Belle Vue National Stadium

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,695]

 

Do keep up Fred. My original bet still stands and I will will pay the £100 to the Ben Fund if more than £1 is paid. The NEW bet stated today and only valid if you openly committ yourself to matching it, is for £1,200 to be paid to the Ben Fund if the full claimed compensation DG/CM claims IS paid to them. Let's call that £650,000 . Just to be clear, as you often sound confused, If DG /CM DO NOT receive at least £650,000 - then you pay £1.200 to the Ben Fund. Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is? We can easily firm this challenge up by private messaging and another poster who we both trust can be the in between. You are certain that DG/CM are the innocent victims and I am certain that they were inept and out of their depth as well as being responsible for the whole mess.

Accept the bet Fred - look closely he pays GBP1,200 (note the comma) you pay GBP1.200 (note the decimal point)

PS I'm not taking sides just pointing out the rules set for the bet

[ouch 1,191]

Avoid waytogo28, he's a previously banned fool.

I think he's Mocking you. LOL.

[waytogo28 2,054]

Avoid waytogo28, he's a previously banned fool.

I think he's Mocking you. LOL.

 

Unlike you ouch I am neither a fool nor a previously banned one ( is that nickname of yours chosen because you have previously been banned & more than once? )

Oh! I've just sent him a pm as well.

 

Wow Fred - and your advice was to trust someone like "ouch" with our wager funds ( or was it only my money )? And as for your Hargreaves Landsdown suggestion that from what I gleaner when Googling them is about as trustworthy as ouch! See below m -

 

But if as an investor the growth of your money is all you care about, there is now scant justification for choosing Hargreaves Lansdown as your fund supermarket. That's why this matters. - Ouch!

[nw42 2,048]

 

Unlike you ouch I am neither a fool nor a previously banned one ( is that nickname of yours chosen because you have previously been banned & more than once? )

 

Wow Fred - and your advice was to trust someone like "ouch" with our wager funds ( or was it only my money )? And as for your Hargreaves Landsdown suggestion that from what I gleaner when Googling them is about as trustworthy as ouch! See below m -

 

But if as an investor the growth of your money is all you care about, there is now scant justification for choosing Hargreaves Lansdown as your fund supermarket. That's why this matters. - Ouch!

 

Said he'd sent you a pm, why not keep it there instead of boring the rest of us, just sayin, it's not even as though you're on topic.

[ruffdiamond 6,115]

Said he'd sent you a pm, why not keep it there instead of boring the rest of us, just sayin, it's not even as though you're on topic.

anyway, back on topic,,, why did sky pull out, was it because of redex ???

[ouch 1,191]

So it's just a fluke that a poster using your "eloquent" style when sticking it to Belle Vue disappears just as you join the forum?

Or are we to believe that having watched the sport for however long, without commenting on here you suddenly feel that you'll sign up and post about the Belle Vue situation?

I not sure what I find most insulting, that you think I'll swallow the above BS or your incredibly wide of the mark musings on the NSS.

 

We're at a stage now with everything that's been put out for public consumption, that the prosecution is made up of three kinds.

Those that don't get it.

Those that just use it as an excuse to troll a thread.

Those with an axe to grind with Belle Vue.

 

It's certainly been a good exercise in sorting the wheat from the chaff when populating my ignore folder. Every cloud.

[ouch 1,191]

Not sounding good any of this. TBH I just thought he was your regular BSF troll be I don't think he's even a speedway fan now.

 

I wouldn't enter into any financial transaction nor give any information about yourself to him as it will only end badly.

 

Anyway back to topic.

I don't see any further movement on this until the questioning of the council report in May. I hope it's not council asking council as the whitewash will just continue but even saying that there are some glaring issues that should they continue to be sidestepped will really get under the skin of the speedway community.

 

Let's hope this David vs Goliath battle is a repeat of more famous version.

[Shale Searcher 1,264]

What's happened to "Drop a Cog"? and "Solrac"?

 

Have they left the forum, or are they serving touchline bans?

 

Just wondered....

Edited March 19, 2017 by Shale Searcher

[waytogo28 2,054]

So there wasn't much point in going to pm then?

 

Well I did suggest several other names which you ignored so I agreed to your suggestion that Paul Ackroyd be the trusted person?

 

I told you where my stake money would be kept but you didn't seem as keen to put your money where your mouth is, you even suggested "as gentlemen I think we do not need to pass on the money to them - do we?" I was suspicious of your motive for bringing the Ben fund into this in the first place so you not actually putting your money where you mouth is was never an option, besides a 'gentleman' would never break the implied confidentiality of a pm conversation without agreement.

 

Anyway, now you have proven to be untrustworthy and I now know I'm not dealing with anything remotely close to a 'gentleman' feel free to post as much of the pm as you like, as you have waived any implied confidentiality I am happy to show you in a better light......

 

"The SRBF will get my £1,000 when I pass away anyway as it is something dear to my heart."

 

I literally can't wait.

 

I thought I'd seen the worst of bsf when someone was sick enough to mock an injured rider the same week as a rider was lying in bed with very serious injuries and then, less than 30 minutes later, he used a crippled speedway rider to make a point.

 

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=80156&p=2670332

 

Using the Ben fund in a similar way is just as sick imo.

 

Oh Fred. Showing yourself to be total plonker then? backing out of a bet just because the bet conditions couldn't be controlled solely by yourself! What a pity that like several of the other regular bully trolls permitted to post as they wish you hide behind the anonymity when you could be taken to court as I would hope to do over your - " Anyway, now you have proven to be untrustworthy and I now know I'm not dealing with anything remotely close to a 'gentleman' feel free to post as much of the pm as you like, as you have waived any implied confidentiality I am happy to show you in a better light......

 

What is the point of a pm if it is going to be publicised - certainly not the act of a gentleman yourself! And your comment that "I can't wait" for someone's death is inexcusable and you are excused from the human race for that. Much more than a plonker. You just didn't want to lose the £1,200 you said you were prepared to bet when you first accepted my offer. Now that IS welching!

[teaboy279 1,038]

Why don't you both just forget the bet/bets and donate 50 quid each, and put an end to the schoolyard argument. Please....

[waytogo28 2,054]

For anyone interested in the latest Frolics of Fred Flange here is his slanderous pm reply in full. What foulmouthed Gollum like creature he is. Is he really David Gordon do you think?

No you are missing the point. Every point I am about to make is verifiable fact and not opinion.

You are a liar, you misrepresented the ss articel in several significant ways and then claimed "I have never misrepresented anything on here"

You are untrustworthy, you broke the confidentiality of the pm facility.

You are lily livered, you will not stand by your statement that DG/CM are responsible for the whole mess.

You are a liar, I did not say or even imply that "I am certain that DG/CM are the innocent victims."

You said "I am not interested in betting on a faulty track or any such side issue." That is not a side issue, it is THE issue.

You are a liar, we did not cross swords over opinion. You misrepresented the ss article by adding and changing various words and phrases. It is not opinion it is fact, I have no interest in your opinion.

You invited a pm, I confirmed I had sent a pm, YOU appalling personal integrity by revealing contents of the pm.

You are a liar. You then misrepresented my pm by saying "Wow Fred - and your advice was to trust someone like "ouch" with our wager funds", that was not my advice. You further misrepresented the pm by a reference to how I intended to place my stake money by stupidly ridiculing Hargreaves lansdown.

You are a liar. You said I made "many demanded changes and conditions." I was prepared to accept your bet but only if you put your money where your mouth is. That was my ONLY condition.

Under no circumstances will I enter into any agreement with you as you are a compulsive liar, not to mention the rank stupidity and complete lack of integrity you have demonstrated on this matter.

Dear David or Fred, thank you for your clearly written confirmation of slandering me ( several times ). Now we will see if you have balls - please forward by pm your real identity and address so that I can instruct my legal representative to commence action. A pity to use the majesty of the law on such a neanderthal, but that is the path you have chosen. The only thing we have in common is that neither of us wish to bet against each other ( but I notice you carefully back out or is that welch on the original bet which is nothing to do with the NSS track problems and is solely about the competence or otherwise of DG / CM / BVAL to promote speedway. The BSPA have confirmed that part of things. I look forward to your personal contact details and confirm that any damages I may receive will go to the SRBF - before I die providing you are man enough to face the law. The question is - are you?

[Vince 9,454]

Can I not very politely suggest you two eff off and bitch at each other like a pair of two year olds somewhere else.

[jaykay2PT 29]

The new owners have got the stadium much much cheaper per year than the last promoters

 

I was under the impression that the "new" owners are in fact, the "old" owners, no?

 

http://www.bellevueaces.co/newsitem.aspx?id=986

Edited March 20, 2017 by jaykay2PT

[Guest]

Not really, they pulled out of the consortium in 2015 according to MCC.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

Not really, they pulled out of the consortium in 2015 according to MCC.

THE five people listed invested as part of EIS - Enterprise Investment scheme which provides a 30% tax relief -but the money had to be effectively 'used' with a two year period to have any effect. It wasn't because of the two-year delay in construction of the NSS caused by MCC belatedly discovering that there was a covenant on the site and plans for the stadium had to be redrawn.

 

More of this in SS shortly.

Edited March 20, 2017 by PHILIPRISING