1 valve

And make sure the drainage is sufficient to take away the thousands of litres of water that would normally soak into the track but now floods onto the centre green.

It’s actually three ways.

Thanks. - have the Bates gone on holiday or (them/lawyers) just being slow? Or maybe details of deal not actually agreed?

Because? (Sorry if the answer is obvious- but I am missing the point)

As you say. Track was fine according to staff but riders didn’t fancy it. worth checking though on how much rain had actually fallen during the days leading up to the meeting & not just the day itself. That’s what the track had to cope with.

With all of the severe flooding throughout the country including Leicestershire caused by immense volumes of rainfall and you think a speedway track can still be prepared? Get real, this isn’t about the quality of drainage but the quantity of rain!

Highly unlikely Sundays meeting will godhead too...back to the drawing board.

Correct, Lions and Oxford needed other matches to be completed and riders, tracks being available.

Fans who have a ticket from last week are being allowed in "free" for the re-run of the meeting which didn't happen - albeit the club wanted to run it but the riders found it too difficult (well some did) to ride. And if they don't want to watch the other match. they can toddle off back home & not be out of pocket having had to pay for something they didn't want Many a time promotions are criticised by spectators for charging higher prices for a double header when the spectator only wants to watch one match - Now Leicester have introduced that opportunity they are being shot at. Just cant please all of the folk all of the time

It’s not a matter of the time required to run a meeting. It’s the cost of paying the riders. That said, a 13 heat main event plus a second half had a lot going for it.

Yes assuming the potential new owner of the club could obtain promotional rights for speedway in Newport from BSPA. FYI / this is what happened at Leicester (Lions)

Naming rights typically refers to where a sponsors name is linked to a preexisting item, such as a stadium or team . i.e Brighton FC ground is actually the Falmer Stadium, but known for sponsorship purposes as the American Express Stadium and more commonly referred to as the Amex. These naming rights are covered by a contract drawn up between the invested parties where Brighton FC receive payment for the duration of the contract (the term) It can then be renewed. In the case of a speedway team name, this is covered by Trade Mark law where the "mark" at the time of its creation needs to be unique in design comprising either a made up word, two or more words (Newport Wasps) a logo/emblem or any combination of those three. - Think of the adidas name and three stripe logo. Once the Tm has been registered the owner is afforded protection for an initial 10 years after which the registration can be extended every 10 years in perpetuity. However, if the TM registration is not renewed the owner loses rights to exclusivity. Registered TMs appear on a company's balance sheet as an intangible asset.

Where a license exists, it provides for exclusivity to promote speedway in accordance with the SCB/FIM regulations within a given regional area - irrespective of the name of a team which if one is established is protected by amongst others trade mark & copyright law

Well. Think what you like re his business acumen. But unless he did what he did, then the TV deal would have been dead in the water as the number of clubs required was none negotiable.

Correct & that’s one of the benefits/reasons of owning a company that owns such an asset. To be clear. License’s are legal documents drawn up under the full protection of UK contract law.

The valuation of license (as a legal contract) would be one of an intangible definite asset (as opposed to an indefinite one) where the value does not appear on the balance sheet but where the owner/company can apply its own asking price/valuation leaving the buyer to decide if he wishes to pay that price. So the valuation of a license can and will differ from club to club no matter the circumstance.

On the matter of valuation. When it comes to an acquisition it will be necessary to determine if the intended purchase is that of a "going concern" or an "asset purchase". If it is the latter then you are correct, it should be straightforward to reach an agreement of the value of the material assets in question. However, the current owner is within his rights to regard this as a sale of a business (it is immaterial that it does not have a place to ply trade from) and as such the valuation of a going concern would be required(even if not currently trading). This will then take into account both tangible and intangible assets. Put another way, the current owner would not just be selling lights and a safety fence, but the club name, history and license to promote etc and so should a place be found to ply the trade by the new owners then they would immediately benefit from the goodwill (intangible asset) involved i.e. the supporter base, sponsors, Press relations to name a few. The alternative being, amongst other things, buy new lights safety fence, track equipment find a place to trade (hold meetings) then apply for a promoters license for a new club using a new name. It will be interesting to see which way this matter goes. Maybe the current owner will wish to be charitable.

BE are not be remotely interested in renting the site for speedway or stox. Because, 1, In doing so it disproves their case, 2, It would mean a delay to any new build housing as rental leases would take precedent. 3, They don't need the cash and increases in land values over time guarantees them a secure return on their investment as they are in it for the long haul as per all developers. The only way BE will give upon Brandon is if this phase of planning is rejected beyond a reasonable compromise being possible and somebody makes them a very decent cash offer for them to move away from their current thinking and trajectory. and developers do not like acquiring land only to have to give it up.

Short answer is "no". The council can insist that the land is maintained in a safe and secure manner. That's about it.

The state of the stadium/site is what it is. How it got there is of no interest to the inspector in deciding if the site can be developed either for building houses or it’s impact on the viability of reintroducing speedway/stocks in a new stadium should BE agree to sell if their appeal fails.

Boarded up at the outset in the interest of safety so that meetings could commence as soon as possible. However, ultimately the stand would need to be demolished at the cost of the “new” owners.

The company currently owning the club & the licence to promote speedway at the circuit is for sale. The circuit is owned by a company owned by DH. By purchasing the promotional rights from the current owners (Bates) the the new owners will take on the current lease of the circuit or may negotiate a new one if both parties agree it would be appropriate to do so.

Concussion’ means the symptoms of a brain injury, not the injury itself. The injury might be a subdural haematoma, an arterial or venous rupture, an intra-cranial bleed, and so on. So, if you are rendered unconscious, by definition you exhibit symptoms of a brain injury: a concussion.

A person can be concussed without being knocked out. However being knocked out always involves being concussed

Absolutely. However, it is worth considering that if SW managed to completely flush out his system in the time between the two tests, then more than likely, what was detected on Tuesday would have been residual from something substantial in his system when he rode at Wolverhampton the previous evening.