Belle Vue National Stadium

[Humphrey Appleby]

Some folk on here should remember - Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Not so much in this case. A number of observers on here were questioning the arrangements with the council long before the stadium was built, and some of the problems were entirely predictable given the way the project management was set-up.

 

It's quite sad that something that should have been a rare triumph for speedway has ended in disaster for the promoters, but hopefully the sport will still be able reap the benefits. However, you can't overlook some of the serious mistakes that proved costly.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Humphrey Appleby

[Grand Central]

Some folk on here should remember - Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Daft old cliche.

Totally inapplicable in this case.

[Grand Central]

I've just read the Speedway Star's coverage of David Gordon's version of events.

 

MCC's spokeman says that they do not accept Mr Gordon's versions of events.

 

That is the sum total of where we still are.

[waytogo28]

DG/CM have said themselves that they accepted the handing over of the NSS against their own legal advice. That was always going to mean that having signed a contract to accept the stadium as it was at that point, means that you have to accept any defects ( seen or unseen ). You are committed at that point and your money is at risk as the contract proffered from the MCC side was no doubt legally watertight. Yes, walking away would have seemed totally unpalatable but DG /CM but the time to negotiate and tweak any contract is before you sign it. Any later appeal process of any perceived rights for wrongs is a separate and likely lengthy process ( as is now happening we are led to believe ). The law is applied in a formal manner and the moral rights and wrongs do not have much influence over the outcome.

 

We now seem to be in a similar situation re the new promoters negotiating those finer points of who is responsible for what costwise BEFORE they sign up and then become responsible for being responsible for fulfilling the terms of the lease. If that is being done in a businesslike manner we may still see a helpful outcome and racing this season around the NSS track. If a new agreement is not reached there will be no roar of bikes there.

[MattK]

DG/CM have said themselves that they accepted the handing over of the NSS against their own legal advice. That was always going to mean that having signed a contract to accept the stadium as it was at that point, means that you have to accept any defects ( seen or unseen ). You are committed at that point and your money is at risk as the contract proffered from the MCC side was no doubt legally watertight. Yes, walking away would have seemed totally unpalatable but DG /CM but the time to negotiate and tweak any contract is before you sign it. Any later appeal process of any perceived rights for wrongs is a separate and likely lengthy process ( as is now happening we are led to believe ). The law is applied in a formal manner and the moral rights and wrongs do not have much influence over the outcome.

 

We now seem to be in a similar situation re the new promoters negotiating those finer points of who is responsible for what costwise BEFORE they sign up and then become responsible for being responsible for fulfilling the terms of the lease. If that is being done in a businesslike manner we may still see a helpful outcome and racing this season around the NSS track. If a new agreement is not reached there will be no roar of bikes there.

 

Where does it say they accepted the stadium? The article states "the stadium was never signed off as it was not completed and fit for purpose" and that "it was agreed with MCC that the stadium would be occupied by BVA under licence agreement that was renewed monthly".

[Grand Central]

Lol!

 

What did you expect the council to say?

 

"Yes, that's about right. Sorry for your trouble, will £2million cover it?"

 

I expected slightly more than just David Gordon's sole voice.

Yet again.

 

This article is just a prettied up version of the ugly creature released online several days ago. Nothing more.

It covers just a very narrow band of ground and discusses none of the myriad of issues surrounding the 2016 debacle that have excercised so many here.

 

No quotes, opinion or information from any other named voice actually invlved, other that DG's, is included.

Be it corroborative or contradictory.

Total silence from Morton, Carswell, Meredith, Lemon, Bridgett, Reeve, Chapman, BSI or any rider or other creditor.

Nor is a single probing question asked of the man. Just his 'statement' is transcribed.

 

We have moved three-eigths of an inch further in our understanding.

There is obviously much more to come.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch]

Definitely be buying a copy as I've been waiting for the councils view.

An in depth rebuke, point by point of the allegations from Belle Vue will go a long way to ending this sorry tale.

There's always two sides and the Aces have put thee case quite forcibly so to see each issue dealt with by the council could be quite scathing of the Aces management.

[Aces51]

We know from Philip Rising's comments on here that MCC have had this statement for more than sufficient time to make a detailed response if they so wished. Nobody can force them to comment and they knew that if they didn't only one side of the story would be published. We also know from Philip Rising that, in his opinion, all of the facts put forward by David Gordon are supported by documentary evidence.

 

Now that the article has been published anybody who was involved and disagrees with anything said can come forward with their evidence. We shall see if anybody does.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Aces51

[waytogo28]

My earlier comment was prior to reading the SS. However in that SS copy DG said that the then promotion accepted a monthly Lease to Rent which included clauses and demands they knew they could not manage to cope with. Never a good idea. DG also says they never received an invoice or request for rent - but that must have formed part of the Rental Lease, otherwise there was no contract of any kind. At least DG admitted that they made a number of mistakes and poor decisions which contributed to the collapse of the promotion. All of the long list of other things ( except for turns 3/4 ) are almost irrelevant because any new build property is going to have such a list of minor problems. Why has CM chosen not to stand by the facts DG is putting forward? Does he have another version of what happened? I don't think - on the information that we have before us now - that the DG claim against MCC has any chance of succeeding.

[Fromafar]

The thing I don't understand is why Gordon & Co. fell out so badly over the fault of a third party.More to this than meets the eye.!!.Clearly the faults in the build would be settled in favour of both parties .

[SCB]

350k a year rent. That was never viable. Thats about £17,000 a meeting or roughly 1000 full paying adults. It doesn't matter who runs BV speedway, 350k a year rent is madness.

[The White Knight]

I know this is an odd question - but - how long before we hear whether Belle Vue coe to the Tapes this year? I am thinking of Rider availability. Not long now until the start of the new Season - will all of the better Rider be signed up by someone else?

[Tsunami]

I know this is an odd question - but - how long before we hear whether Belle Vue coe to the Tapes this year? I am thinking of Rider availability. Not long now until the start of the new Season - will all of the better Rider be signed up by someone else?

Already been announced that the team will be announced next Thursday, on the BV thread Ian.

[The White Knight]

Already been announced that the team will be announced next Thursday, on the BV thread Ian.

Thanks Dave I have been on the Belle Vue Thread and Posted on it - I never got a notification though. :unsure:

 

Ooops!!

 

It is now 2017 - I was thinking about the 2016 Thread. DOH!!!!!

Edited February 16, 2017 by The White Knight

[Halifaxtiger]

I appreciate your lack of understanding, it has been apparent through this and other Belle Vue related threads.

 

If nobody else is prepared to comment, other than "MCC's spokeman says that they do not accept Mr Gordon's versions of events." that's tough, well it is for the little anti DG gang of four(ish) who have based everything on their own made up version of events save for a tweet from 'havvy'.

 

The leaked account was pretty much chapter and verse. To be fair I'd heard most of it before, rather than bleating about what I didn't know I went to the trouble of finding out what had happened. Try it, you might surprise yourself?

 

I agree with GC up to a point because it simply isn't a case of 'nobody else is prepared to comment'.

 

It carries David Gordon's view and says that MCC disagree with him but they won't say why. So, of all the players in this basically two have had their say and the rest haven't been asked.

 

Crucially, that includes the BSPA & SCB because they are accused of some pretty underhand tactics. It could also have included Gordon Pairman (whose bid was rejected), Alan Bridgett(who inspected the track) and even the real culprits, ISG.

 

Having said that, I found it informative and given the documentary evidence have little doubt that David Gordon's view is substantially the truth. It'll be interesting to see the council's report on the subject when (and indeed if) it is published.

[New Science]

Just read the Speedway Star report on the Belle Vue issues. I'm also disappointed that similar to the Greg Hancock incident in Melbourne we have an article / investigation with one sole voice referenced. The only other reference of the opening night events I've read are those of the clerk of the course for that evening which have been posted on this forum.The 2 versions of events {DG and clerk of course} seem to contradict each other a little. Dave Gordon says "During Saturday 19th March final preparations for the meeting continued and the weather during the day was fine and sunny.But as it turned cold in the evening dampness was drawn up from the sub base which we now know contained a substantial amount of sealed in water ,and up into the shale which made the surface on turns three and four softer and more inconsistent than the rest of the track.

The clerk of the course said " I arrived at 10 am, it was mentioned to me that turns 3 and 4 was not as compact as they would have liked. I walked the track with meeting referee Graham Flint at 1 pm .We walked anti clockwise from bends 1 and the track was very firm until bend 3.At this point although the top layer was dry the track was not completely solid.It seemed there was softer material below the visible track surface.

This seems to indicate that the track was soft on bends 3 and 4 before lunch on the day of the meeting which DG describes as"fine and sunny" and not a result it "turning cold in the evening" as DG describes.

Manchester Evening News quoted "After a few practise laps the riders raised concerns over the 3rd and 4th corners complaining it was too soft"

Yet again with a Speedway Star article / investigation on one of speedway's unfortunate events and you can include Greg Hancock / Gelsenkirsen / Warsaw they are not prepared to ask any difficult questions , just report established facts and one persons testimony

[orion]

As we suspected the piece by Phil Rising is as normal sticking up for his long time chum Dave Gordon . He been an apologist for him since as long as we have known ..lots of things miss out and no questions asked on key matters as yet again the speedway star scores another own goal due to self interest of the editor .

 

Another sad but expected day for speedway .

[Halifaxtiger]

 

Daft old cliche.

Totally inapplicable in this case.

 

I don't recall anyone questioning or being critical before the opening night (although I went over about a month before hand and suggested they needed to get a move on). There's a large chunk of this thread missing for some reason, but not one post questions anything up to July 2015.

 

What is clear is that Manchester Council were paying for construction, Belle Vue were not (as such Aces51's analogy of first tenant is almost spot on (the difference being that the tenants had nowhere else to go)). That means that the Aces rights of demanding what should or should not be done were small at best. According to Phil the Ace, Colin Meredith was asked to leave the site by ISG and I have no doubt that he could have been forced.

 

So, its clear that Belle Vue were being prevented from ensuring that the construction was up to scratch and had very little rights in auditing or inspecting the work.

 

Given that that was the case, what should they have done ? Staying at Kirky Land was a non starter, even for part of a season. The only other option (other than moving in) was closure, with the possibility that the stadium would then be taken over by others and speedway booted out for good.

 

So, in a nutshell, what one or two would have done in David Gordon and Chris Morton's shoes is shut the Aces down - quite possibly for a very long time - when they were on the verge of achieving something that was, quite literally, a dream come true and which they had been constantly assured would be completed on time and as per specification.

 

I can just imagine how that would have been perceived by the speedway world.

 

In this case, 'hindsight is a wonderful thing' is neither daft nor inapplicable.

 

As we suspected the piece by Phil Rising is as normal sticking up for his long time chum Dave Gordon . He been an apologist for him since as long as we have known ..lots of things miss out and no questions asked on key matters as yet again the speedway star scores another own goal due to self interest of the editor .

 

Another sad but expected day for speedway .

 

That's harsh.

 

As I have said, I agree with GC's point that Speedy Star could have had more input into the article from others who were involved. But you simply won't get a balanced report if one party to the dispute refuses to comment.

 

If it comes across as an exercise in vindicating David Gordon, that's not Speedy Star's fault.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Halifaxtiger

[Lord Skid]

On one side we have one of largest Council's in the Land with all the Legal resources you could wish for, and on the other side we have Del Boy and Rodney, with the BSPA and the SS in their corner, now let's see which side come out on top, I know who my money would be on.

[Aces51]

The BSPA in their corner? Have you read the article?