sweden & Denmark (Tues & Wed) & Poland (Fri Sat & Sunday) in which case those clubs have first call on the riders concerned.

All being well the campaigners and Rugby council will use the argument that the stadium will be needed for both speedway & stox the latter who require a significant pits area far greater than speedway Combine that with car parking requirements and there is absolutely no space for 100+ houses (50x2semi detached being the smallest option)

Very good overview and the point re planning for 2027 beginning now totally relevant.

Wanting something and accepting something are two entirely different concepts. For now the majority of fans of clubs are accepting the latter in the hope that something will be (is being) done to make things more desirable in the near future.

By all accounts they're pretty much that already. So yes, you're absolutely spot on!

I agree it would be good to know.....and understandable that if what's on offer no longer appeals, folk will indeed choose to stay away. Its fair to say promoters actually do understand the dynamics, just not clear that they know what to do about it.

As I said, We are all entitled voice our views on this forum including if you choose to believe or not believe the reasons I gave behind the promoters thinking are applicable or not. However, maybe you should accept that views/opinions are one thing, whilst decisions are altogether another matter. At the end of the day decisions made are what ultimately counts and where UK speedway is concerned those decisions are made by the promoters not the rank & file folk on this forum. The only decision the majority of fans/supporters can make is to decide whether or not to pay or not to pay hard earned money to watch the meetings. And whilst you appear somewhat deluded to think that folk on this forum actually have sufficient collective power to hold the promoters to account, wait until March and just see the supporters (the vast majority of whom are not even on this forum) pay their money to do what they want to do- which is to support their team.

Interesting concept, but hard to imagine the promoters of the premier clubs would willingly have their business financially sacrificed as a marketing tool whilst others (championship clubs) benefit. The objective behind an elite type of league is that it actually does make a profit whilst creating awareness for the sports other clubs to thrive from. But as I think we all recognise, the sports at a pretty low level at present and much work in the right direction is required - harmonising the promoters would be a good if not almost impossible task to start with.

I'm not that certain to what extent some folk on this forum actually want to, or are willing to understand BSPL decisions if they fly in the face of their own opinion. Sure we are entitled to voice our many and varied views but ultimately we are not the ones making the one decision that counts so it maybe worthwhile trying to understand why that or those decisions do get made. So for what its worth here is my two pennyworth on why we are having a Prem league next year. 1. Rather than simply so riders can double up - It is actually so more team can field a higher quality of riders across both leagues. 2. If there wasn't a Premier league a good number of riders (more than those who have left already) would not ride in the UK and so, 3. For the existing number of clubs to continue offering team racing, many NDL riders would need to be drafted in which would result in a drop off of competitive racing. 4. By keeping a premier league, the UK keeps its protected race nights of Monday & Thursday 5. By maintaining a top flight entity, The concept can continue to be promoted to prospective sponsors and similar backers as something which is a base to expand. That commercially is a lot stronger scenario to utilise being mindful that significant sponsors want an elite type of differentiation in the sport they partner.