Plymouth last signing

[lewy 2,341]

11 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

Surely the SCB/ACU DO have the monopoly on speedway at SCB-Licensed tracks. Do Scunthorpe run NORA Speedway meetings or is it other non-speedway Motorsports events under The NORA banner and licence?

Wrong thread, this is Plymouths last signing nothing else. Thanks 

[HGould 2,215]

7 hours ago, Skidder1 said:

Surely the SCB/ACU DO have the monopoly on speedway at SCB-Licensed tracks. Do Scunthorpe run NORA Speedway meetings or is it other non-speedway Motorsports events under The NORA banner and licence?

The answer is NO they don't, the Stadium Owner decides what they run.

The crux of the situation though is that is the situation NOW!

------------

A close read and interpretation of what SCB have said, is that the rules WILL be changed, quite explicitly they have suggested, that if Kent / Plymouth want to run NORA league, they won't be able to run SCB. 

To quote-:

"An email has now been sent to all Promoters basically saying that if you are running as an SCB licensed track and you have an SCB Track License, you can't run NORA 92. You can leave us and go with them from now on if you like, which we would be very sad about and we wouldn't want to happen, but we'd part as friends"

(Speedway Star Page 7 - top middle paragraph attributed to Jim Lawrence)

So the SCB Ruling Committee (which includes Rob Godfrey and Damian Bates does ot not?), have effectively moved the goalposts, cut off thier noses to spite their face, run off like spoilt brats taking the balls, nets, goalposts with them. 

 

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

58 minutes ago, HGould said:

The answer is NO they don't, the Stadium Owner decides what they run.

The crux of the situation though is that is the situation NOW!

------------

A close read and interpretation of what SCB have said, is that the rules WILL be changed, quite explicitly they have suggested, that if Kent / Plymouth want to run NORA league, they won't be able to run SCB. 

To quote-:

"An email has now been sent to all Promoters basically saying that if you are running as an SCB licensed track and you have an SCB Track License, you can't run NORA 92. You can leave us and go with them from now on if you like, which we would be very sad about and we wouldn't want to happen, but we'd part as friends"

(Speedway Star Page 7 - top middle paragraph attributed to Jim Lawrence)

So the SCB Ruling Committee (which includes Rob Godfrey and Damian Bates does ot not?), have effectively moved the goalposts, cut off thier noses to spite their face, run off like spoilt brats taking the balls, nets, goalposts with them. 

 

I am not absolutely certain of this but I believe the SCB has a monopoly on 'speedway' events in this country. Its why the Isle of Wight termed their meetings for the last couple of seasons as 'dirt track'.

The wording could therefore be important if not decisive.

What you have quoted - I haven't seen the article - sounds very much like a restraint of trade which is, based upon case law, illegal. It won't be the first time that the SCB has tried to enforce something that they know won't stand up and from which they will back away from at the first sign of litigation (the attempt to bar Scott Nicholls riding Championship springs to mind). 

What they are doing, in no uncertain terms, is blackmail. Its a high stakes game, however, because the potential loss of 2 more tracks (reducing the number of stand alones to just 17) would be disastrous and they well know it.

The statement 'part as friends'  is so absolutely insincere and false the mind boggles, but then that sums the SCB up.

(Apologies for the thread nap).

Edited February 19, 2023 by Halifaxtiger

[Skidder1 7,658]

13 hours ago, lewy said:

Wrong thread, this is Plymouths last signing nothing else. Thanks 

Why not tell those that introduced the topic then? I was merely responding to another post about 'the Centurians in the NORA league' (presumably the final Gladiator could be another Centurian rider - or not?), and the SS article that attempts to clarify what SCB-licensed tracks are allowed to do - or not?!

Edited February 19, 2023 by Skidder1

[Diamonds85 702]

I do have a soft spot for Plymouth so their last signing means a lot to me.

I'd personally like to see someone with a bit of track experience in the Championship already, could be important with someone as fresh as Ben Trigger at number 7.

What about Josh MacDonald? He's posted on Twitter that he's looking for 2023, could be a risk though with a year out with injury, but could be brilliant equally.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Diamonds85

[Tosh1218 593]

How many pts have Plymouth got to play with for there final signing 

thanks in advance

[lewy 2,341]

26 minutes ago, Tosh1218 said:

How many pts have Plymouth got to play with for there final signing 

thanks in advance

4.21

[Ghosty 500]

23 hours ago, Skidder1 said:

Surely the SCB/ACU DO have the monopoly on speedway at SCB-Licensed tracks. Do Scunthorpe run NORA Speedway meetings or is it other non-speedway Motorsports events under The NORA banner and licence?

Can't remember the SCB doing anything to stop Rockingham Speedway in Corby U.K. from running "Speedway"?

[Tosh1218 593]

Gino Manzores  fit. that anyone

[RoundTheBoards 271]

11 hours ago, Ghosty said:

Can't remember the SCB doing anything to stop Rockingham Speedway in Corby U.K. from running "Speedway"?

Don't think they ever staged Speedway racing at Rockingham.  Wasn't it just cars, karts and road bikes?

 

[proud panther 1,507]

28 minutes ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Don't think they ever staged Speedway racing at Rockingham.  Wasn't it just cars, karts and road bikes?

 

Yes.

[Wee Eck 703]

On 2/18/2023 at 10:25 PM, Skidder1 said:

Surely the SCB/ACU DO have the monopoly on speedway at SCB-Licensed tracks. Do Scunthorpe run NORA Speedway meetings or is it other non-speedway Motorsports events under The NORA banner and licence?

As far as I can ascertain, there is no legal restriction on the use of the word “speedway” so anyone can run a “speedway” event wherever they wish, including tracks that the SCB have licensed for certain events. The fact that the track is licensed by the SCB does not mean that every event run there also has to be licensed by them. 
Many tracks run “speedway” events without SCB licensing and, depending on the event, some tracks use Nora.

Scunthorpe is one example as is Isle of Wight although the latter calls it “shale track” in an attempt to minimise the risk of upsetting BSPL

[Skidder1 7,658]

30 minutes ago, Wee Eck said:

As far as I can ascertain, there is no legal restriction on the use of the word “speedway” so anyone can run a “speedway” event wherever they wish, including tracks that the SCB have licensed for certain events. The fact that the track is licensed by the SCB does not mean that every event run there also has to be licensed by them. 
Many tracks run “speedway” events without SCB licensing and, depending on the event, some tracks use Nora.

Scunthorpe is one example as is Isle of Wight although the latter calls it “shale track” in an attempt to minimise the risk of upsetting BSPL

Surely every track licensed by SCB for Speedway events has to have SCB-licensed officials in charge of  speedway meetings, especially as its highly likely to be using ACU/SCB-licensed riders!!

Surely riders taking part in any non-SCB track racing event at an SCB-licensed track need the written permission of their SCB Club, with the understanding that for any incident/accident to riders/officials/public, there is no comeback on the SCB. Any claim for insurance would not be entertained by any SCB insurance policy.

I am sure there will be other anomalies which the 3-page article by the SCB's Jim Lawrence in the SS attempts to highlight - and will surely need to be sorted out for the NORA League to take place as planned to include SCB-licensed tracks.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

2 hours ago, Skidder1 said:

Surely every track licensed by SCB for Speedway events has to have SCB-licensed officials in charge of  speedway meetings, especially as its highly likely to be using ACU/SCB-licensed riders!!

Surely riders taking part in any non-SCB track racing event at an SCB-licensed track need the written permission of their SCB Club, with the understanding that for any incident/accident to riders/officials/public, there is no comeback on the SCB. Any claim for insurance would not be entertained by any SCB insurance policy.

I am sure there will be other anomalies which the 3-page article by the SCB's Jim Lawrence in the SS attempts to highlight - and will surely need to be sorted out for the NORA League to take place as planned to include SCB-licensed tracks.

I have to disagree or at least question what you are saying. 

True, there might be some question over whether an authority other than the SCB can run 'speedway' events. But even if a track is licenced by the SCB, that should not prevent it running meetings that are not SCB.  

Secondly, if a meeting at an SCB licenced track is run by NORA, then the rider should not need permission from anyone to compete because he has a right - enshrined in case law - to ride where he chooses without interference. I fail to see how the SCB can be held liable for a meeting that is completely outside their control simply because that meeting is held at a track they have licenced for their events but - crucially - not others. Riders would not be insured by the SCB for such a meeting but NORA has its own insurances that they can purchase. 

At this stage - I must admit I haven't read the Speedy Star article - I fail to see any ground why a track cannot run both SCB and non SCB meetings and the SCB's actions look to me like nothing more than doing their best to stop an alternative league from developing. I'm certainly not convinced that anything they have come up with is for any other reason, despite the attempts to dress it up as such.

As I have said before, attempting to prevent a track using its own facilities or a rider from competing looks very much like a restraint of trade (definition :The principle that an individual should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference. The principle renders a contractual term purporting to restrict an individual's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary) to me, because it  has the effect of stopping the track or rider accessing a further revenue stream. Within the terms of English case law, that's illegal and other sporting authorities who have tried to do so - darts, cricket, ice skating come to mind - have all been very much put in their place by court rulings. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Halifaxtiger

[heathen52 397]

I read the article in the SS, and Jim Lawrence said they had investigated every way to make it possible for Nora 92 meetings to take place on SCB licensed tracks, one could also turn it around and say they had investigated all ways to stop Nora 92 meetings taking place on SCB licensed tracks, imo the only way that they could find to hinder Nora 92 meetings taking place on SCB tracks was by inventing the red herring of insurance being invalid and under that guise have basically told Kent and Plymouth make your choice SCB or Nora 92 but not both, why choose when their is insurance in place for both organisations?, oh I forgot it's the BSPL dressed up as the SCB trying to dictate again what riders/clubs can and cannot do.