arnieg

Here are some 1964 attendances: National League West Ham reopener 12,000 (East London Adveriser 10/4) increased to 15,000 at 3rd mtg ( ELA 24/4); 26/5 v Swin – 8,000 (Swindon Evng Adveriser 27/5) Wimbledon – 7,000 Swindon v Oxford - 10,000 (Swin Evng Advertiser 28/3) Norwich v Oxo 6428 (Ox Mail 27/4) Coventry - averaging over 5,000 (Cov Express 11/9) Only Oxford had 'poor' crowds Oxford v Cov crowd 2,000 - one of smallest for years (Ox Mail 26/5) Oxford v BV - 3000 (Ox Mail 8/5) ave crowd one third of other NL venues (Ox Mail 27/5; and 21.5 programme) crowd increases slightly to 3,700 after 300 comps given away (Ox Mail 5/6 ) Provincial League White City - 8-10,000 (Glasgow Evng Citizen 2/4) M'brough - 7,000 [Middlesbrough EvngGazette] Poole - capacity crowd, 300 locked out Exeter v Poole - 7,000 [Poole &Dorset Herald 1.4.64] Sheffield v Crad - 7,500 (Wolv. Express &Star 28/3) Newcastle v Midd - 8,000 for (M,borgh Evng Gazette 21.4.64) Newport v Poole - 12.000 (Poole & Dorset Herald 6.5.64) Edinburgh - 8,000 (3 different meetings reported in Wolves Express & Star 18/5, Midd. Evng Gazette 27/4 and Edin Evng News & Despatch 6/4) Hackney v Poole - 4,500 (Hack Gazette 19/6) General tenor of crowd reporting for 1964 was that crowds were up in both leagues with Oxford being the notable exception.

However if Kyle could be persuaded to ride one meeting KLYS could then exploit the 'guest for any reason' rule that is specific to the NL. (There has been some discussion of this on the Buxton thread in connection with the signing of Ellis Perks). I'm a bit surprised that no alteration has been made to this rule.

27 June 1946 Wembley v West Ham (ACU Cup) attendance 85,000 11 July 1946 Wembley v West Ham (London Cup) attendance 85,000 3 October 1946 Wembley v Wimbledon (ACU Cup) attendance 85,000 Source: When the Lions Roared - Lush and Chaplin

That is a revealing post in itself. Recounting events can hardly constitute a libel, so this seems to imply that any version of events that you might recount would impune the motives of one or more participants in the events. As to errors of judgement there are probably three principal candidates: 1) the decision to change the rules in a way that disadvantaged Coventry 2) expelling Coventry and Peterborough from the league when they walked out of the AGM 3) the decision to fight Coventry and Peterborough once they threatened legal action

But more critically it clashes with the Eurovision Song contest

Rocketman - if there is a good crowd for a Wolves v Cov challenge match then it will hardly compensate for the lost revenue from two league matches. If matches of this type were financially viable then I would have expected to see several matches at Swindon involving Reading and Oxford teams - it hasn't happened. Even a Wolves-Cradley fixtures only took place twice in the five years after their demise. So your thesis that CVS had Cov closed down for financial gain is bonkers. Secondly - the decision to close Coventry was not made by CVS - his is just one vote in five. Thirdly it is quite clear why Coventry lost their league place - a three-way squabble between Brandon Estates, Sandhu and Horton. Once it became clear that there was no agreement (and little prospect of one) for a return to Brandon then the Bees would be left running at Leicester (or possibly other venues for the whole season). This would in all likelihood have resulted in Horton incurring large losses which he would have had difficulty in covering. The BSPA acted to prevent the possibility of a scenario where Coventry went bust mid-season owing a six figure sum. Their decision was rational, unlike your paranoid conspiracy theories.

You are deluded.

I think this is the third season of these matches. For an example of the format see here: http://www.speedway.hg.pl/torunianie_w_turniejach_krajowych/turnieje_towarzyskie_krajowe/2010/2016_05_15_TT_PL_RS_Wawa.htm I think the last three races are nominated.

If we accept the basic proposition that the council is unlikely to admit it was at fault in a public report and secondly that it is blindingly obvious that poor contract management on the part of MCC was a major factor in the opening night debacle then I am inclined to suspect that the report's author is stretching the definition of "knew" well beyond its normal dictionary meaning.

I await with baited breath. Hope they give due credit to that svengali of a team manager.

Follow the link just posted to the MCC report. Para 3.9 sets out that the dispute with ISG has yet to be resolved.

Lots of interesting stuff there. Paras 2.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9, 4.10, 4.11, 5.5, 6.1 particularly caught my eye.

I'm impressed

Lebedevs rode in all four SEC finals in both 2012 and 2014.

Assuming no dropped points then eight. BUT it does require at least seven dead heats!!! (one rider on 8, 14 riders on 7 1/2 and one on 7). Without dropped points then 9 is correct. If dropped points are allowed then 3. (19 heats with no finishers and the winner of the 20th race becomes champion). Off the top of my head the lowest figure I could think of for a winner after 20 heats (ignore the subsequent races) is a three way tie on 10: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Speedway_Grand_Prix_of_Slovenia

Yes - in basic contract law the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Any calculation of financial loss would take into account any payments from a new club, or in this case receipts from BT Sport.

The good thing is that whoever you predict to finish bottom it is possible to imagine that at home on a good day (and maybe with a little luck) they could beat any of the teams you expect to be in the top three. This hasn't really been the case for the last few years in the NL, and is undoubtedly a positive.

The value of land is largely dependent on its future development potential. If recent events have increased the likelihood of the land being commercially developed then it will have increased in value.

2011 - Peterborough and Coventry were admitted to the Elite League after a meeting on March 10. which was subsequently ratified and officially announced on March 15

1 California - just down the road from me 2 Brandon - the need is immediate and speedway can not afford to lose existing clubs 3 Oxford - a perfectly good stadium going to waste 4 Wimbledon - or any track in London which would be important for sport's profile 5 Cradley - so we can revive the Dudley/Wolves Trophy

And even if it is a tie look at number eights - and Simon Cross wins it for Cradley

Well I suggest there is a simple way to respond to roguetrader. Actions speak louder than words Have a good season.

I think your first sentence is fair comment, but the bit in bold is simply wrong in law. There was (as I understand it) no contractual relationship between BV2016 (DG &CM) and ISG, therefore no basis in law to take action. MCC were the contractors therefore only they could sue ISG, while BV2016 would have a right of action in contract law against MCC for failure to provide what they had contracted for. MCC could counterclaim for unpaid rent but that wouldn't absolve them of their liability to BV2016 for failing to provide a track that was fit for purpose. It is difficult to pass judgment on the role of the BSPA (or indeed the SCB) without a clearer understanding of what exactly that entailed.

So either Manchester City Council a] extracted £690k from ISG that represented losses to their tenant (BV speedway) which they failed to pass on to the injured party; or b] having presented ISG with the claim they failed to extract the money from them. Either way it doesn't paint MCC in a flattering light, and in either case the withholding of rent by DG & CM seems a proportionate response. The politics of this is potentially tricky. On the one hand there is the desire to expose MCC's shortcomings, on the other their is the need to get them to let the stadium to BV 2017. Ultimately the council (or more precisely the senior officers involved) will go for the solution that leaves them with the smallest possible quantum of blame, and that is certainly not a derelict and unlet site. Whether DG & CM get the compensation that is warranted is (I'm afraid to say) very much of an unknown.

I think Slough will be track sharing with Basingstoke this season until the damage caused by Betjeman is sorted out.