Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Hunty

Uk Speedway Series

Recommended Posts

A more pertinent question would be "do they have to - these days, under currrent legislation, not what sombody remembers from years ago?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more pertinent question would be "do they have to - these days, under currrent legislation, not what sombody remembers from years ago?"

 

I would say that Jan would know. I am happy to accept that. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan I belive years back a rider could loose there licence for riding in non acu events on non acu tracks! That rule has changed!

 

Not according to what I have read. Don't forget - the SCB license was brought in for a reason.

 

A more pertinent question would be "do they have to - these days, under currrent legislation, not what sombody remembers from years ago?"

 

Which is why in the second post I had looked into - It's all in the rulebook.

However - what I had "remembered from years ago" was still the case :)

 

Just trying to provide some facts / info.

That was all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've asked around and got a bit more info on this, but it is pretty much as I said earlier:

 

The ACU is an umbrella organisation that covers all motorcycle sport in the UK.

Anything to do with speedway, under the ACU, has to go through SCB.

All speedway tracks must have an SCB track license.

All speedway riders must have an SCB license.

 

Speedway tracks cannot run a meeting not sanctioned by the SCB, or they will lose their track license.

 

Speedway riders will lose their license if they participate in an unlicensed speedway event.

 

The MCF cannot sanction a speedway meeting at a speedway track. Only the SCB can do this.

 

What constitutes a "speedway meeting"? It is the track, the bikes, the riders or even the term "speedway"?

 

I only ask as flattrack meetings were held last year on tracks that also host speedway, featuring rider who also ride speedway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not according to what I have read. Don't forget - the SCB license was brought in for a reason.

 

 

 

Which is why in the second post I had looked into - It's all in the rulebook.

However - what I had "remembered from years ago" was still the case :)

 

Just trying to provide some facts / info.

That was all.

 

Fair enough Stekkers, but at this stage, as a potential punter, I'm content that an organisation like the MCF will be more than aware of the requirements to make their meetings happen without calamitous after effects.

 

Bearing in mind the amount of whining & bitching cobblers that gets written on here about the supposed dunderheads at the BSPA, maybe calamitous after effects would be seen as a good thing.

 

Going to leave this alone for a while as the anally retentive anorak wearers seem to have become contagious: I've just realised that the first two venues are owned as opposed to sub-let by the speedway promotions. Coincidence, or planned?

 

Christ, I'll be wearing a bobble hat & caring about auspices next. Maybe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough Stekkers, but at this stage, as a potential punter, I'm content that an organisation like the MCF will be more than aware of the requirements to make their meetings happen without calamitous after effects.

 

Bearing in mind the amount of whining & bitching cobblers that gets written on here about the supposed dunderheads at the BSPA, maybe calamitous after effects would be seen as a good thing.

 

Going to leave this alone for a while as the anally retentive anorak wearers seem to have become contagious: I've just realised that the first two venues are owned as opposed to sub-let by the speedway promotions. Coincidence, or planned?

 

Christ, I'll be wearing a bobble hat & caring about auspices next. Maybe.

 

"Beware the Ides of March". (W. Shakespeare - Julius Caesar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm breaking my own rule on this thread, but.....

 

A question - If the BSPA/SCB wanted to run a Motocross event would they need the approval/permission/support of the MCF? Serious question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they could run independantly or under any of ACU, AMCA, BSMA, YMSA, and probably some others I haven't thought of and that would apply whether it was a permanent or temporary track. Clubs sometimes switch their affiliation from one governing body to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speedway tracks cannot run a meeting not sanctioned by the SCB, or they will lose their track license.

Speedway riders will lose their license if they participate in an unlicensed speedway event.

The MCF cannot sanction a speedway meeting at a speedway track. Only the SCB can do this.

 

The ACU/SCB might claim this, but we went through this several years ago with the MSA. The MSA realised it could not legally stop unlicensed racing at licensed tracks, nor prevent licensed drivers competing in unlicensed events.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Provincial League ran "black" many years ago, so I can only assume that they didn't have the blessing of the SBC, or anyone else. Can anybody clarify that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Provincial League ran "black" many years ago, so I can only assume that they didn't have the blessing of the SBC, or anyone else. Can anybody clarify that?

The PL ran black in 1964 - but everyone involved was banned. as a result riders could not compete at ACU grasstrack events (this was why Malcolm simmons elected to go 'white' with National League West Ham instead of continuing with PL Hackney), or compete in the world championship. Australians riding in the PL were banned from riding in their native country by their national federation as a further consequence.

 

Belle Vue were threatened with immediate expulsion from the National League for staging the Provincial League Riders Championship - however by that stage the national League/SCB position was so weak they couldn't follow through with their threat.

 

The bans were lifted as part of the settlement during the 64/65 close season, which was largely on the Provincial League's terms.

 

Whether this has any relevance today is questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very questionable I'd guess. Did the expression "restraint of trade" exist in 1964?

Yes - the restraint of trade case law goes back to before 1900* - and of course during 1964 Wimbledon promoter (and SCB member) Ronnie Greene took out an injunction to stop Bob Andrews riding for PL Wolverhampton.

 

However the application of commercial/contract law principles to sport has evolved considerably since then and for that reason I think that drawing on 1964 would be of very limited relevance.

 

* just looked at Wikipedia and case law goes back to 1613!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the organisers call it something different than 'speedway'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

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