Belle Vue National Stadium

[Grand Central]

To come up with their excuse about the track after all this time with all their resources shows how desperate MCC truly are.

"It wasn't me Gov, honest."

 

You are right to question this.

Surely David Gordon had this excuse under copywrite ?

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch]

"£350,000 rent to be paid from the operator."

 

"The Council has a claim for £224,000 in respect of unpaid rent."

 

"£126,000 has been incurred in legal and consultancy fees associated with the remediation of the track and subsequent legal claims."

 

 

"There were no costs to the City Council in respect of remedying the defects."

Edited March 7, 2017 by ouch

[Grand Central]

So... The rent was £350,000 per annum so the pro rata outstanding for the tenure from early March to end October would work out to be £224,000 remains unpaid and may need to be written off. The April Pay Less notice showed significant fees that the council had incurred at that point for other services and these have now risen to £126,000. But ISG did remedy the defects to the track without extra cost to the council.

 

Am I close ?

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[Rob B]

Extra document been added regards reinstalling terracing and toilets etc on south side.

 

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/22854/14_belle_vue_speedway_update_exemption_from_call-in_of_the_decisions

[PHILIPRISING]

HAVEN'T had a chance to fully digest the document yet but still many unanswered questions on both sides including what happened to the £690,000 MCC didn't pay to ISG.

[Grand Central]

HAVEN'T had a chance to fully digest the document yet but still many unanswered questions on both sides including what happened to the £690,000 MCC didn't pay to ISG.

.

Phil ... Look at point 3.9.

That has not been resolved yet.

You only had sight of the Payless notice NOT the final position on that.

To my mind that was a central flaw in your article that I have raised here many times.

 

And when it is settled we will know nothing.

It will be between ISG', MCC and the liquidators. And secret.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[PHILIPRISING]

IF the council were to release the ARUP report it might prove interesting.

 

We did ask MCC on several occasions what happened to the £690,000 but they wouldn't comment.

[Grand Central]

We did ask MCC on several occasions what happened to the £690,000 but they wouldn't comment.

 

I am not doubting you did.

But I imagine they were as surprisied as me that you do not undertand what happens in these situations.

 

The Pay Less notice was MCC's opening salvo in their attempt to reduce the amount they pay ISG.

They went in with the highest figures available which were BVA's loss assessors report plus all the various fees listed.

And withheld that total amount from the payment made then.

 

BUT THAT WOULD NEVER BE THE END POSITION.

Despite it being represented in print as such.

 

The Council do not have a unilateral right to set the terms in that way.

ISG would get loss adjusters and other professionals to attempt reduce the council's figures.

And, eventually, a negotiated 'reduction' to the ISG bill will be agreed and BVA would get a much smaller compenstaion figure than their loss assesor came up with.

 

Now, of course it is ISG, MCC and BVA liquidators that are to negotiate this out, not BVA themselves.

I would imagine that will result in the eventual figure arriving in the BVA account and available to creditors to be smaller still

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch]

"And withheld that total amount from the payment made then."

 

I'm taking from this you think it's in an MCC account awaiting the outcome of legal action between ISG and MCC.

 

To queer the pitch further though in a press release dated 04/11/2016 an ISG spokesman stated,

We can confirm that there has never been any form of legal dispute between ISG and Manchester City Council as a result of the stadiums delivery, and we continue to work closely with the council delivering projects across the region.

[Grand Central]

"And withheld that total amount from the payment made then."

 

I'm taking from this you think it's in an MCC account awaiting the outcome of legal action between ISG and MCC.

 

To queer the pitch further though in a press release dated 04/11/2016 an ISG spokesman stated,

We can confirm that there has never been any form of legal dispute between ISG and Manchester City Council as a result of the stadiums delivery, and we continue to work closely with the council delivering projects across the region.

 

No not at all.

I actually think that point 3.9 in todays MCC report is probably accurate as to the situation.

 

" In July 2016 BV Arena Ltd submitted a claim against the City Council under

the commercial agreements for their alleged losses purported to be due to the

failure of the track. They did not pursue a claim against the contractor under

the collateral warranty. Discussions were instigated by the City Council with

ISG to resolve all issues in relation to the works and a confidential settlement

is still being negotiated with ISG and the liquidators of the Belle Vue Group of

Companies which is subject of an offer to the liquidator. "

[pugwash]

Have I read that rent figure correctly? £350k pa?

 

 

"£350,000 rent to be paid from the operator."

 

"The Council has a claim for £224,000 in respect of unpaid rent."

 

"£126,000 has been incurred in legal and consultancy fees associated with the remediation of the track and subsequent legal claims."

 

 

"There were no costs to the City Council in respect of remedying the defects."

 

 

So... The rent was £350,000 per annum so the pro rata outstanding for the tenure from early March to end October would work out to be £224,000 remains unpaid and may need to be written off. The April Pay Less notice showed significant fees that the council had incurred at that point for other services and these have now risen to £126,000. But ISG did remedy the defects to the track without extra cost to the council.

 

Am I close ?

How can any promotion hope to be able to pay that sort of rent? it's suicidal.

Going to need 1000 thro' the gate at £18 for 20 meetings just to pay the rent.

[waiheke1]

I assume a significant portion of revenue was expected to come from non speedway activities, which is alluded to in the report.

As the remaining 800 fans (say 15k of revenue) are surely not going to cover all the other costs (including wages for away meetings), even allowing for sky money and other sponsorship revenue?

[ouch]

 

No not at all.

I actually think that point 3.9 in todays MCC report is probably accurate as to the situation.

 

" In July 2016 BV Arena Ltd submitted a claim against the City Council under

the commercial agreements for their alleged losses purported to be due to the

failure of the track. They did not pursue a claim against the contractor under

the collateral warranty. Discussions were instigated by the City Council with

ISG to resolve all issues in relation to the works and a confidential settlement

is still being negotiated with ISG and the liquidators of the Belle Vue Group of

Companies which is subject of an offer to the liquidator. "

Ok.

MCC withheld it but it's not in their account.

ISG don't have it as it's still being secrectly discussed.

Belle Vue don't have.

So where is it?

[Rob B]

 

 

 

 

How can any promotion hope to be able to pay that sort of rent? it's suicidal.

Going to need 1000 thro' the gate at £18 for 20 meetings just to pay the rent.

 

Its not just speedway though, that's rent for the stadium, they can use the stadium 7 days a week for other activities if they want, already a local American Football team is renting the pitch and other locals clubs use the pitches too, they need to make full use of the suite facilities too

[ouch]

With regards to the MCC report a scrutiny process will take place with answers to the questions posed by the report being dealt with in May.

[Hamish McRaker]

Looks like MCC went into arse-covering mode from the moment the "missing" 500k was discovered. BV Ltd's fate was pretty much sealed from then onward.

How convenient, that the 696k withheld from payment from MCC to ISG equals the amount that BV's advisers claim was lost due to the track & stadium shortcomings!

How much of this will actually be recovered by BV Ltd's liquidators? And out of that, how much will go into the liquidators pockets for their services? Quite a bit! They're the only winners out of this sorry tale.

 

Seems like DG&CM just got out of their depth, then got shafted by Rice & Southwell, then by MCC. But probably not without reason as they decided to protect their own backsides first. The report says that loud and clear I think.

[Guest]

It sounds like Rice and Southwell were wise in pulling out their planned investment. Not sure why it took DG and CM months to inform the council of this news though, or not to inform MCC about the EIS.

 

I do feel for DG and CM though. Clearly out of their depth but passionate about the Aces.

[uk_martin]

 

No not at all.

I actually think that point 3.9 in todays MCC report is probably accurate as to the situation.

 

" In July 2016 BV Arena Ltd submitted a claim against the City Council under

the commercial agreements for their alleged losses purported to be due to the

failure of the track. They did not pursue a claim against the contractor under

the collateral warranty. Discussions were instigated by the City Council with

ISG to resolve all issues in relation to the works and a confidential settlement

is still being negotiated with ISG and the liquidators of the Belle Vue Group of

Companies which is subject of an offer to the liquidator. "

 

By all means BV could submit a claim, but that's not to say that they are in the right nor that they will win the claim and receive compensation.

 

MCC could well point out that BV were knowlegeable of the fact that the materials being used on the 3rd & 4th bends were "different", and they did not inform MCC of this fact. In other words, BV took the risk and on their heads be it.

Have I read that rent figure correctly? £350k pa?

 

Now you can see where some Belle Vue fans think of speedway as a £10 sport. £350K split over roughly 35 meetings (NL included) is £10,000 per meeting. Assuming an average crowd of 1,000 per meeting (NL included) and bingo - £10 per person. But as has been said, that's just for the rent.

 

No wonder MCC have conceided that the annual rent is going to be under review this year. Even they will see that there is no hope of any business model being able to afford £350,000.

 

And BIG thanks to the Council Tax payers of Manchester for stumping up the huge losses in the City's finances, with the probable write-off's of the debts not to mention the costs of providing additionial seating for extra non-existent fans who MCC have been hoodwinked into believing will turn up once the extra seating is fitted.

[Grand Central]

Interesting to watch the Executive Committee meeting this morning on their webcast.

 

Whole thing lasted just a few minutes on this item.

Richard Leese ... Called this a salvage job; where almost all problems were down to the previous franchisees who let MCC down badly (a brief throwaway that partly the contractors were at fault). The new franchisees he saw as far better placed to succeed.

Eddie Smith ... Confirmed that the report would go before a scrutiny committee in May.

The only councillor to speak ... Asked for more oversight of the new franchisee as the problems of last year could have been mitigated if more was known at the time.

Sir Howard Bernstein agreed that the new people were credible and much better placed to make a go of things this year.

 

One specific point that I had not fully picked up on in the report was made very clear by Sir Howard.

That is that Bellvue 2017 ONLY have the Speedway franchise for the NSS.

They have NOT been given a lease on the Stadium as a whole.

MCC are to work with them this year on just working out whether a business plan can be made viable for them GETTING the lease in 12 months.

 

All very interesting

Edited March 8, 2017 by Grand Central

[Rob B]

Interesting to watch the Executive Committee meeting this morning on their webcast.

 

Whole thing lasted just a few minutes on this item.

Richard Leese ... Called this a salvage job; where almost all problems were down to the previous franchisees who let MCC down badly (a brief throwaway that partly the contractors were at fault). The new franchisees he saw as far better placed to succeed.

Eddie Smith ... Confirmed that the report would go before a scrutiny committee in May.

The only councillor to speak ... Asked for more oversight of the new franchisee as the problems of last year could have been mitigated if more was known at the time.

Sir Howard Bernstein agreed that the new people were credible and much better placed to make a go of things this year.

 

One specific point that I had not fully picked up on in the report was made very clear by Sir Howard.

That is that Bellvue 2017 ONLY have the Speedway franchise for the NSS.

They have NOT been given a lease on the Stadium as a whole.

MCC are to work with them this year on just working out whether a business plan can be made viable for them GETTING the lease in 12 months.

 

All very interesting

Are you sure that was said? My understanding is they are running the stadium too, 5)/5/ why they brought Adrian Smith in to run it as CEO, Mark Lemon is in charge of the speedway club.