Nora Speedway League - Sponsored by Nora 92

[Chris116 756]

Having read the SCB statement dated 7th February I can see it being possible that both Sittingbourne and Plymouth tell the BSPL that either they are allowed to have the NORA and BSPL racing at the track or the BSPL can get lost and the only racing will be NORA sanctioned. If that happens then the BSPL will have shot themselves in the foot and that will open up the possibility that Mildenhall would jump ship which would practically destroy the NDL. 

Personally I hope that both leagues exist side by side and that both are successful as that is good for the sport and the more tracks that are successfully running increases interest in the sport. You only have to look back to the 1960s and the effect the Provincial League had on the sport leading to far more tracks opening.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Chris116

[Fortythirtyeight 841]

4 hours ago, HGould said:

Sad read in the Speedway Star of SCB attempts to destroy this pre-birth!

BSPL hiding behind SCB as seems to be the normal.

Lots of excuses about Insurance , Track License issues , Track Staff etc.

It all seems to miss the point though that what SCB can't oversee NORA will and NORA have excellent track record in other forms of 2 wheel sport.

The fact that SCB seem to think that as Plymouth and Kent are SCB sanctioned tracks they can't allow them to be rented to NORA seems very spurious and restraining Keny / Plymouth opportunity to generate income.

Fear it'll all get very messy and delay things which is probably the SCB/BSPL intention. Don't Godfrey and Bates sit on SCB Committee also, so they can't hide!

A little clarification is required.

SCB run speedway events such as the three leagues etc. require SCB licensed officials , such as clerk of the course, start Marshall , track curators etc.

Nora obviously have their own rules and regulations including sorting the insurance cover.

There is / should be no issues for a track to run both events as does happen at a number of tracks now, Kings Lynn, Scunthorpe ( chairman’s track ) and others.

[HGould 2,213]

27 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

A little clarification is required.

SCB run speedway events such as the three leagues etc. require SCB licensed officials , such as clerk of the course, start Marshall , track curators etc.

Nora obviously have their own rules and regulations including sorting the insurance cover.

There is / should be no issues for a track to run both events as does happen at a number of tracks now, Kings Lynn, Scunthorpe ( chairman’s track ) and others.

Maybe you should play the ball and not the man! 

Have you read the article and the tone of it? 

What you say is 100% logical. 

What Jim Lawrence and Neil Vatcher are quoted and attributed as saying is not. 

The SCB are basically telling Kent and Plymouth it's SCB or NORA league. It's pretty unequivocal. 

The distinguishing aspect they seem to make is NORA training is OK, a NORA league is not. They hide behind bullrubbish rather than saying what we all know as that would be smashed out of any Court of Law. 

As others have pointed out they want to hide behind an SCB BSPL banner to dictate to what a stadium owner can and can't do. 

It's a vendetta against Bishop and Widman who they fear. 

[Fortythirtyeight 841]

4 hours ago, HGould said:

Maybe you should play the ball and not the man! 

Have you read the article and the tone of it? 

What you say is 100% logical. 

What Jim Lawrence and Neil Vatcher are quoted and attributed as saying is not. 

The SCB are basically telling Kent and Plymouth it's SCB or NORA league. It's pretty unequivocal. 

The distinguishing aspect they seem to make is NORA training is OK, a NORA league is not. They hide behind bullrubbish rather than saying what we all know as that would be smashed out of any Court of Law. 

As others have pointed out they want to hide behind an SCB BSPL banner to dictate to what a stadium owner can and can't do. 

It's a vendetta against Bishop and Widman who they fear. 

To be quite honest I stopped getting the Star when it became just another propaganda tool of the BSPL and mis quoting promoters and riders and generally just printing the ‘ official line ‘ and not representing the supporters and questioning those in power.

If that is what Lawrence and Vatcher are saying ( if accurate ) then it is just another cover up led by we all know who, who does what he wants and not what he preaches.

As for a ‘ Vendetta’  ? well I’m not sure about that but the IOW are entitled to do what they wish and now must follow the path they have chosen. I do feel it’s a great shame that they are lost to the NDL but that’s their decision.

The SCB/ BSPL ( virtually the same body these days ) cannot dictate to stadium owners as to what they stage but they do have the power to revoke a SCB licence for whatever reason they choose.

Basically , as we all know, the sport is in one hell of a mess.

[Ghosty 500]

I may be wrong but are there not several events regularly @ both King's Lynn & Scunthorpe that run outside of the BSPL umbrella?

So why is this vendetta against the I.O.W. & not others.

What the U.K. needs is as much Speedway as possible @ all levels. 

 

[SpeedwayTShirts 307]

14 hours ago, Ghosty said:

I may be wrong but are there not several events regularly @ both King's Lynn & Scunthorpe that run outside of the BSPL umbrella?

So why is this vendetta against the I.O.W. & not others.

What the U.K. needs is as much Speedway as possible @ all levels. 

 

The simple answer is the sport is scared of any competition.

Edited February 17, 2023 by SpeedwayTShirts

[Fortythirtyeight 841]

18 hours ago, Ghosty said:

I may be wrong but are there not several events regularly @ both King's Lynn & Scunthorpe that run outside of the BSPL umbrella?

So why is this vendetta against the I.O.W. & not others.

What the U.K. needs is as much Speedway as possible @ all levels. 

 

Having now read the Star, thanks to a shopping trip to Tesco’s, I see nothing wrong in what has been stated by the SCB. They can have a say on what happens with ‘ speedway ‘ events on their SCB licensed tracks. There’s no apparent ‘vendetta’ merely a concern over insurance, which is currently a high profile topic in motorsport generally with Ireland cancelling all 2023 road racing events because of the insurance costs.

The possible difference in what other events run is the term ‘ speedway ‘ as most NORA events run at current SCB licensed tracks are ‘ Flat Track ‘ or ‘ Dirt Track ‘ events, but from the  looks of the article that may now be frowned upon by the SCB.

[crescent girl 1,905]

This is the tip of an iceberg speedway (and every other 'extreme' sport) must face in future.     

The ban on motorsport in Ulster will force all branches of all disciplines to look hard at their control procedures and all forms of insurance for activities.   

The ACU/SCB would be remiss if they did not take every prudent step to protect their product, ensure their licences allow speedway in the rest of the UK to continue under properly-controlled, legally-insured conditions.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

On 2/17/2023 at 3:59 PM, Fortythirtyeight said:

Having now read the Star, thanks to a shopping trip to Tesco’s, I see nothing wrong in what has been stated by the SCB. They can have a say on what happens with ‘ speedway ‘ events on their SCB licensed tracks. There’s no apparent ‘vendetta’ merely a concern over insurance, which is currently a high profile topic in motorsport generally with Ireland cancelling all 2023 road racing events because of the insurance costs.

The possible difference in what other events run is the term ‘ speedway ‘ as most NORA events run at current SCB licensed tracks are ‘ Flat Track ‘ or ‘ Dirt Track ‘ events, but from the  looks of the article that may now be frowned upon by the SCB.

This is what the 7 February statement says  (I must admit I haven't read the Speedy Star article):

Competing at events held on non SCB Homologated (licenced) Tracks and / or events for which an SCB Event Permit has not been issued.

The SCB wishes to bring the following to the attention of all riders holding an SCB Riders Registration.

1. Personal Accident Insurance.
Your British Speedway Insurance cover is NOT valid at non SCB Permitted events and / or on non SCB Homologated tracks.
Riders are strongly advised to check the level of Personal Accident Cover provided by the organiser.
Additionally, riders should consider taking out an additional Personal Accident Insurance policy.

2. Injury at a non SCB Permitted Event and / or on a non SCB Homologated Track.
In the event of rider who holds an SCB Riders Registration sustaining any injury at either a non SCB Permitted Event and / or at a non SCB Homologated track, a ‘Fit to Return’ letter from a their doctor / consultant must be submitted to the SCB prior to resuming racing at an SCB Permitted event on an SCB Homologated track.

3. Speedway Riders Benevolent Fund.
In the event of any injury sustained at a non SCB Permitted Event and / or on a non SCB Homologated track, with the exception of whilst competing for ‘Team GB’ anywhere in the world, you will not be entitled to any funds or other benefits from the SRBF.

4. BSPL Riders Agreement.
Riders who have a BSPL Rider Agreement with a BSPL Promoter / Club must seek permission from their promoter / club prior to competing in non SCB Permitted Events and / or on non SCB Homologated tracks.
 

The first two seem pretty reasonable to me but the NORA advanced licence gives pretty decent cover :

Scunthorpe Raceway Licence & Memberhsip - NORA Motorsport (nora92.com)

The third one is extraordinarily petty (possibly even vicious) and appears to me to be outside of the stated aims of the fund :

'The Fund was registered as a Charity for the purpose of assisting British Speedway Racers, their dependants and family, following serious or life-changing Speedway related accidents' . There is nothing about SCB events only and the fund is a charity which is entirely independent of the SCB.

The fourth is not enforceable. If a rider is refused permission by the  BSPL, in my view that constitutes a clear case of restraint of trade which is illegal in relevant case law. 

I think your final point could be the very important one. Just how the new league is described ('speedway' or 'dirt track' ) might make all the difference. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Halifaxtiger

[Sir Sidney 292]

1 hour ago, Halifaxtiger said:

 

3. Speedway Riders Benevolent Fund.
In the event of any injury sustained at a non SCB Permitted Event and / or on a non SCB Homologated track, with the exception of whilst competing for ‘Team GB’ anywhere in the world, you will not be entitled to any funds or other benefits from the SRBF.

The SCB just appears to tie its self up in knots. Presumably,  if 3 above were to be true, then any of the Young GB riders involved in the practice / training session ( but not competing for Team GB ) in Macon, France last week would not have been entitled to any funds or benefits from the SBRF. 

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

9 hours ago, Sir Sidney said:

The SCB just appears to tie its self up in knots. Presumably,  if 3 above were to be true, then any of the Young GB riders involved in the practice / training session ( but not competing for Team GB ) in Macon, France last week would not have been entitled to any funds or benefits from the SBRF. 

As far as I can see, the SCB has no power whatsoever to decide who benefits and who does not from the SRBF. I would be very surprised if the charity that runs the fund, the beneficiaries (ie the riders) and those who donate (substantially but not entirely the paying fans) would agree with the SCB's view. 

[Dickie Head 247]

3 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

As far as I can see, the SCB has no power whatsoever to decide who benefits and who does not from the SRBF. I would be very surprised if the charity that runs the fund, the beneficiaries (ie the riders) and those who donate (substantially but not entirely the paying fans) would agree with the SCB's view. 

What happens if a Premiership / Championship rider is seriously injured whilst racing in, for example, a Polish league fixture? If I read this correctly the SRBF would have to turn away that riders approach for help. Can anyone clarify?
 

 

[szkocjasid 3,029]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:56 AM, Chris116 said:

Having read the SCB statement dated 7th February I can see it being possible that both Sittingbourne and Plymouth tell the BSPL that either they are allowed to have the NORA and BSPL racing at the track or the BSPL can get lost and the only racing will be NORA sanctioned. If that happens then the BSPL will have shot themselves in the foot and that will open up the possibility that Mildenhall would jump ship which would practically destroy the NDL. 

Personally I hope that both leagues exist side by side and that both are successful as that is good for the sport and the more tracks that are successfully running increases interest in the sport. You only have to look back to the 1960s and the effect the Provincial League had on the sport leading to far more tracks opening.

Totally agree with that comment!

[szkocjasid 3,029]

On 2/19/2023 at 11:16 AM, Dickie Head said:

What happens if a Premiership / Championship rider is seriously injured whilst racing in, for example, a Polish league fixture? If I read this correctly the SRBF would have to turn away that riders approach for help. Can anyone clarify?
 

 

Not just racing in Poland, what about grasstrack, stockcars, flat track or Nora 92 meetings? I'm sure riders must have insurance for these meetings too?

[szkocjasid 3,029]

On 2/18/2023 at 9:48 PM, Sir Sidney said:

The SCB just appears to tie its self up in knots. Presumably,  if 3 above were to be true, then any of the Young GB riders involved in the practice / training session ( but not competing for Team GB ) in Macon, France last week would not have been entitled to any funds or benefits from the SBRF. 

What happened whe  Adam Roynon got injured in a pre-season GB event at Kings Lynn? Did he get SRBF money? Perhaps having the event at a UK track covered him?