Grand Central

Honestly ? Even within a just couple of paragraphs refuting any bias.. It is impossible to avoid seeing that 'slant' in one directon only.

As Philip Rising has been such a staunch ally of the David Gordon cause. The least you could do was pay £2.90 for the magazine itself.

Nice little article in The Star this week by regular guest columnist David Gordon. Good to hear his version of events at last as they have been so poorly covered in the past.

Even if you were in the majority. A Petrochemical giant would not make any net gain from the sponsorhip to make it worth while ? 25,000 regular attendees. ? maximum of 100,000 watching Sky; now much less on BT. It's the equivalent of Apple launching their latest iphone at events in Church Halls and taking out half-page ads in a selection of Parish Magazines

Really ? That BP, Shell, Texaco or Esso would get a increase in 'public awareness' to be cost effective. By sponsoring the piddling sport of Speedway. As this thread shows Speedway Supporters will go and get the cheapest deal on anything. I bet most buy their fuel at Tesco, Asda and Morrisons. No amount of sponsorship would overide 1p a litre saved. No one wants to advertise on Tv in a Speedway programme. They have to give it away. It is cloud cuckoo land to even think of major companies sponsoring our sport. Regional Truck Hire that's about the pinnacle of what we can expect. And then be damned grateful.

Who goes to the shops and buys Oil ? It is 2017 not 1975.

Yes, it did make me think about that issue. At first glance, and wearing my sexist hat, I thought Vitality their main sponsor may be some sort of female hygiene product. But it is actually health insurance. In fact most of their sponsors of the last few years have been major players. They do have their share of the 'female-only' product sector but where they have really scored is promoting the wider 'female heath' connection. Showing sponsors just how they can put them in front of the high-spending 'women interested in their health' sector very cost effectively. And there lies the Problem. The Speedway demographic is fairly valueless to most big spending sectors of the market. What can the Sport offer even for a niche company. Worthers Original, Fisherman's friends, Tena Pads, Orthopedic chairs, Viagra. I suppose there are possibilities ?

Hey, it's not 'what I would like' to be published. I just read in DGs words more than he perhaps really suggested. So OK he has no new information that that has not already been published. That's fine. And fair enough I take all those points on the wording used and just what is really meant by them; as opposed to the inferences they intend people to make. Perhaps wrongly. All very clever. By all. That is what PR is for. The reality is that the 'compensation' due to BVA remains dependent on the outcome of those confidential negotiations. That the liquidators, not DG, will have with parties that do not agree with each other and neither do with BVA over the 'material' issue. I could say that we await the outcome of that. But we will never know.

That appears a fairly reasonable resume of the report before council, what was said at the meeting and the position the council take. And unlike other reports previously it puts 'one side' alongside input from the other players. ISG continue to dispute the claim that they used the wrongly graded materials. BVA continue to insist that they have evidence that the Council actually knew that the wrong material was being used. MCC state in the report that it was BVA that were aware of a change to the materials from specification and had not got council approval. That will lead to some lively negotiations beween the three parties MCC, ISG and the BVA liquidators on that disputed bill. Just how much will MCC have to stump up to ISG that they are witholding, just how much will ISG be able to argue down the claim for losses; how much will BVA liquidators take in a fee for their part in any negotiation. And finally how paltry will be the amount coming to the liquidators to actually pay the creditors of BVA? But it will be secret, unforunately. Glad I am not a Manchester Council Tax payer anymore. PS The next installment should be DG actually publishing the evidence he mentions of MCC's culpabilty. That should liven things up.

Oh, yes, there is no doubt it was agreed between the parties. But it still remain a nonsense 'courtesy' title of no substance whatsoever. No doubt the marketing men, when they get going under the new regime, will attempt to squeeze as much mileage out of it as they can. And good luck to them. I'd use any old blarney to sell the place if it made it financially viable in the long term. The funny thing about the council meeting was all the talk of the 'Belle Vue franchise' and 'franchisees'. We all know what they mean but it's just terminology Speedway does not use itself. But it was how those 'mandarins' view it.

Quite right, that is what I picked up on as well. We can speculate all we like (and will) on the reasons why BT Sport want to wait until June. But I think we can safely say it is not a technical reason as flagrag has answered that. I very much doubt it it was the desirable first choice of GoSpeed or the BSPA. It's BT Sports choice, for their own reasons, and in the position where TR found himself with Sky 'gone' it was probably just the best deal he could get. So he took it.

Where have you seen this ? It was a tweet by Natalie Quirk that said it started with the British Final ... she may have meant just her own contribution (?) Many people have ridiculed such a late start (if true) replying to the Speedwaygb tweets; but I haven't seen a denial of it. PS Today's Speedway Star offers a little enlightenment (Surprisngly ha ha) The quote from TR himself that says "There will be 18 shows throughout the summer and into the autumn ..." So that would (sort of) confirm that late start.

I know that this has often been said. But I have increasingly thought that this is a right load of old flannell. Perhaps SOMEONE can come up with some document that shows this to be true... but I seriously doubt it. Todays Council meeting agenda called it 'Belle Vue'. They talked about Belle Vue. No one mentioned NSS. No single individual at MCC really gives the feeling that this 'naming' is an issue. It is Belle Vue. Better still 'The Zoo'. To my mind the NSS it is just a vanity project on that score. And the vanity (pair) has left the building for 2017.

All eminently sensible. And clearly that is what the CEO of MCC was making clear at the Council meeting today. It is just little shame that is not the impression that many Aces supporters who have been following this story had got. They thought they had been told something just a little different. Lets make 2017 the year of transparency, eh?

Absolutely certain. If you visit the MCC website the webcast is avaliable, it is point 16 on the agenda about three-quarters of the way through

Interesting to watch the Executive Committee meeting this morning on their webcast. Whole thing lasted just a few minutes on this item. Richard Leese ... Called this a salvage job; where almost all problems were down to the previous franchisees who let MCC down badly (a brief throwaway that partly the contractors were at fault). The new franchisees he saw as far better placed to succeed. Eddie Smith ... Confirmed that the report would go before a scrutiny committee in May. The only councillor to speak ... Asked for more oversight of the new franchisee as the problems of last year could have been mitigated if more was known at the time. Sir Howard Bernstein agreed that the new people were credible and much better placed to make a go of things this year. One specific point that I had not fully picked up on in the report was made very clear by Sir Howard. That is that Bellvue 2017 ONLY have the Speedway franchise for the NSS. They have NOT been given a lease on the Stadium as a whole. MCC are to work with them this year on just working out whether a business plan can be made viable for them GETTING the lease in 12 months. All very interesting

Considering the long-proven propensity of Speedway followers to stay at home on Sky Mondays. How will this adversely affect the cash flow of tracks in both divisions if there is BT Speedway on our screens twice-a-week after their June start. Sounds potentially disastrous.

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 ?