PHILIPRISING Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 So what we are saying the track was fit for racing on Friday and Saturday afternoon but not for Saturday evening. Surely you would test the track for evening racing when you are going to race [We are going to fit floodlights and we will test them in the afternoon ] seems about right I REPEAT, for the umpteenth, time, the problems with the track, caused by the sub-base and failure to break up the hockey pitch, only became apparent because of the very sharp drop in temperature that evening and the top surface on. bends 3 and 4 became problematic. Don't forget that the rest of the track was perfect. The reasons why that happened immediately became apparent when the faulty part of the track was dug up the next day and the material used as the sub-base (which was basically rubbish, possibly from a land-fill site) became apparent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OveFundinFan Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 This thread now reminds me of the opening words to "Windmills of Your Mind" by Noel Harrison - Like a circle in a spiral, Like a wheel within a wheel, Never ending or beginning On an ever-spinning reel. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Thanks Phil Quite a few of us are making assumptions based upon limited information. Not unreasonable in my view, but they become suddenly superfluous when someone who has access to far more detailed information sets us straight. I am not an avid speedway star reader, but I am not going to miss that one when you publish it. I would say that no rent being due when they were using the stadium wouldn't cut much ice with me (unless their expenditure and a reasonable rent reduction for the faults exceeded the agreed amount, that is). WE have a document from MCC to ISG listing, chapter and verse, the mistakes (an under-statement) made in completing turns 3 and 4 of the track. There is also a report by Arup, a renowned civil engineering company, commissioned by MCC but is subject to a non-disclose agreement which Messrs Gordon and Morton were compelled to sign. One of the questions we keep asking MCC, without any response, is why should that report remain a secret unless they, ISG or whoever have something to hide. But to the best of our knowledge, and we haven't seen the report, is that it only embellishes the MCC/ISG document that we do have. Edited February 7, 2017 by PHILIPRISING 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 WE have a document from MCC to ISG listing, chapter and verse, the mistakes (an under-statement) made in completing turns 3 and 4 of the track. There is also a report by Arup, a renowned civil engineering company, commissioned by MCC but is subject to a non-disclose agreement which Messrs Gordon and Morton were compelled to sign. One of the questions we keep asking MCC, without any response, is why should that report remain a secret unless they, ISG or whoever have something to hide. But to the best of our knowledge, and we haven't seen the report, is that it only embellishes the MCC/ISG document that we do have. I am a little surprised that the MEN isn't interested in this stuff. Most local newspapers can't wait to put the boot into councils, and that's when the council has done nothing wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 I HAVE never said it was everyone else's fault. In fact, I am not taking sides. I repeat, in case your grasp of English is at fault, the track was inspected on Friday and Saturday. Whether it was unfit earlier in the week is irrelevant. And was Havvy at the NSS to see for himself? Why would Gordon and Morton go ahead knowing that the meeting wouldn't take place and that they would have to refund all the money? Where is the logic in that? Having their promoters licence taken away was a direct consequent of the losses incurred because of the opening night debacle and what followed. The huge errors made with the building of the track on turns 3 and 4 were nothing to do with Gordon and Morton no matter what you think of them. And we have the documents to prove it. Plenty of logic in trying to run some kind of a meeting ..as I said they took gamble that things would have been ok and the riders would give the track a go ..quite clearly that did not work out , Makes .more logic than refunded everyones money what clearly would cripple them All the info you give out is all pro Morton and Gordon why not give up some info if they were not paying rent or any riders where all the money went seeing your not bias in any way ...why do kept avoiding the question ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 I am a little surprised that the MEN isn't interested in this stuff. Most local newspapers can't wait to put the boot into councils, and that's when the council has done nothing wrong. THEY are but like SS waiting for some legal points to be eradicated. Plenty of logic in trying to run some kind of a meeting ..as I said they took gamble that things would have been ok and the riders would give the track a go ..quite clearly that did not work out , Makes .more logic than refunded everyones money what clearly would cripple them All the info you give out is all pro Morton and Gordon why not give up some info if they were not paying rent or any riders where all the money went seeing your not bias in any way ...why do kept avoiding the question ? EXPLAIN what you mean by "all the money?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shale Searcher Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) THEY are but like SS waiting for some legal points to be eradicated. EXPLAIN what you mean by "all the money?" I would think along the line of gate receipts, programme sales, food/drink sales... Now, obviously I would think that gate receipts wouldn't amount to any great shakes on the race nights, because so many entrances were paid online by credit/debit cards, so actual ready cash would be limited. Also, if any/all incomes from the above probably have to go into the business account, which if it's seriously overdrawn, the money would just reduce a negative balance, and I bet charges from the bank for the agreed and not so agreed facilities would be high.. so actual disposable readies would be little or nowt!! Edited February 7, 2017 by Shale Searcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 THESE are figures we have acquired but so far not fully verified although certainly confirmed in the loss assessors statement ... Temporary toilets cost BV £10k per month, £70k to rent for the season, South terracing cost £65k to rent from March until October…and West £18k.There were many weeks when BV had no meeting and these facilities weren't even used. East Grandstand cost £60k just for 2016 SWC...which BV paid for as part of their agreement with BSI and would have been profitable had they not already run out of money and relied on BSI to ensure that the SWC meetings went ahead. It is also worth mentioning that the fact that the terracing under the south stand was temporary, the capacity in that area was reduced by council officials from 3,500 to 1,900. BSI admit that they could have sold at least another 1,600 tickets for the two days of the SWC race-off and Final, a loss of revenue of around £80,000. All this would have been unnecessary had the stadium been completed to the original specifications. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 THEY are but like SS waiting for some legal points to be eradicated. EXPLAIN what you mean by "all the money?" Sky money gate money sponsors etc etc ...it must quite cheap to run a speedway team when you don't the pay for any rent or any riders ...as I said by your attitude on here when your piece finally get's in the speedway star it's only likely to be pro your mates ...your just an apologist for them . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 THESE are figures we have acquired but so far not fully verified although certainly confirmed in the loss assessors statement ... Temporary toilets cost BV £10k per month, £70k to rent for the season, South terracing cost £65k to rent from March until Octoberand West £18k.There were many weeks when BV had no meeting and these facilities weren't even used. East Grandstand cost £60k just for 2016 SWC...which BV paid for as part of their agreement with BSI and would have been profitable had they not already run out of money and relied on BSI to ensure that the SWC meetings went ahead. It is also worth mentioning that the fact that the terracing under the south stand was temporary, the capacity in that area was reduced by council officials from 3,500 to 1,900. BSI admit that they could have sold at least another 1,600 tickets for the two days of the SWC race-off and Final, a loss of revenue of around £80,000. All this would have been unnecessary had the stadium been completed to the original specifications. Are you just publishing the article bit by bit on here. Nice one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 What would have been the capacity without the temporary seating? Would it not have made sense to hire some/all of that for the swc and play offs only? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenspoon Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 I believe there are two sides of a balance sheet. So far we have only seen part of the expense, and outgoing side, of Belle Vue's problems for 2016. What about revealing the income side of 2016, ie Gate Receipts, Sky Money, Sponsor money, Programme sales, Car Park revenue. Track Shop, etc etc. Then we would have a better overall picture of why they went bust. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Science Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 I REPEAT, for the umpteenth, time, the problems with the track, caused by the sub-base and failure to break up the hockey pitch, only became apparent because of the very sharp drop in temperature that evening and the top surface on. bends 3 and 4 became problematic. Don't forget that the rest of the track was perfect. The reasons why that happened immediately became apparent when the faulty part of the track was dug up the next day and the material used as the sub-base (which was basically rubbish, possibly from a land-fill site) became apparent. Reading the clerk of the courses report on another topic it seems that he was made aware by the promoters that there was a problem with the track on arrival at 11 am confirmed on a track walk at 1 pm. Nothing to do with temperatures dropping on the night. Lets be straight the people in charge knew there were serious issues with the track long before the gates were opened and for the Speedway Star to relentlessly defend them is shameful 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 Are you just publishing the article bit by bit on here. Nice one. YOU guessed it ... but we have more. What would have been the capacity without the temporary seating? Would it not have made sense to hire some/all of that for the swc and play offs only? SORRY but I don't understand the question. The temporary seating on the east side was for the SWC only. The south side is terracing only and for people who do not want or can go in the grandstand. Sky money gate money sponsors etc etc ...it must quite cheap to run a speedway team when you don't the pay for any rent or any riders ...as I said by your attitude on here when your piece finally get's in the speedway star it's only likely to be pro your mates ...your just an apologist for them . WHO says they are my or Speedway Star's mates. As I have said previously, we will publish what we know and you can THEN make up your own minds although you seem to have done so already. As far as I know and am told (not just by messrs Gordon and Morton) the riders didn't go the whole season without being paid and as far as their 'in-house speedway debts' were concerned others had higher figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 YOU guessed it ... but we have more. SORRY but I don't understand the question. The temporary seating on the east side was for the SWC only. The south side is terracing only and for people who do not want or can go in the grandstand. What would the capacity have been without the temporary south terracing which you day cost 65k and the East terracing that cost 18k I.e. what is the grandstand capacity? Would it have been viable to run with only the grandstand, which if it holds 1500-2000 may have been a better option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 Reading the clerk of the courses report on another topic it seems that he was made aware by the promoters that there was a problem with the track on arrival at 11 am confirmed on a track walk at 1 pm. Nothing to do with temperatures dropping on the night. Lets be straight the people in charge knew there were serious issues with the track long before the gates were opened and for the Speedway Star to relentlessly defend them is shameful THERE was a problem with the track on bends 3 and 4 only, no one is denying that, but (and I was there in the afternoon) the feeling was that it would be just about okay but certainly not ideal. However, believe what you will, but it did deteriorate as a consequence of the weather and the sub-base. This is a fact and not conjecture as supported by the examination of what was under the track when it was dug up. What would the capacity have been without the temporary south terracing which you day cost 65k and the East terracing that cost 18k I.e. what is the grandstand capacity? Would it have been viable to run with only the grandstand, which if it holds 1500-2000 may have been a better option? NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 Ok just read online the grandstand capacity is 1800. So Why wouldn't it have been viable to not hire the other temporary seating except for the play offs? Am I missing something? Ok just read online the grandstand capacity is 1800. So Why wouldn't it have been viable to not hire the other temporary seating except for the play offs? Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poole keith Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 to over simplify there were just so many people involved on all sides that didnt have the slightest clue what they were doing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OveFundinFan Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 I think so FF. However, the seats/scaffolding may have remained in place some time after the SWC if it was convenient to the hire company. BV would not of used them in that time, if they had 1) they would be liable for hire fee 2) they would have to keep the area clean (at their cost). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted February 8, 2017 Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 Justin Sedgemen your first signing? 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.