Halifaxtiger Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Or... we could just host the events at different tracks. Which also has the benefit of attracting more fans who live outside of the immediate Manchester area. So what we do is ignore by far and away the best stadium in the country and hold meetings at Rye House or Leicester instead ? That's positively Why was the Anton signing crooked ? Same applies to Woffinden then.. Two words : average reduction. Woffinden didn't have one, Lindback did. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 So what we do is ignore by far and away the best stadium in the country and hold meetings at Rye House or Leicester instead ? That's positively Two words : average reduction. Woffinden didn't have one, Lindback did. So what we do is ignore by far and away the best stadium in the country and hold meetings at Rye House or Leicester instead ? That's positively Two words : average reduction. Woffinden didn't have one, Lindback did. If Anton average wasn't sanctioned by the powers that be he wouldn't have rode. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 If Anton average wasn't sanctioned by the powers that be he wouldn't have rode. Simple. True. That's why I don't blame Poole. That doesn't mean the decision wasn't crooked. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 True. That's why I don't blame Poole. That doesn't mean the decision wasn't crooked. But you cannot prove that, so why are you banging on about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Thumper Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 So what we do is ignore by far and away the best stadium in the country and hold meetings at Rye House or Leicester instead ? That's positively If Speedway GB Ltd was one business operating all the tracks then, yes, it would may sense to hold all the big meetings at your prime venue and spend some of the profits at your other tracks. But there is no Speedway GB Ltd. There are just a disparate bunch of small operators who are trying to put on meetings and earn enough money to keep their little businesses afloat. Why should one operator who has been fortunate enough to get a local council to subsidize their activities be allowed to snaffle all the money-making events and as a result further jeopardize the survival chances of all the small operators who do not enjoy the benefit of a several million pound loan from their council? I hope Belle Vue/NSS survives but it can't be at the expense of other speedway operations and they are going to have to make a rather better effort of it if they should be granted another go, 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) But you cannot prove that, so why are you banging on about it. Seriously? He is saying it is decisions like that which turn people off the sport. Obviously there is not going to be "proof", just like there was never any "proof" that Hancock let Holder past or Poole dropped points at Swindon to lower their averages. But people make their own minds up and start to lose interest. Might not be the only reason why the sport is in the dumps domestically, but it's certainly one of them. Edit: Apologies to HalifaxTiger - should have let you answer the point yourself - as I see you now have. Edited November 5, 2016 by salty 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 But you cannot prove that, so why are you banging on about it. No, I can't prove it.............but equally you can't prove it was legitimate other than by saying that it was approved by the 'powers that be' - the same powers, incidentally, who said that Cook couldn't double up for two teams on the same night but Bewley could, who stated that Hall had to come into the NL on an NL average when Bowen came in on a PL one and who said that Davey could guest for Bewley but not Ayres. Not that we ever know who the 'powers that be' are, because no-one is ever named and therefore no-one ever is responsible. I make my judgement here - as in most things - on what I know of the circumstances and what I know of the people involved. Hence, I say it was crooked and, believe me, outside of the south coast I suspect the overwhelming majority agree with me. An opinion was made that derided the view that people walk away because of bent decisions made at the heart of the sport. They most certainly do. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 No, I can't prove it.............but equally you can't prove it was legitimate other than by saying that it was approved by the 'powers that be' So you cannot make accusations like that without catagoric proof, which you dont have.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 If Speedway GB Ltd was one business operating all the tracks then, yes, it would may sense to hold all the big meetings at your prime venue and spend some of the profits at your other tracks. But there is no Speedway GB Ltd. There are just a disparate bunch of small operators who are trying to put on meetings and earn enough money to keep their little businesses afloat. Why should one operator who has been fortunate enough to get a local council to subsidize their activities be allowed to snaffle all the money-making events and as a result further jeopardize the survival chances of all the small operators who do not enjoy the benefit of a several million pound loan from their council? I hope Belle Vue/NSS survives but it can't be at the expense of other speedway operations and they are going to have to make a rather better effort of it if they should be granted another go, I think its pretty clear the council haven't 'subsidised' their activities other than by not enforcing rent liabilities until a later point. I do know that the proceeds of BSPA & FIM events are shared amongst all the other clubs. Whether the hosts retain 50% of those proceeds I am not so sure - that seems an exceptionally high amount to me. I believe that in addition there is a bidding process for such meetings. The thing is what you propose is having a WTC round at Rye House, Somerset or Wolverhampton when they are simply not capable of doing so. In the past, we have had to make do with King's Lynn or Peterborough - we have seen some excellent racing on occasion, but as a facility there is absolutely no comparison. I should say I am also not aware of any complaints, disputes or issues regarding the allocation of big events from individual members of the BSPA, probably because its just sense to hold the biggest events at the best stadiums (although it should not be the case that one stadium has an absolute monopoly). So you cannot make accusations like that without catagoric proof, which you dont have.. Are you seriously suggesting that no-one on this forum cannot make accusations without definite proof ? I trust that you will repeat that every single time such a remark is made. I suspect about half the comment on this forum is made on that basis and therefore your comment is quite possibly the most extraordinary I have ever seen on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) I think its pretty clear the council haven't 'subsidised' their activities other than by not enforcing rent liabilities until a later point. I do know that the proceeds of BSPA & FIM events are shared amongst all the other clubs. Whether the hosts retain 50% of those proceeds I am not so sure - that seems an exceptionally high amount to me. I believe that in addition there is a bidding process for such meetings. The thing is what you propose is having a WTC round at Rye House, Somerset or Wolverhampton when they are simply not capable of doing so. In the past, we have had to make do with King's Lynn or Peterborough - we have seen some excellent racing on occasion, but as a facility there is absolutely no comparison. I should say I am also not aware of any complaints, disputes or issues regarding the allocation of big events from individual members of the BSPA, probably because its just sense to hold the biggest events at the best stadiums (although it should not be the case that one stadium has an absolute monopoly). Are you seriously suggesting that no-one on this forum cannot make accusations without definite proof ? I trust that you will repeat that every single time such a remark is made. I suspect about half the comment on this forum is made on that basis and therefore your comment is quite possibly the most extraordinary I have ever seen on here. If you think that is Starman`s most extraordinary post/opinion- you cannot have read all his previous posts Edited November 5, 2016 by racers and royals 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Thumper Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 I think its pretty clear the council haven't 'subsidised' their activities other than by not enforcing rent liabilities until a later point. I do know that the proceeds of BSPA & FIM events are shared amongst all the other clubs. Whether the hosts retain 50% of those proceeds I am not so sure - that seems an exceptionally high amount to me. I believe that in addition there is a bidding process for such meetings. The thing is what you propose is having a WTC round at Rye House, Somerset or Wolverhampton when they are simply not capable of doing so. In the past, we have had to make do with King's Lynn or Peterborough - we have seen some excellent racing on occasion, but as a facility there is absolutely no comparison. I should say I am also not aware of any complaints, disputes or issues regarding the allocation of big events from individual members of the BSPA, probably because its just sense to hold the biggest events at the best stadiums (although it should not be the case that one stadium has an absolute monopoly). Perhaps then, I will for this argument say that Manchester City Council has "supported" Belle Vue Arena/Speedway/NSS by building them a nice little stadium and allowing them to pay for it over a lengthy period. I am not aware of any other local authority in this country that would consider offering this level of support to a speedway business. Therefore, BVA/BVS/NSS could be said to enjoy a considerable advantage over it's competitors. If other venues are not allowed to have their fair share of the money-making events how can they generate the profits that they need to re-invest in their businesses in order to improve the facilities so as to attract more paying customers through the gate and at the same time, improve speedway's image. The National Speedway Stadium concept is valid if the venue is operated by the sport's national governing body and the profits and benefits from said operation are shared fairly amongst the smaller players in the organization. Just allowing a club who have managed to get their mitts on a large pile of dosh to call themselves the National anything is surely just a bit of a nonsense? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw42 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 I think its pretty clear the council haven't 'subsidised' their activities other than by not enforcing rent liabilities until a later point. I do know that the proceeds of BSPA & FIM events are shared amongst all the other clubs. Whether the hosts retain 50% of those proceeds I am not so sure - that seems an exceptionally high amount to me. I believe that in addition there is a bidding process for such meetings. The thing is what you propose is having a WTC round at Rye House, Somerset or Wolverhampton when they are simply not capable of doing so. In the past, we have had to make do with King's Lynn or Peterborough - we have seen some excellent racing on occasion, but as a facility there is absolutely no comparison. I should say I am also not aware of any complaints, disputes or issues regarding the allocation of big events from individual members of the BSPA, probably because its just sense to hold the biggest events at the best stadiums (although it should not be the case that one stadium has an absolute monopoly). Are you seriously suggesting that no-one on this forum cannot make accusations without definite proof ? I trust that you will repeat that every single time such a remark is made. I suspect about half the comment on this forum is made on that basis and therefore your comment is quite possibly the most extraordinary I have ever seen on here. Stick around, he can do much better than that. The point you were making was quite obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, unfortunately that poster seems to be short by about an ounce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 If you think that is Starman`s most extraordinary post/opinion- you cannot have read all his previous posts You've quoted the wrong post. But no suprise there... Stick around, he can do much better than that. The point you were making was quite obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, unfortunately that poster seems to be short by about an ounce. Nevermind mate. You'l get over it im sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 You've quoted the wrong post. But no suprise there... Nevermind mate. You'l get over it im sure... No I haven`t - He`s talking about your post. I suggest you re-read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw42 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Perhaps then, I will for this argument say that Manchester City Council has "supported" Belle Vue Arena/Speedway/NSS by building them a nice little stadium and allowing them to pay for it over a lengthy period. I am not aware of any other local authority in this country that would consider offering this level of support to a speedway business. Therefore, BVA/BVS/NSS could be said to enjoy a considerable advantage over it's competitors. If other venues are not allowed to have their fair share of the money-making events how can they generate the profits that they need to re-invest in their businesses in order to improve the facilities so as to attract more paying customers through the gate and at the same time, improve speedway's image. The National Speedway Stadium concept is valid if the venue is operated by the sport's national governing body and the profits and benefits from said operation are shared fairly amongst the smaller players in the organization. Just allowing a club who have managed to get their mitts on a large pile of dosh to call themselves the National anything is surely just a bit of a nonsense? It's already been pointed out that the money can be shared around with the other operators, this doesn't necessarily mean they can't hold the vast majority of prestige meetings at Belle Vue, as others have said why not use the best venue available as long as the impact on other potentially viable tracks is minimised, seems fair to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 NSS is best speedway stadium in the UK, let's be content with that, and while never sustainable on just speedway gate revenue alone, with other usage and some decent sponsorship and proper management can still be a viable proposition. MCC must think so otherwise they wouldn't be pulling out all the stops for speedway to continue there. The stadium is good by speedway standards, but that's pointless if it's financial unviable. Even worse is if bills go unpaid, as no local authority will ever be persuaded to trust the sport again, and may simply just convert the whole thing into a hockey stadium or whatever. After your previous assurances about the financial viability, you're now saying that it can't survive on speedway alone. Well maybe not, but how many women would really want their wedding at a speedway track? Wouldn't be relying on that a business plan. Of course MCC are pulling out all the stops. They've shelled out a lot of cash and want to recoup it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Perhaps then, I will for this argument say that Manchester City Council has "supported" Belle Vue Arena/Speedway/NSS by building them a nice little stadium and allowing them to pay for it over a lengthy period. I am not aware of any other local authority in this country that would consider offering this level of support to a speedway business. Therefore, BVA/BVS/NSS could be said to enjoy a considerable advantage over it's competitors. If other venues are not allowed to have their fair share of the money-making events how can they generate the profits that they need to re-invest in their businesses in order to improve the facilities so as to attract more paying customers through the gate and at the same time, improve speedway's image. The National Speedway Stadium concept is valid if the venue is operated by the sport's national governing body and the profits and benefits from said operation are shared fairly amongst the smaller players in the organization. Just allowing a club who have managed to get their mitts on a large pile of dosh to call themselves the National anything is surely just a bit of a nonsense? Ask Isle of Wight how much rent they pay for their council owned stadium (I don't believe there are any other tracks that rent their stadiums direct from a council). I think allowing them to purchase it over a lengthy period is a double edged sword, simply because of how much the repayments will be. If they are the reported £10k a month, that's a very hefty amount and while they will actually own it outright after 25 years (apparently) that's a fair millstone around their necks in the meantime. Certainly, profits from BSPA or FIM meetings should be reasonably shared amongst all other promotions and I know for a fact that they are shared, at least to a degree and it would be untrue to suggest that just because Belle Vue hold the meetings they get all the proceeds. As I say, I have never heard a complaint from a member of the BSPA about the allocation of big meetings, which suggests they are all perfectly happy with how that is arranged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 (edited) No I haven`t - He`s talking about your post. I suggest you re-read it. His bottom three sentances.. Big deal. But to make accusations that Antons signing is crooked is a little bit beyond the pale. Whether you like it or not he has no proof. So shouldn't say it. Edited November 5, 2016 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Just allowing a club who have managed to get their mitts on a large pile of dosh to call themselves the National anything is surely just a bit of a nonsense? Which is what some said all along. In fairness it might have been done to persuade MCC and others to fund the scheme, but unless it's co-owned or co-run by the BSPA then there's nothing national about it at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 The whole thing was rushed through and the keys to the stadium given to a promotion that was already on the edge of bankruptcy. Total madness. So this is fact then? I don't have a balance sheet but owing one rider 20k!! Can you imagine the rest of the debt involved before they moved into NSS. Council have said that rental payments were defered until track was sorted but no rent was paid at all after that, so where have all the monies received gone? Paying off previous debts and 'wages' it would seem'. Mort seems to have been stiffed by DG who has now 'done one' to save his credibility to be a company director. 'rat sinking ship'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.