woofers

Can't say I'm concerned. His antics over the last couple of years have generally been immature self promotion. Is he really "representing GB" in the Grand Prix series? This is an individual series, not a team event, he reaps the results of his endeavours. Who cares if he achieves a 3rd World Championship? Sure it would be great to say that the World Champion Speedway rider is from GB, but he has turned his back on domestic speedway ? He won't ride in the Speedway World Cup for Team GB, but refuses to disclose his reasons for not doing so. (Are we any the wiser in this?) So, no, I'm not really upset that he hasn't got his way on this one - it would be mother of all self gratifying, attention seeking, look at me, aren't I wonderful events ever run.

Aside from any commercial aspects, (and I really think these are minimal as the sport needs as much publicity as it can get), my understanding of the prohibition was more around the safety of riders due to : 1. The flash photography on the outside of the track is a distraction. Watch any onboard video and you'll see the footage will reveal more views toward the outside than the inside of the track. 2. I think a telephoto lenses will require a more powerful flash than a standard lens, therefore the flash could be quite strong. 3. Many recording devices and cameras have a red light on the device when in operation. This could be mistaken by the rider for the track red light resulting in him to cease racing and cause all sorts of issues. (I believe Scott Nicholls had this issue in the SWC when it was run at Poole).

The accounts for Beaumont Sports Complex Ltd for the period ending March 2015 do not show any Fixed Assets (which is where the stadium, track, fixtures and fittings would appear). In fact these accounts show it to be, on the face of it, not very active, and with a net worth of minus £500. Mr Hemsley is the sole director and shareholder and has contributed £3 of share capital ( 3 shares of £1 each). The accounts of Leicester Speedway Ltd however show a different picture with regard to assets. The last set of accounts are for the year ended 31st October 2014 (the 2015 accounts are overdue, they should have been filed by 31st July 2016). The accounts show Fixed Assets of £858,050 which comprises the stadium, track, fixtures and fittings. The 2011 accounts show that the initial cost of these facilities was £785,113, although receipts totalling £418,346 were received towards ground preparation work, leaving a net balance of £366,767. The director(s) then revalued the assets at £750,000 by creating a Revaluation Reserve of £383,233. So, in the last 3 years another £108,050 of assets have been added to the complex. The company has 2 types of shares, Ordinary and B. Mr Hemsley is the holder of the 1 Ordinary Share (and has control over the company). There are 6,300 B Shares held by a dozen shareholders, of various denominations The company has one director, Y Hemsley, appointed on 29th April 2016. Mr Hemsley (ex director) and Mr Hurst (ex Co secretary), both resigned on 13th September 2016. HSBC Bank have a legal charge over the undertaking, including all property and assets (a debenture created in 2012) over any monies owed to them.

Just been looking through the older documents. Staggering losses every year since incorporation in November 2006, when Messrs Gordon, Morton and Pairman were the shareholders and directors. Over the years Mr Gordon has bought the shares of the other two, to become the sole shareholder today. Previous Annual Returns show the shares as fully paid up, so presumably an administrative error on the latest one regarding the 10p and 90p unpaid. Mr Morton resigned his roles in Dec 2011 but was re-appointed in Aug 2012. There are no legal charges registered as security against the company, and as you have pointed out in the "Profit" thread, abbreviated accounts give little detail, especially as to how the losses were being funded through the increasing Creditors balance. Also the accounts are unaudited, so the auditors don't need to comment on the 'going concern' aspect. Strictly speaking, the company is a separate legal entity with limited liability and responsible for its own debts. In practice directors give personal guarantee's if required by the lender, and / or more likely the lender has a charge or first call on the assets. Interestingly the accounts show assets of £112,648 of which £92,500 are Intangible. I take this to be be Rider Assets, but not sure how these are measured or whether they can actually be turned into cash. I don't think shareholders are usually liable for debts.

The 28th November 2015 Annual Return for Belle Vue Speedway Ltd shows D Gordon and C Morton as Directors. D Gordon is shown as the only shareholder. The accounts of 2014 show that the 30,000 shares of £1 are fully paid up, but the Annual Return shows only 10p per share paid with 90p per share unpaid. D Gordon resigned his directorship on 31st October 2016, leaving C Morton as the sole director. Presumably D Gordon is still the only shareholder.

The records filed at Companies House show that on 19th April 2015 BV Arena Ltd was owned by M McCafferty, W Rice, G Rose, R Southwell and M Turner. The directors were D Gordon and C Morton. On 23rd October 2015 BVA Holdings Ltd was incorporated. On 11th November 2015 all the shares in BV Arena Ltd were transferred (bought?) to BVA Holdings Ltd, who now own all the shares and control BV Arena Ltd. The Shareholders of BVA Holdings Ltd at incorporation were D Gordon, C Morton and G Carswell. The Directors of BVA Holdings Ltd are D Gordon, and C Morton (from 23.10.15) and G Carswell (from 11.11.15). On 26th October 2016 D Gordon resigned as a director of BV Arena Ltd, but is still recorded as a director of BVA Holdings Ltd.

We'll have to take your word for it, the accounts for Kent Speedway for last year (y/e Jan 16) haven't been filed at Companies House and are overdue.

Never ceases to amaze me how almost every thread has to get a reference back to how speedway operated umpteen years ago.And these quotes only name one team but the posters know "both clubs" from 40 years ago! Perhaps riders have to ride for more than one club to earn a living ? A lot of posters on this forum seem to think the riders are overpaid and the admission prices too high. Can't see how lower both would enable a rider to earn a living in today's world, maybe people think speedway riders should just be talented amateurs ? Anyway, back to the present, and back on topic, has anyone any idea what Chris Louis was on about, my post about 3 pages back refers. Thanks

No 'Double Points' in the National League, is there a club near you that you could support ?

Have a feeling that the increase in Creditors will be either a bank or directors loan, to cover the loss for the year - i.e. increase in creditors £41k, loss for the year £42k.

Chris Louis also said "It was a team building formula, it's simple and it works" (regarding the ex Elite only riders seeing their averages multiplied by 1.4) Well, I thought it was simple until I saw the bit about "the conversion figure will be adjusted in May...." What's that all about ? I interpret the information from the press release as : If a rider has a Premier League Average - use that. If he hasn't a Premier League Average but has an Elite League Average - use the Elite Average multiplied by 1.4 If he hasn't a Premier or Elite Average - don't know, not covered yet. That's what I call simple and works. Looking at the last set of Green Sheet Averages from both Leagues, it means that the following 25 riders from the Elite Teams final 1-7 would have their averages multiplied by 1.4 : Zagar, Fricke, Nicholls, Kasprrzak, Harris, Woryna, Iversen, Batchelor, Jonsson, Nilsson, Bridger, Hougaard, Wozniak,Holder, Lindback, Pedersen, Buczkowski, Ellis, Doyle, Morris, Sedgmen, Lindgren, Thorsell, Woffinden and Karlsson. All the others have Premier League Averages. Outside the final 1-7, there is - Korneliussen, Schlein, Swiderski, Mear, Walasek, Ulamek, Watt, Andersen and Kylmakorpi who would also get averages multiplied by 1.4 I assume the 1.4 multiple was arrived at by some scientific or mathematical reasoning and sanctioned at the AGM - surely Chris Louis is not suggesting a retrospective application of a different number, because going forward the SCB statement makes it clear that a rider will only have one average.

Oh, I don't think it did, go to post no 248 and you'll see that it says "increased by 1.4", which most people I believe would assume to mean a rider on, say, 8 would become 9.4. I know multiplication or factors weren't mentioned, that was the point of my post. I'm not sure why you have posted, you appear to be agreeing with me but trying to pick me up on a technicality which you have got wrong yourself.

How do you know that ? Where does it say so ? As far as I know, the official rules haven't been published yet, there appears to be a lot of speculation in interpreting what is only a press release outlining certain changes.

Nice to see that the press release has been amended to clarify the 1.4 issue, it now reads "by a factor of 1.4" Most people reading the original statement would assume an increase of 1.4 would mean an addition, I did, when all it needed to say was "multiplied by 1.4" However I do think this just goes to show how the rule book gets into such a mess, if a simple point such as this is so misinterpreted. The same can be said for "riders who only raced in the Elite League", do they mean that, does the National League come into the equation ? (I'm thinking Adam Ellis here) A more forward thinking organisation would have gone through the rider list and published new averages right now, to accompany the press release. Do the Promoters write the rule book ?

Go-Speed filed for voluntary liquidation on 25th May 2010 with a deficiency of £171,608.67, and was finally dissolved / wound up on 13 May 2014. The Liquidators progress reports and the final meeting return make interesting reading. Go Speed International was incorporated on 17th December 2009, and would seem to trade at fairly low levels until 2014 when things picked up. The P&L reserve on the Balance Sheet was : 2010 £195 2011 £847 2012 £1,776 2013 £771 2014 £36,894 2015 £23,420

That makes things more clear. Annual licences would not appear on the Balance Sheet, they are a charge to each years Profit and Loss account. In the latest filed accounts, to 29.2.16, the £10,000 is described as "Goodwill" relating to the granting of a promotional licence. Not all clubs have this item on their Balance Sheet, I guess it depends on circumstances and arrangements, as I would have thought a paid £10,000 cash deposit could appear either as an asset or long term debtor, whereas a bond or guarantee would be a future liability.

Do all club's have to pay this ?

Ooopps....

What's done is done, and can't be changed but to quote that beloved corporate phrase "lessons will be learnt". But really, if you were the manager of the most successful team in the league this year, having only been beaten twice, topping the league table by the proverbial country mile, coming back from a 13 point deficit to win the play off final, and going into the second leg of the KO Cup final defending a 6 point advantage with a chance to clinch the silverware in the National League, would you - 1. Check the rule book to ensure that the No 1 rider you used last week at the same track and want to use again, would be eligible to ride again this week ? 2. To be doubly sure, check with the governing body / bodies that the rider you wished to use was eligible ? or would you 3. Rely on hearsay that the rule you know exists, is no longer in use ? 4. Rely on the opposition or governing body / bodies and their representatives (referee) to let you know if you've got it wrong ? I think we know what the answer should be, (and it's not 3 or 4). Next we have a couple of press statements whereby the Birmingham side categorically state that the Eastbourne side objected 30 minutes prior to the meeting. Eastbournes statement makes it clear they did not protest. One side is being 'economical with the truth' here, and probably owes the other an apology. IF the BSPA or the SCB have / (want?) an ounce of credibility, there should be an enquiry into what happened and where it went wrong and the findings published. No if's, no but's, Something has gone wrong, the fan's were short changed, and they deserve to know what happened. It's not the end of the world, no one need lose their job over this, but transparency would be of huge benefit to the sport, instead of the usual sweeping under the carpet approach. It shouldn't take long, someone in the governing bodies knows what happened. So, the Birmingham website is now updated with the facts, shame they went ahead with an 'erroneous' statement earlier, (apology on it's way?) From what we can glean - Birmingham management didn't check the riders eligibility Eastbourne management didn't check the riders eligibility The SCB didn't check the riders eligibility The BSPA didn't check the riders eligibility The referee didn't check the riders eligibility So no one in an official capacity checked the riders eligibility No one in an official capacity did their job It was down to some fan's questioning the referee at the match..... And we wonder why Speedway is treated as a joke sport .............

Meetings are mentioned in the first sentence of the rule. If he had walked out of the first meeting, he would have been "ineligible for the remainder of the season", he walked out of the last meeting - there was no "remainder of the season". Using your logic, the words "remainder of the season" would not need to be in the rule, nor come to think of it, would the any reference to suspension, as using your interpretation the rule could read basically along the lines, of "miss any meeting, for any reason other than injury, and you're out, points scored to date don't count, your ineligible, full stop" - is that a fair summary of your take on it ? So where do you think "remainder of the season" fits in ?

OK can we look at this again, just the Grand Prix, forget the SWC and the League, we're not discussing those on this thread. Taking it one step at a time- The first part, Greg clearly has entered the Grand Prix World Championships, and has refused to take part in the later part of the final meeting. He is deemed therefore to be suspended for a period of 1 day before and 3 days after the meeting (presumably this rule is to prevent GP riders choosing to take part in another, perhaps more lucrative, event elsewhere). So he could have his Melbourne points deducted? Next, he shall be considered as "ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season" - I read this as he cannot take part in any more meetings. But there aren't any more meetings, so the worst / best that can happen is that he could have 5 points deducted from his final score, reducing his total from 139 to 134, still ahead of Woffindens 130. The second paragraph of the rule doesn't apply in this case, he started the series and has participated. I am no Hancock fan, and think he behaved inappropriately, but he was the highest points scoring over the series. Once again, a speedway rule is open to interpretation, BWitcher thinks it's "crystal clear" and has taken the ineligible phrase to mean as ineligible for the Championship outright, I have read it as meaning a rider is ineligible to take part in any further meetings. So, not so 100% clear.

From the official Eastbourne website - "The IT First Eagles started disastrously and conceded a 3-0 in heat win after No 1 Adam Ellis fell while leading by a country mile. His partner Charley Powell was also excluded." I thought the outcome and decision making regarding this incident a bit odd. We were watching the tussle between Jack Smith and Charlie Powell and were oblivious to Adam Ellis as he was so far in front. Coming out of bend 1, Powell ran into the side of Smith, but then we noticed Ellis on the ground by the air fence on bend 2 - only some 40 yards away. Perhaps the referee and anyone else assisting him were doing the same as us, because: Why was the race not stopped prior to the Powell / Smith incident? Ellis was disqualified for not being under power at the time of the official stoppage (caused by Powell), but surely he went down first (he was so far in front) and couldn't clear the track, otherwise he wouldn't have been only yards away from the incident. The red lights should have been on when it was obvious Ellis couldn't get clear from the track, whether that would have prevented the coming together of Powell and Smith is uncertain, however either way, Smith was rightly given 3 points but Powell should have been awarded 2 points. The referee allowed a dangerous situation to develop in my opinion. Any other views ?

Your memory doesn't fail you. But nor does it recall that Birmingham had Dan Halsey riding at No 1, and he scored only 3 pts from his rides. Yes, Brennan was making his debut, which ended in heat 2 and we had Ben Hopwood in place of Eliis Perks. Birmingham led from heat 4 through to heat 14, and it was only when Jack Smith fell in a points scoring position in Ht 14 that gave Eastbourne a life line. With hindsight it was the two 5-1's in heats 13 and 15 that saved Eastbourne. Brums reserves are stronger, and as in many speedway meetings, can make a significant impact on the result. Then again, so can r/r, which Eastbourne have utilised virtually all season (only ridden 2 NL matches with 7 riders!), something which is obviously within the rules but probably outside the spirit - but that doesn't seem to count in any sport these days.

A few things for our announcer to work on - Please can we have the team line ups announced before the first heat? If that isn't possible please can you let us know who is riding in the first heat? Last night 2 of the riders in heat 1 were r/r - there was no announcement of who was taking these rides - imagine our surprise when Luke Harris came by for Eastbourne, he wasn't even named in the programme! Enthusiasm to be 'one of the lads' is getting in the way of professionalism. Oh and apparently we have a rider named Tommy Bee ..(he wasn't in the programme either)

Actually it wasn't bad, and a whole lot better than most of my group were expecting. The first few heats were a bit slippy and tentative but once the top surface had been "graded" by the bikes it was OK. It was tricky, but I bet it was a useful part of learning for some riders, remember some of these guys are novices, it is the NL.