Sir Sidney

No idea I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people close to the club who could answer that, but I would have thought the cost were prohibitive even if it were technically feasible.

Maybe so, but Brandon Stadium has not been demolished. AEPG presumably want the Council onside, and have included demolition within its planning application. Why would it risk demolishing the grandstand and stadium buildings in advance of the application being determined? It makes no business sense. The Council is already going to get significant flack, quite justifiably, if it allows the demolition without replacement in accordance with its own Local Plan. If AEPG were to demolish it without permission it might well jeopardise the whole application. Of course, it wouldn't be unknown for a significant fire to occur - but I suspect the Police would want to get involved if it were suspicious, and that would slow down AEPG even more - and delays cost money.

AEPG would be very rash to do that before the planning application is decided.

With all due respect to Keith Chapman, perhaps he could provide his analysis of why he thinks all the protestations in the world won't make a difference. If he did people could then make a judgement

It may be outwith its remit but they suggested they had a good relationship with Sport England and had contributed to other campaigns. It may well be better if BSPL got involved, but will they?

I don't know about the BSPL, but I would have thought anyone could ask. The worst they can say is no. The current owner clearly isn't going to do anything

We should be bothered precisely because they are not. Personally I think the time has come for someone or some organisation to come forward and co-ordinate the response, be that a prospective new owner, the supporters club or someone with an existing relationship with the club. Whoever that may be should then contact SCB and / or BSPL to request assistance. I'd have thought the Save Coventry group could also offer help and advice. This may of course all be happening in the background

I asked the SCB. They will only get involved if requested - and at the point I asked them no one had. Sounds bonkers to me, especially where the current owner has apparently just accepted closure

I agree. I was there ( although I might choose fascinating rather than fantastic, that's a personal choice)

Last night's meeting at Peterborough would have made dull viewing, other than the significance of the bonus point and the implications. The racing it's self was mediocre at best

It took a few hours for mine to appear

The play offs have, of course been delayed, so there wasn't scheduled to be such a gap.

Because others incorrectly interpreted the rules and tried to block them replacing an injured rider, when the rules clearly allowed it.

That's just your opinion, but not what the rules said. The SCB rules have so many holes in them any competent team manager should be able to find holes in them

Belle Vue didn't bend the rules last year. They used them as written.

Just reintroduce Holder if he is fit enough 010.3.1 Cut Off Date No team changes will be allowed after 28th August with the effective date being 31st August. Except riders returning to the team after injury who can only replace their original replacement.

People have queried it. I believe the explanation is simply that Eurosport is contracted to show a certain number of matches, plus the playoffs- and they have done so

Such as? Fastest winning time maybe, although that is a bit counter intuitive in a pairs competition you can win without either of your pair crossing the line first in any race. A race off, but that causes tyre disparity issues

With iainb I presume

Given that they didn't face each other and their records were identical what do you suggest as an alternative?

Absolutely. You can usually drive a cart and horses through the rulebook. Despite that, the semi final decisions do appear to be correct and as written, not made up

From the regulations 016.2.2 Racing Format To be confirmed. 016.2.3 Racing Regulations Starting offences for the 1st offence, the offending rider will be handicapped as per these Regulations. For a 2nd offence for the same rider then that rider will be disqualified. Where there is a tie for the semi final qualification, a two way tie will be decided by the result in which the pair met, highest score. If more than a two way tie or the pair have not met then the team with the highest scoring heat results (7-2, 7-0, 6-3, 5-4, 4-5, 3-6) will qualify and if still not resolved, then by ballot. Regardless of helmet colours each pair can switch programmed gate positions between themselves. Heat points for this event will be 4, 3, 2, 0. In the case of an abandonment and the event is not re-staged the result will be taken from the completion of heat 9 as this is where all teams had completed the same number of heats.

I would think the implication is that Mr Tomalin could build a new track on his 25 acre site

A section on the Showground just about to start on the same station. A Councillor due to speak now (4.15 if you listen on catch up) and AEPG at 5ish Broadly, the rep from AEPG said about speedway - Not viable - speedway has been subsidised for many years ( presume he means lower than commercial rent) - been working with the speedway owner for some time who had lots of notice. If they can prove its not viable they would potentially overcome the local plan issue, so that is a key area to address. Coventry faced the same claim and refuted it I believe, so maybe some clear area for exchange of information, joint working etc

They are now, but why is that? Why don't individual meetings appeal to current supporters ( when the GP series apparently does) I come from an era when most clubs had one showpiece individual event that was well supported. My club was Wimbledon. We had the Daily Express Spring Classic, The Wills (Embassy) Internationale, The Berger / Daily Mirror Grand Prix, The Southern Roders Championship, The Laurels, and The NLRC each year. As far as I recall they were all well supported. What is the difference now? Quality of riders , commitment of riders, standard of sponsor maybe?