Edinburgh 2018

[Grachan 7,360]

I don't know the whole story, but from what I can see, this is how it is.

Edinburgh tried to get a rider who doesn't fit in with the requirements. They must have known this?

They asked the mc for approval. No harm in asking, right? They were told that he doesn't fit the criteria. That's the end of it, surely.

I see no problem in how the BSPA have acted here.

If Edinburgh want to keep this going, they should contact their local MP and get him to persue the case. It worked for Swindon with Jimmy Nilsen all those years ago, when you needed to be a 6 pointer to get a work permit.

Don't blame the BSPA here. Their sponsorship license is at risk if they let someone slip through the net.

[screm 8,052]

For to long now many on here have accused the BSPA of not sticking to their rules, like it or not with this case as well as the Nicholls/Kennett case the BSPA have enforced their rules, so I applaud them for doing so.

[mac101 1,201]

Did the UKVI not give a rider the ok to ride over here a few years back then tell him after he got here  he had 24 hours to leave the country 

[gmuncie 201]

48 minutes ago, Grachan said:

I don't know the whole story, but from what I can see, this is how it is.

Edinburgh tried to get a rider who doesn't fit in with the requirements. They must have known this?

They asked the mc for approval. No harm in asking, right? They were told that he doesn't fit the criteria. That's the end of it, surely.

I see no problem in how the BSPA have acted here.

If Edinburgh want to keep this going, they should contact their local MP and get him to persue the case. It worked for Swindon with Jimmy Nilsen all those years ago, when you needed to be a 6 pointer to get a work permit.

Don't blame the BSPA here. Their sponsorship license is at risk if they let someone slip through the net.

Not quite Grachan it’s more like 

Edinburgh attempted to sign a rider that does not automatically qualify for a visa but that they felt did qualify under the discretionary rules (posted earlier in the thread)

Edinburgh then built their case with testimony from Steve Evans, Greg Hancock and the UKVI

BSPA management committee rejected the appeal (as is their right)

BSPA neglected their own rules that state that the outcome of an appeal with reasoning will be provided to the relevant parties.

Therein lies the gripe and where the accusations of bias come in as there has been no transparency and the reasoning for the rejection is yet to be received. 

[scotchopper 312]

1 hour ago, Paulco said:

Paranoia levels reaching critical along the M8 as a result of this team building setback 

Maybe but if you or anyone else can justify why he does not fit in the terms of the discretionary approval then I will happily move along. The MC failed to do so which is why it is open to accusation of bias.

As i said before Edinburgh will move on, sign a new rider who could work out better. It is the young lad that is being punished.

Hopefully he comes back to the monarchs next year and shows everyone they were wrong.

Edited February 2, 2018 by scotchopper

[Tsunami 10,219]

38 minutes ago, mac101 said:

Did the UKVI not give a rider the ok to ride over here a few years back then tell him after he got here  he had 24 hours to leave the country 

Ty Proctor.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Tsunami

[Grachan 7,360]

40 minutes ago, gmuncie said:

Not quite Grachan it’s more like 

Edinburgh attempted to sign a rider that does not automatically qualify for a visa but that they felt did qualify under the discretionary rules (posted earlier in the thread)

Edinburgh then built their case with testimony from Steve Evans, Greg Hancock and the UKVI

BSPA management committee rejected the appeal (as is their right)

BSPA neglected their own rules that state that the outcome of an appeal with reasoning will be provided to the relevant parties.

Therein lies the gripe and where the accusations of bias come in as there has been no transparency and the reasoning for the rejection is yet to be received. 

A few people are saying there was testimony from UKVI. From my own dealings with them I find that unlikely, although it would be interesting if someone could post exact details of what is meant by this.

If there was, genuinely, approval from UKVI, then there is no reason for him to be refused.

My own guess is that this is just the standard 'you have a right to appeal' type of  statement that appears carte blanche on all refusal letters.

So, perhaps, someone could post exact details of this UKVI testimony.

The fact is, people in this country have been crying out for years for tougher immigration laws, but when they get them it becomes a bad thing because speedway riders come under the tougher rules.

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Grachan

[BWitcher 12,453]

7 minutes ago, Grachan said:

A few people are saying there was testimony from UKVI. From my own dealings with them I find that unlikely, although it would be interesting if someone could post exact details of what is meant by this.

If there was, genuinely, approval from UKVI, then there is no reason for him to be refused.

My own guess is that this is just the standard 'you have a right to appeal' type of  statement that appears carte blanche on all refusal letters.

So, perhaps, someone could post exact details of this UKVI testimony.

The fact is, people in this country have been crying out for years for tougher immigration laws, but when they get them it becomes a bad thing because speedway riders come under the tougher rules.

 

 

 

There is no need to guess Grachan.

The wording is quite clear and explicit. Riders/clubs can apply for a discretionary endorsement if there were extenuating circumstances that prevented a rider from hitting the original criteria. In the case of injury, medical evidence must be provided. This was all done. The wording also states that the BSPA will provide in writing full reasoning why the discretionary endorsement was rejected. They haven't done that. Saying he doesn't fit the initial criteria is just dumb. We know that. Edinburgh knew that, Luke Becker knew that. That's why they were applying for a discretionary endorsement.

Had the BSPA said we don't feel based upon Beckers overall record he meets the standard required, then job done. Some may not have agreed but a reasoning was given.

This has nothing to do with immigration laws, it is to do with the BSPA being unable to do their jobs professionally.. again.

Edited February 2, 2018 by BWitcher

[Grachan 7,360]

3 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

There is no need to guess Grachan.

The wording is quite clear and explicit. Riders/clubs can apply for a discretionary endorsement if there were extenuating circumstances that prevented a rider from hitting the original criteria. In the case of injury, medical evidence must be provided. This was all done. The wording also states that the BSPA will provide in writing full reasoning why the discretionary endorsement was rejected. They haven't done that. Saying he doesn't fit the initial criteria is just dumb. We know that. Edinburgh knew that, Luke Becker knew that. That's why they were applying for a discretionary endorsement.

Had the BSPA said we don't feel based upon Beckers overall record he meets the standard required, then job done. Some may not have agreed but a reasoning was given.

That's fine. They applied for a discretionary endorsement. It failed.

It doesn't say it will be granted. Just that they can apply.

Surely it is better just to follow the rule to the letter barring something exceptional.

[BWitcher 12,453]

30 minutes ago, Grachan said:

That's fine. They applied for a discretionary endorsement. It failed.

It doesn't say it will be granted. Just that they can apply.

Surely it is better just to follow the rule to the letter barring something exceptional.

 

Is this really such a difficult concept to understand?

It clearly states that should it be rejected the reasoning would be given. Saying it didn't meet the initial criteria is not a reason, that's the whole purpose of making the application. 

Nobody, not even Edinburgh or Luke Becker is complaining it has been rejected. They are complaining because no reason has been given. Transparency, that is what people want and once again it is lacking.

Edited February 2, 2018 by BWitcher

[Badge 5,125]

5 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

 

Is this really such a difficult concept to understand?

It clearly states that should it be rejected the reasoning would be given. Saying it didn't meet the initial criteria is not a reason, that's the whole purpose of making the application. 

Nobody, not even Edinburgh or Luke Becker is complaining it has been rejected. They are complaining because no reason has been given. Transparency, that is what people want and once again it is lacking.

Do we actually know what reason the BSPA gave Edinburgh?? Is it our place to know all the details, or should the update on site just be enough?

Visa applications for ALL non EU persons is a minefield and full of legalise, not just speedway riders good or bad.

 

[BWitcher 12,453]

9 minutes ago, Badge said:

Do we actually know what reason the BSPA gave Edinburgh?? Is it our place to know all the details, or should the update on site just be enough?

Visa applications for ALL non EU persons is a minefield and full of legalise, not just speedway riders good or bad.

 

Edinburgh have already confirmed what they have been told, as has Steve Evans, the USA team manager and the rider himself.

They haven't been given a reason.

Yes, we all know the application process is a minefield and lessons were learned no doubt over the Ty Proctor situation. As such the BSPA should be quite clear, this is the criteria, if you don't fit THAT IS IT. End of story. Leaving the door open as they are doing is simply continuing their traditional approach of.. depends who is asking/paying/loaning us a rider.

So on the one hand the BSPA could be deemed to be doing the correct thing.. yet somehow they still manage to turn it into adverse publicity!!

Edited February 2, 2018 by BWitcher

[IronScorpion 1,407]

11 hours ago, scotchopper said:

So the only question outstanding I would ask is if it was a different team in the league, e.g. Scunthorpe, he was signing for would the answer be different.......  I think almost certainly YES and shame on those who made this decision.

 

Who was the other rider that was mentioned that was refused entry? A certain Ryan Douglas, who has ridden for Scunthorpe since he came over to our shores & would, if possible, been riding for the Scorpions, again, in 2018. It is, also, noted that other teams were interested in him if he was available. 

[Gazc 7,093]

5 minutes ago, IronScorpion said:

Who was the other rider that was mentioned that was refused entry? A certain Ryan Douglas, who has ridden for Scunthorpe since he came over to our shores & would, if possible, been riding for the Scorpions, again, in 2018. It is, also, noted that other teams were interested in him if he was available. 

And he didn't meet the criteria , i don't see many if any Scunthoroe fans shouting about agendas conspiracies  etc.

 

[IronScorpion 1,407]

21 hours ago, BWitcher said:

Conveniently missing out the salient part there Lucifer whereby it states:

 

"The BSPA will consider applications for discretionary endorsements for riders who do not meet the above requirements on an individual discretionary basis. Decisions will be made by the BSPA Management Committee who will consider written applications from the club and/or rider concerned. The Management Committee will give written reasons for their decision. Factors to be taken into consideration will be:

• Whether the riders record in speedway has been at the highest level and they will contribute significantly to the development of the sport.
• Whether exceptional factors prevented the rider from meeting the aforementioned endorsement requirements"

Does this part mean that Scunthorpe or any other club, could have tried to sign R Douglas for 2018?

Ryan did not achieve one of the main parts to apply for a visa(a 7point average) so end of!

 

There is a lager advert about, Carlsberg with the wording "Probably the best lager in the world"