Grand Central

Fascinating reading. Revealing in so many ways.

No not at all. I actually think that point 3.9 in todays MCC report is probably accurate as to the situation. " In July 2016 BV Arena Ltd submitted a claim against the City Council under the commercial agreements for their alleged losses purported to be due to the failure of the track. They did not pursue a claim against the contractor under the collateral warranty. Discussions were instigated by the City Council with ISG to resolve all issues in relation to the works and a confidential settlement is still being negotiated with ISG and the liquidators of the Belle Vue Group of Companies which is subject of an offer to the liquidator. "

But then again 20% of £0 is £0. So will that be GoSpeed's fee this time?

I am not doubting you did. But I imagine they were as surprisied as me that you do not undertand what happens in these situations. The Pay Less notice was MCC's opening salvo in their attempt to reduce the amount they pay ISG. They went in with the highest figures available which were BVA's loss assessors report plus all the various fees listed. And withheld that total amount from the payment made then. BUT THAT WOULD NEVER BE THE END POSITION. Despite it being represented in print as such. The Council do not have a unilateral right to set the terms in that way. ISG would get loss adjusters and other professionals to attempt reduce the council's figures. And, eventually, a negotiated 'reduction' to the ISG bill will be agreed and BVA would get a much smaller compenstaion figure than their loss assesor came up with. Now, of course it is ISG, MCC and BVA liquidators that are to negotiate this out, not BVA themselves. I would imagine that will result in the eventual figure arriving in the BVA account and available to creditors to be smaller still

.Phil ... Look at point 3.9. That has not been resolved yet. You only had sight of the Payless notice NOT the final position on that. To my mind that was a central flaw in your article that I have raised here many times. And when it is settled we will know nothing. It will be between ISG', MCC and the liquidators. And secret.

So... The rent was £350,000 per annum so the pro rata outstanding for the tenure from early March to end October would work out to be £224,000 remains unpaid and may need to be written off. The April Pay Less notice showed significant fees that the council had incurred at that point for other services and these have now risen to £126,000. But ISG did remedy the defects to the track without extra cost to the council. Am I close ?

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.

You are right to question this. Surely David Gordon had this excuse under copywrite ?

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.

WOW. Section 3 is painting a totally new picture on the GOM debacle. 3.4 is quite extraordinary. " It has come to light that the owners of Belle Vue Group Companies were aware of the proposal to use alternative material. However, the Council were not made aware of this change of material and the express consent of the Council was not obtained. " That is a totally 'out of the blue claim' that no one had even suggested before. What evidence can they have of that. After all ISG were under contract to MCC not Belle Vue. It beggars belief that Chris Morton would have been 'aware' that the track base was being constructed using nappies, doesn't it ?

Sorry but that just does not answer the query I raised. EDIT The link to the MCC report on the NSS thread will no doubt provide hours of debate for all. As expected they mention nothing of the matters just under discussion here. http://www.manchester.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/22847/14_belle_vue_speedwayupdate Item 3.4 is a stunner "It has come to light that the owners of Belle Vue Group Companies were aware of the proposal to use alternative material. However, the Council were not made aware of this change of material and the express consent of the Council was not obtained."

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?

That is why lawyers look at these things before publication I suppose.

That may well be 'alleged' by someone. But let us all note that the BBC have carefully avoided saying exactly that. Reducing the allegation to just knowing about the issues. Not advanced knowledge of the underlying cause.

I thought that Gordon and Morton 'knew about issues with the track' in the week before the opening meeting. It was just that they did not know the cause until repair work started after the GOM. What is new here?

I notice on the SGB website that they have put up a short video of a winter race at Scunthorpe. The Tapes Up production is described as being "licensed by GSI/BSPA agreement". So whatever else is happening behind the scenes with TV contracts. Any hopes that the Russell stranglehold on media rights is over may be premature. Shame.

We do not know the actual full terms of the contract the BSPA has with Sky. Although jchapman may do so more than the rest of us. But we 'sort of know' that the BSPA is obligated to produce a minimum 8 team League that was at the time of agreement termed 'Eilte'. And the renumeration (per match or whatever) sky paid would be laid down, I expect, in relation to that. The change of name to the SGB Premiership MAY still be as acceptable to Sky as the 'elite' monker was. But the 'eite league replacement' has a team strength set at ONLY 50 lower league points. That is not 'elite' at all (and is not meant to be) when compared to the team strengths Sky were being offered at the time the contract was signed. The 2017 Top League is starting with teams that are, at best, just the strength of those teams at the top of the 2016 Lower League. I have said before that the changes to team building rules this winter are totally sensible for the sport itself. But for an organistaion like Sky. I doubt it very much. It would be surprising if there were not a contract clause dealing with this eventuality. And IF Sky were run with this argument to get out of the remainder of the contract. Who could reasonably defend against it? And why shouldn't BT or someone else pay less for any subsequent deal. The BSPA ARE offering a lower standard product, after all. We all know it, so will they.

The changes this close season are a little bit more than just rebranding. The use of 'lower league' averages to determine team strengths. Combined with just a (lower league) 10 point difference between the Premiership and Championship team strengts. Would make it difficult to argue that there was anything 'Elite' available any more. PS I am not criticising the changes here, they are necessary to keep British Speedway alive. But the sky moneymen will not be fooled by just the semantics of 'titles' when there has been a real (albeit correct) dilution of the overall rider quality they would be paying for.

Just to add to rmc's post above. I have Virgin Media's XL package which includes BT Sport but it does not HAVE to include the extra cost of the Sky Sports and Movies packages as seems to be suggested here. At various times I have chosen to have them, currently I do not, but still have BT Sport included. I hear allsorts of annecdotes about Virgin medias customer service and I had always had brilliant experiences myself right back to when they took over from ntl. Until last year when a box failed. The sub continent folk were abysmal on the many attempts to solve the issues with my two boxes and they just kept making it worse. But I twigged that they also seem to alternate with a Scottish call centre as well. Especially at weekends and late nights. The couple of calls I had with those guys went fine and sorted everything out quite easily.

That might explain the Friday night BSPA meeting that Mick Horton said was about bigger issues than just Coventry. A swap from Sky to BT for those of us who get BT free at the moment appears great.. No need to get Sky Sports re-connected next month, so quite a saving. But I fear just what sort of reduced deal BT may have been able to drive with the BSPA. That may not be so great.

Is there some new sort of media training that has passed me by? Where the it is now deemed advantageous to use the F word as often as possible in interviews. Not, as I thought, that you just come over as an ignorant oik. Best ignored.

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?

They bought the stadium outright. And retain it as an asset. There can be no comparison in the situations.

I 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?

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