robert72 845 Posted February 28, 2013 If you look at post no.752 made on this forum on 14th feb. written by Glynn he says " at the apex of the turn it will be wider by about 2 metres". I presume this is what Glynn was going to do, but whether this actually happened i don't know. So do we take it that glynn had Nothing to do with the changes made and thats why he is no commenting on it ? If so who was in charge of the recent changes to the track. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LionsDen 124 Posted February 28, 2013 whilst i agree that you're probably right it is still the lack of investment from the targetted parties (velodrome, football & golf) who obviously were part of the plan even though they hadn't signed up to anything that, to me, would appear to be the underlying problem here. Rather than the council being hoodwinked or anything else it is more likely that, as usual, incompetence within the council to properly safeguard what was supposed to happen before approval has been shown up by potential investers being able to pull out without any consequences and leaving everyone in the mess that they currently are in. My problem is that i don't see how, with the best will in the world, you can blame BSC ltd for council incompetence. Unless it's as a stick to beat someone you don't like with, of course No sticks. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't the council's responsibility to develop the site financially as you and Barrow Boy seemed to believe. Your post makes a sweeping assumption that it's all down to council incompetence. Be nice and easy to simply blame that given what most people think of their councils (and I'm no fan myself). However, I would contend they shouldn't have had the need to safeguarded these proposals anyway. They were submitted and subsequently dealt with in good faith. Whatever, that's all history and getting something sorted going forward is between them and BSC. Let's hope they do because that site is a right mess now and it's causing concern as Hazzman pointed out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandersome 281 Posted February 28, 2013 No sticks. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't the council's responsibility to develop the site financially as you and Barrow Boy seemed to believe. Your post makes a sweeping assumption that it's all down to council incompetence. Be nice and easy to simply blame that given what most people think of their councils (and I'm no fan myself). However, I would contend they shouldn't have had the need to safeguarded these proposals anyway. They were submitted and subsequently dealt with in good faith. Whatever, that's all history and getting something sorted going forward is between them and BSC. Let's hope they do because that site is a right mess now and it's causing concern as Hazzman pointed out. I haven't made a sweeping assumption that the problem is all down to council incompetence. My sweeping assumption was that it was caused by the council dealing with the issue in good faith. Much as i'd be a fool (and have been in the past) to deal with anything the council were offering on a basis of good faith so would they be to deal with anyone in such a manner. Particularly such a large project as this. Personally I would contend it does show gross incompetence that they didn't safeguard these proposals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jim the whipper 231 Posted February 28, 2013 No sticks. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't the council's responsibility to develop the site financially as you and Barrow Boy seemed to believe. Your post makes a sweeping assumption that it's all down to council incompetence. Be nice and easy to simply blame that given what most people think of their councils (and I'm no fan myself). However, I would contend they shouldn't have had the need to safeguarded these proposals anyway. They were submitted and subsequently dealt with in good faith. Whatever, that's all history and getting something sorted going forward is between them and BSC. Let's hope they do because that site is a right mess now and it's causing concern as Hazzman pointed out. unfortunately for you LD nothing you post on here will be taken at face value , if you don't agree with the popular view you will simply be accused of hidden agenda ,chip on your shoulder , envy or the like . . the fact that you were involved in securing the return of the Lions while Hemsley was still going round in circles on a pushbike counts for nothing to those who were watching coronation street while others were sowing the seeds of a return of Leicester speedway , and now that you are no longer involved ,any information imparted about events before the gates opened at BP will only be viewed in the light of your discontent rather than be viewed as actual fact , Personally since you have not visited BP at all last year I would suggest you leave to those who still do attend and therefore have a better knowledge of events that took place in the years leading up to planning permission being granted . some of them have actually spoken personally to Dave Hemsley , how could you ever hope to enlighten those people ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandersome 281 Posted February 28, 2013 unfortunately for you LD nothing you post on here will be taken at face value , if you don't agree with the popular view you will simply be accused of hidden agenda ,chip on your shoulder , envy or the like . . the fact that you were involved in securing the return of the Lions while Hemsley was still going round in circles on a pushbike counts for nothing to those who were watching coronation street while others were sowing the seeds of a return of Leicester speedway , and now that you are no longer involved ,any information imparted about events before the gates opened at BP will only be viewed in the light of your discontent rather than be viewed as actual fact , Personally since you have not visited BP at all last year I would suggest you leave to those who still do attend and therefore have a better knowledge of events that took place in the years leading up to planning permission being granted . some of them have actually spoken personally to Dave Hemsley , how could you ever hope to enlighten those people ? Much i said to you, or was it speedibee, it's hard to tell you are so alike. I never really disagreed with either your or LD's version of what went and has gone on. I just don't particularly agree with the fact that the version of events as told by you always has a saint being sinned against. My issue is how saintly the angels. see above 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lionking 127 Posted February 28, 2013 Just seen the designs for the new jackets & hoodys. Excellent design & the logo looks very striking. But i almost fell out my chair when i saw the prices. £65 for a jacket !!!!! What planet are they on?! I thought the merchandise was getting cheaper with a new supplier carrying more stocks. The hoodys for £40 i can get a designer label hoody that will be better quality & can be worn away from speedway unlike their hoodys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robert72 845 Posted February 28, 2013 Just seen the designs for the new jackets & hoodys. Excellent design & the logo looks very striking. But i almost fell out my chair when i saw the prices. £65 for a jacket !!!!! What planet are they on?! I thought the merchandise was getting cheaper with a new supplier carrying more stocks. The hoodys for £40 i can get a designer label hoody that will be better quality & can be worn away from speedway unlike their hoodys. Are they really stupid at leicester, How many do they think they will get rid of at £65 a go when most hardcore fans bought one 2 years ago or even last season. Hoods at £40 each, wow that is crazy money, they should be able to do them for £18 and make a decent profit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LionsDen 124 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I haven't made a sweeping assumption that the problem is all down to council incompetence. My sweeping assumption was that it was caused by the council dealing with the issue in good faith. Much as i'd be a fool (and have been in the past) to deal with anything the council were offering on a basis of good faith so would they be to deal with anyone in such a manner. Particularly such a large project as this. Personally I would contend it does show gross incompetence that they didn't safeguard these proposals. Talk about making the story fit the ending! We'll just have to beg to differ then Volty. To be honest though, it doesn't actually matter whether you or me think it's the fault of the council, BSC or even Charles Ochiltree for that matter. The bottom line is (as Hazzman pointed out earlier - and he should know) certain elements within the council are not at all happy with what has happened at BP. The issue facing BSC Ltd is in making them happy again. PS: I'm really happy that they have a new logo. And very nice too. Illustratively it's a sort of cross between Leicester Tigers and Eastbourne Eagles and I think it works well. See, not all bad when it comes to discussing matters relating to LS! For obviously reasons I'm pleased the previous one is now consigned to history. Edited February 28, 2013 by LionsDen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wandersome 281 Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Talk about making the story fit the ending! We'll just have to beg to differ then Volty. Not sure how me saying the problem the council now has is that they didn't put the proper safeguards in to begin with is making the story fit the ending but there you go. If the council dealt with a project of this size with an element of 'good faith' then that's the part that needed your laughing icon. Like you say, I guess we will just have to beg to differ and move on. to edit: I have to say you have thrown me a bit so i have re read my posts. If this comment is in reference to my response to Barrow Boy then the point i was making and agreeing with was that Hemsley gave me the impression he was now in charge of developing the whole site which is something that he previously wasn't. That's what i agreeing with. I clearly have no idea in whose hands the resposibility of the rest of the site was with. Edited February 28, 2013 by volty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ukrossifan 77 Posted February 28, 2013 No sticks. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't the council's responsibility to develop the site financially as you and Barrow Boy seemed to believe. Your post makes a sweeping assumption that it's all down to council incompetence. Be nice and easy to simply blame that given what most people think of their councils (and I'm no fan myself). However, I would contend they shouldn't have had the need to safeguarded these proposals anyway. They were submitted and subsequently dealt with in good faith. Whatever, that's all history and getting something sorted going forward is between them and BSC. Let's hope they do because that site is a right mess now and it's causing concern as Hazzman pointed out. Why not just accept that it's down to the recession which is neither the fault of BSC or the Council but is a harsh fact of life! Are they really stupid at leicester, How many do they think they will get rid of at £65 a go when most hardcore fans bought one 2 years ago or even last season. Hoods at £40 each, wow that is crazy money, they should be able to do them for £18 and make a decent profit. Robert, look on Facebook team page and you'll see a fair few people already saying they have or are going to order the jackets, so yet again your view is not shared by all. PMSL 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neb 312 Posted February 28, 2013 Why not just accept that it's down to the recession which is neither the fault of BSC or the Council but is a harsh fact of life! Robert, look on Facebook team page and you'll see a fair few people already saying they have or are going to order the jackets, so yet again your view is not shared by all. PMSL at least he is having a moan about something else other than the friggin track for a change,thats got to be a step in the right direction. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robert72 845 Posted February 28, 2013 Why not just accept that it's down to the recession which is neither the fault of BSC or the Council but is a harsh fact of life! Robert, look on Facebook team page and you'll see a fair few people already saying they have or are going to order the jackets, so yet again your view is not shared by all. PMSL You say a fair few people ? 4 or 5 ? maybe 2 of them will actullay buy one.it seems you dont have a buisness mind either just like those at leicester speedway who fail in promoting the club better. Hoodies could of been knocked out for well under half the £40 price tag,just think how many more fans would buy one for £15, the more you sell the more exposure for leicester speedway, lets not foget alot of people in leicester still dont know speedway has returned. £15 hoodies and £5 t-shirts = affordable clothing that many could afford and that = fantastic promoting of leicester speedway £65 coats £40 hoodies, a few hardcore fans will buy = very limited promoting of leicester speedway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted February 28, 2013 3 or 4 people arguing about the same old thing makes us the laughing stock of the sport in my book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robert72 845 Posted March 1, 2013 3 or 4 people arguing about the same old thing makes us the laughing stock of the sport in my book. Tina Did you mean Track changes Mess outside the stadium who too blame. Why 3 promotors over priced merchandise I think they are good topics to discuss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Blobby 2,662 Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) Edinburgh jackets are around the same price and they sell a decent amount of them each year. Edited March 1, 2013 by Mr Blobby 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
