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

IOW 2020

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Ringitsneck said:

If he’s only at the top of the NDL he isn’t at the top of the sport, is he !

He is in that league 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trackerman48 said:

He is in that league 

Think you need to read up a bit more. The NDL is a division ( the lowest ) of a league, and he certainly is not top of that never mind the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, enotian said:

I don't know if the points limit would have affected other entrants because that's counter to the facts. We'd have to ask those promoters.  I'd theorise that all teams would have wanted to be competitive and had a view on the riders they wanted to utilise.  On that basis the points limit might have been a deciding factor.

I don't think that the National Development League is the core product is it? From a BSPL perspective. It's effectively the R&D department. Obviously at odds with your own opinion and as I say it sounds like you made the right decision.

Shame the facility is lost to the sport. 

People keep mentioning what other teams would’ve come to the tapes with a higher points limit. But it’s been documented elsewhere that Mildenhall, Kent, Belle Vue, Plymouth (if they remained) and Eastbourne were all were happy with the usual points limit. I am not aware of Armadale or Newcastle’s opinion but they were both in the division for 2020. Only Leicester and Berwick definitely wanted it lowered who are actually racing. All the other teams who wanted it peered aren’t even NL clubs!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ringitsneck said:

Think you need to read up a bit more. The NDL is a division ( the lowest ) of a league, and he certainly is not top of that never mind the sport.

Think you need to talk to someone like Barry bishop or Martin at the IOW about the said person.  Or other NDL promoters. 

Share this post


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

People keep mentioning what other teams would’ve come to the tapes with a higher points limit. But it’s been documented elsewhere that Mildenhall, Kent, Belle Vue, Plymouth (if they remained) and Eastbourne were all were happy with the usual points limit. I am not aware of Armadale or Newcastle’s opinion but they were both in the division for 2020. Only Leicester and Berwick definitely wanted it lowered who are actually racing. All the other teams who wanted it peered aren’t even NL clubs!

both Edinburgh and Newcastle had there teams to around the 35 point limit anyway so they were probably happy anyway what if it had gone to a vote and 35 was accepted would people/promotors have to  accept only asking the question 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mac101 said:

both Edinburgh and Newcastle had there teams to around the 35 point limit anyway so they were probably happy anyway what if it had gone to a vote and 35 was accepted would people/promotors have to  accept only asking the question 

Therein lies the problem - the inept, incompetent and utterly selfish (Rob Godfrey has stated in this weeks Speedy Star that the Premiership and Championship clubs decided that the NDL had to change - quite extraordinary when you think that over half of them don't even have NDL clubs and that Mildenhall and Isle of Wight had no say at all) way this has been handled.

I think it is entirely possible that the new entrants might have wanted a lower points limit but we'll simply never know. Islander says that wasn't the case, and certainly Mildenhall's Phil Kirk has said that they did not want a reduction. Its therefore equally entirely possible that had it gone to a vote 39 would have been retained (which maybe why there was no vote).

What is certain is that Isle of Wight would not be attracting the support from speedway fans if this had been dealt with with any degree of intelligence and there had been a vote for 35  and they had still pulled out. I wouldn't for a second have questioned such a decision - that it is for an individual promotion and we are talking about by far and away the best in the country - but they would not have been able to point fingers at the BSPL at all. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Trackerman48 said:

Think you need to talk to someone like Barry bishop or Martin at the IOW about the said person.  Or other NDL promoters. 

He is just a ‘ co-odinator ‘ , an unpaid volunteer . Whatever he makes a decision on has to be agreed by the top table mafia, so he’s not top of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ringitsneck said:

He is just a ‘ co-odinator ‘ , an unpaid volunteer . Whatever he makes a decision on has to be agreed by the top table mafia, so he’s not top of anything.

Actually, he is there to coordinate the league, not implement change of his own accord or that of the Directors. It has, and should have been in 2021, always been a vote based system of discussion, approval and implementation of changes by vote at NL AGMs.

Unless his duties and responsibilities have changed - ie fixture setting, shared event date setting and so on, he must not, certainly not in my view anyway, get involved in any way with team selections, point limits, rule changes, nothing - he just observes the rules are adhered to and coordinates fixtures.

Edited by barrybishop
typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ringitsneck said:

He is just a ‘ co-odinator ‘ , an unpaid volunteer . Whatever he makes a decision on has to be agreed by the top table mafia, so he’s not top of anything.

Like I've said read what Barry says? He is unpaid because he said he would do it for nothing  after he was released from Newcastle am I wrong or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Trackerman48 said:

Like I've said read what Barry says? He is unpaid because he said he would do it for nothing  after he was released from Newcastle am I wrong or not?

Thats correct...but if you recall the BSPL, well you may not know... but when Peter Morrish stopped being the NDL C there were several applications but the current one somehow got it, he then left and went to Newcastle, left Newcastle and somehow got back in after leaving the league... we of course had no say in who the coordinator should have been....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Thats correct...but if you recall the BSPL, well you may not know... but when Peter Morrish stopped being the NDL C there were several applications but the current one somehow got it, he then left and went to Newcastle, left Newcastle and somehow got back in after leaving the league... we of course had no say in who the coordinator should have been....

Spot on Barry think will always remember that Sunday at stoke what went wrong? If you PM me I will say what I mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you all think about all the clubs that have two teams contracting with riders, who are of NL standard, as assets whereas Mildenhall (and any other future standalone club) may not do so......  Another total travesty in my view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The asset system is a farce anyway but prohibiting any clubs from acquiring assets for any reason is diabolical. With the restrictions imposed upon clubs throughout the leagues for various reasons the asset system could have helped even the field a little. Personally i think it should be abolished as the valuations are laughable and the 1st dibs on a rider no really actively applies. Riders should be offered contracts from a club with the various stipulations from both sides in place, these can range from 1-5 years. Once signed the rider is bound to that club unless the club releases the rider from the signed obligation, the contract is brought out by another club or the rider opts to retire. This way there is a benefit for clubs who invest time into riders rather than watch them jump ship as soon as a better offer comes along. Might not be perfect but the current asset system is just a joke so why not attempt something more workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trackerman48 said:

Like I've said read what Barry says? He is unpaid because he said he would do it for nothing  after he was released from Newcastle am I wrong or not?

At what point were you right ? Barry has ratified what I said, he’s a volunteer and he is top of nothing !

He probably volunteered to do it for nothing to make sure he had an advantage, if there was one to be gained.

 

Share this post


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

What do you all think about all the clubs that have two teams contracting with riders, who are of NL standard, as assets whereas Mildenhall (and any other future standalone club) may not do so......  Another total travesty in my view. 

Never understood how the asset system is supposed to work. The last published list had riders on it that either had retired years previously, had suffered life changing injuries or worse! As there appears to be no ‘ transfer system ‘ like football and riders jump from one club to another year after year and , in many cases , never ride for the club that owns them then what is it for?

I always got the impression it was to give the BSPA some comeback on finances should a club go bankrupt owing them money, like Coventry did?

 

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
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