Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Gordon Pairman

Members
  • Content count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Gordon Pairman last won the day on January 29 2016

Gordon Pairman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

248 Excellent

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

531 profile views
  1. Gordon Pairman

    Club Assets

    The rules were (are?) that overseas riders had to ride a minimum number of times before they can be added to a retained list. Vaculik and Zmarzlik, and I think, Przedelski, didn’t do enough meetings. Interestingly, when Birmingham brought Zmarzlik in, then promoter, Alan Phillips thought he was just another foreign rider, and had no idea of what he’d got. Bartosz only rode one meeting for Birmingham before they sacked him for declaring himself ill and unable to travel. He was accused of pulling a sickie.
  2. Gordon Pairman

    Club Assets

    To be honest, I hope they are gone for good. They worked when overseas leagues were small or blocked to foreigners so UK riders mainly rode in UK. Now, when they can ride all over Europe and, in some instances, in more than one league in the same country, then being “retained” for greater than the length of your contract makes no sense. This is an instance where “we’ve always done it like that” does not justify its continuing existence.
  3. Gordon Pairman

    Club Assets

    To pick up on this topic, clubs were required to have a retained list - I have always disliked the term “asset” - with a minimum value plus a cash or bank secured bond. BSP valued the list and, if it fell below the minimum, a club had to lodge additional cash to make up the minimum. An example of this was in 2013 when Glasgow changed ownership, BSPA advised that the rider value was insufficient. We challenged this and asked for the Management Committee’s valuation but they wouldn’t tell us. Instead we had to find the extra cash. A rider on a club’s retained list can be loaned out for a fee which was calculated as a rate per point multiplied by their average. There was a sliding scale so the higher the average, the greater the rate. I don’t remember the numbers, but my recollection is that a reserve or second string in the lower league would be a few hundred whereas a heat leader in the top league would be many thousands. Purchasing a rider would then either save you a loan fee or allow you to lend him out. The “value” of a rider could therefore be assessed as what you might save or earn from the rider over how many years you might expect him to ride for you. That’s it at its most simplistic, of course - having first call on a rider might be beneficial in team building, but how do you value that? One of the benefits of the system was that being able to sell riders helped to balance the books and some teams, like Scunthorpe and Edinburgh have been particularly good at unearthing riders with potential that they could nurture for future sale. For rider values to keep increasing, then so do loan fees but they have remained static for many years and, in hopefully a one-off for this year, have been reduced to very little. This then means that the transfer market has been largely inactive for some time - why pay thousands for a rider when you can loan him for a few hundred? The reason behind clubs having to have a minimum value in their retained list was, in the case of a financial default, the riders could be sold to cover some or all of the deficit. The flaw in that is that, as only clubs can buy the riders, then the deficit is covered within the system - no new money comes in A solution would be to wind down loan fees and wind up bond amounts. That way, cash would be available instantly rather than there having to be an auction of riders. Now to the accounting procedures: firstly, the answer to whether you buy the riders registrations when you buy the licence is yes. You are purchasing something that will either earn you or save you money, so why should you get it for nothing? And now to assets. The best definition I can find is: As holding a rider’s registration does provide a future benefit, then, if you believe that benefit will last more than one year, it is reasonable to capitalise the purchase cost and write the value off over a period The question then is what period? My guess is that the maximum should be four years but, as accounting rules mean that you have to consider values annually, then the period chosen could be shortened or increased. My final point - the above is based on how things were when I was a promoter. I handed my licence back in 2018 and many things have changed since then. Whether the rules on retained lists are part of the changes, I know not
  4. Gordon Pairman

    Polish Extraleague 2020

    Ok. Remove the word “social” from my post - it may have been posted on mainstream media, but I read it on social media. And the method of disciplinary action of the SCB has “gotten” (horrible American word) me a relaxed retirement safe in the knowledge that, when I was a member, it was my opinion that we took whatever action was needed without feeling the need to massage our egos by running to the press every time. Referees make mistakes - goodness knows we’ve all seen them - but do they really deserve public humiliation, beyond what they already get?
  5. Gordon Pairman

    Polish Extraleague 2020

    Uninformed nonsense. SCB has quickly suspended and disciplined referees adjudged to have fallen short of expected standards. But we didn’t feel the need to take to social media to boast about our actions. If I make an error in my job, I accept the need for some for of correction but not for the whole world to know. Mr Stepniewski’s “management board” is basically himself and he just loves being the big “I am”, cleverly covering up that he is the one responsible for appointing sub standards referees. Tonight’s was just one of many.
  6. Gordon Pairman

    NEW LOOK FOR STAR

    Mine turned up this morning. First time it’s been on time since the lockdown. Things are looking up!
  7. Gordon Pairman

    Dakota North

    And there was me trying to be nice to you, ya wee #######! If you’re not careful I’ll demand my money back for your book (available now in all good charity shops )
  8. Gordon Pairman

    Dakota North

    King Jamie is a positive contributor though, the Duchess anything but!
  9. Gordon Pairman

    Dakota North

    Oh god! He’s back
  10. Gordon Pairman

    MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

    It looks like maybe you jumped the gun then started a thread with an accusation without first trying to ascertain the facts? I don’t have any answers to your questions but how many is the “plenty of riders”? Is it more than the 28 team places available? Then I could see some would be anxious. If it’s less than 28, then I’d have thought they’d all be excited at the possibility of being part of a top league set up? Because of the enthusiasm of supporters and other hard working individuals, we have moved from a time when there were very few young British riders coming through to a vibrant scene. You just need to look at how many young riders attended the GB Team training camp at the weekend and how many are at the Young Lions course in the Isle of Wight this week. Individuals have stepped in to make this development happen and the often maligned Neil Vatcher deserves great credit for what he’s done, as do those involved with the NJL and, after it was tidied up 3 or 4 years ago by the SCB, the MDL and the newly re-formed SDL. Now we get to 2020 and, at long last, the powers that be in the BSPA rather than individual promoters have picked this up and hopefully will move things even further along.
  11. Gordon Pairman

    MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

    Can someone please clarify what is happening? From the above post, it sounded like opportunities for junior riders were being swept aside, along with the nomadic team names. From the BSPA press release though, it seems there will be greater opportunities for junior riders, and it’s only the nomadic names that are being restricted. Is that right? From what it looks to me, as well as the initiative in the PL, any CL or NDL team could run a junior development league team, so there are more, not less opportunities for juniors. I know the over 40s riders who have been used in the past to pad out MDL/SDL teams will miss out, but there has always been the argument that they shouldn’t have been allowed to ride in these teams in the first place.
  12. Gordon Pairman

    MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

    My view, for what it’s worth, is the Reading SDL volunteers are the ones who deserve to find a way to resuscitate the Racers. Exeter were on borrowed time (for a long while) and there is still a possibility of them finding somewhere, but the Reading supporters were made promises that weren’t kept. It is also my view that those calling themselves Crayford or New Cross or Milton Keynes know they are using an historic name that is unlikely ever to stage Speedway again. And perhaps they then tarnish the name of teams that might have a chance of resuscitation? I’m I do think that, no matter how well intentioned, one team running out of another team’s stadium, and this applies in other sports too, should only ever be a temporary measure. The original supporters will soon fade away. MK Dons, anyone?
  13. Gordon Pairman

    MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

    Why can’t the made up team of “Crayford” run at Eastbourne or Kent, “Reading” at Swindon, “Exeter” at Somerset, “Weymouth” at Poole, and so on, all operating under the name of the track on which they are based? Do any of them contribute to rent costs, referee costs, medical costs, track prep costs, or do they expect to get these free of charge? And, even if they do bring “10 or 20” supporters, how many get in free as mechanics and helpers? I’ve seen the other side of these MDL (in particular) and SDL meetings where there haven’t been enough riders so there are long gaps between races (inconveniencing the referee, paramedics etc), where one rider rides for one team one week and another the next and where the “development” riders are guys in their 40s. SCB worked hard three or four years ago to tidy this up, and it seems to me that this process is continuing. I am all in favour of giving youngsters as much track time as possible and, to this end, I assume you know that the Premiership tracks are going to run their own 2nd half junior league. This is not a witch hunt or a conspiracy but part of a process to encourage young British riders in a proper, controlled, professional manner. I’m sure the offer of assistance from any of those involved with the former nomadic teams will be appreciated.
  14. Gordon Pairman

    MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

    Having done some research, I gather it’s only the teams with nomad names that are involved. The rules on this have been clear for a very long time - only people actively looking for new premises, and with a realistic chance of success could use the name of a defunct team. I’ve never looked into this but would guess that it’s something to do with protecting the intellectual property behind the name so if someone is able to open a track at the named places, they would have the right to use the name. The rules were loosened for SDL/MDL but maybe some people were abusing the privilege? Anyway, what is there to stop the so called nomad teams coming to an arrangement with whatever track they are using to run under their name? It’s been done plenty of times before.
  15. Gordon Pairman

    MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

    I don’t go with rumours. I ask. It wasn’t Neil Vatcher’s decision. I don’t know any more
×

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