Belle Vue 2017

[Grand Central]

As MCC and BV had an agreement, BV would put the loss assessor claim to MCC. I would assume as the claim was the result of negligence (or whatever) of ISG then MCC would put a stop on the payment to ISG iie Pay Less Notice.

Sorry but that just does not answer the query I raised.

 

 

EDIT

The link to the MCC report on the NSS thread will no doubt provide hours of debate for all.

As expected they mention nothing of the matters just under discussion here.

 

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/22847/14_belle_vue_speedwayupdate

 

Item 3.4 is a stunner

 

"It has come to light that the owners of Belle Vue Group Companies were aware of the proposal to use alternative material. However, the Council were not made aware of this change of material and the express consent of the Council was not obtained."

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[OveFundinFan]

The link is not working for me.

 

Interesting twist.

[SPD444]

Item 3.4 is a bombshell, if true.

[OveFundinFan]

Now got the link, need to read through again.

[orion]

3.4 is a shocker ..its amazing that dave gordon forget to tell the speedway star that .or did they just leave it out .

[Theboss]

Extracts from the report:

 

''The licence for B V Arena Ltd to be in occupation of the National Speedway Stadium expired on the 31st October 2016. From Council and a BSPA perspective, the speedway franchise, Belle Vue Aces had collapsed as a business. Both the BSPA and the Council have remained absolutely committed to speedway in Manchester and agreed to work together to develop a long-term and sustainable solution to ensure that Belle Vue Aces could continue as the city’s speedway team''

 

''Looking back over the last 18 months it is now very clear that the owners of the Belle Vue Group of Companies have not been open and transparent with the Council particularly in respect of not informing the City Council of the withdrawal of the £500,000 of private equity funding along with not declaring that replacement investment of £600,000 had been made at the same time as the original investment was withdrawn''.

 

Certainly throws up a lot of questions about the Speedway Star report, maybe Phillip Rissing would like to make a comment?

[arnieg]

We are back to the Pay Less Notice again so can I just re-post what I wrote a couple of weeks ago that went unanswered at the time ....

" 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? "

Can anyone enlightens us?

Follow the link just posted to the MCC report.

 

Para 3.9 sets out that the dispute with ISG has yet to be resolved.

[Grand Central]

Follow the link just posted to the MCC report.

 

Para 3.9 sets out that the dispute with ISG has yet to be resolved.

 

Thanks for adding that, I was going to do that myself, after I read it more thoroughly.

 

Still not resolved, as I suspected before the report was released.

The 'pay less amount' was only the opening shot in that process.

 

As this is to be a confidential agreement we will probably never know just what the arrangements will be

Common sense would seem to indicate that BVA liquidator will get an awful lot less than £700K.

 

And what they do get will go into the black hole of debt.

Hopefully some creditors will feel a small benefit.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[waytogo28]

Just as bad - or worse - than many of us thought. How DG or CM can hold their heads up and still go on saying that it was"all someone else's fault" is beyond belief. Philip Rising must also be red faced now? Why didn't the SS wait before printing that "white as white" article absolving DG /CM? What a farce the previous promotion were and how right the BSPA were to revoke their licence. If DG / CM knew about what was in turns 3 / 4 they have zero chance of any recompense from ISG. Where did the missing documents on the material used go? In someone's grate I imagine.

[ouch]

At least now the NDA put in place by MCC on the Arup track report can be lifted. It showed MCC and ISG in a bad light but now that it's been pointed out it was all Belle Vues fault there is no reason for it to remain secret.

Is there?

[bellevueace]

Judge, jury, and executioner springs to mind in some cases.

Edited March 7, 2017 by bellevueace

[Grand Central]

Hey, in this almighty cock up I cannot find much to believe from either side at all

 

We have only heard one side of the story at a time.

And until today ONLY Gordon's side.

Now we have more, differing, information. But nothing that appears any more gospel than his.

 

Both sides only seem to want to report the bits of the story that please their 'own side'

And gloss over the parts that don't show themselves in a good light.

So the arguments have not been properly tested.

 

Right now an obvious direct discrepancy is over who knew what about the track construction before the GOM.

 

Just last night the BBC report suggested that it was the council who knew what the problem with the track was, but withheld it from BV.

 

Today MCC report that they have documentation that shows BV that knew a change to materials being used and that the council did not give approval.

 

As I said on the other thread... I don't believe for one moment that CM knew nappies were being used to build the track. Which is the inference of the MCC position !

 

It just takes quite a leap to believe anyone in this saga.

And definitely not at face value.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch]

The wording is "come to light" not documents found.

 

This actually confirms ISGs culpability in all this as even IF they had told Belle Vue that other material was being used they still should not have used it until clearing it with their "employers" MCC. It's been established that Belle Vues right to interfere in construction matters was nil. ISG might as well of told Alan from the chippy for all the good it would have done in following procedures and gain clearance.

 

At least the council now along with Belle Vue are pointing the finger at the guilty party so finally it's hoped we can move on to sorting the compensation out.

 

The only way the above is not what the council mean is if they think DG/CM drove the diggers themselves under the cover of darkness. Stupid as it sounds there will be some on here that think that's the case. Lol.

Edited March 7, 2017 by ouch

[Halifaxtiger]

Hey, in this almighty cock up I cannot find much to believe from either side at all

 

We have only heard one side of the story at a time.

And until today ONLY Gordon's side.

Now we have more, differing, information. But nothing that appears any more gospel than his.

 

Both sides only seem to want to report the bits of the story that please their 'own side'

And gloss over the parts that don't show themselves in a good light.

So the arguments have not been properly tested.

 

Right now an obvious direct discrepancy is over who knew what about the track construction before the GOM.

 

Just last night the BBC report suggested that it was the council who knew what the problem with the track was, but withheld it from BV.

 

Today MCC report that they have documentation that shows BV that knew a change to materials being used and that the council did not give approval.

 

As I said on the other thread... I don't believe for one moment that CM knew nappies were being used to build the track. Which is the inference of the MCC position !

 

It just takes quite a leap to believe anyone in this saga.

And definitely not at face value.

 

I agree.

 

Reading the council's report I can find no occasion when they have accepted the blame for anything. Its all to do with Belle Vue or ISG. In fact, its a typical report from someone most carefully and anxiously making sure they don't cop for anything.

 

To be fair to David Gordon, at least he said he was at fault.

 

I must say I also agree with Ouch. If the council did nothing wrong, there is no need to keep anything under non disclosure.

 

I fear that's about it unless we get some intrepid dirt digger from the MEN who doesn't favour one side or the other.

[Grand Central]

Fascinating reading.

Revealing in so many ways.

[The White Knight]

Fascinating reading.

Revealing in so many ways.

Very true, but there seems to be a fair bit of responsibility evasion going on.

[orion]

I suppose it is reasonable to accept as 'gospel' the parts the two stories agree on.

 

The business plan was considered sound based on crowds of 1800, which was achieved even without the cup final.

 

The track was tested before the 19th March and 'signed off' by the SCB and the Clerk of the Course on the day of the meeting. (Poor old onion will still claim otherwise)

 

Sub standard materials were used to build the base of the track on turns 3 & 4.

 

The claim for losses was against the council rather than the contractors.

 

The bspa chairman did indeed go behind the backs of the promotion.

 

Thankfully that blows away 90% of the gormless moaning from the unusual suspects.

 

There are some parts of the report which are simply wrong. There were never seats in the south stand, the proposed rent in the original business plan was less than £350k. Nobody knew 'nappies' and other waste had been used to form the base of part of the track. The implication that the £500k investment was only considered satisfactory due to the identity of the investors is wrong. They were not seeking a grant for the swc, the council agreed months earlier to back the event and the request was for the agreed sum to be paid.

 

 

There are some omissions.

 

The is no mention of the increase in rent due to the covenant the council's solicitors failed to spot.

 

The loan also included a compensation element, this was considered inadequate and that was the reason the loan was refused.

 

The claim was made against the council as the council had already made an offer of compensation.

 

The licence Belle Vue were forced to sign (blackmailed imo as the season would have ended in June had they not signed) included a clause to give the council the rights to the name Belle Vue Aces Speedway.

 

Unpaid debts at the end of the season, including money owed to riders, is not unusual and the speedway debts were less than the previous season and in any case the bspa had received a cheque to cover the outstanding amount, why chapman failed to inform the council isn't a mystery.

 

 

At least we now have 'the other side' of the story. The unusual suspects have been shown to be talking bollox when it comes to the track, the opening night and the business plan, no doubt they will take something from the council report as the absolute truth and try and have another cack handed go at Belle Vue though.

Comedy Gold ...just got to wait for ouch the other half of Cannon and Ball to come along

[hyderd]

Comedy Gold ...just got to wait for ouch the other half of Cannon and Ball to come along

Give me Cannon and Ball anytime over the small half of the Krankies.

[ouch]

Ah, nothing quite like catching an Orion quote posted by another member.

 

Is he still a muppet, has he got a contribution to make, will there be a pearl of wisdom to mull over?

 

Muppet came the answer loud and clear. The quintessential troll, an utter irrelevance of a person who posts insults due to their inability to grasp the complexities? of the topics under discussion.

Previously funny, now just sad.

 

Oops forgot the emojis. Pictures help him understand a bit better. 😂😂♣️♣️😴😴😡😡😱😱

[ABS]

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/webcasts

 

Council webcast - all that's missing is Shami Chakrabati and the whitewash.