Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sings4Speedway

MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

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?

Inter Milan & AC Milan? 

I respect your involvement in and opinions of our sport but would suggest that this matter should e taken on a team by team basis rather than a blanket ban. At Rye House in 1999 we had to overcome a great deal of official hostility but it worked. Both Weymouth and a certain Mr.Godfrey's Scunthorpe both ran as nomadic teams. I know, I presented a meeting featuring both one at Iwade ;-)

With some it works, with some it doesn't. In any case these junior league matches are only a step up from after-meeting practice. If a track like Swindon is happy to allow Reading to play a very minor [part in their meetings then why not? 

A little colour has been lost and some competitive second half action along with it. 

 

Edited by RobMcCaffery
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RobMcCaffery said:

Inter Milan & AC Milan? 

I respect your involvement in and opinions of our sport but would suggest that this matter should e taken on a team by team basis rather than a blanket ban. At Rye House in 1999 we had to overcome a great deal of official hostility but it worked. Both Weymouth and a certain Mr.Godfrey's Scunthorpe both ran as nomadic teams. I know, I presented a meeting featuring both one at Iwade ;-)

With some it works, with some it doesn't. In any case these junior league matches are only a step up from after-meeting practice. If a track like Swindon is happy to allow Reading to play a very minor [part in their meetings then why not? 

A little colour has been lost and some competitive second half action along with it. 

 

Agree with all this, especially as a Reading fan, but the Milan situation isn't the same really as it's a council stadium with both teams as tenants.  Milan way before Inter but still it wasn't the case of one piggy backing the other. 

I'd love to see the official criteria of how the bspa deem a club to be actively looking for a stadium - Reading have been doing so most definitely but it seems they're being punished for not making a song and dance of all the failed attempts etc.  Sad state of affairs indeed.  Good luck to the other clubs also affected. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RobMcCaffery said:

Inter Milan & AC Milan? 

I respect your involvement in and opinions of our sport but would suggest that this matter should e taken on a team by team basis rather than a blanket ban. At Rye House in 1999 we had to overcome a great deal of official hostility but it worked. Both Weymouth and a certain Mr.Godfrey's Scunthorpe both ran as nomadic teams. I know, I presented a meeting featuring both one at Iwade ;-)

With some it works, with some it doesn't. In any case these junior league matches are only a step up from after-meeting practice. If a track like Swindon is happy to allow Reading to play a very minor [part in their meetings then why not? 

A little colour has been lost and some competitive second half action along with it. 

 

...which is important in my opinion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fundamentally yes the competitive 2nd half action is the most important aspect. The cloak and dagger stuff is all unnecessary. If the announcement was we intend for all Prem clubs to run a 2nd half side in the MSDL (or whatever it is re-branded too)  along with a maximum of 3 additional teams. Teams who run under the host clubs name/promotion will be given priority. 

The biggest issues is that the information drips out rather than controlled releases (sound familiar) and that all riders involved get incredibly late notice. Thousands have been spent by riders already in preparation and potentially many could see themselves left out ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

 

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?

 

ONE each. I spent a couple of years helping a rider in the MDL, and had to pay to get in. (It was I who paid as I am a pensioner and so paid less than the rider's father).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another case of short sightedness by the BSPA, as an example during the years that Cradley had no team i went to 2 meetings once to see Coventry including H & H beat Wolves at Monmore, and the other was Birmingham V Edinburgh, my allegiance is to Cradley not to any other Team, the point i am making is i wont go to watch Wolves Kids race against whoever, but i will/would go to watch Cradley Kids against whoever.. this is backed up by Wolves running in the 3rd tier for a couple of seasons watched by one man and his dog, then someone had the bright idea to name the team Cradley Heathens and we all know what then followed, crowds of up to 1500.

With regards the Reading situation at Swindon, yes a few Reading fans would go to watch THERE team (Reading) in a competitive League, but they wont go to watch Swindon, so its Swindon that will lose our financially.

There was and is an easy solution to all of this,  what is there to actually stop Teams from track sharing if there is support from fans ?, I notice Milan were used as an example, however we could also use Coventry City FC sharing the Birmingham City ground this season, I sometimes wonder if there are ulterior motives when the BSPA make these ridiculous decisions which have NO benefit to the Sport. 

Then they avoid taking decisions which could and should be made ie end doubling up/down, and having new riders from abroad when our own riders such as Nathan Greaves cant get a Team place, I wonder what the UKBA would think about sponsoring Clubs requiring visas when UK passport holders cant get rides?.. 

Oh and while we are at it, Would Edinburgh have been as succesful being known as Armadale ?.

Edited by greyhoundp
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it Coventry's match at Leicester is still on? ;-)

Re Milan, it doesn't matter what the balance is between landlord and tenant the argument was put forward that all ground sharing is undesirable. The fact thast it works in a major sporting league is surely relevant, whether Internazionale are landlords or joint tenants?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a feeling that there has to be a cut off date for something certain to have happened? Year after year of saying we are looking for a place to build a stadium can’t be an ideal situation. And maybe there was a feeling some of these clubs were getting nowhere? But in all honesty I can’t see the harm at the level we are talking about. Call these teams what you like imo

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has to be an argument that if one of these teams found and co-operated in the opening of a new venue it has to be a positive thing that none of the take over clubs will be doing. Of course there was a lot of lip service and most of the current dev league promotions could not actually fund a full stadia but they are/were keeping the prospect and supporter base open. How many new tracks have opened in the past 10 years (3? Kent, Leicester & Redcar?) versus how many have closed. The stats speak for themselves that every possibility has to be supported not shot down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is out, MSDL crushed by Prem clubs to run a second half league for a season or so until they get bored. Promoting local riders to each club despite the vast majority of riders being spread far and wide and unlikely to even be remotely local. 

Enter teams in the league great, maybe even split the M & SDL's back up, no problem  with that as more rides and more competition will always benefit the sport but don't hail yourself heroes BSPA when you have directly replaced an established product and cast good honest hard working volunteers side without so much of an acknowledgement. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be interesting to see what entry / level qualification is for Riders.

Going to be interesting with no PL Club north of Sheffield or South of Swindon and a cluster in East Anglia.

Monday and Thursday not exactly great for kids either with school and traveling!

Seems the door may have been left open to CL/NDL to run but not with use of dormant Club names?

Edited by HGould
added 3rd line
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thing about school and travelling is a myth for speedway kids. the parents understand the time and effort required to even make a junior league rider let alone a league rider. if the kids cant make a meeting that starts usually around 9pm after finishing school at 3.30 there is something wrong. my lads going to be Wolverhampton mascot this year and he will be picked up a 3.40 arrive at track for 6pm do his laps watch the meeting then set off home around 9.30 to 10 and arrive back around midnight sleeps in the van gets up 7.30 for school and eat sleep then repeat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly the DL clubs have to focus on the Championship and National League tracks. Effectively though they have only lost seven tracks, although seeing it written down it still looks harsh.

I see the press release refers to tidying up the system. That's to fit in with the rest of speedway in Britain.....isn't it? 

Somehow I managed to keep a straight face while writing that.

I wish the new competition well, and the development leagues too. Anything that adds to the value for money for supporters has to be welcomed. 

Consideration for volunteers and supporters? That would be a nice idea ;-)

 

Edited by RobMcCaffery
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2020 at 7:58 AM, Sings4Speedway said:

Some very nasty rumours starting to circulate that the nomad clubs have been denied entry into the MSDL this year effectively leaving Birmingham & IOW and therefore no league at all?

Does anybody know who is responsible for the petty decisions to remove one of the most important breeding grounds for future UK talent as i am amongst a list who are waiting to here genuine reasoning behind it.....

.....it currently stinks like its being pushed out the way for the new diluted NL next season. 

There are a lot of dedicated supporters and volunteers who have given up thousands of pounds and hours to assist riders and this feels like a brutal kick to everyone involved.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly the above was prior to todays fanfare. Second why did there have to destroy one league and create another? Surely all these teams could have just entered the existing setup? The opportunities are at best equal to what was exisiting. Why any NL or CL would want to enter the premiership junior league sounds unlikely. 

There are plenty of riders who have spent thousands preparing for a season, licences purchased and now potentially face an anxious few weeks/months to discover if they will be competing this season. 

  • Thanks 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

×

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