pandorum 1,259 Posted February 13, 2014 The sport is going bonkers. Maybe a good legal battle to sort it all out might end up doing some good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,986 Posted February 13, 2014 According to sportowefakty.pl The International Motorcycling Federation passed a resolution over last weekend, which prohibits representatives of all disciplines (including speedway) to compete in any other events than those under FIM jurisdiction. The FIM resolution of the FIM can also have dire consequences for such disciplines as longtrack and grass track speedway . Does it change anything for Longtrack?Wasn't this in place last year when Dryml complained that he wasn't allowed to compete in LT + European Championships......At least his complaint was that the GPs had to take priority.And it has been out that Smolinski wasn't going to be in/allowed in the Longtrack GPs.Katt was in the press last week saying how sad it was for the sport and for Germany.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark 1,497 Posted February 13, 2014 Can this sport do any more to shoot itself in the foot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f-s-p 832 Posted February 13, 2014 Does it change anything for Longtrack?Wasn't this in place last year when Dryml complained that he wasn't allowed to compete in LT + European Championships......At least his complaint was that the GPs had to take priority.And it has been out that Smolinski wasn't going to be in/allowed in the Longtrack GPs.Katt was in the press last week saying how sad it was for the sport and for Germany.... I think the rule states (not checked but gathered from various news) that when you sign on for SGP or LT GP, you now sign on for the season. Dryml's case was the first time I heard of this. Anyway, once you've signed on, you're booked for the series. If you miss due to other commitments, you're probably out and fined. Thats what happened to Smoli, he had signed on for SGP, couldn'nt do the same for LT 'cos he was gonna miss one meeting... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,986 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Think one of the main complaints from Dryml was that the FIM never even answered his correspondence.Didn't he ask them to re-arrange an LT GP or something so he could compete in both?Have to say i might be impossible even if they wanted to move a LT GP,but it is a bad sign if they don't even bother to reply to one of their top riders......whilst having the time to send out passes and press releases to guys in places like Finland Edited February 13, 2014 by iris123 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New Science 1,059 Posted February 13, 2014 "The FIM decision is also an obvious attack on the One Sport company, whose conflict with the organizer Grand Prix - BSI has been known for a long time." Typical Sportowefakty propoganda.... FIM and BSI are bad boys bla bla blaaa. I'm not to sure about this, does anyone have an official FIM statement? Not sure what good the F.I.M has ever done for speedway ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Humphrey Appleby 13,955 Posted February 13, 2014 When you buy a license from your federation, you at the same time promise to act according to the rules. In this case, Svemo should/could have revoked their license in Svemo. That would have meant (unless swedish folk speedway is a member of UEM or FIm, which I seriously doubt) that the riders in question would not have been allowed to ride in any outside SFS meetings. I doubt it. It's anti-competitive to ban competitors who want to ride in a competition authorised by another body, and any governing body trying to do so will leave themselves open to legal action. The motor sport authorities in the UK have long given up on this, and MSA/ACU-licensed competitors and venues can freely compete in and host non-MSA/ACU events. Or is this a direct attack on FIM Europe who sold more to to One Sport than was in their right? If European Championships fell within FIM Europe's remit, then presumably they can sell the commercial rights the same as the FIM proper can sell the commercial rights for World Championship events. I'd imagine when the FIM endorsed the creation of the Continental Unions, they assumed the regional competitions would supplement or act as feeder competitions to their world championships. Unfortunately though, the problem in speedway is that most/all professional events already take place in Europe, so any European Championship is invariably going to parallel existing World Championships. Unless there was some sort of agreement between the FIM and FIM Europe (or the forerunner UEM) to demarcate who could ride in what from the outset, then they're trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. However, this at least highlights the high costs of running under the FIM, and perhaps shines a bit of light on its business practices. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f-s-p 832 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I doubt it. It's anti-competitive to ban competitors who want to ride in a competition authorised by another body, and any governing body trying to do so will leave themselves open to legal action.The motor sport authorities in the UK have long given up on this, and MSA/ACU-licensed competitors and venues can freely compete in and host non-MSA/ACU events.This might have something to do with a different insurance policy systems in the UK, then lets say Finland. If the two federations have made a deal inside UK, that it's ok to ride in both, then thats great. And with the insurance system I mean, that (I'm told by bsf people in the past) that when you go and practise in a UK speedway track, you always need to buy insurance for that session... Over here I need to belong to a club that belongs to SML so I can buy a national level license. With that license comes insurance for all my practise and competitions during the year, anywhere. Then i can buy an international license on top of that, so I can ride abroad. Thanks to a system between the international federations, to ride in a meeting abroad, I only need a starting permit issued by SML and the appropriate license. With the permit SML states that all my insurance and other mandatory stuff has been dealt with and in case of an injury the SML license covers it and the local organizer is "off the hook". This is how the FIM system works. Only one club, one nation for a rider per year, only from the country that you have a passport to. And in Finlands case, we only have one reqocnised federation... And I'm quite confident, that Svemo is the only recoqnised Swedish fed when it comes to Fim and fim europe. So in my example, the riders that would have ridden for SFS, would have broken the svemo rules having ridden in a meeting without a svemo permit. Revoke their licenses for breaking the rules, deny them a starting permit for riding abroad... Nobody would touch them after that. EDIT: and when you buy a license, it says that at that moment you have read the rules and promise to act accordingly. So how can any Eu court touch that agreement, since you have given up that right to "freedom between federations". Edited February 13, 2014 by f-s-p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,986 Posted February 13, 2014 EDIT: and when you buy a license, it says that at that moment you have read the rules and promise to act accordingly. So how can any Eu court touch that agreement, since you have given up that right to "freedom between federations". All of this looks good,but surely if what Ghostwalker said about the Swedish court case is correct then we have a proven case in law.......nuff said Sometimes it can be the case that certain agreements can be unlawful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f-s-p 832 Posted February 13, 2014 All of this looks good,but surely if what Ghostwalker said about the Swedish court case is correct then we have a proven case in law.......nuff said Sometimes it can be the case that certain agreements can be unlawful. Dont remember If I said it correctly the first time, but they shouldn't have tried to forbid them from riding for SFS. Let them ride, then revoke their svemo license and the season is done (apart from SFS). Nothing much came from SFS in the end??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Humphrey Appleby 13,955 Posted February 13, 2014 And with the insurance system I mean, that (I'm told by bsf people in the past) that when you go and practise in a UK speedway track, you always need to buy insurance for that session... I don't know 100% how it works in UK speedway, but I believe the ACU operates along similar lines to the MSA. When racing under an MSA permit you do get public liability insurance amongst other things, but that doesn't preclude unlicensed (or alternatively licensed) events from obtaining their own insurance. Obviously there are reciprocal agreements between official national federations and the world governing body with respect to the licensing system, but as far as I know there are no sanctions if you compete in an unlicensed event (and rightly so). That's the decision (and risk) of the competitor, and to insist on exclusivity with a single governing body would be anti-competitive. I can see that in professional sport it might be possible to insist on a exclusive contract with one competition, but if speedway riders are riding in several national leagues as well as the SGP, then I think it would be hard to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to ride in the SEC as well. EDIT: and when you buy a license, it says that at that moment you have read the rules and promise to act accordingly. So how can any Eu court touch that agreement, since you have given up that right to "freedom between federations". Organisations still can't make anti-competitive rules, especially where it involves international movement of labour. I'd be very surprised if it were any different in Finland or Sweden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f-s-p 832 Posted February 13, 2014 I don't know 100% how it works in UK speedway, but I believe the ACU operates along similar lines to the MSA. When racing under an MSA permit you do get public liability insurance amongst other things, but that doesn't preclude unlicensed (or alternatively licensed) events from obtaining their own insurance.Obviously there are reciprocal agreements between official national federations and the world governing body with respect to the licensing system, but as far as I know there are no sanctions if you compete in an unlicensed event (and rightly so). That's the decision (and risk) of the competitor, and to insist on exclusivity with a single governing body would be anti-competitive.I can see that in professional sport it might be possible to insist on a exclusive contract with one competition, but if speedway riders are riding in several national leagues as well as the SGP, then I think it would be hard to argue why they shouldn't be allowed to ride in the SEC as well.Organisations still can't make anti-competitive rules, especially where it involves international movement of labour. I'd be very surprised if it were any different in Finland or Sweden. Just for the last bit, I havent checked since I'm not that interesfed. But I had to dig deep in to this license business last season, so unless they changed the lot last weekend, I'm pretty confident I'm right on how the system works. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,986 Posted February 13, 2014 Dont remember If I said it correctly the first time, but they shouldn't have tried to forbid them from riding for SFS. Let them ride, then revoke their svemo license and the season is done (apart from SFS). Nothing much came from SFS in the end??? Just can't see that standing up to a court case.We are talking about top riders.So they go to court and it has to be stated why a licence was revoked.........The SFS is or maybe was if it no longer exists very small time.It looks like this new adventure with One Sport has a bit more backing,so might not just go away Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ghostwalker 1,859 Posted February 13, 2014 Dont remember If I said it correctly the first time, but they shouldn't have tried to forbid them from riding for SFS. Let them ride, then revoke their svemo license and the season is done (apart from SFS). Nothing much came from SFS in the end??? Initially in Sweden this was a case between SBF (Swedish car sports federation) and an alternative new motorsport federation called Motorsportalliansen (MA). The situation was the same, SBF considered themselves to have the right to implement loyalty clauses that would mean a ban on drivers and staff from entering events organized by other competing Swedish motorsport federations such as MA and a very heavy fine if they still would ignore the ban. This was brought to court by SBF and marknadsdomstolen (MD). SBF wanted MD to get an advance ruling from the EU-court in Brussels which MD agreed on since they considered it their obligation as last instance to get such a ruling from the EU-court if there were questions regarding the EU-rules for such matters if they could be decided by guidance of principles that had been set as praxis. The ruling was that even if some of the claims from SBF that they provided sports for all, that they supported child and youth sport, that SBF made sure that competition was held under equal and fair forms wouldn't be helped by the ban asked by SBF. MD considered that even if these claims were legitimate, a test was needed to determine if the rules that SBF wanted to use, was necessary and proportional to fulfil the purposes mentioned above (aka the claims). MD found that even if the rules/loyalty clauses that SBF wanted to use could be considered to have a good purpose, MD ruled that total ban would to be to go to far and the purposes that SBF claimed that SBF needed the rules (ban) for could not justify the competition preventing rules. MD also found/ruled that neither could SBF rules be considered to be justified by the exception in the 2 chapter § 2 in KL (konkurrenslagen (KL) / antitrust law) and article 101.3 FEU (not sure what that is), The SBF rules could also not be justified by chapter 1, § 2 in KL which relegates agreements between employers and employees. Since MD is the highest instance for these types of matters this ruling could not be appealed further. For the latest part regarding employers and employees, I would assume that it means that drivers (riders) should be considered as self-employed freelancers that can work for anyone anywhere at anytime. The FIM hires them for the SGPs but that does not means that they have exclusive right to the riders and these are free to take up other offers on work when/where/however they like without anyone give them bans or fines for doings o. As I said and as it says, this ruling was based on the laws of the Europeans Union and an advanced ruling from the EU-court. You can read the ruling here: http://www.notisum.se/rnp/domar/md/MD012016.htm http://www.marknadsdomstolen.se/Filer/Avg%C3%B6randen/Dom2012-16.pdf A couple of articles: http://www.delphi.se/$-1/file/nyhetsbrev/svenska-artiklar/1303-eklundlundgrennielsen-konkurrensrattsliga.pdf http://www.svd.se/sport/privat-bilsportforbund-fick-ratt_7770950.svd http://rod.se/marknadsdom-hot-mot-den-ideella-sektorn http://www.kkv.se/t/Page____7981.aspx http://www.bilsport.se/artikel/motorsporten-riskerarfalla-samman-efter-dom/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iris123 20,986 Posted February 13, 2014 Honestly don't see any riders opting for the SEC over the SGP now that riders can choose their own numbers .It's what they have wanted for ages now 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
