Sir Sidney

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?

I completely agree. If the season was to end in August, and it still included play offs, then some teams would be finished by end July

I think on the night just the trophy should be presented. Medals should only be presented to riders who have ridden an agreed percentage of matches through the season ( which of course should have been agreed before the season).

It's bonkers because it's the League title not a cup final.

Interesting that the last part says (my highlight) 'AEPG has previously said that the DHL car storage operation is a means for the venue to secure an income until two outline planning applications to build 1,500 homes and a leisure village on the Showground, which is owned by the East of England Agricultural Society, are considered by the council. However, officers will tell councillors next week that a decision is not expected to be made on these applications in the near future.' With any luck AEPG will run out of money before the applications are determined I've queried with the Council why it has put a statement from AEPG about the loss of speedway on it's website as though it is fact, without clarifying that this does not represent the Council's view AEPG Statement regarding Peterborough Panthers use of East of England Showground - Peterborough City Council Update: quick response from the Council as follows From: Communications <Communications@peterborough.gov.uk> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:18 PM Plng Control Enquiries <planningcontrol@peterborough.gov.uk> Subject: Re: https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/news/aepg-statement-regarding-peterborough-panthers-use-of-east-of-england-showground Hi xxxx, We added the statement to the PCC website on request of the council's Leader Wayne Fitzgerald, who spoke about this issue during a recent ' Ask the Leader' session. We will add a line to emphasise that this statement is APEG's view and not the councils. Kind regards, Ken. Many thanks, The Communications Team

You would think the SCB and BSPL would realise that, and that the penny would have dropped. You would hope they had the ambition to work with Buxton, IOW and maybe Lydd to create the opportunities for youngsters to race and get experience. What a tragedy it will be if there is no NDL or equivalent, and Workington don't feel able to move into the Championship and so don't stage league speedway next year. Time for Mr Morris to demonstrate his ability

Tell that to Workington, Mildenhall and Kent for example, adding in that, by the way, if you have the temerity to fill spare weeks with alternative racing ( NORA let's say) we will threaten to take your licence away and fine you

I'm very happy to see that Sport England has now objected to the planning application and has included a section on the proposed loss of the speedway track within it's objection. It references the face that the application does not deal with the loss in accordance with LP30 and LP36 and the relevance of para 99 of the NPPF Sports England also references comments from the RFU, Football Foundation and ECB, as well as commenting on the proposed golf facility - broadly suggesting that more consultation is required with those bodies and that the need be demonstrated Another positive step I believe. The Council cannot just ignore all these objections, including where they come from sports governing bodies - even if AEPG thinks it can run roughshod over them 01322034.pdf (peterborough.gov.uk)

On network TV? I was watching and didn't see that. Were you there Old Bob?

He would reveal it as part of his income and expenditure to prove that his current club is viable. He would use it as part of his business plan to assess whether returning speedway to Coventry was viable. Of course, he is under no obligation to do so, but you would have thought seeing as how it has been a consistent line of questioning that it would have been wise to do so

Given Osborne is his landlord and so BE and Mr Goatley will have that info it seems an odd point to be secretive about

I haven't been able to log in yet today. Have they moved on to housing requirements as scheduled?

Given that it is Local Government, via Rugby Council, that is refusing BE permission, it's probably not helpful to critisise it. More likely to be either the Inspector or KCs that needed the early finish.

You would hope that the SCS barrister will make great play of that. If Mr Edie has not really factored that in (and as far as I could hear, he confirmed that) then the barrister should be able to throw doubt on his whole assessment of Brandon stadium's vialbilty versus a 3g pitch. I hope the barrister might also make the point, amongst many others, that the participants in a Premier League football club are far out weighed by the number of supports who attend, and compare that as a parallel to 14 speedway participants in a meeting. I would think the SCS barrister will be able to challenge Mr Edie on much of his evidence, especially where it was inaccurate and where he speculated - using the 'who did you speak to to establish this evidence' approach, as the BE barrister did quite extensively

I agree, and have made that point in my objection. Fans of sports teams do not just change their allegiance.

I guess we will only know by the end of this week. However, I think we can all agree that 3 out of the 4 playoff teams are weakened by injuries which is a shame

Given that Belle Vue have two riders out I'd hardly call it good fortune. I'd doubt they consider they have a bye into the final.

I think the key says as follows *assessed MA due to one of following B New Foreign Rider Converted MA C New Rider D Re-assessed MA OG Est MA older than prev 2 seasons So Lambert will come under D or OG as I don't think he achieved a new average last season

I'd agree entirely. You can drive a coach and horses through the regs

On issue 32 of the Team Declarations https://britishspeedway.co.uk/2023-premiership-declarations/ Robert Lambert has an * against his name. The key says that means an assessed average