arnieg

Response from Manchester City Council: (most of this repeats the comments of the 8 March Exec report - the paras in bold are the bits that look to add to what they have already said. Italics are my comments) Dear Councillor Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your email earlier and certainly prior to Executive. I can offer no other explanation other than this was simply overlooked. [My observation - not replying in a timely manner - this is a dead give away that the council are on the defensive] As you are aware, the document you were sent was prepared for and published by the "Speedway Star". The Report to Executive on 8th March 2017 was the Council's response to the speedway star article and set out the proposals to take the new speedway franchise and speedway stadium forward to ensure the future of the historic aces club. It was hoped that the report would clarify any queries so far as it is possible to do so within the confines of the confidentiality of certain aspects of this matter at this present time. However, you will no doubt be aware of the further articles published by the Manchester Evening News following Executive, in particular in relationship to the track defects and the pay less notice. Whilst the Council was the employer under the building contract, the preparation of the track was being managed by BVA and their track curator due to their expertise in this area. BVA was fully involved in all works to the track. Their track curator was involved throughout the construction process and worked closely with the building contractor, ISG, providing advice and guidance in relation to the track itself. 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). The track was tested by BVA riders in the afternoon of the grand opening event. On an initial review of the track it was acknowledged by BVA, the track curator and the Council that there were 'soft spots'. However, it is understood that agreement was reached between BVA and the track curator that these issues could be addressed and that the track would be suitable for racing at the opening event. We understand that on 18th March 2016 the speedway track was signed off as fit for racing by the Speedway Control Board and that on 19th March 2016 the Clerk of the Course declared the track fit for racing. However, in a series of practice laps immediately before the opening event the riders determined that the track at turns 3 and 4 was too soft and that it was unsafe to ride on. This unfortunately resulted in the late cancellation of the opening event. The Council only became aware of the use of alternative material following the track issues on the opening event and the commissioning of a report in April 2016, although we now understand the owners of BVA were aware of the proposals to use alternative material. The alternative material was not specified in the building contract nor was it approved as a change by the Council. With regard to the "pay less" notice, the Council received notification from BVA of their intention to recover loss and expense as a result of the cancelled meeting arising from the track defect, The Council, through recognised contract mechanisms, issued the notice in order to protect its position and reserve its right to recover any losses from the Contractor should they be substantiated in due course. The Council does not accept liability for the track issues. However, due to holding certain information the disclosure of which would or would be likely to prejudice our commercial interest, has been obtained in the contemplation of litigation and information which has been provided in confidence, we are having to strike a very fine balance of our usual goal of transparency and on this occasion protecting the wider interests of the Council while we facilitate a settlement between the parties. [intriguing] The Chair of Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee has asked for a further report to be presented to that Committee setting out in further detail the material facts. Once we have reached a settlement between the parties, we will consider sharing further material facts in respect of this matter. [they will 'consider' sharing - he's an elected member, he's entitled to know!] I am more than happy to discuss with you the Executive report and the articles in more detail should you wish to do so.

Scored 8 points in a training match at Rawicz yesterday. His most significant scalp was Rafal Konopka (it is fair to say Rawicz aren't the strongest of teams.)

For me the international section is easily the most interesting bit of the Star. However I don't really understand how anyone can get excited over who wins out of Team Boll or Team Fogo. Three or four column inches giving the basic information (venue, date, line-ups and TV coverage details) was all it really warranted. It's a rare opportunity to watch riders like Maxim Drabik, and to see who's rusty and who's ready to race but I suspect that by round 3 when our season is in full swing it will be even more peripheral.

Here are some 1964 attendances: National League West Ham reopener 12,000 (East London Adveriser 10/4) increased to 15,000 at 3rd mtg ( ELA 24/4); 26/5 v Swin – 8,000 (Swindon Evng Adveriser 27/5) Wimbledon – 7,000 Swindon v Oxford - 10,000 (Swin Evng Advertiser 28/3) Norwich v Oxo 6428 (Ox Mail 27/4) Coventry - averaging over 5,000 (Cov Express 11/9) Only Oxford had 'poor' crowds Oxford v Cov crowd 2,000 - one of smallest for years (Ox Mail 26/5) Oxford v BV - 3000 (Ox Mail 8/5) ave crowd one third of other NL venues (Ox Mail 27/5; and 21.5 programme) crowd increases slightly to 3,700 after 300 comps given away (Ox Mail 5/6 ) Provincial League White City - 8-10,000 (Glasgow Evng Citizen 2/4) M'brough - 7,000 [Middlesbrough EvngGazette] Poole - capacity crowd, 300 locked out Exeter v Poole - 7,000 [Poole &Dorset Herald 1.4.64] Sheffield v Crad - 7,500 (Wolv. Express &Star 28/3) Newcastle v Midd - 8,000 for (M,borgh Evng Gazette 21.4.64) Newport v Poole - 12.000 (Poole & Dorset Herald 6.5.64) Edinburgh - 8,000 (3 different meetings reported in Wolves Express & Star 18/5, Midd. Evng Gazette 27/4 and Edin Evng News & Despatch 6/4) Hackney v Poole - 4,500 (Hack Gazette 19/6) General tenor of crowd reporting for 1964 was that crowds were up in both leagues with Oxford being the notable exception.

However if Kyle could be persuaded to ride one meeting KLYS could then exploit the 'guest for any reason' rule that is specific to the NL. (There has been some discussion of this on the Buxton thread in connection with the signing of Ellis Perks). I'm a bit surprised that no alteration has been made to this rule.

27 June 1946 Wembley v West Ham (ACU Cup) attendance 85,000 11 July 1946 Wembley v West Ham (London Cup) attendance 85,000 3 October 1946 Wembley v Wimbledon (ACU Cup) attendance 85,000 Source: When the Lions Roared - Lush and Chaplin

That is a revealing post in itself. Recounting events can hardly constitute a libel, so this seems to imply that any version of events that you might recount would impune the motives of one or more participants in the events. As to errors of judgement there are probably three principal candidates: 1) the decision to change the rules in a way that disadvantaged Coventry 2) expelling Coventry and Peterborough from the league when they walked out of the AGM 3) the decision to fight Coventry and Peterborough once they threatened legal action

But more critically it clashes with the Eurovision Song contest

Rocketman - if there is a good crowd for a Wolves v Cov challenge match then it will hardly compensate for the lost revenue from two league matches. If matches of this type were financially viable then I would have expected to see several matches at Swindon involving Reading and Oxford teams - it hasn't happened. Even a Wolves-Cradley fixtures only took place twice in the five years after their demise. So your thesis that CVS had Cov closed down for financial gain is bonkers. Secondly - the decision to close Coventry was not made by CVS - his is just one vote in five. Thirdly it is quite clear why Coventry lost their league place - a three-way squabble between Brandon Estates, Sandhu and Horton. Once it became clear that there was no agreement (and little prospect of one) for a return to Brandon then the Bees would be left running at Leicester (or possibly other venues for the whole season). This would in all likelihood have resulted in Horton incurring large losses which he would have had difficulty in covering. The BSPA acted to prevent the possibility of a scenario where Coventry went bust mid-season owing a six figure sum. Their decision was rational, unlike your paranoid conspiracy theories.

You are deluded.

I think this is the third season of these matches. For an example of the format see here: http://www.speedway.hg.pl/torunianie_w_turniejach_krajowych/turnieje_towarzyskie_krajowe/2010/2016_05_15_TT_PL_RS_Wawa.htm I think the last three races are nominated.

If we accept the basic proposition that the council is unlikely to admit it was at fault in a public report and secondly that it is blindingly obvious that poor contract management on the part of MCC was a major factor in the opening night debacle then I am inclined to suspect that the report's author is stretching the definition of "knew" well beyond its normal dictionary meaning.

I await with baited breath. Hope they give due credit to that svengali of a team manager.

Follow the link just posted to the MCC report. Para 3.9 sets out that the dispute with ISG has yet to be resolved.

Lots of interesting stuff there. Paras 2.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9, 4.10, 4.11, 5.5, 6.1 particularly caught my eye.

I'm impressed

Lebedevs rode in all four SEC finals in both 2012 and 2014.

Assuming no dropped points then eight. BUT it does require at least seven dead heats!!! (one rider on 8, 14 riders on 7 1/2 and one on 7). Without dropped points then 9 is correct. If dropped points are allowed then 3. (19 heats with no finishers and the winner of the 20th race becomes champion). Off the top of my head the lowest figure I could think of for a winner after 20 heats (ignore the subsequent races) is a three way tie on 10: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Speedway_Grand_Prix_of_Slovenia

Yes - in basic contract law the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Any calculation of financial loss would take into account any payments from a new club, or in this case receipts from BT Sport.

The good thing is that whoever you predict to finish bottom it is possible to imagine that at home on a good day (and maybe with a little luck) they could beat any of the teams you expect to be in the top three. This hasn't really been the case for the last few years in the NL, and is undoubtedly a positive.

The value of land is largely dependent on its future development potential. If recent events have increased the likelihood of the land being commercially developed then it will have increased in value.

2011 - Peterborough and Coventry were admitted to the Elite League after a meeting on March 10. which was subsequently ratified and officially announced on March 15

1 California - just down the road from me 2 Brandon - the need is immediate and speedway can not afford to lose existing clubs 3 Oxford - a perfectly good stadium going to waste 4 Wimbledon - or any track in London which would be important for sport's profile 5 Cradley - so we can revive the Dudley/Wolves Trophy

And even if it is a tie look at number eights - and Simon Cross wins it for Cradley

Well I suggest there is a simple way to respond to roguetrader. Actions speak louder than words Have a good season.