SCB Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I'm off to record a TV show with work on the weekend. I'm not going to do ANY testing of the software, I'm just going to turn up and try it. If anyone asks me what I'm foing I'll say it worked for BV speedway, Aces 51 and Fred Flange are happy with not testing things too. Will make it really exciting too, "will we record a TV show or not?" One things or us, if it does fail it won't take me 6 weeks to fix it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 They were apparent ..as i explained most people knew there were problems and they were proved correct ...how hard or difficult is it for you to understand ...you constant defence of Belle Vue when quite clearly they are at fault does you no favours . You still don't seem either able or, willing, to understand. What people said was that the problems were because the track had not had time to bed in. It wasn't. That had nothing to do with what happened, it was the defective base, that nobody knew about and the inclement weather that caused the problem. Even the SCB had to admit that on the Friday the track looked as if it would come good for the Saturday. So again, why would anyone call off a meeting after a successful practice and a track that on the Friday was raceable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 I'm off to record a TV show with work on the weekend. I'm not going to do ANY testing of the software, I'm just going to turn up and try it. If anyone asks me what I'm foing I'll say it worked for BV speedway, Aces 51 and Fred Flange are happy with not testing things too. Will make it really exciting too, "will we record a TV show or not?" One things or us, if it does fail it won't take me 6 weeks to fix it! Suppose it doesn't work and they ask for their money back . Then what ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) I'm off to record a TV show with work on the weekend. I'm not going to do ANY testing of the software, I'm just going to turn up and try it. If anyone asks me what I'm foing I'll say it worked for BV speedway, Aces 51 and Fred Flange are happy with not testing things too. Will make it really exciting too, "will we record a TV show or not?" One things or us, if it does fail it won't take me 6 weeks to fix it! At least be accurate if you're trying to prove a point. The track was worked on and tested and found to be ok on the Friday.The problem on the Saturday would not have been discovered no matter how much testing was done because it didn't exist on the Friday. It was the interaction of the defective base and the weather on the Saturday that caused the problem. Exactly as it did on the day following the extensive and successful practice before the Leicester match. As you like analogies, similar to you driving your car home on Friday night without problem. On Saturday you go out to it, fully expecting to drive off to your TV show and discover there's water under the car and a hose needs replacing. You phone your boss, explain and he says it's all your fault, we've got a team of people here all waiting, you should have told me last night. It might take you more than six weeks if you were not in a position to control the contractors doing the repairs and it was going to cost them a substantial amount plus potential legal proceedings against them. Edited April 25, 2016 by Aces51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reviresco Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) I don't dispute there were problems on the Saturday. What I have explained is why they weren't apparent on the Friday or, on the Wednesday before the Leicester meeting. Is it so difficult to understand or is that you cannot stop the constant sniping at Belle Vue, even when the evidence is there for you to see. This is a speedway forum and the posters are fans of speedway (or who have been). Who else would you expect speedway fans on a speedway forum to 'snipe' at - the Council? The Contractors (whoever they are)? The Clerk of Works (who has been suggested was the person responsible for ensuring all the works were done to plan and order)? Speedway fans. on a Speedway forum, will 'snipe' at the entity that they are familiar with and, in many cases - including me - the people they feel are responsible for this situation arising, i.e. the management of the club who will utilise the speedway facilities to host speedway meetings, i.e. the management of Belle Vue speedway club, which is situated at the National Speedway Stadium. If I wanted to 'snipe' at the Council, or the Contractors, I would do so directly to them. They were apparent ..as i explained most people knew there were problems and they were proved correct ...how hard or difficult is it for you to understand ...you constant defence of Belle Vue when quite clearly they are at fault does you no favours . Seconded. I'm off to record a TV show with work on the weekend. I'm not going to do ANY testing of the software, I'm just going to turn up and try it. If anyone asks me what I'm foing I'll say it worked for BV speedway, Aces 51 and Fred Flange are happy with not testing things too. Will make it really exciting too, "will we record a TV show or not?" One things or us, if it does fail it won't take me 6 weeks to fix it! Great post and analogy SCB. ============================ OK, the weather during the winter and early spring would have made the completion of the whole project run past it's set due date, and this may well have led to the completion of the final part of the project, which appears to have been bends 3 & 4, being rushed, and this, in turn, may have led to a permeable membrane, that Tsunami refers to on another thread, being omitted, or installed the wrong way round, by the Contractors, which, in turn, has led to water seeping up through this membrane rather than down and away from the track surface - but, given the weather caused the delay - (which caused the rush which caused the apparent error with the membrane) - then why oh why did the Belle Vue management not then similarly delay the staging of the Grand Opening Meeting, explaining the exact and honest reasons - before they opened the gates (I'm assuming that the BV management opened the gates to 6,000 people and that we are not saying the the Council or the Contractors (or even the Clerk of Works) are responsible for opening the gates on GOM night?) If the BV management had only done the sensible thing then, I am sure that the people who had booked tickets for the abandoned GOM would have understood and, of course,would not have then incurred the expenditure for their wasted travel, sustenance and any accommodation - as they would have had the opportunity to cancel their bookings. Those people would, I'm sure, have understood the postponement, if only the BV had taken this course of action. We all know what the weather had been like. We had seen the pictures of snow, piles of what looked like shale, and machinery on bends 3 & 4, which were taken and posted here, what, a month before the scheduled date for the GOM. And some of us had read 'speedflash's' comments, saying that he had driven past the NSS a couple of weeks before the scheduled GOM date and that his opinion was that there was no way that the GOM could go ahead on its scheduled date. If people like 'speedflash' were saying that, then why oh why did the BV management not announce a postponement of their GOM (not the Council's or the Contractors' GOM) in good time for their customers' (not the Council's or the Contractors' customers) to cancel bookings and alter their plans for the day? Surely, better to cancel and reschedule the GOM than run the risk of issues arising due to the rush to finish - which the BV management would have been aware of, and risk also a potential fallout - which has become reality now? A postponement / cancellation of the NSS's GOM was within the BV management's orbit. Stories had circulated that there was a problem with the track and that that problem would manifest itself when riders attempted to race on the surface. The fact that the BV management didn't is the reason that I hold the BV management responsible for the abandonment and the subsequent fallout, which has in turn led to forum posters 'sniping' at the BV management on the British Speedway Forum. Suppose it doesn't work and they ask for their money back . Then what ? Oh dear me..... Edited April 25, 2016 by macca56 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 A postponement / cancellation of the NSS's GOM was within the BV management's orbit. Stories had circulated that there was a problem with the track and that that problem would manifest itself when riders attempted to race on the surface. The fact that the BV management didn't is the reason that I hold the BV management responsible for the abandonment and the subsequent fallout, which has in turn led to forum posters 'sniping' at the BV management on the British Speedway Forum. It's clear there were several failures along the line, possibly down to unfortunate circumstances as well as ineptitude, but once again speedway shoots itself in the foot. What should have been a triumph for the sport in an otherwise depressing downward spiral, has turned into yet another damage limitation exercise, but one that even manages to alienate remaining fans. A case study in how not to run a professional sport. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) You still don't seem either able or, willing, to understand. What people said was that the problems were because the track had not had time to bed in. It wasn't. That had nothing to do with what happened, it was the defective base, that nobody knew about and the inclement weather that caused the problem. Even the SCB had to admit that on the Friday the track looked as if it would come good for the Saturday. So again, why would anyone call off a meeting after a successful practice and a track that on the Friday was raceable? Yet again it is you who is not able or willing to understand ..First of all it quite clear that not everyone thought the track was racable as quite clearly the cat was out of the bag they there were problems with the track before Saturday as it was all over the internet ...and who was proved correct ? Two Belle Vue riders doing a few practice laps of the track does not mean the track was raceable ...it quite clear due to all the tickets being sold that Gordon was under massive pressure to run some kind of a meeting ...if Worall and co had said the track was crap I expect he would have still try to carry on .. . The Bottom line is before a massive meeting like that Belle Vue should have had a full practice match or matches to test the track out .so as I said the fault lies with them Edited April 25, 2016 by orion 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 (edited) Yet again it is you is not able or willing to understand ..First of all it quite clear that not everyone thought the track was racable as quite clearly the cat was out of the bag they there were problems with the track before Saturday as it was all over the internet ...and who was proved correct ? Two Belle Vue riders doing a few practice laps of the track does not mean the track was raceable ...it quite clear due to all the tickets being sold that Gordon was under massive pressure to run some kind of a meeting ...if Worall and co had said the track was crap I expect he would have still try to carry on .. . The Bottom line is before a massive meeting like that Belle Vue should have had a full practice match or matches to test the track out .so as I said the fault lies with them Orion ive said a million times mate, it would have been known there were problems with bends 3-4 when there curator Bladed the track, yet as you say it still wasn't full tested before the meeting. There should have been a full scale P&P day type practice. They have made a rod for there own back, and as i also pointed out a long time ago, they would have to pull the whole bend up and start again, which i believe they have done. I do, before the Wolfs attack me hope they get it right. Edited April 25, 2016 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Right this is just getting silly now. If you’re going to post on a subject or worse make accusations then at least have a basic understanding of the situation first. The problem with the track was complicated in that the symptoms only presented themselves when certain conditions aligned themselves. The lead up to the Craven meeting has been well documented and discussed but the main point we seemed to be stuck on is the testing of the circuit. Let’s say the testing carried out wasn’t enough and that a longer session with say 14 plus riders was required to fully assess the suitability of the track, I think we could agree that this is what was needed. On the Wednesday before the Leicester match this very thing took place with the full Aces and Colts squads plus a few others taking to the track for several hours to test it out. Following this Mark Lemon said: “Any doubts over the condition of the track have been put to bed in the wake of today’s closed practice. The boys had a good session and are exceptionally keen to get things moving”. The Leicester meeting was subsequently cancelled. The reason was that weather conditions changed and the problem with the track became evident once again, so an equally extensive test before the Craven meeting would/did produce the same result – that the track was good to go – when in fact the problem had not been rectified. This is all out there in Belle Vue’s much maligned PR but it seems that even the supposed few snippets of information they put out, are not getting read or understood by the very people baying for blood. So just to be clear, testing was done but no amount of testing could give a definitive result unless the weather conditions played ball. OK, testing was done, I say testing was done. The next point of contention is the length of time to put things right. Belle Vue fans, management and staff are all in agreement with all the forum members who say it’s taken too long. The Belle Vue management at no time took control of any construction equipment whether it be a shovel or a JCB to carry out track base and sub base repairs – never. They have complained to the Council who agreed to build the stadium for us and the council have contacted the construction company. Saying that knowing David Gordon I’m sure that he would have been on to the construction company demanding action but those demands will only go so far what with the construction company only wanting to deal with their client the council. How this bit can somehow be Belle Vue’s fault I do not know and any such claims will only add insult to injury for the management. Just a foot note about Havvy etc. Gary Havelock never visited the stadium prior to the Craven call off so he could not state with any authority if the track was ok or not. Rumours started following the failed track inspection by the SCB but as we now know this does not include the suitability of the racing surface. Failing that test initially was enough to get the rumours going and as we have seen many times before these can grow and grow even of the meeting in question subsequently goes ahead. So any unsubstantiated gossip is to be taken with a pinch of salt no matter how events unfolded later. As I have previously posted there is a list as long as your arm of people with first-hand knowledge who didn’t believe the meeting would not go ahead. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Any question let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Right this is just getting silly now. If you’re going to post on a subject or worse make accusations then at least have a basic understanding of the situation first. The problem with the track was complicated in that the symptoms only presented themselves when certain conditions aligned themselves. The lead up to the Craven meeting has been well documented and discussed but the main point we seemed to be stuck on is the testing of the circuit. Let’s say the testing carried out wasn’t enough and that a longer session with say 14 plus riders was required to fully assess the suitability of the track, I think we could agree that this is what was needed. On the Wednesday before the Leicester match this very thing took place with the full Aces and Colts squads plus a few others taking to the track for several hours to test it out. Following this Mark Lemon said: “Any doubts over the condition of the track have been put to bed in the wake of today’s closed practice. The boys had a good session and are exceptionally keen to get things moving”. The Leicester meeting was subsequently cancelled. The reason was that weather conditions changed and the problem with the track became evident once again, so an equally extensive test before the Craven meeting would/did produce the same result – that the track was good to go – when in fact the problem had not been rectified. This is all out there in Belle Vue’s much maligned PR but it seems that even the supposed few snippets of information they put out, are not getting read or understood by the very people baying for blood. So just to be clear, testing was done but no amount of testing could give a definitive result unless the weather conditions played ball. OK, testing was done, I say testing was done. The next point of contention is the length of time to put things right. Belle Vue fans, management and staff are all in agreement with all the forum members who say it’s taken too long. The Belle Vue management at no time took control of any construction equipment whether it be a shovel or a JCB to carry out track base and sub base repairs – never. They have complained to the Council who agreed to build the stadium for us and the council have contacted the construction company. Saying that knowing David Gordon I’m sure that he would have been on to the construction company demanding action but those demands will only go so far what with the construction company only wanting to deal with their client the council. How this bit can somehow be Belle Vue’s fault I do not know and any such claims will only add insult to injury for the management. Just a foot note about Havvy etc. Gary Havelock never visited the stadium prior to the Craven call off so he could not state with any authority if the track was ok or not. Rumours started following the failed track inspection by the SCB but as we now know this does not include the suitability of the racing surface. Failing that test initially was enough to get the rumours going and as we have seen many times before these can grow and grow even of the meeting in question subsequently goes ahead. So any unsubstantiated gossip is to be taken with a pinch of salt no matter how events unfolded later. As I have previously posted there is a list as long as your arm of people with first-hand knowledge who didn’t believe the meeting would not go ahead. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Any question let me know. Havvy does not need at the stadium and nor does Hans etc ...they were told there were problems ...they were clearly not made up as they were proved correct ...the rumors were also before the so called weather charges as they were mainly on the Friday It was up to Belle Vue to test the track out is was also Belle Vue choice to open the gates to let the fans in .. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 By who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Yet again it is you who is not able or willing to understand ..First of all it quite clear that not everyone thought the track was racable as quite clearly the cat was out of the bag they there were problems with the track before Saturday as it was all over the internet ...and who was proved correct ? Two Belle Vue riders doing a few practice laps of the track does not mean the track was raceable ...it quite clear due to all the tickets being sold that Gordon was under massive pressure to run some kind of a meeting ...if Worall and co had said the track was crap I expect he would have still try to carry on .. . The Bottom line is before a massive meeting like that Belle Vue should have had a full practice match or matches to test the track out .so as I said the fault lies with them Interesting - can you prove that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 At least be accurate if you're trying to prove a point. The track was worked on and tested and found to be ok on the Friday.The problem on the Saturday would not have been discovered no matter how much testing was done because it didn't exist on the Friday. It was the interaction of the defective base and the weather on the Saturday that caused the problem. Exactly as it did on the day following the extensive and successful practice before the Leicester match. As you like analogies, similar to you driving your car home on Friday night without problem. On Saturday you go out to it, fully expecting to drive off to your TV show and discover there's water under the car and a hose needs replacing. You phone your boss, explain and he says it's all your fault, we've got a team of people here all waiting, you should have told me last night. It might take you more than six weeks if you were not in a position to control the contractors doing the repairs and it was going to cost them a substantial amount plus potential legal proceedings against them. OK, I'll do some slap-dash, piss-poor testing. Not really adequate, I'll not push the system to the limits because I'm sure on the day it'll fall into place. What can go wrong eh? Then when things do go wrong I'll go away and fix them, reporting back they're fine, I'll let them book out the studio, the presenter, the players etc only to tell them a couple of days later, "Only joking, Ive messed up again, going to be another week" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reviresco Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 Right this is just getting silly now. If you’re going to post on a subject or worse make accusations then at least have a basic understanding of the situation first. Just a foot note about Havvy etc. Gary Havelock never visited the stadium prior to the Craven call off so he could not state with any authority if the track was ok or not. Rumours started following the failed track inspection by the SCB but as we now know this does not include the suitability of the racing surface. Failing that test initially was enough to get the rumours going and as we have seen many times before these can grow and grow even of the meeting in question subsequently goes ahead. So any unsubstantiated gossip is to be taken with a pinch of salt no matter how events unfolded later. As I have previously posted there is a list as long as your arm of people with first-hand knowledge who didn’t believe the meeting would not go ahead. Any question let me know. Thanks for all of that 'ouch' - some might say that it is just not getting silly now, but that it got silly when the BV management decided to open the gates for a meeting that they could have, and probably should have, cancelled / postponed rather than having that meeting abandoned with a 'full house' already inside, which resulted in a fall out and 'sniping' at the BV management. If an issue had arisen before the GOM with, say, the electrics, seating , food outlets, toilets, turnstiles, or emergency exits, then the GOM most probably would have been postponed prior to the date or, MAYBE (that's a big maybe) the GOM could have been staged with the relevant inconvenience being accepted by the speedway fans attending - but this was an issue that had arisen with the track - probably the most important constituent part of staging a speedway meeting of any kind, anywhere in the world. No track = no meeting. I hadn't seen before anyone saying that the NSS track had failed a SCB track inspection prior to the GOM. Is that the case, or am I misinterpreting that part of your post? And, if it did fail a SCB track inspection, do you know why it failed, please? Thanks. Interesting - can you prove that? Can you, disprove this, particularly as you are someone who admits openly that he has turned his back on attending speedway meetings? (I wouldn't dare to suggest what you should do, or not do, but having made a point of announcing your exit from this forum, what are you gaining by re-commencing posting and particularly on a subject you know nothing about?) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reviresco Posted April 25, 2016 Report Share Posted April 25, 2016 You sound like you've got ocd and a tidy dose of paranoia if you need to test equipment to the limits before you use it!! Had there been a problem with the electrics, seating , food outlets, toilets, turnstiles, or emergency exits they would have been fixed and tested? Had all the lights gone out at 730pm there would have been a delay while a fix was attempted and if it couldn't be fixed the meeting would have been abandoned. That wouldn't have meant that the lights weren't tested before the meeting though would it? Sorry Fred, you've lost me there. Too many double negatives at this time of night for me. Will re-read in the morning. (I was suggesting that, as seems to have been suggested, the track issue was'intermittent' - or climate dependent, then if a similar intermittent issue had been detected prior to the GOM with, say, the toilets (which you say you yourself tested during the evacuation test - a good time to test toilets, I guess...) it is possible that this would have led to a postponement prior to the GOM (on H&S reasons, I suppose and due to the 'inconvenience it would have caused,,,) or, if not and the intermittent issue arose again after the NSS gates' had been opened, then the speedway public who were in attendance that night may well have just put up with it and the GOM would have progressed to a conclusion (but with the audience crossing it's legs). My point was that it wasn't an intermittent fault with a peripheral part of staging a speedway meeting - it was an 'intermittent' issue with the track - the single most important part of being able to stage a speedway meeting - no track = no meeting.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 (edited) The turnstiles were tested prior to the GOM and there were problems on the night. The loos on the back straight were not ready and porta loos needed to be used but the fans just got on with it. The track was tested prior to the GOM and the Leicester meeting and on both occasions the track was deemed good to go. Due to the nature of the problem it wasn't easily detectable and in some conditions didn't present its self. I cannot stress this enough as this is what people don't seem to understand. I don't know why the SCB didn't pass the track first time but I'm assuming they highlighted some quick fix issues as it was passed the following day. I'm done with this now. Bye. Edited April 26, 2016 by ouch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 You sound like you've got ocd and a tidy dose of paranoia if you need to test equipment to the limits before you use it!! When it's going to cost 100's of 1000's of other peoples money I'd say it's only right and fair that I have a "dose of paranoia" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 (edited) The turnstiles were tested prior to the GOM and there were problems on the night. The loos on the back straight were not ready and porta loos needed to be used but the fans just got on with it. The track was tested prior to the GOM and the Leicester meeting and on both occasions the track was deemed good to go. Due to the nature of the problem it wasn't easily detectable and in some conditions didn't present its self. I cannot stress this enough as this is what people don't seem to understand. I don't know why the SCB didn't pass the track first time but I'm assuming they highlighted some quick fix issues as it was passed the following day. I'm done with this now. Bye. Thank goodness for that. I wondered how long that you are going to spout your nonsense for. The buck stops with the BV management over the opening meeting. If the track wasn't ready, then it should have been called off on the Thursday, not leave it until 5000+ people are in the stadium. The contractors cannot call off a speedway meeting. The BV management can. The slowness in sending refunds just compounds matters. It's been a huge PR disaster. All the best Rob Edited April 26, 2016 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 As I predicted. Those with issues with Belle Vue and those incapable of objectivity or, of of understanding the evidence will never be persuaded. There is no hope If you can't grasp that nobody knew of the problem with the base prior to the opening meeting. If you can't understand that it was believed the problems were with the track surface, which was worked on resulting in the successful practice on the Friday, and the SCB admitting that it looked as if of it would come good for the Saturday. If you cannot see that there was no visual evidence of a problem on the Saturday and that the change from a raceable track on Friday to the problems on Saturday was due solely to a combination of the defective base and the inclement weather. If you find it impossible to comprehend that nobody had any reason to even suspect that might happen because nobody knew about the base. If the evidence of the successful extensive practice prior to the Leicester match followed by the problems the following day does not tell you that was an identical situation to what happened at the opening meeting and proves that no amount of testing on the Friday would have made any difference because the problem wasn't there on the Friday, there had to be the combination of the defective base and the inclement weather for the problem literally to surface. As we saw at the opening meeting it took only a few laps fit the problems to be seen and if they were there on the Friday they would have appeared when the track was tested on the Friday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted April 26, 2016 Report Share Posted April 26, 2016 As I predicted. Those with issues with Belle Vue and those incapable of objectivity or, of of understanding the evidence will never be persuaded. There is no hope If you can't grasp that nobody knew of the problem with the base prior to the opening meeting. If you can't understand that it was believed the problems were with the track surface, which was worked on resulting in the successful practice on the Friday, and the SCB admitting that it looked as if of it would come good for the Saturday. If you cannot see that there was no visual evidence of a problem on the Saturday and that the change from a raceable track on Friday to the problems on Saturday was due solely to a combination of the defective base and the inclement weather. If you find it impossible to comprehend that nobody had any reason to even suspect that might happen because nobody knew about the base. If the evidence of the successful extensive practice prior to the Leicester match followed by the problems the following day does not tell you that was an identical situation to what happened at the opening meeting and proves that no amount of testing on the Friday would have made any difference because the problem wasn't there on the Friday, there had to be the combination of the defective base and the inclement weather for the problem literally to surface. As we saw at the opening meeting it took only a few laps fit the problems to be seen and if they were there on the Friday they would have appeared when the track was tested on the Friday. lol your really capable of objectivity ..all you ever do is kiss butt and defend Belle Vue speedway no matter what .not sure when it's going to sink it but people knew there was a problem with the track before Saturday it was hardly a secret and sadly that turn out to be correct .if you can't comprehend that because it does not suit your point of view then so be it . There have been some barmy posts from the unusual suspects on topic Yea mainly be you and the other user names you been making up over the last few weeks . 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.