Belle Vue 2017

[Aces51 2,778]

And yet there are some on here who complain about the Chairman of the BSPA contacting the MCC to get more facts, having heard presumably that big numbers were being clocked up by G and M. He must have been horrified at the debt levels which were totally unrealistic.

 

Anyway, delighted that with all parties getting together and thrashing out what seems to be a reasonable deal to all. We can now move on with live speedway, but i think some defendants of the clubs activities this season need to take stock of their 'loyalty'.

 

You misunderstand. The criticism of the BSPA was that they went behind the back of the promotion. If it was genuinely, as you suggest, to get more facts then surely they should also have spoken to the promotion to ensure that they at least had both sides of the story. As we now know the debts were largely, if not entirely, due to the problems with the track and the stadium. If the chairman had bothered to speak first to those he owed an allegiance to, as members of the BSPA, he may well still have been horrified but with the standard of work done by the contractors and the financial affects that had Gordon and Morton.

[nw42 2,048]

i can understand the relief , even euphoria of fans to finally see real progress instead of rumours and promises but is a Premier Lge strength Peter Craven Memorial (at best) a fair exchange for any fan who has held on to their ticket to help the club , remembering that the original line-up was probably not even bettered by the british g.p.

 

 

If it upsets you that much I'll have your ticket off you, face value. That will save you from having to complain about the lack of permanent toilet facilities, or whatever else you could find to whinge about, sorted.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

As the clerk has already said the track 3 and 4 bends were soft in the afternoon ..its a myth that the problem only came at night ..Gordon and Morton were hoping the riders were just poodle round and get some kind of meeting done so they never had to give any refunds out . where has all the gate money sky and sponsor money gone from last year if no bills were being paid .maybe mr riseing seeing he so freindly with gordon can give some answers

AS Shale Searcher explained (post 2188) proceeds from Sky and gate receipts simply went into a big black hole from previously incurred debt, some of which had been carried forward year on year from Kirky Lane. I remember saying to Chris Morton at the play-off final against Wolves, with a big crowd at the NSS, that at least their season would finish with a good pay day. His curt reply: "But we won't see any of it."

 

There were concerns about the track in the days leading up to the opening but you ignore the fact that it passed an SCB inspection the day before.

 

The fact remains that had ISG properly constructed the base section of turns 3/4 as they had elsewhere and subsequently did there too this whole sorry chapter in British speedway would never have taken place.

[Grand Central 2,654]

I would assume that the £500K, debt that the new promoters have 'accepted' is not the sum total of the debt of the 2016 promotion.

Or have hardy any direct relation to it.

 

The unpaid rent of £350,000 plus other MCC expenses incurred in 2016 may form part of the 500K.

And the BSPA will have got in there to get their expenses covered; including the unpaid 'speedway debts'.

I cannot imagine that many other creditors of the 2016 promotion will have had much say in this at all.

 

One would expect that the astute business men that the new owners are, would not be so foolish as to then just accept a straight summation of these figures. They would have negotiatied it 'down' to 500K.

 

Until someone leaks more documents the rather 'back of the envelope calculations' we are offering could be massively wide of the true mark

Edited February 24, 2017 by Grand Central

[OveFundinFan 4,143]

"Back of the envelope calculations" - what more do you want thats not already been printed/said. BV engaged Loss Assessors who reported damage to the BV business of £696,782 pounds (hardly a figure you would make up to scribble on the back of an envelope), and this figure must have been accepted by MCC because they deducted it from their payment to ISG Construction.

Just sit back and think what that £696,782 would do for BV......... IF MCC had paid it to BV, having deducted it from ICG payments, maybe then BV would have been able to formally pay MCC the rent - but it appears MCC kept it back, all £696,782 which is much more then rent.

As PRising has said, if ICG had built turn 3-4 to the correct specification (as the rest of the track) then highly likely BV would not be in the mess it is.

 

Head, banging, wall comes to mind.

[Grand Central 2,654]

I

"Back of the envelope calculations" - what more do you want thats not already been printed/said. BV engaged Loss Assessors who reported damage to the BV business of £696,782 pounds (hardly a figure you would make up to scribble on the back of an envelope), and this figure must have been accepted by MCC because they deducted it from their payment to ISG Construction.

Just sit back and think what that £696,782 would do for BV......... IF MCC had paid it to BV, having deducted it from ICG payments, maybe then BV would have been able to formally pay MCC the rent - but it appears MCC kept it back, all £696,782 which is much more then rent.

As PRising has said, if ICG had built turn 3-4 to the correct specification (as the rest of the track) then highly likely BV would not be in the mess it is.

 

Head, banging, wall comes to mind.

In my last post I did not offer any comment on the 700k loss assessor calculation.

I was only discussing the 500k debt that the new owners are 'accepting'.

 

But just on that point of the 700k deduction in the Pay Less notice of April 2016.

Do you know if ISG actually ever accepted that as the final settlement in the matter?

 

I would doubt that they would. At least not without a fight.

 

Firstly it was regarding a loss suffered by a third party, not MCC, so that may not form part of the contract between MCC and ISG.

It may never have been accepted as a 'pay less amount' by ISG may still be unresolved?

 

Secondly, this sum of 700k was 'only' a loss ASSESSOR'S evaluation who work for their client to maximise their claim. It is usual for the person receiving such a claim to appoint a loss ADJUSTER who does everything they can to reduce that claim level substantially.

 

The parties then have to battle to an agreement or go to law.

 

Does anyone KNOW what the final settlement between MCC and ISG was in the end?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch 1,191]

Given the apparent level of debt run up, Belle vue are very fortunate to be coming to the tapes this year. Other sports may have seen them kicked out of the league.

I heard that one club recently lost nearly 2 million which dwarfs the Belle Vue figure. I'm sure there are many who agree with you and feel this club should be kicked out. Can anybody in the know tell us who it is?

[Daniel Smith 5,666]

I heard that one club recently lost nearly 2 million which dwarfs the Belle Vue figure. I'm sure there are many who agree with you and feel this club should be kicked out. Can anybody in the know tell us who it is?

 

If you heard a club has lost £2m, you'd also know which club it is so why not say?

[AlanF 295]

Clearly it is Glasgow as the owner said so in the Speedway Star. However, he said that it had "cost them $2m so far (may have been $1.5m, can't remember). That included buying and renovating the stadium. That is capital expenditure on an asset, so totally different to operating losses.

[Grand Central 2,654]

I heard that one club recently lost nearly 2 million which dwarfs the Belle Vue figure. I'm sure there are many who agree with you and feel this club should be kicked out. Can anybody in the know tell us who it is?

They bought the stadium outright.

And retain it as an asset.

 

There can be no comparison in the situations.

[Tsunami 10,219]

The figures as presented are quite remarkable.

 

An independent assessment, agreed and acted on by the council, states that losses around £700k are due to the problems caused by the contractors.

 

I'll just let you think about that for a moment..........

 

 

 

 

The debts the new owners have covered are only £500k.

 

I'll let you think about that for a moment..........

 

 

 

 

Even if the new owners have been handed all the speedway fixtures and fittings for nothing the debt should have been AT LEAST £700k, and that suggests that they broke even on the season.

 

Breaking even would have been a remarkable achievement, I bet you would have been happy to break even with the diamonds but, as is clear from the figures as presented, they have somehow managed to cover £200k. The implication is that they otherwise made a £200k PROFIT!!!

 

Did you ever make a £200k profit at Newcastle? Did you ever make a profit?

I think you are very confused about profit being the difference between the known debt, and a talked down debt to get an agreement. Hope you don't look after the house budget. In reality those figures show a break even.

 

Surprisingly enough, it may come as a surprise to you that we have never made a profit of £200k at Newcastle. Shock, horror

BTW, I think you will find that very few clubs make a real profit, especially in the Championship. Maybe we should hire you and Gordon to do the books.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Tsunami

[ouch 1,191]

Does anybody know how much these items cost?

Commercial kitchen.

Electronic turnstiles.

Ticketing system.

Office furniture.

Bar & bar furniture.

Tractor x 2

Heavy plant machinery.

Speedway fence.

Air fence.

Several tonnes of shale.

Worrall x 2

Fricke

Bewley

I'd be interested to know from the experts on here exactly why they think this and more should be free?

 

Note: feel free to post abuse and dodge the question if you're a troll or an idiot.

Edited February 24, 2017 by ouch

[Grand Central 2,654]

Actually ouch on this I agree with you entirely.

These are all expensive items that must add up to a hefty sum.

 

If these were bought and owned outright by the 2016 ltd company, just how they may end up in the hands of the 2017 owners will have to have been done in a legally sound manner.

 

Do you know what has actually happened in this regard?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Grand Central

[Tsunami 10,219]

 

You misunderstand. The criticism of the BSPA was that they went behind the back of the promotion. If it was genuinely, as you suggest, to get more facts then surely they should also have spoken to the promotion to ensure that they at least had both sides of the story. As we now know the debts were largely, if not entirely, due to the problems with the track and the stadium. If the chairman had bothered to speak first to those he owed an allegiance to, as members of the BSPA, he may well still have been horrified but with the standard of work done by the contractors and the financial affects that had Gordon and Morton.

Why. Before you start talking to the owners of what was a major problem, surely it is in order to gain information from the other side before confronting the owners. The info gathered would be the points for discussion rather than the points raised by the BV promotion. In business or the law, you don't have to liaise with one side, whilst you do your own investigations with the other side. Buster didn't go in as an individual, but as Chairman of the ruling body of the sport, to try and protect the sport as a whole. That's his job.

Would any BV fan really just expect the promotion to plod on doing what they were into, and not expect Buster to do some prying to see what was really happening.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

Actually ouch on this I agree with you entirely.

These are all expensive items that must add up to a hefty sum.

 

If these were bought and owned outright by the 2016 ltd company, just how they may end up in the hands of the 2017 owners will have to have been done in a legally sound manner.

 

Do you know what has actually happened in this regard?

BELIEVE they are in the hands of an administrator appointed after the companies went into liquidation.