baldinhio

For Davis read David

1. Totally appreciate there is no public right but disclosure would quickly kill the debate as to who owns the F&F. 2. Apologies, I had not seen confirmation there is no connection with Brandon Estates. Is this quoted in the local press? Likewise, I only saw a quote from a representative of Brandon Estates. Has the local press confirmed a crime has actually been reported to the local police?

In fairness to Buster Chapman he may not wish to be taking on another club. I guess with the problems elsewhere there is one eye on the league falling short of the minimum number of teams required for the TV contract. If so, Davis Hemsley may hold all of the cards.

Two suggested questions for the local newspaper to ask Mr Sandhu: 1. Can we please see the page of the stadium sale agreement detailing sale or retention of fixtures and fittings? 2. Have you or your family any ownership interest, be it direct or indirect, in Brandon Estates?

Some excellent points. I have two teenage boys and I am afraid their interest is waning after attending various meetings over eight years. Speaking to them, your "Improve the product" section appears particularly relevant. Their list of reasons for limiting the meetings they attend are: 1. Racing not as interesting as when they first attended. Standard bike specification may be the answer but the riders with more money than talent will obviously object. 2. Some GP riders not appearing fully committed to racing in the UK (e.g. Zagar at Leicester last year). 3. Drawn out meetings. They suggest removing the ability to switch reserves particularly if it will result in an extended time allowance. 4. Referees pulling starts back when the tapes have not been broken. They see it as penalising a good start which in turn delays the meeting. 5. Their mates are not interested. Alas, the general lack of racing in the first few heats of GP's doesn't help encouraging newcomers. 6. Tactical rides. 7. The noise and smell have gone. 8. Expensive, albeit I pay. They argue it is fifteen minutes, not two hours of entertainment.

Do you not find his choice of word offensive in light of the posting by Fourentee, on 20 Dec 2015 - 11:22 PM? Still to be convinced, take a look at this: http://noahsdad.com/spread-the-word-to-end-the-word/

If the Echo article is accurate the rider assets appear to have been transferred: PROMOTER Matt Ford is certain Back to the Future-fanatic Hans Andersen will rewind to his trail-blazing days at Poole Pirates – so much so he has committed to a two-year deal for the Dane. Ford confirmed his first winter recruit is set to retain his place in Poole’s septet for 2017 “on the understanding British speedway does not throw up anything untoward in its rules” and will be granted a testimonial due to his standing on Peterborough’s retained list, currently held by Pirates.

I believe together with Julie Mahoney that is true but other than rider assets and machinery I can't believe there is any value to the club. As an exit/safety strategy they need to find a home for the rider assets otherwise lose them and transferring them to Poole could make sense if they see it as a long term relationship.

Also suites Readypower as it allows retention of assets should Peterborough cease to compete in the future.

I wonder if that includes the Peterborough assets now Readypower are no longer sponsoring Peterborough. Makes sense if the Poole/ Readypower relationship is seen as long term.

baldinhio, on 17 Nov 2015 - 1:44 PM, said: foreverblue, on 17 Nov 2015 - 1:57 PM, said: Alas, Readypower have answered one question and only the promoters know the answer to the other. It would be interesting to know if the rider assets have been transferred to Poole.

Sorry, no idea. No doom and gloom with regards the new stadium. I said: 1. It is great there is a new stadium. 2. I am intrigued as to funding and economic viability- my point being if it works in Manchester, maybe it can work elsewhere. i was merely looking for more information to get a better understanding of the project. Yes, I referenced the general state of speedway in the UK but is that not a matter of fact, one or two clubs aside?

At 31 December 2014, Belle Vue Speedway Ltd had a shareholder's deficit of £639,691, yet from from what I understand are one of the highest payers with their No. 1 allegedly on £3k per meeting. Whilst the information is not on file, I guess the principal creditor is the lone shareholder Mr Gordon, however he is not a shareholder of B V Arena Ltd, the company who I presume are involved in the development of the new stadium. This company has £500,000 issued share capital. I understand the local council have invested £5m+ in the sports village. Can anyone with local knowledge confirm: 1. Cost of the new stadium. 2. Who is funding the development. 3. Who will own the new stadium. 4. Relationship between Council, B V Arenas & Belle Vue Speedway. It is great there is a new stadium for speedway but I am intrigued as to the funding and the economic viability of the project when you look at the general financial state of speedway in the UK.

Last season 12-16 year old season ticket's were £75 but I can see no option on the 2016 renewal form. The alternative was to pay £5 per meeting when accompanied by an adult but not sure if that applies for 2016.

Berwick good value at £199 with supervised kids FOC. Like Peterborough the track is big and the wind is cold. Toilets probably stink too. Eight hour round trip and associated cost might put some off. On a serious note the biggest downside to season tickets at Peterborough is they cannot be used by friends should we not be able to attend. From the club's perspective a little bit of flexibility could see folk attending that would otherwise not and you never know they might enjoy it and return as paying customers.

Can it survive without the financial support of Readypower? The post questioned the benefit to Readypower of continuing sponsorship if and when the assets are transferred. Only the owners can answer that question. None to my knowledge, hence referencing "Should this transpire".

The concern for speedway in Peterborough could be the strengthening of the Poole/ Readypower relationship and it ultimately suiting both parties to transfer the assets of Peterborough to Poole. Should this transpire, the benefit to Readypower continuing their financial support of Peterborough appears questionable.

There appears to be an inherent problem to my mind in Monster sponsoring the series as well as several riders. With this situation one suspects there is unlikely to be bad "BSI" press let alone disciplinary action against Monster riders. I appreciate the situation is unlikely to change as BSI need Monster:One just hopes the officials like the Beastie Boys, Fight for their Rights...

Danger with extended involvement at Poole is one could see a scenario involving the legitimate transfer of assets to Poole and some sort of back to back deal with sponsorship and loan fees. If that happens there would appear to be little to be gained from continued involvement with Peterborough, presuming they do not have the inclination to return. Only Ged & Co. know if the club is sustainable long term without Readypower but hopefully that scenario only needs to be considered beyond 2016.

Guess the key may be the continued financial support of Readypower which given the optimistic nature of the club statement may well be in place.

Any idea how the season has been from a financial perspective? The play off crowds have probably helped but the switch from UK to overseas riders has probably resulted in extra costs.

As one who suffered the Warsaw debacle I find it difficult to accept, " he has always acted in a totally professional way". As an aside, did TPT obtain compensation for their clients? Conspiracy theorists could argue it is beneficial for all but the paying public for PZM and BSI to settle their differences in private.

Philip, I understand you are Managing Editor of Speedway Star. In 25 April issue Speedway Star ran an article in which the PZM chairman Andrzej Witkowski was quoted as saying "Staging the SGP meeting is the result of a three year deal between the PZM and BSI, where it is stated the shale material...would be purchased by the latter party. They were also responsible for shipping the material to Warsaw. The contract also specified Danish company Speed Sport...as the party responsible for laying the track, Speed Sport were also supposed to provide other necessary equipment...including the starting gate" How confident are you that this statement was actually made by PZM chairman Andrzej Witkowski?

Any update on Warsaw? I believe Nigel Pearson in the PL Pairs programme referenced the meeting as farcical. Putting to one side the BSI investigation what is your personal opinion? Do you: 1. Concur with his opinion that the meeting was farcical? 2. Believe the track was suitable for racing? 3. Believe it negligent not to have a second starting gate at the venue?

Thank you for the detailed response. I am not convinced by your argument that BSI are not liable. Housebuilders such as Persimmon employ a number of sub contractors, purchase material from several suppliers and their work is monitored by the likes of NHBC and the Local Authority. Should the finished product prove defective it is Persimmon that is liable. Wicks proudly state "Its got our name on it" and back the quality with a money back guarantee. Reputable companies accept they are liable for the quality of their product and in most cases value their reputation. For BSI to hide behind the FIM, Olsen and the riders is disingenuous. Are we really to believe there was no contact with the riders (Nicki P appears to have been at the fore in getting Doyle excluded and the meeting abandoned) given: Media interested in all aspects of either the FIM Speedway Grand Prix Series or Monster Energy FIM Speedway World Cup, including interviews with riders or other parties involved should contact: Nicola Sands, Media Manager, BSI Speedway