Grand Central Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Hey, it's not 'what I would like' to be published. I just read in DGs words more than he perhaps really suggested. So OK he has no new information that that has not already been published. That's fine. And fair enough I take all those points on the wording used and just what is really meant by them; as opposed to the inferences they intend people to make. Perhaps wrongly. All very clever. By all. That is what PR is for. The reality is that the 'compensation' due to BVA remains dependent on the outcome of those confidential negotiations. That the liquidators, not DG, will have with parties that do not agree with each other and neither do with BVA over the 'material' issue. I could say that we await the outcome of that. But we will never know. Edited March 10, 2017 by Grand Central Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.V 72 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Hey, it's not 'what I would like' to be published. I just read in DGs words more than he perhaps really suggested. So OK he has no new information that that has not already been published. That's fine. And fair enough I take all those points on the wording used and just what is really meant by them; as opposed to the inferences they intend people to make. Perhaps wrongly. All very clever. By all. That is what PR is for. The reality is that the 'compensation' due to BVA remains dependent on the outcome of those confidential negotiations. That the liquidators, not DG, will have with parties that do not agree with each other and neither do with BVA over the 'material' issue. I could say that we await the outcome of that. But we will never know. 124 pages of comments re what happened who is to blame etc most from people with a far better education than me.But your last sentence sums it all up and is what i thought all along we will never know. The past is the past and the only thing that really matters to most fans is what happens now, a new promotion is willing to try and keep Belle vue speedway running.To keep the club running they have to make it pay and to do that they need every Belle vue fan to turn up for as many meetings as they can.So they are doing their part but the future of the club is really down to the fans if we turn up in numbers every week the club should survive if not its bye bye.The bottom line is we need to show them we want speedway in Manchester and turn up in numbers for every meeting but do enougth people want it ? ask me again in October. Edited March 10, 2017 by B.V 72 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish McRaker Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 If you compare Kirky Lane to a 2-bedroom terrace house, and the occupants are on low-to-average wages. Those occupants decide they want to move to a brand new 5-bedroom detached house, but without any certainty about having increased wages, and just when they come to move in theyrealise the plumbing's been done all wrong and have to go and live at an hotel for a couple of months while its being put right, but the landlord says oh no were not paying you any compo cos its the plumbers fault, nothing to do with us and anyway you knew the plumbing was dodgy. I think BV would have been far better if instead of going for a 5-bed detached, they'd had a couple of 3-bed semis built, occupied one of them and rented the other one out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 If you compare Kirky Lane to a 2-bedroom terrace house, and the occupants are on low-to-average wages. Those occupants decide they want to move to a brand new 5-bedroom detached house, but without any certainty about having increased wages, and just when they come to move in theyrealise the plumbing's been done all wrong and have to go and live at an hotel for a couple of months while its being put right, but the landlord says oh no were not paying you any compo cos its the plumbers fault, nothing to do with us and anyway you knew the plumbing was dodgy. I think BV would have been far better if instead of going for a 5-bed detached, they'd had a couple of 3-bed semis built, occupied one of them and rented the other one out. I can't agree with that. We have a beautiful new Stadium and probably the Country's best Track. Yes - there have been problems - but in the end British Speedway will, hopefully, benefit to a tremendous extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish McRaker Posted March 12, 2017 Report Share Posted March 12, 2017 I can't agree with that. We have a beautiful new Stadium and probably the Country's best Track. Yes - there have been problems - but in the end British Speedway will, hopefully, benefit to a tremendous extent. A very good track, good stadium, and high rent. I hope the new Aces ownership don't fly too near the sun on wings fixed with wax, avoid nasty cases of rising damp, and find the landlords don't act like Rigsby again. Not all that convinced about the "wider benefit" angle though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil The Ace Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 The new owners have got the stadium much much cheaper per year than the last promoters 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Nice little article in The Star this week by regular guest columnist David Gordon. Good to hear his version of events at last as they have been so poorly covered in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OveFundinFan Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 Didnt he give his version in the big spread a few weeks ago in Feb 18th Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted March 16, 2017 Report Share Posted March 16, 2017 I think Grand Central was being facetious. The latest article by Philip Rising in the SS is in response to the report submitted to MCC and quotes what David Gordon told the Manchester Evening News. However, he wants time to digest the 16 page council report before making a detailed response. The article comments on some of the details of the MCC report, which is published in full in Speedway Xtra for those who have not read it on the Council website. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 More whitewash from his SS pals for DG. When he fails to get any compensation from anyone the SS will not be mentioning the matter at all. Just poor judgement and seemingly little business sense. Did Chris Morton never have a say in how it was run up to the point where their license was revoked? That seems to be how he prefers it to be seen now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 This is what was needed for Belle Vue...... http://www.moto2x2.com/en/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OveFundinFan Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 Seriously, I dont think the BV track on the opening night was THAT bad. I reckon those riders at the PCMemorial have ridden worse tracks before AND since that night. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 What does the article say? As Philip Rising has been such a staunch ally of the David Gordon cause. The least you could do was pay £2.90 for the magazine itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted March 17, 2017 Report Share Posted March 17, 2017 What does the article say? Scratch that. I've just realised it was you who read last months ss article about Belle Vue and then, for some reason, significantly misrepresented it on here. I'll wait until I read it for myself. I have never misrepresented anything on here - I leave that to you. I merely ( or was that clearly ) offered an opinion after reading the facts as put forward. Unless the forum moderators and their pals no longer want opinions expressed on here I will continue to come to my own conclusions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Well you did post this It doesn't say that. Thanks anyway. At least we've got the councils side, all that's missing is Mr prompt and decisive's err... 10% worth. Oh Dear Fred, you are behind the times yet again. The statement you portray me as posting from the most recent SS article ( i.e. inc. the MCC point of view ) is in fact from DG's own first attempt at spreading the whitewash ( as helped by SS ) Are you sure that you have now read both of the articles in question? I am beginning to believe that you are DG and are determined to face up to the facts of what DG and CM did during 2016 season ( and the build up to it ). You are never prepared tp put your money where your mouth is Fred. I bet one pound for each member of the crowd at the Glasgow Bonanza ( £1,200 ) to the SRBF that DG / CM DO NOT get the compensation they claim they are owed £600,000 plus . Are you prepared to bet the other way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner85 Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Get a life !! Continual sniping between various so called experts on this thread. Fact.... MCC and Belle Vue Speedway 2016 are not blameless. Truth or fiction from both sides ??? I am sure there are facts that have not come to light yet and may never come to light. Let's get on with 2017 and hopefully BV will have a long stay at the NSS. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Behind the times? I asked you what the latest article said and then noticed it was you who misrepresented the Belle Vue article last month. That is the only article I've noticed you misrepresenting. If you commented on the MCC article I would have ignored you. I saw the comment yesterday and asked what the article said before I realised who I was asking, doh! You still answered though and said you hadn't misrepresent the article, so I posted just one of your misrepresentations. I know which article you misrepresented, that's why I'm not interested in what you have to say about any other articles. Sorry for your trouble. As for your bet, originally you said I wouldn't be surprised if the "provision for loss of income while the track was being reinstated" was more than £1 but you're okay because it was rejected. Just to be clear, if the council offer say £71,000, (just a number off the top of my head) and it is rejected, you don't have to pay the ben fund? I'm not sure how you intend to prove it one way or another but yes, in principle I accept your bet, any compensation in excess of £1 and you pay the Ben fund. I know you posted that you "don't feel that I need to approach Buster Chapman / the BSPA or MCC" but is there another way to find out? Be warned, if you ask 'buster' he might want 10% for his trouble though. Do keep up Fred. My original bet still stands and I will will pay the £100 to the Ben Fund if more than £1 is paid. The NEW bet stated today and only valid if you openly committ yourself to matching it, is for £1,200 to be paid to the Ben Fund if the full claimed compensation DG/CM claims IS paid to them. Let's call that £650,000 . Just to be clear, as you often sound confused, If DG /CM DO NOT receive at least £650,000 - then you pay £1.200 to the Ben Fund. Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is? We can easily firm this challenge up by private messaging and another poster who we both trust can be the in between. You are certain that DG/CM are the innocent victims and I am certain that they were inept and out of their depth as well as being responsible for the whole mess. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Do keep up Fred. My original bet still stands and I will will pay the £100 to the Ben Fund if more than £1 is paid. The NEW bet stated today and only valid if you openly committ yourself to matching it, is for £1,200 to be paid to the Ben Fund if the full claimed compensation DG/CM claims IS paid to them. Let's call that £650,000 . Just to be clear, as you often sound confused, If DG /CM DO NOT receive at least £650,000 - then you pay £1.200 to the Ben Fund. Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is? We can easily firm this challenge up by private messaging and another poster who we both trust can be the in between. You are certain that DG/CM are the innocent victims and I am certain that they were inept and out of their depth as well as being responsible for the whole mess. Accept the bet Fred - look closely he pays GBP1,200 (note the comma) you pay GBP1.200 (note the decimal point) PS I'm not taking sides just pointing out the rules set for the bet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Avoid waytogo28, he's a previously banned fool. I think he's Mocking you. LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waytogo28 Posted March 18, 2017 Report Share Posted March 18, 2017 Avoid waytogo28, he's a previously banned fool. I think he's Mocking you. LOL. Unlike you ouch I am neither a fool nor a previously banned one ( is that nickname of yours chosen because you have previously been banned & more than once? ) Oh! I've just sent him a pm as well. Wow Fred - and your advice was to trust someone like "ouch" with our wager funds ( or was it only my money )? And as for your Hargreaves Landsdown suggestion that from what I gleaner when Googling them is about as trustworthy as ouch! See below m - But if as an investor the growth of your money is all you care about, there is now scant justification for choosing Hargreaves Lansdown as your fund supermarket. That's why this matters. - Ouch! 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.