Belle Vue National Stadium

[arnieg]

Polarisation is clearly the factor that governs on here wether posters are able to contain themselves to a sensible debate ( where opinions naturally vary enormously ) to a personalised slanging match where rational thought goes out of the window. Clearly DG was liable to be paying something for his use of the NSS ( he did use it to run speedway matches ) and must have known that withholding agreed rent was not going to be accepted either by MCC or the BSPA ( bringing the BSPA into disrepute ). He clearly "lost it" with MCC when his target for litigation should have been ISG and not MCC. Withholding operational payments was never going to solve the problem in the short term. I applaud the BSPA's efforts to get 2017 operational speedway ( and beyond). I remain concerned that as yet we seem nowhere near to having the new promotion confirmed as signing a new lease to make that happen.

I think your first sentence is fair comment, but the bit in bold is simply wrong in law. There was (as I understand it) no contractual relationship between BV2016 (DG &CM) and ISG, therefore no basis in law to take action. MCC were the contractors therefore only they could sue ISG, while BV2016 would have a right of action in contract law against MCC for failure to provide what they had contracted for. MCC could counterclaim for unpaid rent but that wouldn't absolve them of their liability to BV2016 for failing to provide a track that was fit for purpose.

 

It is difficult to pass judgment on the role of the BSPA (or indeed the SCB) without a clearer understanding of what exactly that entailed.

[Buttons]

As always when this sort of thing happens we will never know the full story

[orion]

 

 

Comments about whether the opening meeting should or should not have gone ahead are to a certain extent irreverent. Sooner or later the faults with turns 3/4 would have manifested themselves and this sorry saga would have taken off anyway.

 

As for some of orion's personal comments about me: I barely knew David Gordon before embarking on this project although I have obviously known Chris Morton for donkey's years. Unlike David, Chris wanted to keep a low profile because he hopes to have a continuing role at BV and I sincerely hope that he does.

 

And, incidentally, I have not been editor of Speedway Star for over 20 years.

More guff .. It's not irreverent about the meeting going ahead even Gordon understands that was major factor in Belle vues problems this year ..yet again you ignore that there were problems with 3rd and 4th bends from the outset and the clerk course has already there were problems ever before nightfall on the day of the meeting ...to keep saying the track ok and then there was only a problem with the 3rd and 4th bend because of the drop the temp dropping is a lie it had been there from the outset .

 

Chris has nothing to do with Dave Gordons take on the Belle Vue story last year because of most of it is just a lie

[waiheke1]

Polarisation is clearly the factor that governs on here wether posters are able to contain themselves to a sensible debate ( where opinions naturally vary enormously ) to a personalised slanging match where rational thought goes out of the window. Clearly DG was liable to be paying something for his use of the NSS ( he did use it to run speedway matches ) and must have known that withholding agreed rent was not going to be accepted either by MCC or the BSPA ( bringing the BSPA into disrepute ). He clearly "lost it" with MCC when his target for litigation should have been ISG and not MCC. Withholding operational payments was never going to solve the problem in the short term. I applaud the BSPA's efforts to get 2017 operational speedway ( and beyond). I remain concerned that as yet we seem nowhere near to having the new promotion confirmed as signing a new lease to make that happen.

On the contrary, I'd say witholding payments was the only leverage the promoters have.

If we were to deliver a defective network to our customers and they be claiming LDs from us (while knowing that we were claiming LDs from the sub con at fsult) I would be amazed if they continued to pay for the network until the issue was resolved.

I'd also suggest that given the hit to their cash flow, the promoters may have been in no position to pay the council even if they did want to.

[waytogo28]

Why, when you use the word 'clearly' in one of your posts is it followed by something you've incorrectly made up?

Is it my first clearly which annoys you or the subsequent ones?. Lets call them a) & c). As I began with clearly a) how can that be something I made up? There are polarised views within speedway about whose fault this mess is over the use of the NSSS for speedway e.g. Yourself and me FF. I am firmly in the camp that believes DG and CM shot themselves in the foot or should that be feet. In clearly DG did use the NSS to put on speedway matches - a matter of fact and not something I made up. And everyone knows you have to pay rent of some kind unless you own the property. In clearly c) DG himself in the SSS article said he 'lost it" ( he used the words "often confrontational" ) so I did not make that up unless in his way of doing business, when things got "stressful" DG has also become confused about who said what to whom and about what things. DG also said " they (MCC ) lost faith in us and we lost trust in them". Game over at finding a workable compromise I would say. It will be years before the dust is finally settled and I may be dead by then but I am prepared to bet £100 ( to be donated to the Riders Benevolent Fund ) if DG ever receives substantial compensation ( let's call "substantial " more than £1 ).

[OveFundinFan]

Just been to Tesco get my copy of this weeks Speedway Star.... anyone in the Frodsham/Helsby area.... still a couple SS left on the shelf at Tesco in Helsby.

 

Its clear to me that the loss assesor on April 11th calculated the loss to BV was £696,782, stating "do not underestimate the damage this has done to your business. Interesting that on 29th April MCC issued a "Pay Less Notice" to ICG showing an amount which included that exact amount £696,782. MCC - why did you not pay that compensation to BV. That sum, if paid to BV, would probably have changed the whole situation as far as BV were concerned. As Dave Gordon stated "our cash flow was shot to pieces and we never recovered. It was a complete disaster". The complete mesh was due to ICG cutting corners on the rush to get out of the stadium. The fact the excavated waste from turn 3-4 was to left at the stadium for further examination disappeared is criminal. Removing evidence. Its no wonder BV held back from paying rent, MCC was holding onto £696,782 of compensation money..... thats almost 2 years rent !

 

We still need MCC side of the events, and also something needs to be forthcoming as to what BSPA/SCB were up to.

[waiheke1]

If the 700k figure includes lost income for the Aces promotion, I would be absolutely amazed if the sub-contractors contract with the council allows the council to claim this off them.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the contract only allows the council to claim losses the council incurred, which if the council left the Aces promoters to front all the xtra costs, would probably be limited to the lost lease payments ove rhte period the stadium was unavailable - say 3 months worth? I very much doubt the council contract with Godron/Mort contained a clause allowing them to claim LDs off the council in the event the stadium was not ready in time, and in turn I would expect this to preclude any legitimate claim from the council to the sub-con.

[OveFundinFan]

If the 700k figure includes lost income for the Aces promotion, I would be absolutely amazed if the sub-contractors contract with the council allows the council to claim this off them.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the contract only allows the council to claim losses the council incurred, which if the council left the Aces promoters to front all the xtra costs, would probably be limited to the lost lease payments ove rhte period the stadium was unavailable - say 3 months worth? I very much doubt the council contract with Godron/Mort contained a clause allowing them to claim LDs off the council in the event the stadium was not ready in time, and in turn I would expect this to preclude any legitimate claim from the council to the sub-con.

The actual "Pay Less Notice" was drawn up by Turner & Townsend Cost Management Ltd and it included another £100,000 for Additional Professional Fees incurred by the Employer (MCC) to ARUP (£20k), Turner & Townsend (£20k), Pinsent Masons (MCC Legal Advisor) (£40k), MCC Property (£15) and MCC Legals (£5k). Would be interesting to know if 5 other "businesses" were paid but not BV for the loss of £696,782.

[waiheke1]

Good to know. Those would all seem to be direct costs incurred by MCC as a result of the delays. I'd expect direct costs to MCC to be built into the sub contractor cost.

But my point is I'd be amazed if MCC contract allowed for mort and Gordon yo claim for lost revenue. In which case MCC could not claim it as a cost they were liable for as a result of the sub contractor delays.

[waytogo28]

The most surprising thing about some posters such as Fred Flange is that THEY clearly KNOW what other posters meant in their posts. Such talented folks should be doing important jobs such as running the country or at least running BV speedway in a professional manner. I clearly know what I meant in that DG apparently defaulted on the month by month agreement he and others made for the use of the NSS in 2016. I clearly meant that this style of business was completely unappreciated by the BSPA and they told him so in the only way they could " your licence as a promoter is revoked". I believe that clearly most people posting on here understand that "polarisation" when referring to opinions means widely varied and probably holding opposite views. Is that "daft" the use of what used to be called "O" level English. The factual points in my posts refer to facts as stated by DG in the SS article ( if they are true ). My credibility is supported by the facts DG offered to the world via the SS. What is daft is holding a fixed opinion on something you have not even read - now that is beyond daft.

[PHILIPRISING]

So either Manchester City Council

 

a] extracted £690k from ISG that represented losses to their tenant (BV speedway) which they failed to pass on to the injured party; or

 

b] having presented ISG with the claim they failed to extract the money from them.

 

Either way it doesn't paint MCC in a flattering light, and in either case the withholding of rent by DG & CM seems a proportionate response.

 

The politics of this is potentially tricky. On the one hand there is the desire to expose MCC's shortcomings, on the other their is the need to get them to let the stadium to BV 2017. Ultimately the council (or more precisely the senior officers involved) will go for the solution that leaves them with the smallest possible quantum of blame, and that is certainly not a derelict and unlet site.

 

Whether DG & CM get the compensation that is warranted is (I'm afraid to say) very much of an unknown.

FOR the record, and as per MCC's own documents, they didn't 'extract' the money from ISG they didn't pay them in the first place.

More guff .. It's not irreverent about the meeting going ahead even Gordon understands that was major factor in Belle vues problems this year ..yet again you ignore that there were problems with 3rd and 4th bends from the outset and the clerk course has already there were problems ever before nightfall on the day of the meeting ...to keep saying the track ok and then there was only a problem with the 3rd and 4th bend because of the drop the temp dropping is a lie it had been there from the outset .

 

Chris has nothing to do with Dave Gordons take on the Belle Vue story last year because of most of it is just a lie

YOU are obviously intransigent in your view regarding opening night, despite firm evidence to the contrary, but what else is a lie?

 

And you know for a fact that Chris Morton has "nothing to do with David Gordon's take?" I don't think so.

[New Science]

I HAVE said all along that it would be for people to make up their own minds and I stand by that. But, for a moment, ignore all the words and what David Gordon had to say, and just look at the two documents we published.

 

The one from MCC to !SG (12/4/16) states quite clearly the faults with the sub-base at the track, that inferior materials were used and the remedial work that was required. It also stipulated that the removed material should be kept for examination. It wasn't. Why? No prizes for guessing.

 

The other document underlines the dis-satisfaction of MCC with ISG because they withheld around £700,000 in payment because of the track defaults and the losses incurred by Belle Vue (Gordon and Morton).

 

We asked MCC what happened to that money and why nothing was offered to Gordon and Morton in compensation as they were the ones who suffered the financial hardship that ensued and subsequently caused them to run up the operating bills that they did. MCC did not reply.

 

Comments about whether the opening meeting should or should not have gone ahead are to a certain extent irreverent. Sooner or later the faults with turns 3/4 would have manifested themselves and this sorry saga would have taken off anyway.

 

As for some of orion's personal comments about me: I barely knew David Gordon before embarking on this project although I have obviously known Chris Morton for donkey's years. Unlike David, Chris wanted to keep a low profile because he hopes to have a continuing role at BV and I sincerely hope that he does.

 

And, incidentally, I have not been editor of Speedway Star for over 20 years.

Comments about whether the opening night should have gone ahead are "irrelevant" to you because your magazine does not want to ask any awkward questions, as usual. Lots of fans were seriously out of pocket that night, so when major speedway meetings are called off at the last minute not due to inclement weather, then it should be investigated and the detail and sequence of events becomes important.. I know that there is a lot of good will in speedway but I'm sure many of your readers would prefer to know who actually knew what and when that night ?

[PHILIPRISING]

I SAID it was irrelevant in the context that the faults with the track would have surfaced, literally, anyway.

 

If you read my comments in SS immediately after the cancelled opening night you might have a different view.

 

But, subsequently, we have gone through what went wrong. Whether you believe it not is entirely up to you.

 

We have asked the questions but apparently you don't like the answers. That is your choice.

[Halifaxtiger]

FOR the record, and as per MCC's own documents, they didn't 'extract' the money from ISG they didn't pay them in the first place.

YOU are obviously intransigent in your view regarding opening night, despite firm evidence to the contrary, but what else is a lie?

 

And you know for a fact that Chris Morton has "nothing to do with David Gordon's take?" I don't think so.

 

I'd ignore him the way he is ignoring my point - because he can't answer it - about your asking MCC for their views.

 

Is there any reason why you didn't approach the BSPA ?

 

David Gordon's allegation of underhand action, while little to do with the construction, is a pretty strong one.

[waytogo28]

I suspect that we are boring other posters here Fred Flange with what seems to have become exactly what I think is the worst aspect of this forum. Your's is the fixed opinion that I am referring to. You said that you have not even read the SS article ( which seems to want to exonerate DG ). If you have not read it I am surprised that you could even form an opinion on any part of the issue - unless your view is what you "clearly" believe. Or are you DG himself? If you read the document from which the article was supposedly formed ( is that the one on Facebook?) then I can see where your rant over the word "clearly" comes from because very little in that was clear. You may be very close to the inner circle of the ex BV promotion but I have formed my opinion from what I have read about it in the SS and what other posters have said on here. Joined up thinking. Just as you have ( of course without reading the SS article ). We have a here, clearly, a perfect example of polarised points of view over an issue of public interest.

You ask for clarification on the "agreement" ( which I did mistakenly refer to as a Monthly Lease to Rent and for which I apologise ) In the SS article ( that you have not yet read ) DG himself calls it - and I quote " It was agreed with MCC that the stadium would be occupied by BVA under a licence agreement that was renewed monthly" From the horses mouth that Fred - perhaps it was missing form the document you read and was popped in to the SS article at the last moment? I have not seen that document " the monthly licence agreement " but I bet another £100 that it includes something very clear about the renumeration MCC expected for granting the licence. If you have a copy of that "monthly licence agreement" please do publish it to satisfy the interested speedway fans nationwide. Or please ask DG or CM or Philip Rising and in the interests of truth it can be brought into the public arena.

[nw42]

I suspect that we are boring other posters here Fred Flange with what seems to have become exactly what I think is the worst aspect of this forum.

 

 

Well you got that bit right.

[New Science]

I SAID it was irrelevant in the context that the faults with the track would have surfaced, literally, anyway.

 

If you read my comments in SS immediately after the cancelled opening night you might have a different view.

 

But, subsequently, we have gone through what went wrong. Whether you believe it not is entirely up to you.

 

We have asked the questions but apparently you don't like the answers. That is your choice.

I think its a case of journalism is not dead but just not very well.

I am not a journalist , all Ive done is compare the 2 written published accounts of what happened on opening night and said they contradict each other. Nothing more. As for me not liking the answers ,I couldn't find the questions. Your 4 page spread does not contain one question mark.

As much as I enjoy reading Speedway Star every week when in comes to investigating the sports less favourable issues, the pretext seems to be to print a testimony of one person's version of events and accept it as the truth. Unfortunately normally your choice of to give chapter and verse is the person who is trying to save their own backside be that Dave Gordon,Greg Hancock, Ole Olsen or B.S.I. etc. etc

I know the sport has been at a low ebb for a while now and these events do it no favours but there seems a reluctance to dig in these matters "for the good of the sport" and simply move on. Unfortunately it does the magazine and its readers no credit.

[Lord Skid]

To employ Riders, knowing full well that you have no intention of paying them is totally wrong, even more so when one of them is an ex Rider of high standing, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a Speedway track, along with the Leicester and Coventry Promoters.

[orion]

FOR the record, and as per MCC's own documents, they didn't 'extract' the money from ISG they didn't pay them in the first place.

YOU are obviously intransigent in your view regarding opening night, despite firm evidence to the contrary, but what else is a lie?

 

And you know for a fact that Chris Morton has "nothing to do with David Gordon's take?" I don't think so.

Morton had been in the local paper saying so ...being a man of print I am shocked you miss it ....but just for you , http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/other-sport/speedway/belle-vue-aces-chris-morton-12139248

[waytogo28]

Dear Fred Flange ( if you are not FF you may prefer to skip this post as I have been assured the exchange between FF and myself is boring )

 

So Fred you do occupy a privileged place in the matter of the NSS 2016 debacle.

 

You wrote "I haven't compared the document on facebook to the one I have, I do know that the version I have is the one which formed the basis of the ss article. That is why I was keen to clarify why, according to your post, the ss article was so different." So clearly a third version of this evidence does exist! Rather like versions of the truth!

 

You also wrote " Had the ss article included those three paragraphs then you would have been able to better understand the nature of the agreement and in particular why no rent was demanded or due or, and this is the crucial bit 'no licence fee or service fee during our occupation of the stadium.'" And what seems to tell us clearly is that the SS was very selective in their choice of documents that they possess or chose to print. Smoke and mirrors journalism at it's best.

 

If you could tell me how to get sight of the missing document " a licence agreement to operate monthly" I would happily be bothered to hunt it down and publish on here. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Sincerely.

 

I don't feel that I need to approach Buster Chapman / the BSPA or MCC as there is clearly a reason why they have not offered comments so far. The revoking of the DG /CM promoting licence says all they need to say . Has DG taken legal action with that decision or is it because he could not prove himself competent in order to refute their decision. As for MCC they also clearly, as indicated by their inaction, believe that they have no case to defend as the onus is on DG / CM to win their legal case against MCC.

 

Only time will tell if I need to pay my bets to the Riders Benevolent Fund and I am happy to wait for the eventual outcome, assuming that DG does not withdraw from his legal actions.