Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Grachan said:

No. I'm not dumb. I know what discretionary means.

Well you're acting it, suggesting that the criteria which makes you apply for a discretionary endorsement is the reason used for not giving one.

Seems Rob Godfrey has clarified that Becker DOES fit the criteria, but the BSPA have simply decided they aren't giving any discretionary endorsements. So again, it's having one rule and doing another thing that is the issue. 

If the BSPA had told Edinburgh and indeed every other club right from the beginning that there will be no discretionary endorsements given there would never have been an issue. It's this moving of the goalposts that is a fundamental issue in the governing of the sport.

Edited by BWitcher
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Come on Grachan, you aren't that dumb are you?

That is the criteria for an automatic visa. Becker wasn't applying for an automatic visa. Becker was applying for a discretionary endorsement. An entirely different thing where you are NOT required to meet the initial criteria (you wouldn't be applying for it if you did). Saying you aren't eligible for a DISCRETIONARY ENDORSEMENT because you don't meet the criteria for an automatic visa is about as stupid as you can get. 

As I've already stated, all the BSPA had to say was they didn't feel Becker was of a sufficient standard or some other excuse to cover themselves. Instead, they act like idiots and alienate another bunch of fans. All could very easily have been avoided.

Why do you have to be so condscending towards posters asking people if they are dumb etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gazc said:

Why do you have to be so condscending towards posters asking people if they are dumb etc.

 

I know Grachan isn't dumb, so am confused why he seems to be missing the point here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Well you're acting it, suggesting that the criteria which makes you apply for a discretionary endorsement is the reason used for not giving one.

Seems Rob Godfrey has clarified that Becker DOES fit the criteria, but the BSPA have simply decided they aren't giving any discretionary endorsements. So again, it's having one rule and doing another thing that is the issue. 

If the BSPA had told Edinburgh and indeed every other club right from the beginning that there will be no discretionary endorsements given there would never have been an issue. It's this moving of the goalposts that is a fundamental issue in the governing of the sport.

And it's at their discretion whether they give them or not. He has no right to a visa, and, by keeping the cut off point clear, they are keeping the goalposts stationary.

Sorry. Duh me, eh? Wish I knew what discretionary meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grachan said:

And it's at their discretion whether they give them or not. He has no right to a visa, and, by keeping the cut off point clear, they are keeping the goalposts stationary.

Sorry. Duh me, eh? Wish I knew what discretionary meant.

Yes it is their discretion, nobody has ever said that, something you seem quite keen not to grasp.

However, when at their discretion they are not going to endorse a rider they are required to give their reasons in writing as to why the reasons given for the discretionary endorsement are not sufficient. Saying he doesn't fit the original criteria, which the BSPA did (initially) is not doing that. That is stating the bleedin obvious and why the discretionary endorsement was applied for in the first place. 

The BSPA have had all winter to make a simple statement. "No discretionary endorsements will be considered. If you don't fit the criteria, that is it". Is that really such a hard thing for them to do? Why leave the door open, drag processes out, waste people's time when they had no intention of ever awarding an endorsement? That leaves the door open for people, with good reason given past history, to wonder if it is done so if someone in favor applies for an endorsement, one can be given.

It's simply another mess they've brought upon themselves that could very easily have been avoided.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BWitcher said:

Well you're acting it, suggesting that the criteria which makes you apply for a discretionary endorsement is the reason used for not giving one.

Seems Rob Godfrey has clarified that Becker DOES fit the criteria, but the BSPA have simply decided they aren't giving any discretionary endorsements. So again, it's having one rule and doing another thing that is the issue. 

If the BSPA had told Edinburgh and indeed every other club right from the beginning that there will be no discretionary endorsements given there would never have been an issue. It's this moving of the goalposts that is a fundamental issue in the governing of the sport.

 

They don't need to give a reason. He does not fit the criteria for a visa. That's all the reason they need.

They haven't moved any goalposts. They have stayed within the exact original criteria.

My opinion might chsnge if someone can conclusively prove that UKVI gave an endorsment, which has been suggested. Otherwise, it's a case of people complaining about something they have nothing to complain about.

I am kind of repeating myself now. Time to agree to disagree, methinks.

discretionary
dɪˈskrɛʃ(ə)n(ə)ri/
adjective
  1. available for use at the discretion of the user.
    "there has been an increase in year-end discretionary bonuses"
    synonyms: optional, non-compulsory, voluntary, at one's discretion, up to the individual, non-mandatory, elective, open to choice; 
    open, unrestricted; 
    permissive; 
    rarediscretional
     
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grachan said:

 

They don't need to give a reason. He does not fit the criteria for a visa. That's all the reason they need.

They haven't moved any goalposts. They have stayed within the exact original criteria.

My opinion might chsnge if someone can conclusively prove that UKVI gave an endorsment, which has been suggested. Otherwise, it's a case of people complaining about something they have nothing to complain about.

I am kind of repeating myself now. Time to agree to disagree, methinks.

discretionary
dɪˈskrɛʃ(ə)n(ə)ri/
adjective
  1. available for use at the discretion of the user.
    "there has been an increase in year-end discretionary bonuses"
    synonyms: optional, non-compulsory, voluntary, at one's discretion, up to the individual, non-mandatory, elective, open to choice; 
    open, unrestricted; 
    permissive; 
    rarediscretional
     
     

You must be deliberately missing the point, you just have to be. 

We all know he doesn’t meet the criteria; hence the request for discretionary consideration. Turning down that request is fine but giving “he doesn’t meet the criteria” as the reason for doing so isn’t and doesn’t make sense. 

Edited by JanAnderson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up. You all win. He should have got a visa. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grachan said:

I give up. You all win. He should have got a visa. 

I haven’t anywhere suggested that. Very few on this thread have. 

You’re failing to grasp a very simple concept. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Grachan said:

I give up. You all win. He should have got a visa. 

You should give up.

You're trolling at the levels of Starman.

You seem to be displaying a complete inability to understand basic English.

The original criteria are IRRELEVANT. Had he fitted those criteria he wouldn't be applying for a discretionary endorsement. There is a long section that explains this in the rules if you'd bother to read it where it explicitly explains what is required for a discretionary endorsement to be given by the BSPA. That same section says that full reasoning would be given if the discretionary endorsement was turned down and why the information provided was not sufficient. Again, the original criteria at this point are IRRELEVANT.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that nobody is denying the right for the BSPA to turn it down. Indeed I may even lean towards supporting them in that decision. What isn't correct is giving a reason that he doesn't fit the original criteria. That is just ridiculous.

It's like being found guilty in a court of law, appealing, arriving at your appeal and the judge saying.. "You're guilty because the original jury said so" and not bothering to even look at any new evidence or the appeal. 

Again, had the BSPA, from the outset stated that no discretionary endorsements would be considered this whole situation would not have occutred.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Edinburgh Facebook, it appears Rod Godfrey has acknowledged the rule allowing discretion has never been applied since the very unfortunate Ty Proctor/Sheffield affair of 2015, and because immigration is such a major and important topic,  needing the qualifying position to be clear and not varying. The discretionary rule should no longer be there (i.e. on the BSPA website) and will be removed.

As I personally do not agree with discretionary rules,  agree with it's removal and recognise  that "clerical oversights" can occur.

What is unsatisfactory is that this discretionary exemption issue was raised by both the AMA & Edinburgh at least three months ago and apparently the above explanation has only been provided now.

Thus the AMA & Edinburgh could have been spared unnecessarily wasting their time over the interim period if the aforementioned explanation and the expunging of the discretionary rule from http://www.speedwaygb.co./sponsoredmigrantspolicy  had been  actioned when first raised. (the Section for consideration of applications for discretionary endorsements is still there btw ! ).

In Edinburgh's case they could have been exploring alternative signing avenues earlier.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours 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 

I'm not sure that's true.

The account I got of the visa/immigration issue was that the BSPA had been breaking the rules over the eligibility of foreign riders for years and without any regard for the actual legal position. Make no mistake, this was probably the most serious threat to speedway in this country for years and why it is treated with such care now. 

Fortunately, the UKVI took a very (more than very) tolerant and reasonable attitude,  stating what the rules were and drawing a line in the sand over past misdemeanours. They made it clear in no uncertain terms what would happen if those rules were broken again (one promoter tried to do so a matter of weeks later and then attempted to offload the blame on to the UKVI - the incident you have mentioned). 

Scotchopper doesn't post very often but when he does he is usually spot on. Now that this issue has been clarified, it seems to me that both he and Cyclone are absolutely correct : this is a matter of a failure to delete a rule from the rulebook and a failure to make the actual position absolutely clear at the outset (or at least at a much earlier point). Its the second time - Lakeside are the others - that poor administration from the BSPA has led to difficulties for a team and a rider.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway watch EDI pull a rabbit out of the hat and end up with a better rider than they were originally signing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/02/2018 at 2:43 PM, hulvik said:

When it comes to visas it's funny how the minority sports like speedway always have trouble when it comes to non EU residents. You never hear of an overseas footballer in the Premier league having a visa application turned down

The premier league is the top league of 4. Professional leagues in England. Speedways Championship is the bottom half. How many Argentinians, Americans, Aussies etc are there in league 2?

Speedway should be thankful that any Championship riders are granted work permits because the rules says that riders have to be proven at the highest level. Having to ride Championship level speedway is not exactly in keeping with that description but Premier league football is!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4634022/Watford-s-Adalberto-Penaranda-work-permit-rejected.html

oh and that, yeah.

Edited by SCB
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×