Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Halifaxtiger

Members
  • Content count

    4,427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Halifaxtiger last won the day on November 17 2019

Halifaxtiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,765 Excellent

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Elland, West Yorkshire

Recent Profile Visitors

4,708 profile views
  1. Halifaxtiger

    workington ..

    Brilliant news Missed my trips to the wild west.
  2. Halifaxtiger

    Whats actually going on?

    I think you're right. But being uncharacteristically cynical I can't help but wonder how many people on the terraces at the time would have preferred 'world class' riders to putting money aside for development
  3. Halifaxtiger

    Whats actually going on?

    Perhaps surprisingly, I don't agree. What's to stop an independent authority acting in exactly the same way as the BSPL have done here ? The answer is a simple one : Let the teams in competing in each league control their own destiny without outside interference but place adjudication of disputes and decisions under independent control. That means that those ploughing time, money and effort into our sport have the final say on operations within their sphere but that the abuse, corruption and self interest we have seen countless times as interested parties determine the outcome of matters relating to the sports regulations ceases.
  4. Halifaxtiger

    Whats actually going on?

    I am not aware that any of the clubs who have joined the NDL have said publicly that they would not have done so without a reduction in the points limit. Given that that would support the decision made by the BSPL (of which they are all members), I find that surprising if indeed it is true. According to a post from Islander a week or so ago, Eastbourne, Belle Vue and Kent had confirmed that they had no difficulty with a higher points limit. Given that Kent will have to - due to planning permission requirements - run NDL meetings on a different night to Championship ones and given that the Colts have always had separate race nights from the Aces, that's no wonder (the Colts have always built teams to the full points limit with a definite eye on winning the competition). Mildenhall made it clear that they wanted no reduction, and Isle of Wight were the same. Its not difficult to conclude why no NDL AGM was allowed and why the points limit was imposed : because the changes planned to suit the Premiership and Championship (over half of whom don't even have any involvement in that league) might well have been voted down. If those that have entered the NDL did so with the primary intention of development, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is and thus it would have been no reason for them not to join. There's no doubt if Barry had felt that Isle of Wight could have reasonably have continued to participate in the NDL they would have done. Faced with an organising body that could not care less about his opinions and the success of his business (only their own self interest) and with absolutely no guarantee that this situation might change, its little wonder that he took the action that he did. If we are to point fingers at who is to blame for Isle of Wight's withdrawal, lets make sure they are pointing in the right direction.
  5. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1102107/eu-general-court-isu-competition-rules Indeed. The General Court upheld the original decision with the exception of the ordered change to arbitration. '.The European Union (EU) General Court has determined that International Skating Union (ISU) rules prohibiting athletes from participating in events not run by the governing body were in breach of the EU's competition law'. You're right, thougb. Tthat probably won't cut much ice with British courts now. My understanding of the Darts case is that the organisation that tried to ban players reversed their decision in a plea bargain. On a final note, I'd say that the common law relating to restraint of trade is pretty clear, and it is accepted principle that in a legal dispute any party that wishes to take advantage of an exception has to prove that it applies to them. In this case, that would be the BSPL.
  6. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_5184 'The European Commission has decided that International Skating Union (ISU) rules imposing severe penalties on athletes participating in speed skating competitions that are not authorised by the ISU are in breach of EU antitrust law. The ISU must now change these rules'. Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "International sports federations play an important role in athletes' careers - they protect their health and safety and the integrity of competitions. However, the severe penalties the International Skating Union imposes on skaters also serve to protect its own commercial interests and prevent others from setting up their own events. The ISU now has to comply with our decision, modify its rules, and open up new opportunities for athletes and competing organisers, to the benefit of all ice skating fans".
  7. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    Definition of restraint of trade: 'The principle that an individual should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference. The principle renders a contractual term purporting to restrict an individual's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business (a restrictive covenant) void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary'. Glossary | Practical Law (thomsonreuters.com) I think you're right - 'if you're riding for another organisation, you're not riding for us' - is just about spot on. The BSPL would issue a written statement to that effect, presumably in the form of a new rule or part of the riders contract (or both). That would, however, fall very squarely within the highlighted part of the definition I have indicated above, because they would, in effect, be restricting a riders 'freedom to work for others'. In such circumstances : 'Courts or tribunals would normally rule against a blanket ban on working for a competitor because it would be a 'restraint of trade' – a general legal principle used to stop attempts to stifle competition'. That is, however, precisely what you are suggesting the BSPL would do and, indeed, that they could do it. Restraint of trade | WorkSmart: The career coach that works for everyone As such, the BSPL would indeed be breaking common law by insisting that they had an exclusive right to a riders services. Within the definition of restraint of trade there are circumstances (see above) that would allow such a restraint to be effective. My view, in this case, is that they would not.
  8. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    Definition of restraint of trade: 'The principle that an individual should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference. The principle renders a contractual term purporting to restrict an individual's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business (a restrictive covenant) void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary'. To me, its clear that any ban would be a restraint of trade within the above definition. Where it is less clear cut is in the second part, but for what its worth I would find it hard to believe that a once a week meeting on the Isle of Wight threatens the existence of any of the BSPL leagues (and there is a precedent - Lydd ). I daresay, however, this won't be the last we'll hear of this.
  9. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    Its actually highly relevant. Barry Bishop has said that he plans to run a full programme of events this summer, so presumably he will use existing Speedway riders to do it. Question is whether the BSPL will allow that and if they don't, whether such an action is legal or not.
  10. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    That depends on whether those rules themselves are within the law specific to restraint of trade. The rules themselves are not law and can be subject to challenge in the courts if they are contrary to legislation. To bar a rider would effectively restrict his ability to earn money from a different employer - that, to me, is a clear restraint of trade. Its akin to a builder refusing to alliow a self employed bricklayer to work for a rival firm even though he only employs him for one day a week. If memory serves me correctly, a couple of years ago the BSPL refused to allow Scott Nicholls to ride in the Championship because the rules said his Premiership average was too high. They carried on saying no until Nicholls consulted a solicitor, when they gave in very quickly indeed. I think you rather miss the point. Every speedway promotion has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not. What they do not have is the right to prevent him riding for an alternative employer, and that is effectively what a ban would do - and unquestionably would be the motivation behind it.
  11. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    My suspicion is that any attempt to bar riders from riding or threaten to ban them from BSPL meetings would be a restraint of trade and therefore illegal. It would likely collapse at the first legal challenge. Very best of luck to Isle of Wight.
  12. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    What's interesting about that is that when Scunthorpe were in the third tier if you wanted to use their facilities you had to sign for the club. The change to the asset system was brought in after they joined the Premier League. After NL clubs were denied the right to have assets, a 'training fee' was introduced. For example, if Chad Wirtzfeld rode for the Warriors for a few seasons and then signed for Poole, the Pirates would pay a fixed amount to the Warriors. Not quite as lucrative as owning assets, but a form of financial recompense nevertheless. That, too, has apparently now been dropped.
  13. Halifaxtiger

    Coventry Bees - My Memories

    My first meeting there was back in 1983, the Ole Olsen Farewell meeting won by Kenny Carter. It was absolutely packed.
  14. Halifaxtiger

    Points Limit ?

    I also agree up to a point . You certainly wouldn't use your 'come and pay £15...' as a means of promoting the meetings If the limit is 39, you don't have to build to that but instead include riders who you believe deserve a place regardless of their average (although I might suggest (ironically as it happens)that there would be a lower points limit). That means that results could be uneven (some may have a noticeable advantage in terms of team strength) and thus that the competition (ie the NDL) would not be as balanced as if all built to the same limit. If its about development, that doesn't matter. It would not, however, prevent young riders busting a gut to beat other young riders and thus they would have the on track competition that they need, there would be a sense of achievement after winning races and, hopefully, they would improve.
  15. Halifaxtiger

    IOW 2020

    Therein lies the problem - the inept, incompetent and utterly selfish (Rob Godfrey has stated in this weeks Speedy Star that the Premiership and Championship clubs decided that the NDL had to change - quite extraordinary when you think that over half of them don't even have NDL clubs and that Mildenhall and Isle of Wight had no say at all) way this has been handled. I think it is entirely possible that the new entrants might have wanted a lower points limit but we'll simply never know. Islander says that wasn't the case, and certainly Mildenhall's Phil Kirk has said that they did not want a reduction. Its therefore equally entirely possible that had it gone to a vote 39 would have been retained (which maybe why there was no vote). What is certain is that Isle of Wight would not be attracting the support from speedway fans if this had been dealt with with any degree of intelligence and there had been a vote for 35 and they had still pulled out. I wouldn't for a second have questioned such a decision - that it is for an individual promotion and we are talking about by far and away the best in the country - but they would not have been able to point fingers at the BSPL at all.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy