Belle Vue National Stadium

[Stoke Potter]

Not sure where to put this but I guess here's as good as anywhere.

I sent my tickets for the Peter craven Meeting back to Belle Vue towards the end of last season for a refund.

Unsurprisingly I never got any response or refund.

I have recently contected Belle Vue via email to ask how I can attend this years meeting and explaining that I sent my tickets back, etc.

I have not had response via email either!

So how do I get replacement tickets or my refund?!!

Edited March 25, 2017 by Stoke Potter

[Guest]

Not sure where to put this but I guess here's as good as anywhere.

I sent my tickets for the Peter craven Meeting back to Belle Vue towards the end of last season for a refund.

Unsurprisingly I never got any response or refund.

I have recently contected Belle Vue via email to ask how I can attend this years meeting and explaining that I sent my tickets back, etc.

I have not had response via email either!

So how did I get replacement tickets or my refund?!!

 

My sympathies all the way Stoke Potter! But you indicate that you did get replacement tickets/refund> All the same, I hope you do get this sorted out to your satisfaction.

[Stoke Potter]

 

My sympathies all the way Stoke Potter! But you indicate that you did get replacement tickets/refund> All the same, I hope you do get this sorted out to your satisfaction.

Sorry, edited. You know what I meant.

[waytogo28]

Not sure where to put this but I guess here's as good as anywhere.

I sent my tickets for the Peter craven Meeting back to Belle Vue towards the end of last season for a refund.

Unsurprisingly I never got any response or refund.

I have recently contected Belle Vue via email to ask how I can attend this years meeting and explaining that I sent my tickets back, etc.

I have not had response via email either!

So how do I get replacement tickets or my refund?!!

 

Doesn't seem to me much better managed this year than last! After BVAL were removed as promoters it must have been the BSPA? And Now in 2017 "under new management" IF it is? Running the same titled event, who Is organising things about speedway racing at the NSS?

[OveFundinFan]

Not sure where to put this but I guess here's as good as anywhere.

I sent my tickets for the Peter craven Meeting back to Belle Vue towards the end of last season for a refund.

Unsurprisingly I never got any response or refund.

I have recently contected Belle Vue via email to ask how I can attend this years meeting and explaining that I sent my tickets back, etc.

I have not had response via email either!

So how do I get replacement tickets or my refund?!!

I presume the tickets were numbered. Did you take photocopies before you sent the tickets.

Last night was a practice night at BV with free admission to viewing, and someone was at the office kiosk sorting out PC Mem ticket exchange/refunds, so they are doing something about it.

[Aces51]

Stoke Potter, I hope you can appreciate that the new promotion have been in place for only 5 weeks and have had many issues to sort out to get the stadium and teams ready for the new season in that short period of time. The new promotion did not have to honour the outstanding tickets for the Peter Craven meeting but have decided to do so. The contact email addresses for everyone at Belle Vue are on the website. I do not know which address you sent your email to or when you sent it but I would suggest you send another email to the CEO, Adrian Smith. I know that people have been getting replies but that some have not. The ticket office was opened last weekend specifically for people to exchange their tickets and that was advertised on the official website but I can understand that may not have been helpful to you. I hope you are able to get it sorted out.

[Stoke Potter]

Thank you for the replies, much appreciated.

I do have photos of the tickets. I sent my mail to info@bellevueaces.co, I'll try Adrian Smith's email and see what happens.

I'm not local to Belle Vue so it's not really practical for me to go there just to collect tickets beforehand.

I realise the new promotion did not have to honour those tickets but as they are doing I'd like to go along and sample what I believe to be the best Speedway Track in the country.

[OveFundinFan]

Thank you for the replies, much appreciated.

I do have photos of the tickets. I sent my mail to info@bellevueaces.co, I'll try Adrian Smith's email and see what happens.

I'm not local to Belle Vue so it's not really practical for me to go there just to collect tickets beforehand.

I realise the new promotion did not have to honour those tickets but as they are doing I'd like to go along and sample what I believe to be the best Speedway Track in the country.

Seeing is believing, and when you see the racing you will believe it IS the best speedway track in the country. Enjoy, and I hope you get your tickets sorted.

[mikec]

I went down to the stadium last Saturday, to get an exchange for my unused Peter Craven Meeting ticket.

 

I saw people there who, like you, had sent their tickets in last year. The staff there had a large A4 box file containing letters (with tickets/photocopies attached). All those people were due to have received a refund cheque from the previous BV company in October last year, sometime around Oct 10th. It would seem that none of those refunds happened. Hopefully your letter will be in there, however they do have some computer records from last year's ticket sales too.

 

In short, if you wish to exchange, they can action that for you. If you want a cash refund from the previous promotion however, I believe that you shall need to chase this with the liquidator dealing with the previous BV group of companies.

 

Like Aces51 has suggested, I would definitely email Adrian Smith about it directly. A good friend of mine emailed him at 9pm on a Thursday & had a response from him before 10pm the same evening!

[arnieg]

Response from Manchester City Council:

 

(most of this repeats the comments of the 8 March Exec report - the paras in bold are the bits that look to add to what they have already said. Italics are my comments)

 

 

Dear Councillor

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your email earlier and certainly prior to Executive. I can offer no other explanation other than this was simply overlooked. [My observation - not replying in a timely manner - this is a dead give away that the council are on the defensive]

As you are aware, the document you were sent was prepared for and published by the "Speedway Star".

The Report to Executive on 8th March 2017 was the Council's response to the speedway star article and set out the proposals to take the new speedway franchise and speedway stadium forward to ensure the future of the historic aces club. It was hoped that the report would clarify any queries so far as it is possible to do so within the confines of the confidentiality of certain aspects of this matter at this present time.

However, you will no doubt be aware of the further articles published by the Manchester Evening News following Executive, in particular in relationship to the track defects and the pay less notice.

Whilst the Council was the employer under the building contract, the preparation of the track was being managed by BVA and their track curator due to their expertise in this area. BVA was fully involved in all works to the track. Their track curator was involved throughout the construction process and worked closely with the building contractor, ISG, providing advice and guidance in relation to the track itself.

BVA raised issues with the track sub base at turns 3 and 4 on 17th March 2016 (2 days prior to the Grand Opening Event). The track was tested by BVA riders in the afternoon of the grand opening event. On an initial review of the track it was acknowledged by BVA, the track curator and the Council that there were 'soft spots'. However, it is understood that agreement was reached between BVA and the track curator that these issues could be addressed and that the track would be suitable for racing at the opening event.

We understand that on 18th March 2016 the speedway track was signed off as fit for racing by the Speedway Control Board and that on 19th March 2016 the Clerk of the Course declared the track fit for racing. However, in a series of practice laps immediately before the opening event the riders determined that the track at turns 3 and 4 was too soft and that it was unsafe to ride on. This unfortunately resulted in the late cancellation of the opening event.

The Council only became aware of the use of alternative material following the track issues on the opening event and the commissioning of a report in April 2016, although we now understand the owners of BVA were aware of the proposals to use alternative material. The alternative material was not specified in the building contract nor was it approved as a change by the Council.

With regard to the "pay less" notice, the Council received notification from BVA of their intention to recover loss and expense as a result of the cancelled meeting arising from the track defect, The Council, through recognised contract mechanisms, issued the notice in order to protect its position and reserve its right to recover any losses from the Contractor should they be substantiated in due course.

The Council does not accept liability for the track issues. However, due to holding certain information the disclosure of which would or would be likely to prejudice our commercial interest, has been obtained in the contemplation of litigation and information which has been provided in confidence, we are having to strike a very fine balance of our usual goal of transparency and on this occasion protecting the wider interests of the Council while we facilitate a settlement between the parties. [intriguing]

The Chair of Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee has asked for a further report to be presented to that Committee setting out in further detail the material facts. Once we have reached a settlement between the parties, we will consider sharing further material facts in respect of this matter. [they will 'consider' sharing - he's an elected member, he's entitled to know!]

I am more than happy to discuss with you the Executive report and the articles in more detail should you wish to do so.

[racers and royals]

Am i going mad or were we being continually told that Belle Vue speedway were not allowed to oversee the actual track part of the stadium during the build ?? The council are now saying the complete opposite !!

[waytogo28]

"Whilst the Council was the employer under the building contract, the preparation of the track was being managed by BVA and their track curator due to their expertise in this area. BVA was fully involved in all works to the track. Their track curator was involved throughout the construction process and worked closely with the building contractor, ISG, providing advice and guidance in relation to the track itself. "

 

Oh! More revelations about who did what, under who's direction. Now we know who had the necessary expertise in the area of track building. And now we know, it certainly shines more light on what went on in the building of the track at the NSS.

[Gambo]

"Whilst the Council was the employer under the building contract, the preparation of the track was being managed by BVA and their track curator due to their expertise in this area. BVA was fully involved in all works to the track. Their track curator was involved throughout the construction process and worked closely with the building contractor, ISG, providing advice and guidance in relation to the track itself. "

 

Oh! More revelations about who did what, under who's direction. Now we know who had the necessary expertise in the area of track building. And now we know, it certainly shines more light on what went on in the building of the track at the NSS.

I think the former Track Curator would totally disagree with this point!

[Daniel Smith]

I think the former Track Curator would totally disagree with this point!

 

The MCC are being very clever putting certain information in the public domain.

Most certainly on the advice of their legal team.

 

Putting out there publicly that BVA & the track curator was involved with the track build, seeing as this is a major part of the legal loss recovery, it now becomes BVA's responsible to prove otherwise.

[PHILIPRISING]

 

The MCC are being very clever putting certain information in the public domain.

Most certainly on the advice of their legal team.

 

Putting out there publicly that BVA & the track curator was involved with the track build, seeing as this is a major part of the legal loss recovery, it now becomes BVA's responsible to prove otherwise.

MCC haven't actually said that the BV promotion were aware of the material used for the sub-base on turns three and four.

 

They did, however, as per the April 12th document sent to ISG, insist that the material should be left on site when it was dug up. It wasn't and 'mysteriously' disappeared who knows where.

[Daniel Smith]

MCC haven't actually said that the BV promotion were aware of the material used for the sub-base on turns three and four.

 

They don't need to. Just the fact that BVA and the track curator being in dialogue during the track build cover their backside.

 

They did, however, as per the April 12th document sent to ISG, insist that the material should be left on site when it was dug up. It wasn't and 'mysteriously' disappeared who knows where.

 

So, you can make that look a number of ways.

1. ISG removed it without anyone else knowing
2. MCC advised ISG to remove it but that would make no sense as the MCC required it as evidence to claim against ISG
3. BVA advised ISG to remove the material ASAP as they were getting extremely desperate to get the season under way after the opening night balls-up

Issue is, it requires somebody to admit they gave authority but everyone is blaming somebody else.

 

This is where it's at right now

MCC could/have claimed compensation against ISG which is the correct process being they're the ones spending the big bucks

BVA are looking to claim losses/damages against MCC predominantly due to the issue with the track, to which caused BVA to loss income revenue.

 

What the MCC have done is state BVA, as track specialists, were in dialogue with ISG over the track build.

 

In law, for BVA to be successful in claiming loss of revenue from MCC they now have to prove they WERE NOT involved in the build of the track.

[PHILIPRISING]

 

They don't need to. Just the fact that BVA and the track curator being in dialogue during the track build cover their backside.

 

 

So, you can make that look a number of ways.

1. ISG removed it without anyone else knowing
2. MCC advised ISG to remove it but that would make no sense as the MCC required it as evidence to claim against ISG
3. BVA advised ISG to remove the material ASAP as they were getting extremely desperate to get the season under way after the opening night balls-up

Issue is, it requires somebody to admit they gave authority but everyone is blaming somebody else.

 

This is where it's at right now

MCC could/have claimed compensation against ISG which is the correct process being they're the ones spending the big bucks

BVA are looking to claim losses/damages against MCC predominantly due to the issue with the track, to which caused BVA to loss income revenue.

 

What the MCC have done is state BVA, as track specialists, were in dialogue with ISG over the track build.

 

In law, for BVA to be successful in claiming loss of revenue from MCC they now have to prove they WERE NOT involved in the build of the track.

YOUR last line is the most relevant. MCC are correct in.saying that Gordon and Morton were responsible for the track along with the safety fence. But, what we are really talking about is the track surface, not what lay beneath it which was, of course, the root of the problem.

 

It would help if MCC released the Arup report, which they still refuse to do so. Why?

[Grand Central]

" BVA raised issues with the track sub base at turns 3 and 4 on 17th March 2016 (2 days prior to the Grand Opening Event)."

 

I haven't heard that specfic claim before.

 

Not that BVA just had an issue with 'the track', on two turns.

But with the sub base itself.

Two days BEFORE the GOM event.

 

I thought the sub-base issue was only revealed to BVA in the days following the GOM when the 'test holes' were dug.

 

I notice that MCC do NOT say in what form was this 'raised' by BVA and, more particularly, with whom?

Edited March 28, 2017 by Grand Central

[Vince]

I think that's just clever use of wording by the council to muddy the issue.

 

Sounds like a brickie being held responsible for the footings collapsing to me.

 

If somebody is contracted to supply a base built to a certain standard and using specific materials and when you check it out all looks fine then you would be right to assume they had delivered what was agreed. If things later change because that, now hidden, base is unsatisfactory it can hardly be the fault of the track curator who specialises in the shale surface.

[Daniel Smith]

I think that's just clever use of wording by the council to muddy the issue.

 

Sounds like a brickie being held responsible for the footings collapsing to me.

 

If somebody is contracted to supply a base built to a certain standard and using specific materials and when you check it out all looks fine then you would be right to assume they had delivered what was agreed. If things later change because that, now hidden, base is unsatisfactory it can hardly be the fault of the track curator who specialises in the shale surface.

 

It's either muddying the waters or fact.

Either way, what the MCC have done is put it in BVA's court to prove that they were involved in the track build.

If BVA can't prove they wasn't involved in the track build the legal case for losses will collapse.

It's as simple as that.

The whole case is about BVA recovering losses which predominantly is all around track issues.

MCC have obviously got something in hand to cover themselves.