Should we have a seperate area for EUG discussions?

[Ingatestonian]

[Brian Cookson]

[Plurien]

KJ - British Cycling and the ODA should be prepared to come and find out if I'm representing the wide consensus round 'ere don't you think?
They've been invited. What's the reluctance? And no, I don't mean come and meet just the BC of fi cers, though they would be welcome to attend the meeting too.

Trevor R - 1-2-3 All of the velodrome, BMX and Speedway are in the Book of New Eastway we published in 2004 and are to be welcomed as additions. We suggested speedway, we made contact with the leading E End club and it went from there. We made contact with Phil at Royston for BMX. We had contribution from the manager of HH for track. Obviously the velodrome was fixed in the plan from 2003-on, as was the BMX as soon as it was confirmed as an Olympic sport. The nature of BMX legacy is 'indeterminate', but it's definitely reduced as it wouldn't be sensible to retain so much seating, so then it's been moved to make the velopark what the ODA terms more 'compact'.
Whether it's sensible and in the interests of our sport to have a 6,000-seat capacity velodrome is debatable - The seats do nothing for those who would actually ride and could lead to less track availability as other events - rock concerts, mass meetings etc - push for an indoor arena. Certainly these would bring more revenue to the operator.

None of the above were available on the site in the period prior to closure. - agreed (but there is little benefit in losing the site first...)

4 - There is a temporary venue being made available at Hog Hill (newts permitting) which will be at least as good as Eastway - although in a different location. - agreed, and very hard-fought.
5 - The Hog Hill site may be available for use after the Games subject to funding - Complete kite-flying, but you mustn't forget this is a relocation pending the legacy. The uncertainty is very much greater than many would expect, and there are very specific reasons to say this.
6 - There will be a road circuit of some sort on the Games Park after 2012
There will be no off-road competition facility. The road circuit is of dubious quality, especially when compared to Eastway's for which a proper replacement was promised in legacy. Get the land for both of these facilities - the ones that were lost - and we will be able to plan the space properly.
If in doubt of the benefit of a proper space, funding and vision for the facility, you should read this summary of the last plan known to users;-
http://www.london2012.com/en/news/archive/2005/february/2005-02-15-17-15.htm.

[Hans Datdodishes]

[KJ]

KJ - British Cycling and the ODA should be prepared to come and find out if I'm representing the wide consensus round 'ere don't you think?
They've been invited. What's the reluctance? And no, I don't mean come and meet just the BC of fi cers, though they would be welcome to attend the meeting too.

Plurien. Really do you ever really read anyone elses posts?
You represent a small informal group of people.

Listen to yourself. 'British Cycling and the ODA should be prepared to come and find out if I'm representing the wide consensus round' ere...'

You are not the ringmaster in this process, just a noisy sometimes ill informed bit player in the whole Olympic process.

I applaud the fact that faced with the loss of facilities you have made as much noise as possible to highlight the problem but now you should work with the NGB to ensure the best possible outcome. It may not be exactly what you want but the continuation of these hostile tactics are going to be counter productive.

[Hans Datdodishes]

[Plurien]

Hans - har har. Though it does look a bit like that, agreed.

There's progress made and there are current issues.
We have to keep concentrating on legacy now, since the ODA went for planning permissions stretching out to 2019.
It is the progress made, and the reasons why it came about which have made the users wonder about the way in which BC is representing their interests. Much of the progress - in fact almost all of it - has been made with the developer and the BC in flagrant opposition to what users utlimately have won.
- We can't explain that, and we would like it to be understood.
- But we can't let slip on the legacy, since that's forever. So when people are exasperated about the 'debate' they have to realise the very positive history and the great deal that's riding on how the future provision can best be secured.
VR has agreed that users would be best served by opposing the present application in conjunction with BC, but BC won't do this. Brian's reply above is more 'ad hominem' which sadly lacks in content or response to the very real issue of how BC can best inform its stance and strengthen the negotiating position of cycling as a whole. It hasn't talked with users (or didn't listen/act when it did) and it isn't retaining a planning *CENSORED* lawyer for its advice. (He's definitely not 'incompetent' and I didn't say that, Brian. Athletes1.co.uk is a leading firm).

So yeah, stop bleating and get results.
- How best to get them?
- Should EUG be prepared to settle only for what's been won, when it knows how to keep on winning more, and can see that BC is again obstructing that route?
No interim, no legacy for road and off-road?
Rammey Marsh or Hog Hill?
Legacy as offered or legacy as promised?

Hmmmm

[George Gilbert]

[Brian Cookson]

Jeez, Michael, you really don't know when to stop with the misinformation and drivel do you?

[ldncycle]

Brian, get a grip.
Plurien did NOTsay your lawyer was incapable of giving legal advice.
The point was that the area of law that is most applicable to the legacy is fairly spe cia list. Is the lawyer you took to the meeting a spe cia list in that area? The lawyer you use is clearly very good at the specific areas you've needed in the past.
Lets ease up on the mudslinging.... everyone.

[JohnC]

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/bcf/News2007/20070510_blog.asp
From "Brian's Blog" regarding ODA meeting where BC fielded 11 rep's, most of whom were never seen at Eastway and certainly had nothing to do with organising there, and where Eastway users were restricted to 1 rep, and leading organisers/sponsors such as ourselves were prevented from attending:

"It was good that several of our elected regional representatives and some of our key partners were able to get together and hear about the situation first hand. If you are a member in Eastern, South East, or Central Region, I urge you to contact those representatives and find out how they saw things. I think you will find that not many of them agree with some of the more alarmist and negative views that have been put about."


From Dee Doocey - Chair of the London Assembly Economic Development, Culture, Sport & Tourism Committee and Scrutineer of the London 2012 Olympics Project:

"I was shocked at the disdain shown to local cycling groups"

"I distinctly recalled ODA CEO saying that the workshop would be a consultative meeting"

"At the start of the meeting Micheal Humpreys of the EUG asked to have clarified that is was a consultation meeting. He was told that it was not a consultative meeting but an informal meeting to keep you informed."

“It seems to me that if you are on the inside of the ODA tent, life is rosy. If on the other hand you are outside, you are treated as if you are troublesome"

"I have never seen such a shambolic meeting in my life. It was appalling."

[Brian Cookson]

Couldn't agree more John.

But as with all mudslinging, some sticks if you don't wipe it off, and Michael has clearly stated on here and on your website londoncyclesport.com that BC hasn't got the right legal advisors on this matter. A simple error of confusing the point of entry with the source of the advice. Oddly enough though, the correct identity of the lawyers we are using for this matter was clearly there in the BC website statement. Surely Michael wouldn't deliberately avoid mentioning something that he knew to be the truth because it didn't suit his argument, would he?

Brian.

[Ingatestonian]

[Ingatestonian]

[JohnC]