Leaderboard

reading phil lannings piece in the speedway star today about the media and speedways lack of ability to use it , this is exactly the sort of thing to get the media attention , speedway should take a stand against this BS that is parading around the news at the moment and tell the media we are going to continue to use start girls cause we believe its an important part of the show ,etc,etc ,be different kick up a fuss ,this is what the media wants to fill their dreary pages , it is a story already written for the papers ,use it

That's the thing arnieg. Edinburgh contacted UKVI to clarify if he should be eligible and were told that as he had an injury yes he should be considered. As I said in my post they leave the decision up to the MC as they are better to judge the 2nd question, i.e. yes barring injury he probably would have qualified but is he good enough? The MC have not said NO to this they have just said he won't be considered. If they are to deny Luke the opportunity to race in the UK then they should at least have the balls to tell the lad why they don't think he is good enough.

It's an easy one for me. If they are British they can ride in both divisions regardless of average. That's very easy to implement.

I really prefer individual race suits. Makes the riders more identifiable.

This is what is causing the problem. Allowing Morris, Harris and another 7 riders to ride in the CL creates the problem - if all PL riders with an average over 6 were banned then there'd be no discrimination.

But it would have affected every team in the league when they were racing against a team with Nicholls and Kennett in it. Morris is quite entitled to double up as he rode in the Championship last season so qualified for a true average. I applaud the BSPA for sticking to their rules, yes there will be winners and losers but you can`t change to rules governing team building halfway especially after many teams are complete having been assembled under the rules.

It's not a new rule, it's the reintroduction of a long standing rule. The mistake was in removing it for last season which only added to the disasterous level of doubling up. According to the BSPA statement it was reintroduced to regain a measure of control, but if that was the case then it should have reverted to it's original intent of blocking all riders over 6, with or without a CL average.

Not quite Grachan it’s more like Edinburgh attempted to sign a rider that does not automatically qualify for a visa but that they felt did qualify under the discretionary rules (posted earlier in the thread) Edinburgh then built their case with testimony from Steve Evans, Greg Hancock and the UKVI BSPA management committee rejected the appeal (as is their right) BSPA neglected their own rules that state that the outcome of an appeal with reasoning will be provided to the relevant parties. Therein lies the gripe and where the accusations of bias come in as there has been no transparency and the reasoning for the rejection is yet to be received.

For to long now many on here have accused the BSPA of not sticking to their rules, like it or not with this case as well as the Nicholls/Kennett case the BSPA have enforced their rules, so I applaud them for doing so.

The thing that has been forgotten in all this is the person that is really punished is the rider. Edinburgh will have to move on, they'll sign someone else as they have to have a 7th rider who by the way will almost certainly be another new foreigner on 5.20 so the decision won't benefit any young british riders. But Luke Becker is going to lose a vital year in his speedway development, he's an 18 year old kid who has shown glimpses of real potential and is obviously well thought of in American circles. It is also a double whammy, he was in with a shout of becoming American champion when he crashed in the final of the 2nd round and broke his ankle. Depriving him of an almost certain top 3 finish (he was 8 points ahead of 4th place after that 2nd round), a big chance of winning the title and now due to this truly awful decision a contract to race in the UK. Now it isn't up to the BSPA to help develop young american riders but this is an 18 year old lad willing to move to the other side of the world to develop his skills and hopefully follow in the footsteps of many top compatriots. Apparently one of the things submitted with the appeal was a glowing report from Greg Hancock. The UKVI don't have experts in speedway that is why these discretionary processes are left up to the BSPA MC. They had 2 questions to ask: 1) If the rider did not miss a round of the American Championships would he have finished in the top 4 - The only answer to that is YES 2) Is the riders record in speedway at the highest level and will they contribute to the development of the sport - Now according to the MC winning races in the World Cup race off at 18 years of age isn't good enough. Now as some people have suggested they could state that they have decided no one is going to get a Visa as a result of an appeal but that should have been stated in the conference because it is effectively changing the rules. Either way they didn't state that they just effectively said they won't consider the appeal because others in the past have abused the system. Two wrongs don't make a right and as I said at the start they are punishing a young rider who's case exactly meets the requirement for a discretionary endorsement. So the only question outstanding I would ask is if it was a different team in the league, e.g. Scunthorpe, he was signing for would the answer be different....... I think almost certainly YES and shame on those who made this decision.

He only has to beat his opposite number and he has done his job. Anything else is a bonus.

Depends on exactly what he is prepared to do about it but it’s high time the BSPA were taken to task for some of the awful decisions they make. How on earth can it be right that riders like Morris, Cook, Masters, Schlein and Harris etc can ride Championship but Nicholls & Kennett cannot despite having Premiership Averages lower than the aforementioned. Either you stop riders with a Premiership Average in excess of 6.00 from riding Championship or scrap the rule entirely and allow all with the appropriate conversion.

Plans are in full swing for a Romford Speedway Reunion in 2019, yes you read that right, 2019! Next year it will be 50 years when the smell of methanol and the sound of speedway bikes were heard for the first time at the Brooklands Road Stadium! The venue and date for the Bombers reunion will be announced next month at the annual ‘Celebration of Speedway’ event on February 18th, which is held at Paradise Wildlife Park in Broxbourne, home of the Nati...onal Speedway Museum. More details on the Celebration of Speedway can be found at:- https://www.pwpark.com/whats…/events/celebration-of-speedway Exciting plans are in progress for an evening of pure Romford Speedway nostalgia, with hopefully some ex Bombers riders in attendance. More details will be available in the coming months. If you were a Bombers fan you really won’t want to miss this!See more

AUSSIE riders rarely get a good press on here, some suggesting they are parasites to British speedway, so it is well worth watching the You Tube interview between Nigel Pearson and Jason Doyle at Somerset last night.

I just think they give a team much more of a united identity rather than looking like a bunch of waifs and strays. Certainly a must if the league is going to be on telly again this year.

Kennett...nicholls?? Oh no..hang on a minute

Why ? I don't recall no race suits in Speedway's glory days ever holding it back. In fact riders were more easily identified on track in many cases...

I give up. You all win. He should have got a visa.

This debate shouldn't be about whether two riders should or should not be allowed to ride for two teams - it should be about whether ANY riders should! The whole situation is a complete farce and has spiralled out of control. The BSPA should at the very least be taking steps to gradually reduce the scope for allowing this nonsensical situation with a view to eventually eliminating it altogether - not trying to frame rules for extending it! Those riders who bleat that they must have two clubs "to make it pay" should spare a thought for all the riders who don't have a team at all - because they have two!

Yes it is their discretion, nobody has ever said that, something you seem quite keen not to grasp. However, when at their discretion they are not going to endorse a rider they are required to give their reasons in writing as to why the reasons given for the discretionary endorsement are not sufficient. Saying he doesn't fit the original criteria, which the BSPA did (initially) is not doing that. That is stating the bleedin obvious and why the discretionary endorsement was applied for in the first place. The BSPA have had all winter to make a simple statement. "No discretionary endorsements will be considered. If you don't fit the criteria, that is it". Is that really such a hard thing for them to do? Why leave the door open, drag processes out, waste people's time when they had no intention of ever awarding an endorsement? That leaves the door open for people, with good reason given past history, to wonder if it is done so if someone in favor applies for an endorsement, one can be given. It's simply another mess they've brought upon themselves that could very easily have been avoided.

Why couldnt they of reintroduced the rule to start from the end of the 2018 season thus giving all riders now the choice to decide that if they want to double up in future they are aware of what would be required to do so, not just do it now and have this situation that affects a few but not all

Well you're acting it, suggesting that the criteria which makes you apply for a discretionary endorsement is the reason used for not giving one. Seems Rob Godfrey has clarified that Becker DOES fit the criteria, but the BSPA have simply decided they aren't giving any discretionary endorsements. So again, it's having one rule and doing another thing that is the issue. If the BSPA had told Edinburgh and indeed every other club right from the beginning that there will be no discretionary endorsements given there would never have been an issue. It's this moving of the goalposts that is a fundamental issue in the governing of the sport.

Apparently now Rob Godfrey has confirmed that Luke Becker would have been entitled to a discretionary endorsement just as myself and others have described above. However the MC have decided that they will not be awarding any discretionary endorsements to anyone whether justified or not. As far as Ryan Douglas is concerned I don't think he missed the qualification meetings because of injury so it doesn't apply to him. It's harsh but not a terrible position to have and obviously many on here agree that is what the rule should be and removes any ambiguity. But when was this decision made and why was it not communicated to all teams and other impacted. Why did they just not table an amendment at the AGM and change the rule so there was no discretion clearly stated in the rules and everyone was fully informed and aware. The rule (even though many on here are ignoring the fact it exists) has been in place for several years so could easily have been changed and debated by all promoters not just the MC if required. Steve Evans has apparently been working on this appeal since September, Edinburgh appealed for the endorsement 3 times and all 3 times were only told he did not meet the rules and not told anything about no discretionary endorsements being given. So on the 4th occasion when asked informally they have been told that the rules have effectively been changed. When did the rule change? Now if I was being a cynic I could say when they received the request from Edinburgh......

Yeh, good popular choice.

At least we won't need any more catering facilities - everybody can have a bit of that massive chip on your shoulder

Is this really such a difficult concept to understand? It clearly states that should it be rejected the reasoning would be given. Saying it didn't meet the initial criteria is not a reason, that's the whole purpose of making the application. Nobody, not even Edinburgh or Luke Becker is complaining it has been rejected. They are complaining because no reason has been given. Transparency, that is what people want and once again it is lacking.

There is no need to guess Grachan. The wording is quite clear and explicit. Riders/clubs can apply for a discretionary endorsement if there were extenuating circumstances that prevented a rider from hitting the original criteria. In the case of injury, medical evidence must be provided. This was all done. The wording also states that the BSPA will provide in writing full reasoning why the discretionary endorsement was rejected. They haven't done that. Saying he doesn't fit the initial criteria is just dumb. We know that. Edinburgh knew that, Luke Becker knew that. That's why they were applying for a discretionary endorsement. Had the BSPA said we don't feel based upon Beckers overall record he meets the standard required, then job done. Some may not have agreed but a reasoning was given. This has nothing to do with immigration laws, it is to do with the BSPA being unable to do their jobs professionally.. again.

No it wouldn't. You can't change the rules AFTER most teams have completed their teambuilding. I agree that these kind of rules should be agreed in advance, so it would be interesting to know the timeline of when this rule change was proposed.

Maybe they felt with the number of number of unsigned British riders, it wouldn't be appropriate to support the visa application of a foreign rider who doesn't meet the current requirements?

Paranoia levels reaching critical along the M8 as a result of this team building setback

Remove the appeal process then and simply have a hard and fast rule.

Quite correct and indeed I don't particularly have a problem with the appeal failing. However, the appeal is for cases that don't fit the criteria. So saying the appeal has failed because it doesn't fit the criteria is dumb even by BSPA standards. If they wish to stick to the hard and fast criteria, remove the appeal procedure and say so. Otherwise, once again, it leaves the door open for one rule to be applied for one and another for someone else.

Quite agree. Also with so many guests last year you had half a team with official race suits and half not, which really did look amateurish.

When it comes to visas it's funny how the minority sports like speedway always have trouble when it comes to non EU residents. You never hear of an overseas footballer in the Premier league having a visa application turned down

Last ave. I can see for him is 6.91, (EL),,, so am thinking he wouldn't be able to ride the CL, but who knows ?

Nobody has to tell us anything on here it really is as simple as that.

That's fine. They applied for a discretionary endorsement. It failed. It doesn't say it will be granted. Just that they can apply. Surely it is better just to follow the rule to the letter barring something exceptional.

I actually dont know about the money. FMN system has changed but the money in the FMN has not increased. Riders get asked after the season what they want to do next season and been wondering myself about how the number of riders wanting to ride in these meetings (some of them quite expensive travel wise) for a couple of years now has increased. Maybe riders now are starting to have a bit more money again? the eu money is only for the track and the papers are in at the moment. Already sent first set of corrections back.

I don't know the whole story, but from what I can see, this is how it is. Edinburgh tried to get a rider who doesn't fit in with the requirements. They must have known this? They asked the mc for approval. No harm in asking, right? They were told that he doesn't fit the criteria. That's the end of it, surely. I see no problem in how the BSPA have acted here. If Edinburgh want to keep this going, they should contact their local MP and get him to persue the case. It worked for Swindon with Jimmy Nilsen all those years ago, when you needed to be a 6 pointer to get a work permit. Don't blame the BSPA here. Their sponsorship license is at risk if they let someone slip through the net.

So is Rose I believe so does that automatically rule him out. I think he has signed for the same team as Aaron Summers.

But on another thread, people are moaning about not giving an American (who doesn't meet the criteria) a visa when British riders who are available, could do the job.

This does seem daft if it does only affect a couple of riders. The one thing these riders can bring to the clubs is the knowledge, experience and set up information for the new riders to the Championship. This rule may affect all Premier riders in the future but for now let them ride.

So draw the line in a fair manner. Top riders in the Premiership are not allowed to double up. Be it over 6, 7 or whatever average is thought sensible. That's straightforward and is equally penalising to all. What this rule does is arbitrary in the extreme. You have riders of similar ability being treated quite differently. And you wonder why they cry foul?

Was it because Peterborough are involved it may something to do with it? No love lost I feel, sure would have boosted attendances and I thought speedway was about the supporters.

I'm not so shy.... Scott says: Thank you @SpeedwayGB ,I’m honoured to have made an “Outstanding contribution to British Speedway” & to be a “fine servant to British Speedway” for over 20 years. Great of you to now restrict me from earn a living. I will be releasing a statement soon, this is not the end of it.

Absolutely. It's what many of us have been saying. Brandon Estates are paying off Horton to go to Leicester and then they can say... "Look. They're perfectly happy at Leicester now. Leicester is much better for speedway and Coventry are settled in there now. They don't need Brandon anymore. Let us knock it down and build houses" And look. There it is in Black & White from them, saying exactly that!! Allow Coventry to be shunted off to Leicester and it will never return to Coventry.

The right decision has been made (almost). Things need to be done for the good of the sport as a whole, not to appease a couple of riders and/or promoters. For this year any rider with a Premiership average of over six should not have been allowed to double up/down with doubling up between the top two divisions scrapped from next year. People are quick to tell you there aren't enough riders to go around. There are.

TYPICAL of the BSPA not to think through the consequences of a decision or new rule. Had they done so and realised that two British riders who have given long, loyal and distinguished service were going to be caught in the net they should at least have deferred it for a year.

Obviously different when it's your own team In Lakeside's case though they should have been told immediately that their reserves averages were incorrect.

I'm happy it's at Redcar one of the tracks I've yet to visit, two to go after this