Sir Sidney

Tell that to Workington, Mildenhall and Kent for example, adding in that, by the way, if you have the temerity to fill spare weeks with alternative racing ( NORA let's say) we will threaten to take your licence away and fine you

I'm very happy to see that Sport England has now objected to the planning application and has included a section on the proposed loss of the speedway track within it's objection. It references the face that the application does not deal with the loss in accordance with LP30 and LP36 and the relevance of para 99 of the NPPF Sports England also references comments from the RFU, Football Foundation and ECB, as well as commenting on the proposed golf facility - broadly suggesting that more consultation is required with those bodies and that the need be demonstrated Another positive step I believe. The Council cannot just ignore all these objections, including where they come from sports governing bodies - even if AEPG thinks it can run roughshod over them 01322034.pdf (peterborough.gov.uk)

On network TV? I was watching and didn't see that. Were you there Old Bob?

He would reveal it as part of his income and expenditure to prove that his current club is viable. He would use it as part of his business plan to assess whether returning speedway to Coventry was viable. Of course, he is under no obligation to do so, but you would have thought seeing as how it has been a consistent line of questioning that it would have been wise to do so

Given Osborne is his landlord and so BE and Mr Goatley will have that info it seems an odd point to be secretive about

I haven't been able to log in yet today. Have they moved on to housing requirements as scheduled?

Given that it is Local Government, via Rugby Council, that is refusing BE permission, it's probably not helpful to critisise it. More likely to be either the Inspector or KCs that needed the early finish.

You would hope that the SCS barrister will make great play of that. If Mr Edie has not really factored that in (and as far as I could hear, he confirmed that) then the barrister should be able to throw doubt on his whole assessment of Brandon stadium's vialbilty versus a 3g pitch. I hope the barrister might also make the point, amongst many others, that the participants in a Premier League football club are far out weighed by the number of supports who attend, and compare that as a parallel to 14 speedway participants in a meeting. I would think the SCS barrister will be able to challenge Mr Edie on much of his evidence, especially where it was inaccurate and where he speculated - using the 'who did you speak to to establish this evidence' approach, as the BE barrister did quite extensively

I agree, and have made that point in my objection. Fans of sports teams do not just change their allegiance.

I guess we will only know by the end of this week. However, I think we can all agree that 3 out of the 4 playoff teams are weakened by injuries which is a shame

Given that Belle Vue have two riders out I'd hardly call it good fortune. I'd doubt they consider they have a bye into the final.

I think the key says as follows *assessed MA due to one of following B New Foreign Rider Converted MA C New Rider D Re-assessed MA OG Est MA older than prev 2 seasons So Lambert will come under D or OG as I don't think he achieved a new average last season

I'd agree entirely. You can drive a coach and horses through the regs

On issue 32 of the Team Declarations https://britishspeedway.co.uk/2023-premiership-declarations/ Robert Lambert has an * against his name. The key says that means an assessed average

Better than the sofa

Listing to the left or right?

Eats shoots and leaves

What this statement doesn't address at all is the provisions of the Local Plan, and what, if any, conversations the current owners have had with the Council or AEPG about the provisions contained on it.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0kgi89GDboYs6pqVz1N4NnXqZCJoEBqr6Jgf41oz68gBm33tFi9DmczVpGqe1rPGl&id=100063520780294 Last league match but not last meeting

How have you concluded that the Council 'has all but nodded this through ' ?

Was she suggesting that this happened before or after planning permission was granted (if indeed it was)? I can quite imaging AEPG wanting to demolish the stadium as soon as they have got permission, if permission is granted

No idea I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people close to the club who could answer that, but I would have thought the cost were prohibitive even if it were technically feasible.

Maybe so, but Brandon Stadium has not been demolished. AEPG presumably want the Council onside, and have included demolition within its planning application. Why would it risk demolishing the grandstand and stadium buildings in advance of the application being determined? It makes no business sense. The Council is already going to get significant flack, quite justifiably, if it allows the demolition without replacement in accordance with its own Local Plan. If AEPG were to demolish it without permission it might well jeopardise the whole application. Of course, it wouldn't be unknown for a significant fire to occur - but I suspect the Police would want to get involved if it were suspicious, and that would slow down AEPG even more - and delays cost money.

AEPG would be very rash to do that before the planning application is decided.

With all due respect to Keith Chapman, perhaps he could provide his analysis of why he thinks all the protestations in the world won't make a difference. If he did people could then make a judgement