Belle Vue 2016

[Notenoughnerve]

No I didn't but I'm not the one defending the promoters !

Ask those who went if they felt conned ?

I'd say letting 5,000 people into a stadium for a meeting due to take place on what the promoters knew was an unsatisfactory track is a con

I went. I had already purchased a ticket in advance (as had all the crowd), so I'm not sure what difference opening the gates made.I drank a few beers, had a very tasty burger, had a chat with plenty of people. My ticket will get me into the rearranged meeting, so I don't feel conned. OH, just for clarity, I got the train over from Huddersfield and then the bus down Hyde Rd. I don't feel conned the club haven't offered to reimburse me for that either.

It was disappointing on the night mind.

 

This arena will be here for years to come and it will be a great place to watch Speedway. Without it, Belle Vue would probably have closed now. It will be good for the Aces and British Speedway, now quit all the whinging. And gloating ffs.

[orion]

Its amazing all these new members seem to be pro Belle Vue Mangerment ....it's like there the same person .

[Notenoughnerve]

Its amazing all these new members seem to be pro Belle Vue Mangerment ....it's like there the same person .

Good grief

Its amazing all these new members seem to be pro Belle Vue Mangerment ....it's like there the same person .

Good grief

[colin wood]

I didn't travel far to the opening meeting I actually went by bus.Of course I don't have proof the promoters new the track was unfit same as you can't prove they did.We can both agree that a massive cock up was made I just don't think it was a con.I originally thought that the opening meeting was too early but if the wrong materials were used on the sub base then the problems would only have appeared further down the line. I am no more in the know than you are.

[OveFundinFan]

Its amazing all these new members seem to be pro Belle Vue Mangerment ....it's like there the same person .

 

Would you like to substantiate your statement with some facts?

 

I have just got my tickets to a show at my local theatre. It states that all I am entitled to if the show is cancelled is the face value of the ticket. No compensation for travelling, food, hotels etc. No compensation for the ticket processing fee (admin to process the tickets and sending through the post). And these terms are general and accepted when tickets are issued to any organised event.

[colin wood]

Didn't Swindon run a farewell to Blunsdon meeting and then start again in the same stadium.Is that not a con?

[A ORLOV]

 

Would you like to substantiate your statement with some facts?

 

I have just got my tickets to a show at my local theatre. It states that all I am entitled to if the show is cancelled is the face value of the ticket. No compensation for travelling, food, hotels etc. No compensation for the ticket processing fee (admin to process the tickets and sending through the post). And these terms are general and accepted when tickets are issued to any organised event.

That may be what they say or the ticket says, but a lawyer might advise that if the cancellation is due to negligence an individual has a right to sue for all the costs for the negligence.

 

Many organisations put disclaimers out but they are not worth the paper they are written on. Look at all the problems about buying faulty goods at a shop and demanding a refund rather than either no refund or a credit note. My daughter when she was young was refused her money back for a faulty item she had bought but when I went in I demanded and got the refund.

Edited April 16, 2016 by A ORLOV

[orion]

 

Would you like to substantiate your statement with some facts?

 

I have just got my tickets to a show at my local theatre. It states that all I am entitled to if the show is cancelled is the face value of the ticket. No compensation for travelling, food, hotels etc. No compensation for the ticket processing fee (admin to process the tickets and sending through the post). And these terms are general and accepted when tickets are issued to any organised event.

Sorry what has that got to do with point about new posters ....I never said anything about what is written on the back of any tickets etc

Edited April 16, 2016 by orion

[ouch]

That may be what they say or the ticket says, but a lawyer might advise that if the cancellation is due to negligence an individual has a right to sue for all the costs for the negligence.

 

Many organisations put disclaimers out but they are not worth the paper they are written on. Look at all the problems about buying faulty goods at a shop and demanding a refund rather than either no refund or a credit note. My daughter when she was young was refused her money back for a faulty item she had bought but when I went in I demanded and got the refund.

Plus travel expenses?

It gets me every time you come on the forum there are people moaning about incompetent promoters who are conning people and not getting the new stadium up and running when promised.

 

You even get some moaning about Belle Vue and the NSS.

[orion]

Didn't Swindon run a farewell to Blunsdon meeting and then start again in the same stadium.Is that not a con?

Yea it was ...what has that got to do with Belle Vue ?

Edited April 16, 2016 by orion

[Aces51]

Instead of all of these continuing allegations perhaps some people need to consider objectively what we now know about what has happened

 

The facts are that we now know that the problem with the track is and always has been the base on the 3rd and 4th bends, which was not constructed in accordance with the specification. We know it is a fault that was hidden under the surface and therefore not obvious to those inspecting the track and we know that the track can be ok, even after extensive practice but that cold or inclement weather can then cause problems to appear which could not be forseen or anticipated. We know this because of what happened before the Leicester meeting. On the Wednesday before the match on the Friday the track came through an extensive practice session ok but then late on the Thursday water had risen to the surface on those bends and was flowing down the track.

 

Going back now to the PCMM meeting, the situation on the Friday prior to the meeting was that two riders tested the track and it was OK. Even the Chairman of the SCB grudgingly admitted after their investigation that on the Friday the track looked as if it would just come right for the Saturday. We know that the track looked ok on the Saturday, we know that the riders were not paying undue attention to those bends during their track inspection, which they would have done if the problems were visible and as obvious as some must believe. We also know that the SCB referee, who had control of the meeting from 2 hours before start time, did not call off the meeting, which he would have to have done if the track was visibly unsafe.

 

This all clearly points to the fact that there was no reason to believe on the Friday and during the day on Saturday that the track was not raceable and that the meeting should be postponed.

 

It was the cold inclement weather on the Saturday which caused the track to become unsafe,just as it did on the Thursday before the Leicester match but at that time nobody knew about the defective base.

 

On a different aspect, I can understand why some are pointing out that Colin Meredith should have, supervised, overseen, advised, on the track build and should now do so with the repairs. As has been said many times, the MCC are in charge of this project, Belle Vue cannot insist or demand anything. The Council are aware of Colin's expertise but only they can decide if they wish to utilise his skills.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Aces51

[racers and royals]

Yea it was ...what has that got to do with Belle Vue ?

It`s the old saying - 2 cons don`t make a right

[Aces51]

It`s the old saying - 2 cons don`t make a right

 

I don't think either was a con but there is another old saying about people who live in glass houses.

[stevebrum]

This all clearly points to the fact that there was no reason to believe on the Friday and during the day on Saturday that the track was not raceable

Yet how come a lot of the riders due to race on that Saturday were rumouring the track wouldn't be ready to race on, and that proved to be clearly true?

 

Not having a go as trying to establish facts is important.

[PHILIPRISING]

Instead of all of these continuing allegations perhaps some people need to consider objectively what we now know about what has happened

 

The facts are that we now know that the problem with the track is and always has been the base on the 3rd and 4th bends, which was not constructed in accordance with the specification. We know it is a fault that was hidden under the surface and therefore not obvious to those inspecting the track and we know that the track can be ok, even after extensive practice but that cold or inclement weather can then cause problems to appear which could not be forseen or anticipated. We know this because of what happened before the Leicester meeting. On the Wednesday before the match on the Friday the track came through an extensive practice session ok but then late on the Thursday water had risen to the surface on those bends and was flowing down the track.

 

Going back now to the PCMM meeting, the situation on the Friday prior to the meeting was that two riders tested the track and it was OK. Even the Chairman of the SCB grudgingly admitted after their investigation that on the Friday the track looked as if it would just come right for the Saturday. We know that the track looked ok on the Saturday, we know that the riders were not paying undue attention to those bends during their track inspection, which they would have done if the problems were visible and as obvious as some must believe. We also know that the SCB referee, who had control of the meeting from 2 hours before start time, did not call off the meeting, which he would have to have done if the track was visibly unsafe.

 

This all clearly points to the fact that there was no reason to believe on the Friday and during the day on Saturday that the track was not raceable and that the meeting should be postponed.

 

It was the cold inclement weather on the Saturday which caused the track to become unsafe,just as it did on the Thursday before the Leicester match but at that time nobody knew about the defective base.

 

On a different aspect, I can understand why some are pointing out that Colin Meredith should have, supervised, overseen, advised, on the track build and should now do so with the repairs. As has been said many times, the MCC are in charge of this project, Belle Vue cannot insist or demand anything. The Council are aware of Colin's expertise but only they can decide if they wish to utilise his skills.

WELL put... there might also be a suspicion that the contractors used 'any old rubbish' when it came to lay the sub base of turns 3/4 whereas for the rest of the track proper material had been used. That has come back to haunt them and at least they know that if they use the same material as for the rest of the track, which is still being described as 'fantastic' by those who had ridden it, a solution cannot be far away.

 

The clock is ticking of course and much will depend on the weather but one would imagine Sky will want to see firm evidence that it is 100 per cent before committing themselves to April 27.

[racers and royals]

WELL put... there might also be a suspicion that the contractors used 'any old rubbish' when it came to lay the sub base of turns 3/4 whereas for the rest of the track proper material had been used. That has come back to haunt them and at least they know that if they use the same material as for the rest of the track, which is still being described as 'fantastic' by those who had ridden it, a solution cannot be far away.

 

The clock is ticking of course and much will depend on the weather but one would imagine Sky will want to see firm evidence that it is 100 per cent before committing themselves to April 27.

Did they do turns 3 and 4 in the middle of the night when no one was around ??

[PHILIPRISING]

Did they do turns 3 and 4 in the middle of the night when no one was around ??

VERY cynical Tim ... obviously the contractors felt that it would be okay, we are not talking about a Mickey Mouse outfit (look at the development as a whole)) and that what they used would be okay.

[bigcatdiary]

Yet how come a lot of the riders due to race on that Saturday were rumouring the track wouldn't be ready to race on, and that proved to be clearly true?

Not having a go as trying to establish facts is important.

To be fair I was made aware of possible problems with the track in the week leading up to the meeting so it clearly wasn't something that just arose on the day.

[orion]

, we are not talking about a Mickey Mouse outfit

When we are talking Belle Vue

 

 

This all clearly points to the fact that there was no reason to believe on the Friday and during the day on Saturday that the track was not raceable and that the meeting should be postponed.

 

 

Quite clearly they don't ...it was out of the bag there were problems with the track long before Saturday ..riders knew havy knew etc .....Gordon knew that as well but took a gamble and it never came off

[Shale Searcher]

VERY cynical Tim ... obviously the contractors felt that it would be okay, we are not talking about a Mickey Mouse outfit (look at the development as a whole)) and that what they used would be okay.

That's probably not far from the truth!!

 

As the track and surrounds were being built/laid, the associated rubble/rubbish is dragged along on the uncompleteted track until they got to the last section, bend 3 & 4, they were probably running out of the recommended track substrate and literally ran out, and also buried the "rubble" under the shale on 3 and 4, and that could be the underlying problem, pardon the pun!

Edited April 16, 2016 by Shale Searcher