Sir Sidney

Thanks for the clarification. I trust the resubmitted application will provide time for comments again.

I'm not clear on the basis on which the Planning Committee decision has not been enacted. My understanding is that AEPG are being allowed to modify its application and take it back to Planning Committee, rather than having to submit an appeal about the decision to refuse.

I'm a bit disappointed that the Council has allowed the DHL operation to continue whilst they discuss with AEPG / DHL variations to the planning application ( changing the entrance for transporters). My understanding is that a revised retrospective application is going back to the Planning Committee in January, and that the public will have a chance to have another say before then. We will have to keep a regular check on the planning site, but I'm sure there will be as many resident objections as before, although maybe from a different set of residents.

Of course, if the Council refuses planning permission because the application doesn't meet the Local Plan requirements or National Planning framework, then AEPG has a much bigger problem than whether Chapman is on their side or not.

On that I agree with you sadly

Not at all. I've told you what I think and why.

I'm beginning to think, like others, that you are just on a wind up

Sorry to be a pedant, but he is developing a stadium, he hasn't developed it as yet.

So let me ask you again. Do you believe that no British company should hold its AGM abroad, or just BSPL?

So you have skillfully avoided the point. If I said your stance or belief rather than your argument would that make a difference?

Where I am at a loss with your argument is understanding whether you are saying no British company should hold its AGM abroad, or just that the BSPL shouldn't because you think they are unprofessional and just off on a booze up. Personally I have no issue with them holding it abroad, because if just one decision is made that benefits from them all being there and focused on matters in hand, then it will have been worthwhile. However, given the general lack of trust in them from supporters, it doesn't show much reading of the room to know they might get some flack.

Completed to what standard? It's all semantics really. It will be completed to the minimum possible standard so that the remaining housing can be built. I predict it will then be swiftly close, with the cost incurred on the build far less than that gained by the land sold for development.

If they used the £1k to reduce admission prices that would be about 2p per meeting per person based on 1,000 attendance.

Yes, the stadium build in progress but not yet in use. The dogs don't need the stadium building I thought I had seen elsewhere that the building was only a shell with none of the internal works competed. I'd have every expectation that it will never be completed and will be closed down as soon as possible once housing is complete. We'll have to wait and see I guess

Is it complete and in use? I thought it was no more than a shell

Not sure there is much devious about it. Gaming International don't want speedway there and Terry Russell says it's not viable.

I suspect this year, with so few teams left, they wouldn't dare risk fining teams who didn't turn up. Of course, we don't have any actual evidence on BSF of clubs saying they don't want to go to Tenerife.

Why don't the minority professional promotions just refuse to attend if, as you say, there is nothing to discuss and decisions have already been made?

Easy enough to sort out a race formula that avoids that in the main I would have thought

Given the lack of teams it's not likely to be twice a week. What it may mean is that there is speedway once a week throughout the season (although not on the same day each week).

You need Councillors to turn down the planning applications so I'd hold on before criticising them too soon. Those same Councillors have already refused the AEPG / DHL proposal

Unfortunately costs do come into it. How would you propose it be paid for? A levy on every ticket to fund it?

Which means the SCB has a major part to play in it as they are the custodians of the rule book rather than BSPL

It's an interesting idea, and worth exploring more. Assuming you could get the remaining clubs to do that, and the existing board members to accept it without closing their own clubs and walking away, how would you finance the new board? A levy on all clubs to pay for them? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts

How would you see that working and being financed?