Belle Vue 2017

[OveFundinFan 4,145]

The link is not working for me.

 

Interesting twist.

[SPD444 112]

Item 3.4 is a bombshell, if true.

[OveFundinFan 4,145]

Now got the link, need to read through again.

[orion 7,621]

3.4 is a shocker ..its amazing that dave gordon forget to tell the speedway star that .or did they just leave it out .

[Theboss 727]

Extracts from the report:

 

''The licence for B V Arena Ltd to be in occupation of the National Speedway Stadium expired on the 31st October 2016. From Council and a BSPA perspective, the speedway franchise, Belle Vue Aces had collapsed as a business. Both the BSPA and the Council have remained absolutely committed to speedway in Manchester and agreed to work together to develop a long-term and sustainable solution to ensure that Belle Vue Aces could continue as the city’s speedway team''

 

''Looking back over the last 18 months it is now very clear that the owners of the Belle Vue Group of Companies have not been open and transparent with the Council particularly in respect of not informing the City Council of the withdrawal of the £500,000 of private equity funding along with not declaring that replacement investment of £600,000 had been made at the same time as the original investment was withdrawn''.

 

Certainly throws up a lot of questions about the Speedway Star report, maybe Phillip Rissing would like to make a comment?

[arnieg 3,664]

We are back to the Pay Less Notice again so can I just re-post what I wrote a couple of weeks ago that went unanswered at the time ....

" 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? "

Can anyone enlightens us?

Follow the link just posted to the MCC report.

 

Para 3.9 sets out that the dispute with ISG has yet to be resolved.

[Grand Central 2,654]

Follow the link just posted to the MCC report.

 

Para 3.9 sets out that the dispute with ISG has yet to be resolved.

 

Thanks for adding that, I was going to do that myself, after I read it more thoroughly.

 

Still not resolved, as I suspected before the report was released.

The 'pay less amount' was only the opening shot in that process.

 

As this is to be a confidential agreement we will probably never know just what the arrangements will be

Common sense would seem to indicate that BVA liquidator will get an awful lot less than £700K.

 

And what they do get will go into the black hole of debt.

Hopefully some creditors will feel a small benefit.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[waytogo28 2,054]

Just as bad - or worse - than many of us thought. How DG or CM can hold their heads up and still go on saying that it was"all someone else's fault" is beyond belief. Philip Rising must also be red faced now? Why didn't the SS wait before printing that "white as white" article absolving DG /CM? What a farce the previous promotion were and how right the BSPA were to revoke their licence. If DG / CM knew about what was in turns 3 / 4 they have zero chance of any recompense from ISG. Where did the missing documents on the material used go? In someone's grate I imagine.

[ouch 1,197]

At least now the NDA put in place by MCC on the Arup track report can be lifted. It showed MCC and ISG in a bad light but now that it's been pointed out it was all Belle Vues fault there is no reason for it to remain secret.

Is there?

[bellevueace 914]

Judge, jury, and executioner springs to mind in some cases.

Edited March 7, 2017 by bellevueace

[Grand Central 2,654]

Hey, in this almighty cock up I cannot find much to believe from either side at all

 

We have only heard one side of the story at a time.

And until today ONLY Gordon's side.

Now we have more, differing, information. But nothing that appears any more gospel than his.

 

Both sides only seem to want to report the bits of the story that please their 'own side'

And gloss over the parts that don't show themselves in a good light.

So the arguments have not been properly tested.

 

Right now an obvious direct discrepancy is over who knew what about the track construction before the GOM.

 

Just last night the BBC report suggested that it was the council who knew what the problem with the track was, but withheld it from BV.

 

Today MCC report that they have documentation that shows BV that knew a change to materials being used and that the council did not give approval.

 

As I said on the other thread... I don't believe for one moment that CM knew nappies were being used to build the track. Which is the inference of the MCC position !

 

It just takes quite a leap to believe anyone in this saga.

And definitely not at face value.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Grand Central

[ouch 1,197]

The wording is "come to light" not documents found.

 

This actually confirms ISGs culpability in all this as even IF they had told Belle Vue that other material was being used they still should not have used it until clearing it with their "employers" MCC. It's been established that Belle Vues right to interfere in construction matters was nil. ISG might as well of told Alan from the chippy for all the good it would have done in following procedures and gain clearance.

 

At least the council now along with Belle Vue are pointing the finger at the guilty party so finally it's hoped we can move on to sorting the compensation out.

 

The only way the above is not what the council mean is if they think DG/CM drove the diggers themselves under the cover of darkness. Stupid as it sounds there will be some on here that think that's the case. Lol.

Edited March 7, 2017 by ouch

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

Hey, in this almighty cock up I cannot find much to believe from either side at all

 

We have only heard one side of the story at a time.

And until today ONLY Gordon's side.

Now we have more, differing, information. But nothing that appears any more gospel than his.

 

Both sides only seem to want to report the bits of the story that please their 'own side'

And gloss over the parts that don't show themselves in a good light.

So the arguments have not been properly tested.

 

Right now an obvious direct discrepancy is over who knew what about the track construction before the GOM.

 

Just last night the BBC report suggested that it was the council who knew what the problem with the track was, but withheld it from BV.

 

Today MCC report that they have documentation that shows BV that knew a change to materials being used and that the council did not give approval.

 

As I said on the other thread... I don't believe for one moment that CM knew nappies were being used to build the track. Which is the inference of the MCC position !

 

It just takes quite a leap to believe anyone in this saga.

And definitely not at face value.

 

I agree.

 

Reading the council's report I can find no occasion when they have accepted the blame for anything. Its all to do with Belle Vue or ISG. In fact, its a typical report from someone most carefully and anxiously making sure they don't cop for anything.

 

To be fair to David Gordon, at least he said he was at fault.

 

I must say I also agree with Ouch. If the council did nothing wrong, there is no need to keep anything under non disclosure.

 

I fear that's about it unless we get some intrepid dirt digger from the MEN who doesn't favour one side or the other.

[Grand Central 2,654]

Fascinating reading.

Revealing in so many ways.

[The White Knight 9,039]

Fascinating reading.

Revealing in so many ways.

Very true, but there seems to be a fair bit of responsibility evasion going on.