Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Wolves - Swindon Followed By Wolves - Kings Lynn 4.9.17


A ORLOV

Recommended Posts

I did say you were a calmer version of brum.

 

Who 100% brought up the rent?

 

It isn't a trick question.

Lol, maybe I haven't explained it clearly enough for you, my apologies, yes I dared to mention the r word and yes I was the first person to use it but it was totally in context to someone who blames it all on Buster, not out of the blue and definitely not to try and get a response from someone. The fact of the matter is BV were evicted for failing to pay the rent.

Maybe now I can ask you a question (not a trick one)

 

Who is responsible for paying the rent?

A) the promoter

B) Buster

C) who cares as long as we win the league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relevant question is; why wasn't the rent paid? That was discussed at great length on this forum and there were lengthy articles in the Speedway Star. I am sure you can find the forum discussion if you are really interested.

 

As for, who cares, lots of people who have the best interests of speedway at heart and especially Gordon and Morton after the considerable work they had put in to see the stadium completed.

Edited by Aces51
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it all at the time to be honest, but was left with the conclusion that they knew very early in the season that they were in trouble but continued with the same 1-7, in particular reportedly paying Zagar thousands per meeting. Surely it would have been better to cut costs and at least make a contribution towards the rent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read it all of the time you might recall that the stadium was never completed, they did not formally accept it and so wouldn't pay rent until the outstanding work was done. Also,there was the expectation that the huge losses caused by the problems with the track and other issues, that were assessed by the loss adjustor and claimed from the contractors by the council, would be paid to them and that would have more than paid the rent.

 

However, this subject has been done to death elsewhere and I doubt many will want it to be rehashed on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read it all of the time you might recall that the stadium was never completed, they did not formally accept it and so wouldn't pay rent until the outstanding work was done. Also,there was the expectation that the huge losses caused by the problems with the track and other issues, that were assessed by the loss adjustor and claimed from the contractors by the council, would be paid to them and that would have more than paid the rent.

 

However, this subject has been done to death elsewhere and I doubt many will want it to be rehashed on this thread.

Maybe that they didn't formally accept the stadium but they made full use of the facilities, reduced rent maybe but for free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was never intended to be for free. As I explained, the money claimed by the council from the contractors, which they reasonably expected to receive and should have received, would have covered not only the rent but also other debts. Where is that money now I wonder?

 

Might I suggest that you resurrect the old thread if you want to continue discussing this topic.

 

As for the semi final I hope there are two good meetings and may the best team win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er no it 100% wasn't, I was replying to a post which suggested Buster was responsible for the near demise of the Aces. I merely pointed out that it was their failure to not pay a single penny in rent all season. Had you beaten us in the final I would have felt cheated, luckily that didnt happen

That seals it.

 

In the box you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to explain why you brought the rent up, it was your indignant response when it was pointed out who brought the rent up which seemed a bit odd. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

The answer to your not trick question depends on how the stadium purchase agreement was drawn up and the obligations of the various companies. I do know that Belle Vue Speedway did pay rent for the use of the National Speedway Stadium to BV Arena. All speedway related obligations were paid, or agreements were in place to make payments in due course. Even the riders had agreed to how they were going to be paid and it was only when Chapman waded in did those agreement end.

 

I know its complicated, even chapman didn't understand it when the learned friends were explaining to him where he went wrong.

 

Anyway, you've been itching to get the Belle Vue rent thing back on the table, why?

Not at all Fred, I just wondered why Buster was being blamed and suggested that the BV promotion was responsible and this is the outcome. So sorry for expressing my opinion on a public forum and I'm not going to say another word on the matter. For what its worth im glad you managed to get up and running again as not having the Aces racing wouldn't be right.

 

So enough said and that's my final word on it, if only you would do the same with your opinions on Monmore, some hope lol

 

Haven't you been invited to have the Belle Vue rent issue explained in detail? It has been covered on here plenty of times but there are some things nobody will post on here about Chapman. Trust me, it will make your toes curl to hear what went on.

 

The dangerous nature of the track is something I have noted before, but this season has been, or should be, a watershed for wolves. Something needs to be done perhaps along the lines of the changes at Rye or Leicester. I call it safety, maybe its my professional background, you call it guff, and you're obviously entitled to your opinion.

Interesting you should suggest changes to the track along the lines of Rye or Leicester. Wasn't there a meeting at Leicester where Newman, Ellis and Przedepelski all retired through injuries from bad crashes. The truth of the matter is these things happen in speedway, it's just you only seem interested in the ones that happen at Monmore. I wonder why?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm happy to back up my opinions with facts but you describe my opinions as guff. You don't appear to know the facts surrounding the Belle Vue fiasco so I helped a bit without describing your opinion as guff or claiming you hate all things Aces. I'm not that bothered but I think responding to an alternative opinion with childish insults isn't helpful.

 

I watched the Leicester meeting and you are right but the point is that they have recognised that there is an issue and they have tried to put it right. By all accounts, and the tv meeting does support it, the racing has improved this season.

I call your opinions guff because that's exactly what they are. 7 withdrawals for injuries due to the horror track, really!!! I can only find 4 official withdrawals due to injuries.

 

#1 Kyle Howarth v Poole caught Hans Andersen's back wheel coming out of turn 4, could have happened at any track

 

#2 James Shames in the same meeting, has an incident with Greaves in his first race and is excluded, completes his second ride and gets a point, then withdraws with a hand injury, leaving the much stronger Starke to take his remaining ride

 

#3 and #4 Josh Auty and Tom Perry, typical first corner bunching leading to Riss making contact with Auty who then loses control and makes contact with Greaves and Perry, all of them ending up in the air fence

 

And that's it as far as official withdrawals for injury goes, 4 not 7!!!

 

I assume two of the others you are referring to are Greaves in the last meeting who withdrew as his bike was trashed, and not injury, and the Lindgren incident which you keep banging on about, posting video links from YouTube at every opportunity. Hardly a bad crash as he stayed on his bike. Although you say the poor chap was just taking the same line he always takes, in reality he was unsettled by Morris coming up up the inside, put his leg down to steady himself and twisted his knee. Very unfortunate but hardly how you describe it. He didn't withdraw from the meeting as he had completed his programmed rides.

 

In total that's 6, what was the 7th or did you just think of the 1st number to come in your head.

 

If I think your one man crusade against Monmore is guff then I'm not afraid to say it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not again?

 

Find the post where you think I said '7 withdrawals for injuries due to the horror track', read it carefully and then you will realise why you 'can only find 4 official withdrawals due to injuries.'

 

Once you've read it and understood it you will probably be able to find more than seven examples. You'll be able to point out I was wrong if it makes you feel better.

So I forgot the last bit about "or missed subsequent meetings" that doesnt make me a liar does it. Nor does it change the fact that they weren't really caused by the track does it

Edited by Call me wolfie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else pick up on the post match interview (on BT Sport) between Kelvin Tatum and Pete Adams? Kelvin asked Pete a very reasonable question regarding choice of first leg venue for the play off semi final which prompted an unnecessary confrontational response from Pete. Kelvin covered himself with his response to Pete's accusation that he had not done his homework but was clearly miffed (and rightly so) at the juvenile response to his simple question. Pete Adams did not do the sport any favours in front of the TV cameras. Having a face resembling that of a camel (anyone else spotted that?) is no reason to have the hump!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else pick up on the post match interview (on BT Sport) between Kelvin Tatum and Pete Adams? Kelvin asked Pete a very reasonable question regarding choice of first leg venue for the play off semi final which prompted an unnecessary confrontational response from Pete. Kelvin covered himself with his response to Pete's accusation that he had not done his homework but was clearly miffed (and rightly so) at the juvenile response to his simple question. Pete Adams did not do the sport any favours in front of the TV cameras. Having a face resembling that of a camel (anyone else spotted that?) is no reason to have the hump!

 

Yes it was mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Mr Adams was the one who hadn't done his homework as Wolves didn't have the choice last year against Poole as they came 3rd, Poole 2nd. Tatum was quite correct that when given the choice, Wolves have chosen to have the 1st leg at home. I got the impression Adams wanted the first leg at home but had been over ruled by the riders, hence the way he responded.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy