BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Paulco said: Seems pretty clear then , so I don't see how Blobby and co are claiming they are being hard done to See my post, it helps when someone posts the full rules, not just a snippet they feel proves their case. The BSPA have the right to reject a discretionary endorsement and are required to give full reasons for doing so. They haven't done that, they've lied by saying he doesn't fit the criteria. If he fitted the criteria they wouldn't be asking for a discretionary endorsement in the first place!! Edited February 1, 2018 by BWitcher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulco 7,075 Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes 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 Luke Becker missed the 2nd round of a 4 round series in the US Championships due to injury. He would only have needed 5pts to have finished in the top 4 and meet the requirements so clearly was an exceptional factor. The UKVI have already stated he meets the criteria for a discretionary endorsement so the BSPA statement on the issue is quite simply an out and out lie. Anything could have happened to prevent him scoring 5 , bit of a bold statement to claim the BSPA are telling lies . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Paulco said: Anything could have happened to prevent him scoring 5 , bit of a bold statement to claim the BSPA are telling lies . Indeed it could, however the average of his scored from the other three rounds would have seen him in a comfortable 3rd place. Far from a bold statement. They are telling lies. The UKVI confirmed that Becker met the criteria for a discretionary endorsement, so the rejection of his application was nothing to do with them as the BSPA are claiming. As in my post above their reasoning makes absolutely no sense either.. rejecting an application for a discretionary endorsement because he doesn't fit the regulations for an automatic endorsement? Just think about it for a moment and it will dawn on you. Again, I have no qualms with the BSPA rejecting his application, however they should have the balls to give the reason why. Edited February 1, 2018 by BWitcher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheScotsman 2,483 Posted February 1, 2018 The full regulation - https://www.speedwaygb.co/sponsoredmigrantspolicy (including the part quoted by Bwitcher but conveniently omitted by Godfrey's sidekick.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulco 7,075 Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, BWitcher said: Indeed it could, however the average of his scored from the other three rounds would have seen him in a comfortable 3rd place. Far from a bold statement. They are telling lies. The UKVI confirmed that Becker met the criteria for a discretionary endorsement, so the rejection of his application was nothing to do with them as the BSPA are claiming. As in my post above their reasoning makes absolutely no sense either.. rejecting an application for a discretionary endorsement because he doesn't fit the regulations for an automatic endorsement? Just think about it for a moment and it will dawn on you. Again, I have no qualms with the BSPA rejecting his application, however they should have the balls to give the reason why. They've obviously took the decision at face value . Becker finished 5th and they aren't taking " what ifs " into consideration . That's what their statement implies , that's the bit that has dawned on me . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 1, 2018 Further to the rule I quoted above the very next paragraph states "Injuries. Exclusions from competing due to injury will be a factor that is taken into account when applying the requirements both in initial applications and extensions. Clubs should submit supportive medical evidence in such cases, stipulating the period of injury and the total number of meetings the rider has missed." 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Argos 262 Posted February 1, 2018 I was very impressed with Broc Nicol at Birmingham’s last meeting, Would he get a Visa to ride in the UK, if he did what average would he come in on Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thischarmingman 18 Posted February 1, 2018 24 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said: Yet the UKVI said he was eligible! Or are you ignoring that fact? Lucifer Rob always conveniently leaves out certain facts if they don't suit his line of argument at that point, he's done it for years and doesn't fool anyone. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Paulco said: They've obviously took the decision at face value . Becker finished 5th and they aren't taking " what ifs " into consideration . That's what their statement implies , that's the bit that has dawned on me . No they haven't. Please explain how you apply for a discretionary endorsement if you already fit the rules. It is there for that purpose, where someone does not fit them. The BSPA have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent (again) and have a severe lack of understanding of their very own rules. Again, I re-iterate, the BSPA have the right not to give him the endorsement. However, as per THEIR OWN RULES, they are required to give full written reasons why. Saying he didn't fit the automatic criteria is not a reason, that is something that is already known and why the discretionary endorsement appeal system is there. Edited February 1, 2018 by BWitcher 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thischarmingman 18 Posted February 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Paulco said: They've obviously took the decision at face value . Becker finished 5th and they aren't taking " what ifs " into consideration . That's what their statement implies , that's the bit that has dawned on me . Bang on, that's exactly what they have done, taken the ruling literally, without taking into account the very clear circumstances which could merit a successful appeal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted February 1, 2018 14 minutes ago, Paulco said: They've obviously took the decision at face value . Becker finished 5th and they aren't taking " what ifs " into consideration . That's what their statement implies , that's the bit that has dawned on me . I think it's once bitten, twice shy after what happened to Ty Proctor. It's clear that unless a rider fully fulfils the UKVI criteria, there's always a chance that UKVI will change their minds later on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soupy 556 Posted February 1, 2018 That is the rules for everybody's sake and is in black and white and there should be no descrepencies for any team no matter what ifs and buts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, soupy said: That is the rules for everybody's sake and is in black and white and there should be no descrepencies for any team no matter what ifs and buts. Except it isn't, but don't let that stop you inventing things! The rules as they are have been both stated and linked too. Edinburgh have not broken them, the BSPA have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
soupy 556 Posted February 1, 2018 15 minutes ago, BWitcher said: Except it isn't, but don't let that stop you inventing things! The rules as they are have been both stated and linked too. Edinburgh have not broken them, the BSPA have. No they are sticking to the black and white rules no ifs and buts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 1, 2018 30 minutes ago, soupy said: No they are sticking to the black and white rules no ifs and buts. No they aren't. Why don't you try reading the 'black and white' rules? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
