As with all out of town venues I'm sure there will be public transport on matchdays.

As it stands a few beers in Stanley and then jump on the 446 to the end of the road will suit a lot of people

I quite like the idea of [ivicious[/i liability - it sounds like much more fun than vicarious liability, which is positively tame in comparison!

I think you're right though, and our friend BBG is being a little OTT in his assessment of the financial impact of this particular frolic; if it nets off the rent saving at BV for example, I'll attend the million pound match in my budgie smugglers.

With regards public transport, when the whole NM thing came about wasn't there talk of improved public transport on match days??
With it been a community stadium, with plans for various activities taking place there, i would think it may well be in Arrivas interest to improve the service from what is currently on offer.

Bit of a shame they don't offer a service to Brough!

I did edit this in hope nobody would notice. You are obviously too cool for school.

The vehicle will hold compulsory insurance which one presumes will be on a comprehensive basis. This type of policy covers theft however it will probably include a clause removing this section if the keys were in or on the vehicle at the time of loss. I presume the keys were not locked away so accessible to the thief so technically this clause will apply.
The insurer in most cases will deal with any third party property damage or injury claims but will retain the right to pursue the recovery of their losses from the person deemed responsible. With regards the damage to the car this is not covered but once again an insurer will consider providing indemnity if the insured agrees to the prosecution against the responsible person.
I doubt therefore that the club will be hit financially by this incident, the same could not be said for the one the Police prosecute, if they do.

If your insinuating that the car was taken from someone,i.e.Brian Smith,then you are way off,as Brian as totally dismissed it.If taken from someone else then ignore this post

OK it's makes no difference the rules stay the same whoever insured the car if the vehicle was taken without their consent if the keys were accessible then the same will apply. I don't really know what you are getting at because I make no mention of B Smith, I was just clarifying why the club would not be hit with large costs.

Who's car was it then?I don't know.It's just another one of them chip oil rumours that are flying about saying it was BS's car.Has someone said it's not Locke's or Smith's car?

Kevin Locke has said it was his car that Tim smith was driving...

Right then,cheers WN1

Slightly off topic and I appreciate this should probably be in the other thread, but I assume if this is the case then it's exactly why Kevin Locke is in trouble with the club. Why when he is reportedly sober as a judge has he consented to his intoxicated buddy driving his vehicle? It doesn't make much sense to me.

On the subject of the stadium great news that we have secured our future at Belle Vue.

What I understand from reading inflatable's posts is (in lehman's terms) those who oppose Newmarket and are hoping for redevelopment will actually have to support Newmarket for this to happen. Re Development of belle vue can only be financed if Newmarket fails and the developers promise they will still deliver the community stadium. Is this correct?

If so it's more evidence that we all need to be on the same page and getting behind Newmarket. This sounds very optimistic and I know you pessimistic people aren't used to it but could we not actually be in a win win position??

According to what I have heard mc didn't want to be at belle vue. Some third party stepped in and that's why we are.