Belle Vue 2016

[A ORLOV]

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

Seems to be the case

[Starman2006]

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.

Doesn't mean nish Phil if they cannot get it right and it becomes an ongoing issue.. A bit like Cardiffs track a couple of years ago springs to mind...

Edited April 16, 2016 by Starman2006

[Little Nicki]

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.

 

So we are now being told that it is down to the materials used in the sub-soil base under bend 3, that the correct materials were used on bends 1 & 2, but not on bends 3 & 4, and that it is down to the cold weather rather than the rain, as the drainage system is working but that water is seeping up from the sub-soil.

 

There was obviously an element of the completion of the project being rushed, but we are told that the time-frame wasn't the issue, the use of incorrect materials is. Looking at the images made available on this forum a few weeks prior to the GOM, it was obvious it was going to be rushed and that the elements, snow, cold weather and rain would not assist in this.

 

But the project wasn't started only a few weeks before the date of the GOM, was it? The project has been on-going for years. Materials would have been agreed on, ordered and delivered weeks in advance. Are we to believe that no-one, be it the Belle Vue management, track curator, Council, whoever, did not ensure that the correct materials were in place and checked off?

 

Maybe not 'Mickey Mouse', but not very professional and with, at least, elements of Donald *uck, Goofy and Droopy.

[Starman2006]

 

 

So we are now being told that it is down to the materials used in the sub-soil base under bend 3, that the correct materials were used on bends 1 & 2, but not on bends 3 & 4, and that it is down to the cold weather rather than the rain, as the drainage system is working but that water is seeping up from the sub-soil.

 

There was obviously an element of the completion of the project being rushed, but we are told that the time-frame wasn't the issue, the use of incorrect materials is. Looking at the images made available on this forum a few weeks prior to the GOM, it was obvious it was going to be rushed and that the elements, snow, cold weather and rain would not assist in this.

 

But the project wasn't started only a few weeks before the date of the GOM, was it? The project has been on-going for years. Materials would have been agreed on, ordered and delivered weeks in advance. Are we to believe that no-one, be it the Belle Vue management, track curator, Council, whoever, did not ensure that the correct materials were in place and checked off?

 

Maybe not 'Mickey Mouse', but not very professional and with, at least, elements of Donald *uck, Goofy and Droopy.

 

Good post. But don't you mean very un-professional ?

[Aces51]

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.

There were problems with the track and as a result a lot of work was done on the track surface culminating in the practice on the Friday when it seemed to be ok.

 

No doubt some riders were aware of the problems but apparently not of the situation as it was on that Friday evening. Rumours did circulate but those I saw blamed the problems on the track not having had sufficient time to bed in. As we now know the problems were nothing to do with that, so the riders conclusions that it should be called off were based on reasonable but wrong assumptions. It therfore follows that the fact it was postponed but for entirely different reasons doesn't in any way indicate that someone knew beforehand what did eventually happened.

 

It's like me saying a match at King's Lynn is going to be called of because of rain but when it is postponed because of a blown fuse, claiming I knew beforehand it would be off.

[stevebrum]

There were problems with the track and as a result a lot of work was done on the track surface culminating in the practice on the Friday when it seemed to be ok.

 

No doubt some riders were aware of the problems but apparently not of the situation as it was on that Friday evening. Rumours did circulate but those I saw blamed the problems on the track not having had sufficient time to bed in. As we now know the problems were nothing to do with that, so the riders conclusions that it should be called off were based on reasonable but wrong assumptions. It therfore follows that the fact it was postponed but for entirely different reasons doesn't in any way indicate that someone knew beforehand what did eventually happened.

 

It's like me saying a match at King's Lynn is going to be called of because of rain but when it is postponed because of a blown fuse, claiming I knew beforehand it would be off.

 

True, although the 'reasonable but wrong assumptions ' turned out to be correct in that the rumour was the track wouldn't be raceable and it wasn't!

[Aces51]

 

 

So we are now being told that it is down to the materials used in the sub-soil base under bend 3, that the correct materials were used on bends 1 & 2, but not on bends 3 & 4, and that it is down to the cold weather rather than the rain, as the drainage system is working but that water is seeping up from the sub-soil.

 

There was obviously an element of the completion of the project being rushed, but we are told that the time-frame wasn't the issue, the use of incorrect materials is. Looking at the images made available on this forum a few weeks prior to the GOM, it was obvious it was going to be rushed and that the elements, snow, cold weather and rain would not assist in this.

 

But the project wasn't started only a few weeks before the date of the GOM, was it? The project has been on-going for years. Materials would have been agreed on, ordered and delivered weeks in advance. Are we to believe that no-one, be it the Belle Vue management, track curator, Council, whoever, did not ensure that the correct materials were in place and checked off?

 

Maybe not 'Mickey Mouse', but not very professional and with, at least, elements of Donald *uck, Goofy and Droopy.

 

As I understand it at least some of the materials for the 3rd and 4th bends were not delivered until they were required.

 

It had been explained many, many times but to repeat it yet again, the MCC are in charge of the project. Belle Vue are not in a position to start checking deliveries there will be a Clerk of Works employed by the Council to oversee the build.

[Starman2006]

As I understand it at least some of the materials for the 3rd and 4th bends were not delivered until they were required.

 

It had been explained many, many times but to repeat it yet again, the MCC are in charge of the project. Belle Vue are not in a position to start checking deliveries there will be a Clerk of Works employed by the Council to oversee the build.

Clerk of works overseeing the laying of a speedway track, you couldn't make it up.. Where the hell was Meredith. He's the one who should be overseeing it.

[Aces51]

True, although the 'reasonable but wrong assumptions ' turned out to be correct in that the rumour was the track wouldn't be raceable and it wasn't!

How can reasonable but wrong assumptions be correct? The fact it want raceable was for entirely didn't reasons. It's like me saying a train will be late because of leaves on the line and then claiming I was right when it is late but because of a breakdown.

[Reviresco]

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.

 

Don't see as gloating. More that people are quite rightly asking questions and searching for honest, truthful and accurate explanations. At the moment, unfortunately, this episode has not been good for the Aces or British speedway. Some say there is no such thing as bad publicity, but maybe not in this case.

 

The majority of the unusual suspects doing most of the moaning weren't even there!

 

5000+ people were apparently victims of an outrageous con yet less than 1% have said anything on here.

 

Now that's proper amazing isn't it?

 

And how many of the 5000+ people who attended are members of the BSF? More these days post their comments on other forms of social media. So, no, not amazing.

 

Talking of Swindon, lots of comments about the track on Thursday being difficult and riders not happy and it getting worse but the riders got on with it and even adapted to the track.

 

Compare that to one rider lifting a bit during the practice on the 19/3 at Belle Vue.

 

Speedway meetings will be run on tracks far far worse than the one woofinden wasn't happy with at Belle Vue.

 

The good thing for us is our track is going to be repaired properly because he spoke up, the fans may have lost out on the night but he was right and in the long term we will have a better track and it is the contractors who will have to pay.

 

Swindon will have to sort their own track out because they've got nobody else to blame, maybe that's why they forced the riders to continue the meeting on Thursday on a 'difficult' track?

 

Has anyone spotted what I did there?

 

What, disappeared up your own hind quarters again? Looks as if you are doing exactly what you accuse others of, and that you are now tying yourself up in knots. A 'difficult' track is different from a dangerous one.

 

Makes you wonder what would have happened if the World Champion, and others, had not spoken up on the night and a scenario of a rider injury or worse had occurred, only for the extent of the track issue to surface later on with, as has been suggested, negligence and other claims forthcoming.

[stevebrum]

How can reasonable but wrong assumptions be correct? The fact it want raceable was for entirely didn't reasons. It's like me saying a train will be late because of leaves on the line and then claiming I was right when it is late but because of a breakdown.

 

It was predicted not raceable and it wasn't!

 

Your original post however was a well thought out one and we now all know a much bigger picture.

[Aces51]

Clerk of works overseeing the laying of a speedway track, you couldn't make it up.. Where the hell was Meredith. He's the one who should be overseeing it.

I'll try and make it simple. It's like you buying a new house and every day you turn up at the site and start telling the builders what to do and checking the materials. How long do you think you would be tolerated?

 

This is a local authority project involving public money. There is no way that the MCC would delegate authority to a third party to control anything.

It was predicted not raceable and it wasn't!

 

Your original post however was a well thought out one and we now all know a much bigger picture.

The point is what does that prove when the assumptions for the prediction were wrong. It certainly doesn't prove that anyone knew beforehand, which it might have done if the assumptions on which the predictions were made were correct.

[orion]

How can reasonable but wrong assumptions be correct? The fact it want raceable was for entirely didn't reasons. It's like me saying a train will be late because of leaves on the line and then claiming I was right when it is late but because of a breakdown.

Riders and and fans were told the track was not fit for racing ..and that turned out to be correct ..Gordon took to a risk hoping to pocket the money but it backfired ..he just conned the public

[Little Nicki]

Good post. But don't you mean very un-professional ?

 

Not very professional = unprofessional, so no, I meant what I wrote. Maybe you read it incorrectly?

 

As I understand it at least some of the materials for the 3rd and 4th bends were not delivered until they were required.

 

It had been explained many, many times but to repeat it yet again, the MCC are in charge of the project. Belle Vue are not in a position to start checking deliveries there will be a Clerk of Works employed by the Council to oversee the build.

 

And that seems to be the crux of the matter. They were required before and in time for the track to be ready for the GOM, but they either weren't or, if they were, then they were not used.

 

And yes, we get it that Manchester City Council are in charge of the project. I know nothing about construction, laying tracks, sub-soil constituency or any of the issues that have led to this situation, but if, for example, I was having a house built, I would most probably take an interest and check that my requirements were being met at all times and that the contractor was using the materials that had been agreed upon and paid for, and that the footings had been dug down to and constructed to specification. Your post suggests that the Clerk of Works is responsible for this situation. If that is the case, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

[arthur cross]

I'll try and make it simple. It's like you buying a new house and every day you turn up at the site and start telling the builders what to do and checking the materials. How long do you think you would be tolerated?

 

This is a local authority project involving public money. There is no way that the MCC would delegate authority to a third party to control anything.

 

Crazy comparison rather than what you think is a simple one !! ... if I'm buying that new house, I'd be using people who'd already built loads of other houses before to build my one ... hence I'd know (and they could show) past examples of what they'd built for others to prove they were up to doing my particular job.

 

But how many speedway tracks have anyone from Manchester City Council built before to use as a guide to their ability to get Belle Vue's project right ? !! ... not many, and most likely none at all ... so now it does become much more appropriate for Belle Vue to have more of a guiding hand in the building of their track than I'd expect to have in the building of my house ... and, what's more, surely it's in the city council's interest to seek out Belle Vue's expertise because ultimately both the city council and the speedway club want to reflect in the same glow of a successful project.

 

The whole project continues to stink of botch-job after cock-up after careless/reckless naivety.

Edited April 16, 2016 by arthur cross

[OveFundinFan]

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

 

I thought it would be obvious I was making a comment about two separate previous posts in one post. Thus saving forum space by not answering each in a separate post..

[Game On]

 

I'll try and make it simple. It's like you buying a new house and every day you turn up at the site and start telling the builders what to do and checking the materials. How long do you think you would be tolerated?

 

Until money has changed hands and contracts exchanged.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Game On

[orion]

 

I thought it would be obvious I was making a comment about two separate previous posts in one post. Thus saving forum space by not answering each in a separate post..

So replying about a post that has nothing to do with mine is obvious ...how about you reply to post you wanted to ..thus saving more forum space

[Reviresco]

Lol! You almost got it.

 

Who said the track was dangerous or are you a liar?

 

i didn't as you well know. Re-read my post.

[Aces51]

 

Crazy comparison rather than what you think is a simple one !! ... if I'm buying that new house, I'd be using people who'd already built loads of other houses before to build my one ... hence I'd know (and they could show) past examples of what they'd built for others to prove they were up to doing my particular job.

 

But how many speedway tracks have anyone from Manchester City Council built before to use as a guide to their ability to get Belle Vue's project right ? !! ... not many, and most likely none at all ... so now it does become much more appropriate for Belle Vue to have more of a guiding hand in the building of their track than I'd expect to have in the building of my house ... and, what's more, surely it's in the city council's interest to seek out Belle Vue's expertise because ultimately both the city council and the speedway club want to reflect in the same glow of a successful project.

 

The whole project continues to stink of botch-job after cock-up after careless/reckless naivety.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, it does seem to be somewhat extreme to claim the whole project continues to stink of botch-job after cock-up after careless/reckless naivety.

 

The stadium is very impressive, I'm sure you've seen it to feel able to comment on the whole project and the 1st and 2nd bends and both straights have been built following the specification and are problem free. To me that means the builders are more than capable of building a Speedway track, the problem lies not in their building skills but in a failure to follow the specification when building bends 3 and 4.

 

I assume that your comments about the involvement of Belle Vue are intended as criticisisms of the Council, knowing as you must by now, that it was not something Belle Vue could do without being invited to do so by the Council.

 

I apologise for my example of buying a new house. I assumed a sufficient degree of intelligence of the reader to realise I was drawing a parallel with Belle Vue's position in the stadium project. It was not intended to be that the eventual purchaser had commissioned a builder directly but that a company had commissioned a builder and that the eventual purchaser was going to buy the house from the company. It is in that instance, just as with Belle Vue, that the company is not going to allow the eventual purchaser to give instructions to the builder or to be on site throughout the build checking on the quantity and quality of the materials. Just as with Belle Vue and MCC they would insist the eventual buyer made any representations to them. To do otherwise really would be a recipe for confusion and potential disaster.