Aces51

No. The BSPA did only say "could" be announced yesterday. I think we've still got to go through, might be today and expected this afternoon before it actually happens.

I think we all know that Middlo doesn't always think before he speaks. Matt will be pleased though, nothing like bigging up the product just before the season starts. http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/speedway/piratesnews/15099137.Pirates_boss_Middlo__There_are_no_big_names_in_British_speedway_any_more

I don't agree you should drop Masters or anyone else but I can't see how Belle Vue dumped Worrall. His contract last year was with the old promotion. So far as I know the new promotion, if they are ever confirmed, never made any promises and are surely free to start with a clean slate and offer contracts to whoever they want. Having said that I would have liked to have seen Richie offered a place because of his loyalty and because he is British even though I think that there are better options available to create an overall stronger team.

The BSPA in their corner? Have you read the article?

I used to but gave up a few years ago. However, Chapman promised that we are going to have a rewritten, unambiguous rule book this year.

I think the rule is no more than two from the same Championship team so Cook is OK.

We know from Philip Rising's comments on here that MCC have had this statement for more than sufficient time to make a detailed response if they so wished. Nobody can force them to comment and they knew that if they didn't only one side of the story would be published. We also know from Philip Rising that, in his opinion, all of the facts put forward by David Gordon are supported by documentary evidence. Now that the article has been published anybody who was involved and disagrees with anything said can come forward with their evidence. We shall see if anybody does.

Last year for the Colts Belle Vue charged £10 for adults, £8 concessions and everyone under 18 free. Considering the surroundings and quality of the racing it was excellent value. Unfortunately, I can't say that I saw many children in the crowd.

If you follow your madness of holding a test meeting at the same time as the actual meeting you would also have to hold meetings at the same time of night in every possible weather conditions other than heavy rain, as you wouldn't know what the weather was going to be like on the Saturday. Otherwise, tests could have been held during the previous week when the weather was warmer and all would have been ok, come the meeting and the problem, caused by the change in temperature, would still have happened. As for the problems seen during the day on the Saturday, the opinions of track staff, riders and officials was that it wasn't sufficient to call off the meeting. It was much later, when the riders changed their minds. Also, don't forget that the referee takes control some time before the meeting starts and obviously he must have thought, even at that time, that it could go ahead.

It could be a good idea but not if all those referees are in charge who we now see pulling back prefectly good starts because they imagine someone must have moved. There lies the road to unfair disqualifications, lots of controversy and delays whist riders make their complaints. It's 2017, time for a foolproof system using modern technology which will instantly identify if anyone moves before the tapes are released. Apologies Star Lady for pretty much repeating what you said. That will teach me to break off partway through a post to have a cup of tea. Your post wasn't there when I started.

I think Lawson would probably settle for being second best in the world.

I said the same on the NSS thread. It's terrible being so cynical isn't it.

Against all the odds they had achieved what many thought impossible by persuading the council to build the new stadium. Are you seriously suggesting that they should have walked away because the council were insisting that they and only they would control the construction process. It was the council's money and perfectly understandable that they insisted on full control.

If the announcement by the council is made tomorrow could that be anything to do with the Speedway Star also publishing their article. If I were cynical I might think they were trying to shift the spotlight to the good news and bury the bad. The comparison is more akin to someone else paying for the house and you are the first tenant. They probably wouldn't let you onto the building site. DG and CM were not allowed to speak directly to the contractors let alone stand over them watching what they did.

That was exactly be situation. They either accepted it or no stadium and the end of the Aces. Ok, so there were serious problems with the track but in the end we have an excellent stadium and racing track. That wouldn't have made any difference unless by chance it had been held on a day when the atmospheric conditions caused the water to rise to the surface. There was an extensive practice held after the first lot of remedial work and everyone thought the problem had been solved. It was only a change in the weather that showed it hadn't.

And what would you have done when despite whatever arguments you put forward the council said no?

If any promises were made by any of the prospective new owners it must have been on the conditional basis of them being the successful bidder. You can't expect the new owners to be bound by what others may have said but I do have tremendous sympathy for Richie and would like to see him in the team because of the loyalty he has shown,

I would very much like to see Richie in the team because of his loyalty over the winter but I suspect that those who asked him to stay loyal may have been one of the unsuccessful bidders. You can't blame the new promoters if they weren't the people making the promises. The article in the Speedway Star today said that it appears that Richie was one of those included in the team building plans so perhaps there is still hope that he will be.

Food for thought on the cost argument. Manchester is not one of the more affluent areas of the country and yet it seemed to me that last season there were always more adults in the grandstand, paying £20, than in the south and west stands, paying £17. There may be all sorts of possible reasons but it is difficult to get away from the fact that if cost is a major reason in keeping people from attending, either because of affordability or value for money, then you would expect that the vast majority of people would have been in the cheaper stands.

My recollection is that David Gordon and Chris Morton put forward the explanation that the track was fine the day before and that it was a drop in temperature on the day that caused water to rise to the surface when they attended the SCB for the hearing into the opening meeting. If memory is correct I think that was reported in the Speedway Star, I know I read it somewhere because it was as a result of that and other information I gleaned that I made a number of posts last summer putting forward that explanation. Just think about it. It is agreed there were problems with those bends leading up to the meeting, it was believed that remedial work could be done to the track surface that would solve the problem and on the Friday it appeared that the problem had indeed been solved and we now know that was confirmed by Reeve and Bridgett. On the Saturday, the weather changed and because of the problems with the track base, which nobody knew about, water rose to the surface and caused the cancellation of the meeting. This same scenario was repeated after the first attempted repairs were carried out, an extensive practice was held and the track was fine but the weather changed and again water rose to the surface. So far as the rumours prior to the meeting, they were true in so far as there were problems with the track but none of the people repeating those rumours seem to have been aware that work had been done which appeared to solve the problem and that the track had been inspected by SCB officials who thought it would be OK for the meeting. Certainly none of the rumours I saw made any mention of those matters or indeed that any of the riders repeating them had actually been to the track. I believe Phillip Rising and do those with doubts really believe he would name Reeve and Bridgett and say he has seen documentary proof if it were untrue.

We were told the rule book would be completely rewritten for this year. Weren't they going to get a group of referees to do it? Maybe that explains any delay. I am looking forward to this new, simplified, straightforward and unambiguous version. It will be worth the wait if it stops some of the shenanigans and the discretion of the management committee to ignore it if they so wish by the, in the best interests of the sport, get out rule. I do hope I'm not being too naive.

So when you said "Remember that some promotions refused to sell tickets for the British Final because of what they knew" what you meant was " I am aware of some concerns, and other promotions might have elected to keep out of it, given what had gone on before it. That is for others to consider." Then you have the temerity to criticise those who thought you meant what your original words actually said.

Gordon and Morton always spoke well of Matt Ford, not sure why. Maybe that was their downfall.

You miss the point. Tsunami is telling us that some promoters refused to sell them apparently, because of what they knew, whatever that was. That implies that they were requested to do so, you can't refuse if you haven't been asked. We know that anybody could have bought them online from Belle Vue but I suspect that some fans would prefer not to do that and instead be able to buy them at their local track rather than on the night, particularly so if they wanted particular seats.

They did design the shape of the track but had no say in the construction that was between the council, the builders and apparently their sub contractors.