If I Was In Charge

[TonyM 0]

give first pick to the teams at the bottom end of the scale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First pick at what? Not the junior rider moving up a league as that is hardly going to make or break a club, particularly as he would most likely want to ride for his local track where he can keep expenses to a minimum whilst he learns his trade and picking foreign imports is such a lottery anyway who is to say who is going to make it

 

Personally I was in favour of the new reserves rule in the PL but as ever poor implementation has (and will) result in the whole scheme being abused to such an extent so as to make it worthless. Plus the current system may well see a number of riders struggling to be placed once their easy time at reserve comes to an end

 

Better to encourage clubs to stick with riders by offering average reductions for returning riders and scrapping the asset system for rolling contracts. We might then see investment in rider development rather than asset development which seems to be at the heart of a number of promoters strategies (so sad to read the new Oxfords promotions views on why sponsorship mattered)

[Hazzman 72]

Well after doing a fantasy league team building exercise this year with certain rules discussed I can vouch for people's concern.

 

To address the balance in developing British riders, this would be my criteria.

 

Originally start off next season with the rule, there must be three Brits in one team. Then warm all clubs of a new apprentice rider rule coming next season, this should develop and give youngsters some encourage for second halfs at respective clubs,in many ways making a mini-academy and establishing riders such as Bridger at Eastbourne etc.

 

Next season starts, three Brits still within the main squad. No.6 spot becomes the apprentice jacket. The rider must be British and under-21. The No.6 Spot demands less from the no.7 jacket.

 

Next season, three Brits in main body of team. No.7 Spot is where the apprentice rider goes and then at No.6 is a new British under-21 rider.

 

Season after, if the orignal apprentice is good enough he goes into the three Brits in the top five. After the reserve thing continues.

 

No the hardest part would be if a junior riders does exceptationly well,do you keep him at reserve. Well yes, he will be there for two years max. The Junior rider would come in the main body at 5 point reserve making it profitable for a team to keep producing rivals.

 

If anybody is worried about Brits slipping out the team. Then dont, the rider would be good enough, for the country to develop riders time-wasters need do not apply.

 

 

Another thing the BSPA must massively support the youngsters and other Brits to ride abroad and gain more knowledge. This includes open meetings and competitions such as the European Championship.

[AndyM 1]

First pick at what?  Not the junior rider moving up a league as that is hardly going to make or break a club, particularly as he would most likely want to ride for his local track where he can keep expenses to a minimum whilst he learns his trade and picking foreign imports is such a lottery anyway who is to say who is going to make it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True of any sport - you never know for sure, but you can have a pretty good guess, and unless there is some mechanism to prevent it, the best young riders will tend to gravitate towards the best teams. Mobility isn't always a factor, since speedway riders manage to turn out for teams far from their base - if they believe it's to the benefit of their career.

[TonyM 0]

True of any sport - you never know for sure, but you can have a pretty good guess, and unless there is some mechanism to prevent it, the best young riders will tend to gravitate towards the best teams.  Mobility isn't always a factor, since speedway riders manage to turn out for teams far from their base - if they believe it's to the benefit of their career.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really tinkering around the edges (imo revolution not evolution is looking more and more the only way forward) but having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21. Prior to this he could ride as a 'free agent' from year to year without any loan fee issues. This would help end the scrap for 15 year olds signatures and hopefully by 21 clubs would know what they were getting (as an aside I am with HenryW in that a fairer method would be rides rather than age but take the point about complicating things further)

[Bobbin' Along 5]

10) Promotion and Relegation to be brought in, Windfall payments for those promoted, parachute payments for those teams relegated.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with nearly all of what you suggest, but having been in the unenviable position of supporting the only team in recent history to have been relegated I can't agree with this one!

[AndyM 1]

Really tinkering around the edges (imo revolution not evolution is looking more and more the only way forward) but having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21.  Prior to this he could ride as a 'free agent' from year to year without any loan fee issues.  This would help end the scrap for 15 year olds signatures and hopefully by 21 clubs would know what they were getting (as an aside I am with HenryW in that a fairer method would be rides rather than age but take the point about complicating things further)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inclined to agree with you, Green Man. But before any radical proposal, there must be a change in mindset - helping British youngsters = good, helping foreign youngsters = not so good!

Edited April 4, 2006 by AndyM

[Kevin Meynell 2]

Absurd!  No matter how bureaucratic the rules, some teams will always make better selections than other. Much better to keep it as simple as possible

 

It's not so simple though. Unfortunately, market forces don't work properly in sport, but presumably we want to take transfer fees out of the equation because the system has become a farce and is of questionable legality anyway.

 

I'd therefore suggest that some protection should be given to teams who develop riders, and one way of doing that is allowing such riders to ride on a minimum average, but only if they stay with the team that brought them on at particular level. That would hopefully reduce the incidences of chequebook speedway, but would not preclude them advancing to a higher level if they were proved goof enough.

 

allow the riders concerned to stay at reserve until they're 22

 

Whether they stay at reserve or not, is neither here nor there - some riders might benefit from moving-up into the main body of the team. The important thing is to ensure that they have a place in a team, and are not sacrified at the altar of the points limit if they happen to improve their average by .01 or whatever.

 

to give first pick to the teams at the bottom end of the scale.

 

The theory is fine, but the problem is that the British leagues are in competition with other national leagues. In addition, I think you want to encourage tracks to take responsibility for developing new riders, and being able to reap the benefits if they do. I see little sense in rewarding crap teams who make no effort to find or develop new riders.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

Originally start off next season with the rule, there must be three Brits in one team.

 

But this is not possible because of EU regulations, which sport has to work within the same as every other industry (and rightly so I might add). It might be possible to specify that a certain number of 'home-grown' riders (e.g. those who started riding in the BCL) must be used, but even that concept is being challenged in football.

 

In any case, actual nationality is much less of an issue than developing a crop of UK-based riders. I can't really see that it matters hugely if a few Aussies or whatever come through as well, because the system would largely be Brits anyway.

 

This includes open meetings and competitions such as the European Championship.

 

I can't see that these competitions have much value. British riders will generally get more rides and a higher standard of competition in the BEL/BPL.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

5) All teams will have at least 2 brits, at least one of these has to be from the nation you are riding in (ie scotland, england, wales etc).

 

I can't really see the point of the requirement for one rider to be Wales or Scotland. We compete in speedway as Great Britain (and have done for 25 years, despite what the BSPA might claim), and it's hard enough to get teams to include British riders as it is.

[Jeff. 2]

But this is not possible because of EU regulations, which sport has to work within the same as every other industry (and rightly so I might add). It might be possible to specify that a certain number of 'home-grown' riders (e.g. those who started riding in the BCL) must be used, but even that concept is being challenged in football.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What regulations are these then Kevin. As far as I am aware an EU citizan has right to work over here, but it is not compulsory to employ them. A promoter can employ seven English riders if he wishes although of course it could not be a written rule that they will only employ English riders. It would only take an informal chat at the AGM and teams could agree to not employ less than a certain amount of Brits.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

As far as I am aware an EU citizan has right to work over here, but it is not compulsory to employ them.

 

Of course, but collusion to deliberately exclude them would be illegal as well. In any case, unwritten regulations aren't worth the paper they're written. It would only take one promoter unable or unwilling to track the requisite number of British riders, and the whole system would come crashing down.

 

Sorry, but we need to find legitimate ways to encourage British riders. It can be done if the will is there.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Kevin Meynell

[SCB 15]

What regulations are these then Kevin. As far as I am aware an EU citizan has right to work over here, but it is not compulsory to employ them. A promoter can employ seven English riders if he wishes although of course it could not be a written rule that they will only employ English riders. It would only take an informal chat at the AGM and teams could agree to not employ less than a certain amount of Brits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So explain PL grading?!

 

If the BSPA want to ban the Johnny Foreignors, they can and will.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

So explain PL grading?!

 

I'm sure the BSPA would explain it away by saying it applied to ACU-licensed riders rather than British riders. Furthermore, there's not so many foreign riders trying to ride in the BPL that they're being put out of work, which means there's less likelihood of a legal challenge.

 

The BEL is entirely a different kettle of fish because of the sheer number of foreign riders involved. Start introducing artificial restrictions, written or unwritten, and someone could well get disgrunted and take the BSPA to court. The current average reduction for British riders is probably illegal, but it's so insignificant that it's just not worth anyone trying to make a case out of it. Equally though, it does little (if anything) to encourage the use of British riders.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21.

 

Although the current asset system is just an exercise in getting signatures, tracks do need some protection if they go to the trouble of running development programmes. There's no inherent reason why every track can't do this, and it's unfair to those that do if another team can come along and simply sign-up the riders they've given BCL or second-half rides to.

[enotian 565]

Although the current asset system is just an exercise in getting signatures, tracks do need some protection if they go to the trouble of running development programmes. There's no inherent reason why every track can't do this, and it's unfair to those that do if another team can come along and simply sign-up the riders they've given BCL or second-half rides to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

After the Bosman ruling, considering an individual as an asset is no longer valid as anyone whose contract expires is free to sign a contract with any other employer.

 

As speedway riders tend to sign contracts for the length of a single season and to all intents and purposes are self employed they are essentially a contractor and therefore free to sign as many contracts they are able to fulfill. Hence, riders riding in different countries.

 

Therefore, last years saga surrounding transfer fees for Nicholls, Hancock, Hamill etc was totally dubious. Regardless of their legality transfer fees in general are a total drain on resources. I'm sure most promoters could do without having to shell out 10's of thousands of pounds to build a team. Surely it would be much better if they spent that kind of money on producing new riders.

 

The problem speedway has is how to adapt a system without the notion of assets but which would still encourage investment in young riders, rather than importing foreign riders. Who'd spend money training a rider only for them to go and ride for a rival?

 

To do this I believe that training contracts for riders should be formulated, designed to give structured instruction on all aspects of speedway. It might be necessary to offer different levels as not all riders start at the same level of ability.

It would essential be a formal qualification in speedway.

 

A "trainee" rider would sign a training contract with their preferred training provider/promoter who would provide the training required to reach the qualification standard.

 

Once a rider qualifies they are then allowed to sign for any club they wish without any transfer fee being exchanged.

 

However under an agreement between all promoters the riders training club would be compensated a nominal fee per season based on the riders ability (ie starting or finishing average for that season) and the standard cost of training. Essentially a loan fee payable each season to the training club.

 

This would reward those clubs who provide the best training which should inturn increase the standard of training and hence improve the standard of riders produced.

 

Riders without the qualification, ie foreign riders, would be subject to a similar loan fee but with a premium to encourage the use of qualified ie British riders so that it would be more cost effective to track a team of British riders than foreign riders.

 

The annual loan fee for non qualified riders would go to the BSPA who could then use the pool of cash for the benefit of the sport in general. Eg, funding a winter tour for young riders or supplying air fences etc etc depending upon how big the fund totals.