Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Islander15

Jason Pipe resigns

Recommended Posts

So we’ll need a new man in charge and inevitably new ideas! 

If he can cope with the workload I think there’s only one man for the job. That is Barry Bishop!

If that’s a conflict of interest then I  think there’s another obvious appointment, if he has enough time on his hands: Connor Dugard!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Islander15 said:

So we’ll need a new man in charge and inevitably new ideas! 

If he can cope with the workload I think there’s only one man for the job. That is Barry Bishop!

If that’s a conflict of interest then I  think there’s another obvious appointment, if he has enough time on his hands: Connor Dugard!

Spot on Barry bishop is I think the only man for the job, would be perfect.  Would move the league forward. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What NDL needs is a pairing like Bishop and Dugard who would not only move it forward but breakaway and form a proper Development League for 15-21 year olds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly i fear Pipe can see the way the NL is heading and wisely took the chance to move on. 

The league does need to break away from the BSPA and be allowed to function for the benefit of all clubs and the riders within. Never agree with age limits though, being good enough is all that matters and is all that is required to drive the standard up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Sadly i fear Pipe can see the way the NL is heading and wisely took the chance to move on. 

The league does need to break away from the BSPA and be allowed to function for the benefit of all clubs and the riders within. Never agree with age limits though, being good enough is all that matters and is all that is required to drive the standard up.

 

Its not only the NL that needs to breakaway from the BSPA, however as a minimum the League needs to make its own decisions not have them forced upon them by an organisation that has an entirely different agenda to the NL.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HGould said:

What NDL needs is a pairing like Bishop and Dugard who would not only move it forward but breakaway and form a proper Development League for 15-21 year olds.

But where would they ride? The BSPA would 'black' any tracks with breakaway teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, *JJ said:

But where would they ride? The BSPA would 'black' any tracks with breakaway teams.

The difference is that the breakaway needs to be from the BSPA not the SCB. The sport needs to remain Speedway and be sanctioned as such under the SCB and therefore the ACU but be organised and run by a body of people who have the interests of the league and its participants at the forefront. 

The BSPA would only stand a chance of 'black listing' sides that ran teams in multiple divisions (if the top 2 tiers remain under the current tyranny) but even then Belle Vue Colts (for example) could operate under a different promotion and therefore its a shared use track that the bspa has no say over in the same way as they have no control over dog/stox etc. 

This of course would require SCB buy in though but nothing is impossible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the breakaway manage before ?, i know its going back years to the early sixties when the so called weaker Provincial League broke away from the National League, in no time at all the Provincial League was stronger than the National League before the 2 got back together and became the British League, from my vague memory i believe the PL riders were blacked/blocked from riding for NL teams, and  that is probably what would happen now, but the Provincial League must have ridden under the rules of the ACU who i believe would be the governing body that any breakaway would come under again, where the SCB would fit into all of this i have no idea, is the SCB just an umbrella organisation for the benefit of the BSPA ?.

https://www.acu.org.uk/

http://www.scbgb.co.uk/aboutus  Financed entirely by fees generated through the issue of Track Licences, Rider Registrations and Officials Licences the SCB seeks to act as the independent body to ensure that the BSPA, Member’s Tracks, Riders and Officials all act within the Rules and Regulations of the SCB and most importantly within the best interest of Speedway motorcycle racing.

 

The Speedway Control Bureau consists of 4 nominated Members, two representing the ACU are Tony Steele and Paul Hurry (ACU Members) whilst Rob Godfrey (BSPA Chairman) and Chris van Straaten (BSPA Promoter) represent the British Speedway Promoters Association under the independent Chairmanship of Jim Lawrence (a former speedway Referee).

 

 I have taken a couple of extracts from the about us, the one particular sentence i particuarly found interesting was the sentence ending "the best interest of speedway motorcycle racing" its very debatable as to what is in the best interest of Speedway,  often it can conflict with the best interests of Speedway promoters, as an example the recent coming to light of NO Ghost teams/names.. but certainly whats never mentioned in ALL of the decisions is whats in the best interests of Speedway fans which can often be "in the best interest of Speedway" but is rarely if ever taken into account.

The other interesting point is that its financed entirely by fees from the BSPA, so can it be an entirely Independant body as it states ?, personally i believe it acts in the best interests of the BSPA not for the best interests of Speedway.. which are two entirely different things.

For someone to head up a breakaway would be a time consuming role, its doubteful if anyone would have the time or inclination to take on such a role.

Edited by greyhoundp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just done a bit more research because my memory is vague, after all we are going back 50+ years ago.

In 1964 the Provincial League operated outside of Speedway Control Board authority following a major dispute over how Speedway should be run. The controversy was brought about by the refusal of Wolverhampton to move up to the National League, which only had six teams at the time, after winning the Provincial League title in 1963. This caused a split between the leagues, and the Provincial League was outlawed by the Speedway Control Board and all National League riders were forbidden to ride on Provincial tracks. Provincial League riders were warned by the Speedway Control board that they were in breach of ACU regulations and could be suspended from all competitive racing. They were also barred from the World Speedway Championship. The Provincial League objected and went black the 1964 season, racing under their own rules and arbitrator, and appointing their own officials and referees.[1]

An enquiry was held that year set up by the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) and chaired by Lord Shawcross who decided that the SCB was acting illegally. He recommended that the SCB be re-formed with a new Secretary/Manager and a new Chairman appointed from the RAC.

During the winter of 1964/65, meetings were held between the promoters of the two leagues and the SCB led to a reconciliation between the two bodies and the merger of the two leagues leading to the establishment of a single 18 team British League for the 1965 season. This reorganisation also led to the formation of the British Speedway Promoters Association.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 12:16 PM, Sings4Speedway said:

The difference is that the breakaway needs to be from the BSPA not the SCB. The sport needs to remain Speedway and be sanctioned as such under the SCB and therefore the ACU but be organised and run by a body of people who have the interests of the league and its participants at the forefront. 

The BSPA would only stand a chance of 'black listing' sides that ran teams in multiple divisions (if the top 2 tiers remain under the current tyranny) but even then Belle Vue Colts (for example) could operate under a different promotion and therefore its a shared use track that the bspa has no say over in the same way as they have no control over dog/stox etc. 

This of course would require SCB buy in though but nothing is impossible. 

Wouldn’t a problem come that not only tracks, but riders would be blacklisted. So riders would have to accept that they would only be able to ride in the NL with no extra income/doubling up...

Edited by iris123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a better parallel would be the highly-successful National League, which operated independently of the BSPA offices, had its own management committee and shared events, and created a healthy, profitable league structure between around 1983 and 1990?    This was still within the SCB/ACU framework, and riders had free movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 12:17 PM, iris123 said:

Wouldn’t a problem come that not only tracks, but riders would be blacklisted. So riders would have to accept that they would only be able to ride in the NL with no extra income/doubling up...

No chance, as long ago as the 70's the ACU tried to do this in MX with the AMCA and it was put through the courts where the ACU lost. We've seen it in Speedway where riders were told that practicing at a track would see their licence revoked, that didn't happen either. The BSPA/ SCB might make the threats but it'll never be enforced because they risk the whole house of cards collapsing if people start looking too closely at the way riders are employed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Vince said:

No chance, as long ago as the 70's the ACU tried to do this in MX with the AMCA and it was put through the courts where the ACU lost. We've seen it in Speedway where riders were told that practicing at a track would see their licence revoked, that didn't happen either. The BSPA/ SCB might make the threats but it'll never be enforced because they risk the whole house of cards collapsing if people start looking too closely at the way riders are employed.

Think I was going on the case in the 60s when they did and I think one or two riders rode under aliases to beat the ban. Which might have worked back then, but in this internet age wouldn't stand a chance of working. No doubt it was not enforceable by law even then, but the same as the threat of banning reigning world champion Barry Briggs from the world championship if he didn't tow the line and ride for Wimbledon it had the required effect. As for challenging things, we have heard for years that the asset system wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, but nobody had dared or bothered to challenge it..... 

  • Like 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