Crump99

In terms of a pointless second leg still pending, yes they are!

Well done. That's what the Design and Access Statement says: "This application is on behalf of Asset Earning Power Residential (AEPR) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Asset Earning Power Group (AEPG) and is in partnership with the landowner East of England Agricultural Society (EEAS)." It also says: "The allocation of this site, the East of England Showground, for leisure, employment, and residential development as an urban extension to the city, has informed how this masterplan complies with the objectives of the local plan" - as I can't see LP 30 mentioned in text or addressed (it only appears in their LP36 graphic) then how does it comply with the local plan? They seemed to have missed that, or being from Glasgow they didn't realise that we lived there?

Not a can of worm because Holdergate and associated is common knowledge and it didn't end well. Despite the public messaging one assumes that Rathbone didn't particularly want to sell up at Peterborough and he hasn't been involved since anywhere, that I know of, so you need to ask why? Or perhaps you don't? That's as far as I go on unconfirmed messages but it it all seems logical? And to answer your point above, allegedly there were other day to day issues which upset (not too difficult) the powers that be. Anyone else is welcome to clarify or dispel these things. Just to be clear, I have no problem with Rathbone and would be more than happy for him to be in charge of Peterborough Speedway.

No probs! They've been in touch with Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away! allegedly & Paul Bohill and Steve Pinner are having a word.

Just seen that. It's interesting that it says "The Showground land is set to be turned into a major housing and leisure development, with work set to begin next year" when they haven't got planning permission yet, that I'm are of anyway, as well as other similar local developments being refused or delayed due to supply chain and associated issues. Just done a quick scan (it is late and I'm tired ) of "The Design and Access Statement prepared by IDP Architects, Landscape Architects and Urban Designers which is said to be part of a suite of documents for two parallel planning applications to develop the East of England Showground" , and using the limit of my search skills, I can find that speedway gets 6 insignificant mentions in the document (two of which are labels for pictures). More interestingly is that although LP30 is shown on page 29 I don't think that they've grasped its significance or mentioned how the loss of an existing culture , leisure, tourism and community facility (ie Peterborough Speedway) is to be addressed because their application supposedly fails without that clarification and associated action. - I may just have missed it or read it wrong so if we can get someone brighter than me on the case

I think that there's a possibility, as Bratters has eluded to, that AEPG haven't thought it through. Chapman wants out so what's easier than just agreeing to go without fuss? Suits both parties in the short term and I doubt that we put up much of a fight? AEPG would hopefully be more receptive to the likes of Rathbone (who has the experience) or Tomalin, but they may just chance it that PCC ignores LP30 (which we're told they wouldn't) with whatever planning application they submit? If they are allegedly not willing to negotiate at all then that appears to be their strategy so we'd have to explore what few other routes are still available. They are only contracted agents after all?

Hopefully they wouldn't sign a knackered 46 year old in future. Pedersen messed up the whole season and with a proper number 1, as Bewley's guest appearance showed, it takes the pressure off the rest and we're an entirely different proposition and would have won most, if not all, of our home meetings. As with having a ringer at reserve throughout 2021, it's a fine line between success and failure. Was a cracking meeting last night though with a big crowd which only makes our current plight, inaction and messaging more disappointing.

Never works. Nobody is going to fund and build a new circuit. Been hearing that since I said the same about the Fengate motorsport complex. Remember that of 20 years ago? Neil does Allegedly, AEPG possibly liaised with the Panthers ownership/promotion as well as PCC and/or associated contacts about possible site relocation. Would be interesting to know if those discussions happened and the outcome? The problem is that we have a track which is in perfect working order so if the sport is about to collapse then a 3 year lease, until the revised local plan is produced, would appear to be ideal and sensible. Main problem is that I think the EEAS/AEPG don't want to spend any money on maintenance and associated staff deployment/costs?

Peterborough Speedway - the key is in the name.

So are you saying that AEPG will flatten the place? That may satisfy section k of LP30 but will be in breach of sections l & m. I'm sure that people are watching?

Agreed, we've come late to the party (well some of the fans because the club & supporters club, outwardly at least, have been woeful) and we know that Peterborough Speedway and its perfectly useable infrastructure will just sit to go to rack and ruin (as usually happens in such developments) because AEPG don't even have as yet, as far as I/we know, the required planning permissions and it serves their purpose to make the site, track and facilities unfit for purpose due to neglect. You can't blame them because that's their business but we could run for another 2 or 3 seasons and prepare and leave on good terms to pastures new if Fengate ever became reality, which is highly unlikely so it probably would be the end then, although perhaps not if PCC enforce (unlikely as money talks) LP30 within the Peterborough local plan.

Not necessarily, just clever with words: "If anyone did want to make me an offer, I wish they would have put it in writing, because I would have accepted it if it was anything sensible." If an offer wasn't made in that fashion (or sensible according to him) and it was just texts, WhatsApp, whatever, or discussions then what he says does pass the smell test. One of the big bits missing for me is no explanation of why this fell down: "The only person who spoke to me about running the club, who I thought initially was going to be running it, was Michael Tomalin from City Auction Group, and he is the only person."

Don't want to get in a toxic argument but that's confused me because I heard that, although it's a bit hard to argue against Chapman's programme statement because of the way it's qualified. If Rathbone did make an offer (unlikely that the BSPL would accept him back anyway allegedly?) then one assumes that he wouldn't do it on the basis (and I guess that he knows Butterfield (AEPG)) of Panthers finishing at the end of 2023? All still a bit confusing?

All very speedway really and you'd think that they'd want to steer clear of such association because their terminology is "our current promoter"

Maintain to what level, if at all? As you know, the message from the EEAS is that AEPG no longer have staff to keep the site open, which is no doubt a factor in them not wanting us around in future. You'd have thought that the EEAS would bend their ear to let us run because that would at least keep some of the site in reasonable condition. Developers generally want no action on their sites so that they go to rack and ruin and then their unpopular proposal looks like progress as it refreshes the dump that they've presided over.,

And who told you that? AEPG are not willing to talk to anyone allegedly and the EEAS are oblivious to what's going on (or they don't care), have put their faith in the wrecking crew they contracted to carry out their business and are happy for their legacy for the next few years to be an unkept dump & car park/garage and unused but useable speedway circuit.

Makes perfect sense (well in the kamikaze world of speedway promotion at least) if it was Rathbone, given his previous dealings with the sports administrators. The fault may not have been entirely Chapmans if there is indeed any substance to the story.

Who allegedly made that offer?

Said the same a few months ago. The place is increasingly looking like run down dump (Classic developers tactics as Kevin Bridges would say). When ST holders complained about parking in the main car park my mate was told by CJ that the new intention was to park them next to the riders gate on the grassed area that used to be a regular car park. However, that needed significant work to return it to a parking area fit for supporters but who was going to do that? AEPG wouldn't be interested and I couldn't see the club doing it. It's a difficult one but I don't know where we go with that? You'll know more than most about our excellent working relationship with the EoES administrators. Does the stadium rental include parking provision for spectators? If so, can they be pulled up on H&S grounds for providing an unsafe parking area?

In years gone by it would have been savable but these are different times with different mentality. The grassed areas will be like a bog so where was the parking for this. Also, the increased activity & traffic of Eurosport tomorrow would be more than problematic looking at the forecast so I'd have to say that they've called this right.

If provision (continued use) isn't made within their planning application, and it's clear from their first draft that it isn't, then the local plan says like for like infrastructure/facilities elsewhere. One assumes at the expense of AEPG or the EoE Agricultural Society? Councillor Nicola Day said that the planning application would not be agreed without LP30 being adhered to. With the local plan under review they could give us 3 years and get that provision removed from the new plan to be agreed in 2026 or soon after.

That's the elephant in the room. Nobody is going to finance and build anything new within the next few years so I don't know why people are clinging to that. The only option is a Showground extension, which has to be a possibility because nothing will happen development wise in the short term at the very least. Chapman is not interested in 2024 so needs to go now and hand over to someone interested in taking the club forward. I'd be interested to know what was agreed with AEPG when the full 2023 season was negotiated? Was the provision within the local plan considered? I suspect not or the agreement was that we'll go quietly at the end of the season. Johnson never mentions that and his first focus is always land elsewhere which makes me suspicious. The only thing that he's said is that we can't stop the development, which is certainly true, but we can initially make it difficult and ensure that plans and processes are followed?

That's not much of an argument though is it. Considering what's been served up under Chapman I think that the crowd has held up well. Traditionally when a losing team is served up at the EoES the crowds fall off a cliff, but we seem to have a more resilient fan base these days but even their patience is being tested now. I'm sure that anyone interested would be aware of that fact or educated about the reality of the situation.

You reap what you so sow and he hasn't sown enough, or what he has sown has been poor decision making, as results and lack of success indicates. Can't speak for Lynn but if he's had a gutfull of Peterborough then the blame lies with him. He's the owner and the poor product comes from the top. Hopefully his final act isn't to drag the club down further with him but the clock is ticking and he needs to make a definitive statement or hand over to someone who can fight for the club and take it forward, hopefully at the EoES which will be available for use, IMO, for at least another 3 years.

Or as Mike said to Neil in the Young Ones : "Now you knew that anyway and we don't care, so where's the surprise?"