Belle Vue 2017

[OveFundinFan]

"Back of the envelope calculations" - what more do you want thats not already been printed/said. BV engaged Loss Assessors who reported damage to the BV business of £696,782 pounds (hardly a figure you would make up to scribble on the back of an envelope), and this figure must have been accepted by MCC because they deducted it from their payment to ISG Construction.

Just sit back and think what that £696,782 would do for BV......... IF MCC had paid it to BV, having deducted it from ICG payments, maybe then BV would have been able to formally pay MCC the rent - but it appears MCC kept it back, all £696,782 which is much more then rent.

As PRising has said, if ICG had built turn 3-4 to the correct specification (as the rest of the track) then highly likely BV would not be in the mess it is.

 

Head, banging, wall comes to mind.

[Grand Central]

I

"Back of the envelope calculations" - what more do you want thats not already been printed/said. BV engaged Loss Assessors who reported damage to the BV business of £696,782 pounds (hardly a figure you would make up to scribble on the back of an envelope), and this figure must have been accepted by MCC because they deducted it from their payment to ISG Construction.

Just sit back and think what that £696,782 would do for BV......... IF MCC had paid it to BV, having deducted it from ICG payments, maybe then BV would have been able to formally pay MCC the rent - but it appears MCC kept it back, all £696,782 which is much more then rent.

As PRising has said, if ICG had built turn 3-4 to the correct specification (as the rest of the track) then highly likely BV would not be in the mess it is.

 

Head, banging, wall comes to mind.

In my last post I did not offer any comment on the 700k loss assessor calculation.

I was only discussing the 500k debt that the new owners are 'accepting'.

 

But just on that point of the 700k deduction in the Pay Less notice of April 2016.

Do you know if ISG actually ever accepted that as the final settlement in the matter?

 

I would doubt that they would. At least not without a fight.

 

Firstly it was regarding a loss suffered by a third party, not MCC, so that may not form part of the contract between MCC and ISG.

It may never have been accepted as a 'pay less amount' by ISG may still be unresolved?

 

Secondly, this sum of 700k was 'only' a loss ASSESSOR'S evaluation who work for their client to maximise their claim. It is usual for the person receiving such a claim to appoint a loss ADJUSTER who does everything they can to reduce that claim level substantially.

 

The parties then have to battle to an agreement or go to law.

 

Does anyone KNOW what the final settlement between MCC and ISG was in the end?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch]

Given the apparent level of debt run up, Belle vue are very fortunate to be coming to the tapes this year. Other sports may have seen them kicked out of the league.

I heard that one club recently lost nearly 2 million which dwarfs the Belle Vue figure. I'm sure there are many who agree with you and feel this club should be kicked out. Can anybody in the know tell us who it is?

[Daniel Smith]

I heard that one club recently lost nearly 2 million which dwarfs the Belle Vue figure. I'm sure there are many who agree with you and feel this club should be kicked out. Can anybody in the know tell us who it is?

 

If you heard a club has lost £2m, you'd also know which club it is so why not say?

[AlanF]

Clearly it is Glasgow as the owner said so in the Speedway Star. However, he said that it had "cost them $2m so far (may have been $1.5m, can't remember). That included buying and renovating the stadium. That is capital expenditure on an asset, so totally different to operating losses.

[Grand Central]

I heard that one club recently lost nearly 2 million which dwarfs the Belle Vue figure. I'm sure there are many who agree with you and feel this club should be kicked out. Can anybody in the know tell us who it is?

They bought the stadium outright.

And retain it as an asset.

 

There can be no comparison in the situations.

[Tsunami]

The figures as presented are quite remarkable.

 

An independent assessment, agreed and acted on by the council, states that losses around £700k are due to the problems caused by the contractors.

 

I'll just let you think about that for a moment..........

 

 

 

 

The debts the new owners have covered are only £500k.

 

I'll let you think about that for a moment..........

 

 

 

 

Even if the new owners have been handed all the speedway fixtures and fittings for nothing the debt should have been AT LEAST £700k, and that suggests that they broke even on the season.

 

Breaking even would have been a remarkable achievement, I bet you would have been happy to break even with the diamonds but, as is clear from the figures as presented, they have somehow managed to cover £200k. The implication is that they otherwise made a £200k PROFIT!!!

 

Did you ever make a £200k profit at Newcastle? Did you ever make a profit?

I think you are very confused about profit being the difference between the known debt, and a talked down debt to get an agreement. Hope you don't look after the house budget. In reality those figures show a break even.

 

Surprisingly enough, it may come as a surprise to you that we have never made a profit of £200k at Newcastle. Shock, horror

BTW, I think you will find that very few clubs make a real profit, especially in the Championship. Maybe we should hire you and Gordon to do the books.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Tsunami

[ouch]

Does anybody know how much these items cost?

Commercial kitchen.

Electronic turnstiles.

Ticketing system.

Office furniture.

Bar & bar furniture.

Tractor x 2

Heavy plant machinery.

Speedway fence.

Air fence.

Several tonnes of shale.

Worrall x 2

Fricke

Bewley

I'd be interested to know from the experts on here exactly why they think this and more should be free?

 

Note: feel free to post abuse and dodge the question if you're a troll or an idiot.

Edited February 24, 2017 by ouch

[Grand Central]

Actually ouch on this I agree with you entirely.

These are all expensive items that must add up to a hefty sum.

 

If these were bought and owned outright by the 2016 ltd company, just how they may end up in the hands of the 2017 owners will have to have been done in a legally sound manner.

 

Do you know what has actually happened in this regard?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Grand Central

[Tsunami]

 

You misunderstand. The criticism of the BSPA was that they went behind the back of the promotion. If it was genuinely, as you suggest, to get more facts then surely they should also have spoken to the promotion to ensure that they at least had both sides of the story. As we now know the debts were largely, if not entirely, due to the problems with the track and the stadium. If the chairman had bothered to speak first to those he owed an allegiance to, as members of the BSPA, he may well still have been horrified but with the standard of work done by the contractors and the financial affects that had Gordon and Morton.

Why. Before you start talking to the owners of what was a major problem, surely it is in order to gain information from the other side before confronting the owners. The info gathered would be the points for discussion rather than the points raised by the BV promotion. In business or the law, you don't have to liaise with one side, whilst you do your own investigations with the other side. Buster didn't go in as an individual, but as Chairman of the ruling body of the sport, to try and protect the sport as a whole. That's his job.

Would any BV fan really just expect the promotion to plod on doing what they were into, and not expect Buster to do some prying to see what was really happening.

[PHILIPRISING]

Actually ouch on this I agree with you entirely.

These are all expensive items that must add up to a hefty sum.

 

If these were bought and owned outright by the 2016 ltd company, just how they may end up in the hands of the 2017 owners will have to have been done in a legally sound manner.

 

Do you know what has actually happened in this regard?

BELIEVE they are in the hands of an administrator appointed after the companies went into liquidation.

[bellevueace]

i can understand the relief , even euphoria of fans to finally see real progress instead of rumours and promises but is a Premier Lge strength Peter Craven Memorial (at best) a fair exchange for any fan who has held on to their ticket to help the club , remembering that the original line-up was probably not even bettered by the british g.p.

 

 

Better than the option of no refund in any form, any outstanding monies owed were not the new managements debts, so they offewr free entry and still get criticised ?

[IronScorpion]

I find this very strange that Morton & Gordon have not been paid any money that is due to them over this fiasco. BV engaged Loss Assessors who reported damage to the BV business of £696,782 pounds. This is money owed to the BV business which is Morton & Gordon.

 

The debt that MCC should have claimed off ISG was for work not done according to the plans ie; South Stand, West Stand, Toilets & drains, etc. They should also claim for any remedial work to be carried out(leaking roof) etc to be done in the future. They should, also, have insisted ISG pay the rent for the temporary South & West Stands

[Phil The Ace]

Contracts finally signed. And the new owners revealed.

 

All systems go now

[Badge]

I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of this saga, but I would like to offer my best wishes to the new team running Belle Vue speedway and hope that the team put out for 2017 do the promotion and the loyal fans proud. This stadium is awesome and am so glad it has been saved, and will be used for generations to come.

Safe 2017 to all concerned.

[OveFundinFan]

Why. Before you start talking to the owners of what was a major problem, surely it is in order to gain information from the other side before confronting the owners. The info gathered would be the points for discussion rather than the points raised by the BV promotion. In business or the law, you don't have to liaise with one side, whilst you do your own investigations with the other side. Buster didn't go in as an individual, but as Chairman of the ruling body of the sport, to try and protect the sport as a whole. That's his job.

Would any BV fan really just expect the promotion to plod on doing what they were into, and not expect Buster to do some prying to see what was really happening.

My thinking is.... the important thing to do is to talk to both sides, which order doesnt matter - its the fact finding exercise that is important. Has it been stated that BC did have talks with BV, or was it one sided.????

[Phil The Ace]

Can we not forget that past now and move on.

 

It's the start of a new era today. 1 year after the last era started haha

[full-throttle]

Finally some good news

[Tsunami]

My thinking is.... the important thing to do is to talk to both sides, which order doesnt matter - its the fact finding exercise that is important. Has it been stated that BC did have talks with BV, or was it one sided.????

Totally agree.

 

i think you will find from his previous postings FF thinks that BC went behind BV's backs to talk to MCC. I think that BC would be following up the stories circulating to see if they were true or not. He needed to have a comprehensive history of things to see what needed to be done.

[jaykay2PT]

Is this the same man?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/what-the-sunday-papers-said-9353174.html