Peterborough Panthers 2023

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

9 minutes ago, noaksey said:

Plus Football stadiums are, in the main, owned by the clubs themselves 

Absolutely 

[OldNutter 48]

11 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

Absolutely 

Not really anywhere near the full story -  Man City and West Ham for example.  Most football grounds are owned separately from the club and oddly, it is the lower league league clubs that tend to own their grounds -  Walsall for example have recently managed to return the Bescot ground to being owned by the club and are now paying mortgage cash not rent!..  The size differential between the likes of Spurs and Man U and such as Forest Green makes comparisons between football and anything else somewhat pointless.  Many clubs (eg Man City/West Ham) who do not own their grounds split the ownerships into the football and F&B  services income.  Most EFL clubs only have between 50 and 150 actual employees.  Most of the off pitch activity is business to make money not sport.  If you actually look at most sports, the actual sport activity is minimal in a business/ownership sense and they would not even exist financially without all of the ancillary cash raising activities like F & B, overpriced merchandise, weddings and company meetings etc.

If we are going to fight on to retain the speedway at the showground we will need to use all of the ammunition we can and delving down into real facts and tenuous supporting links will be vital.  If you doubt that, have a look through the huge pile of paperwork that Coventry Speedway (who did own their stadium and lost the lot in the first instance) have released about their fight.  The Peterborough consortium have quite a fight ahead and we will have to support them the whole way.

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

3 hours ago, OldNutter said:

Not really anywhere near the full story -  Man City and West Ham for example.  Most football grounds are owned separately from the club and oddly, it is the lower league league clubs that tend to own their grounds -  Walsall for example have recently managed to return the Bescot ground to being owned by the club and are now paying mortgage cash not rent!..  The size differential between the likes of Spurs and Man U and such as Forest Green makes comparisons between football and anything else somewhat pointless.  Many clubs (eg Man City/West Ham) who do not own their grounds split the ownerships into the football and F&B  services income.  Most EFL clubs only have between 50 and 150 actual employees.  Most of the off pitch activity is business to make money not sport.  If you actually look at most sports, the actual sport activity is minimal in a business/ownership sense and they would not even exist financially without all of the ancillary cash raising activities like F & B, overpriced merchandise, weddings and company meetings etc.

If we are going to fight on to retain the speedway at the showground we will need to use all of the ammunition we can and delving down into real facts and tenuous supporting links will be vital.  If you doubt that, have a look through the huge pile of paperwork that Coventry Speedway (who did own their stadium and lost the lot in the first instance) have released about their fight.  The Peterborough consortium have quite a fight ahead and we will have to support them the whole way.

Manchester United & Peterborough Panthers is comparable with the original point. 

The discussion was with regards to the use of grounds & what Peterborough Panthers offers to the local community. 

The answer as a whole is nothing & you tried to argue that football stadiums / clubs are the same, it's absolutely not.

Many football clubs, even at 'None League' level offer far far more to the community than any British Speedway club. 

Why should the land owners keep a stadium functional for Peterborough Panthers just for, at most, 30 days a year??

Coventry has a much better argument due to it's multi use functionality with Speedway, Stockcars & potentially Greyhounds again. Peterborough doesn't offer that. 

[OldNutter 48]

4 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

...Why should the land owners keep a stadium functional for Peterborough Panthers just for, at most, 30 days a year?? 

Coventry has a much better argument due to it's multi use functionality with Speedway, Stockcars & potentially Greyhounds again. Peterborough doesn't offer that. 

I couldn't agree more with that first sentence.  However, I seem to remember either last year or 2022 there was a big Monster Truck event in the infield - it did quite a lot of damage to the grass if I remember right!  That sort of event and many other social events that need a decent open area with a grandstand for spectators could use that space a lot.  Last year was a bad one for such things, because the last thing our owner wanted to do was  any time marketing something he had little heart  in other  than just getting to the end of the season in one piece, but it could be done by new progressive management.  Coventry and Rye House had Go Karts on the infield and the last time I went to Rye House just before it closed, there was a cross-country buggy course in the infield.  Add the new rules about having to have at least two league teams and/or junior meetings and speedway would be a lot busier as well.  Also, our position on the A1 would make the site attractive to the northern based Stock Car/Hot Rod drivers if the extra barriers were incorporated into the new fence that will need to be built anyway to replace the one that was taken down - Big Saturday Night F1 BRISCA Stox anyone?.

That sort of spread of sport and community events was what I was aiming at, not the dead hand we were forced to have at the tiller last year because of the blindfolded Butterfield curse.  We need imagination of the type that the likes of the Oxford re-birth that showed could be made to happen and we have a much better site for that than Oxford have had to make the most of.

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

1 minute ago, OldNutter said:

I couldn't agree more with that first sentence.  However, I seem to remember either last year or 2022 there was a big Monster Truck event in the infield - it did quite a lot of damage to the grass if I remember right!  That sort of event and many other social events that need a decent open area with a grandstand for spectators could use that space a lot.  Last year was a bad one for such things, because the last thing our owner wanted to do was  any time marketing something he had little heart  in other  than just getting to the end of the season in one piece, but it could be done by new progressive management.  Coventry and Rye House had Go Karts on the infield and the last time I went to Rye House just before it closed, there was a cross-country buggy course in the infield.  Add the new rules about having to have at least two league teams and/or junior meetings and speedway would be a lot busier as well.  Also, our position on the A1 would make the site attractive to the northern based Stock Car/Hot Rod drivers if the extra barriers were incorporated into the new fence that will need to be built anyway to replace the one that was taken down - Big Saturday Night F1 BRISCA Stox anyone?.

That sort of spread of sport and community events was what I was aiming at, not the dead hand we were forced to have at the tiller last year because of the blindfolded Butterfield curse.  We need imagination of the type that the likes of the Oxford re-birth that showed could be made to happen and we have a much better site for that than Oxford have had to make the most of.

And I agree with that. The problem there is the landowners don't want other events, Monster Trucks, Stock Cars, TruckFest etc. The only product fighting to remain is the 'not cost effective' Speedway. 

The only way Peterborough Speedway will return to the Showground is if the promoter / owner (whoever that ends up being) pays significant yearly rent & organise events outside of the sport to try recouping the outlay. 

 

[Crump99 4,476]

8 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

Why should the land owners keep a stadium functional for Peterborough Panthers just for, at most, 30 days a year??

Coventry has a much better argument due to it's multi use functionality with Speedway, Stockcars & potentially Greyhounds again. Peterborough doesn't offer that. 

The EoES is multi-use facility though and it should have been developed as such with the retention of Peterborough Speedway; as per first draft of the new Peterborough Local Plan in 2015/16. In 2022 the landowners (EEAS) initially said they had no problem with the speedway running. It's AEPG who have all but closed the events venue, isolated Peterborough Speedway and pushed the unviable, lack of use narrative (you've bought) while trying to con PCC that their so called leisure led concrete jungle offers the city and region more than an effectively managed events venue, speedway track and Arena venue.

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

4 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

The EoES is multi-use facility though and it should have been developed as such with the retention of Peterborough Speedway; as per first draft of the new Peterborough Local Plan in 2015/16. In 2022 the landowners (EEAS) initially said they had no problem with the speedway running. It's AEPG who have all but closed the events venue, isolated Peterborough Speedway and pushed the unviable, lack of use narrative (you've bought) while trying to con PCC that their so called leisure led concrete jungle offers the city and region more than an effectively managed events venue, speedway track and Arena venue.

Don't disagree but Peterborough Speedway group desperately need to get people that sees the venue as a 'viable use' on board asap. 

Going alone is just flogging a dead horse. 

Do Truckfest care they're gone, does the Caravan Club care they're gone, does EquiFest?? 

Whilst things are difficult for EEAS & AEPG right now, they know they can bide their time

[Crump99 4,476]

47 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said:

Don't disagree but Peterborough Speedway group desperately need to get people that sees the venue as a 'viable use' on board asap. 

Going alone is just flogging a dead horse. 

Do Truckfest care they're gone, does the Caravan Club care they're gone, does EquiFest?? 

Whilst things are difficult for EEAS & AEPG right now, they know they can bide their time

My understanding is that financial accounts show that the venue as a whole is, and has been, viable (even during Covid?). I'm sure that those details will be delivered and debated at a more appropriate time.

Those events mentioned will be disappointed no doubt but will soon move on, as they have, but I'm sure that they'd return if the EoES was open to them and others again. They have no skin in the game though and their very existence isn't under threat so there is no reason why they would want to join the campaign group.

The EEAS/AEPG want this done (Butterfield said last week that he wants to start tomorrow) and whether they are prepared to sacrifice time and money sitting and waiting is very much open to question? Flogging a dead horse might seem pointless but we're further down the line than Coventry, in terms of evidence and preparedness,  and look at that outcome after years. I'm sure that Brandon Estates thought that they'd just bide their time and claim the prize?

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

9 hours ago, Crump99 said:

My understanding is that financial accounts show that the venue as a whole is, and has been, viable (even during Covid?). I'm sure that those details will be delivered and debated at a more appropriate time.

Those events mentioned will be disappointed no doubt but will soon move on, as they have, but I'm sure that they'd return if the EoES was open to them and others again. They have no skin in the game though and their very existence isn't under threat so there is no reason why they would want to join the campaign group.

The EEAS/AEPG want this done (Butterfield said last week that he wants to start tomorrow) and whether they are prepared to sacrifice time and money sitting and waiting is very much open to question? Flogging a dead horse might seem pointless but we're further down the line than Coventry, in terms of evidence and preparedness,  and look at that outcome after years. I'm sure that Brandon Estates thought that they'd just bide their time and claim the prize?

Here's the problem, you can't use past accounting as an argument for viability as all those businesses & events have moved on. 

You need future accounting from businesses & events that want to come in as the land is. 

As I said, Speedway needs help, you're flogging a dead horse going alone. 

Peterborough's situation isn't comparable to Coventry & Oxford as they have the multi-use of the facility. 

With the land vastness of the EoES, Peterborough cannot argue the viability of the stadium & 'fictional' accounting without other businesses on board. 

Or the other option is a simple one, find a multi millionaire to buy the land from EEAS

[OldNutter 48]

12 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

Don't disagree but Peterborough Speedway group desperately need to get people that sees the venue as a 'viable use' on board asap. 

Going alone is just flogging a dead horse. 

Do Truckfest care they're gone, does the Caravan Club care they're gone, does EquiFest?? 

Whilst things are difficult for EEAS & AEPG right now, they know they can bide their time

Past viability can and has  been used as an argument against development if the loss of viability is/was due to actions of the developer having induced the loss of viability in support of the changes.  Clearly, the actions taken by AEPG when they took ownership of the management company for the Showground from EEAS in refusing bookings from all of the existing events can be used to prove that the closures were induced.  That could mean that the viability evidence is already cast in stone, ready to be unearthed at the right time.   The legal system has the capability to effectively wind the clock back if that is likely to affect material evidence.  Add that to the consideration of precedence in legal cases such as may occur if the planning decision is taken to appeal and the case could well already be well established.

Biding time can be a double-edged sword, and borrowing lots of money is no longer as cheap as it was a few years ago, making time much more of an enemy than it was a few fears  ago.

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

1 hour ago, OldNutter said:

Past viability can and has  been used as an argument against development if the loss of viability is/was due to actions of the developer having induced the loss of viability in support of the changes.  Clearly, the actions taken by AEPG when they took ownership of the management company for the Showground from EEAS in refusing bookings from all of the existing events can be used to prove that the closures were induced.  That could mean that the viability evidence is already cast in stone, ready to be unearthed at the right time.   The legal system has the capability to effectively wind the clock back if that is likely to affect material evidence.  Add that to the consideration of precedence in legal cases such as may occur if the planning decision is taken to appeal and the case could well already be well established.

Biding time can be a double-edged sword, and borrowing lots of money is no longer as cheap as it was a few years ago, making time much more of an enemy than it was a few fears  ago.

You're right, but only if all the businesses help fight the cause & highlight the effects moving has had on their businesses & show they had intended to stay. 

You can't use historical figures of many businesses to fight a standalone case if these businesses have relocated successfully.

Peterborough Speedway are flogging a dead horse going at this alone. 

[Crump99 4,476]

 

6 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

Here's the problem, you can't use past accounting as an argument for viability as all those businesses & events have moved on. 

You need future accounting from businesses & events that want to come in as the land is. 

As I said, Speedway needs help, you're flogging a dead horse going alone. 

Peterborough's situation isn't comparable to Coventry & Oxford as they have the multi-use of the facility. 

With the land vastness of the EoES, Peterborough cannot argue the viability of the stadium & 'fictional' accounting without other businesses on board. 

Or the other option is a simple one, find a multi millionaire to buy the land from EEAS

I bow to your knowledge if that's the case. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how actual accounts are less worthy as evidence than the real fictional future financial benefits as drawn up by consultants contracted to the land promoters.

If the save the speedway campaign e-mailed/contacted all of those events thrown out by AEPG (possibly including some others who might be interested) & asked if they would return in future to a well run and open Showground? Then by using those past accounts (or what those events paid previously) then it should be easy enough to come up with a future figure.

 

 

Edited January 25 by Crump99

[Daniel Smith 5,661]

43 minutes ago, Crump99 said:

 

I bow to your knowledge if that's the case. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how actual accounts are less worthy as evidence than the real fictional future financial benefits as drawn up by consultants contracted to the land promoters.

If the save the speedway campaign e-mailed/contacted all of those events thrown out by AEPG (possibly including some others who might be interested) & asked if they would return in future to a well run and open Showground? Then by using those past accounts (or what those events paid previously) then it should be easy enough to come up with a future figure.

 

 

That's exactly it. If those past businesses are willing to return then they would need to have their name within the fight with the Speedway. Then past accounting becomes viable along side future accounting. 

It will become extremely difficult to find 'new' businesses to take on the fight. 

I know it comes across as a doom merchant but I think it's fair for fans to understand the challenges of a standalone fight. 

Going back to the original post, regarding what are AEPG doing. If they can prove Peterborough 'offers nothing' to the community outside of match days & away from the EoES, Peterborough Speedway absolutely 100% needs past & future businesses alongside. 

AEPG are looking for those final nails

[Crump99 4,476]

15 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

I know it comes across as a doom merchant

Just a touch. Bratters and co are well aware of the challenges they face both now and in the future. They have to remain positive and see what happens when AEPG play their next card. They do appear to hold the aces and Chapman allowed the fat lady to fully test her vocal chords in 2023 and is still clinging on in 2024 to assist both her and AEPG but she has yet to burst in to song!

[TTT 1,227]

Happy retirement Hans Andersen, Thank you for everything.