Leaderboard

On the Edinburgh Facebook, it appears Rod Godfrey has acknowledged the rule allowing discretion has never been applied since the very unfortunate Ty Proctor/Sheffield affair of 2015, and because immigration is such a major and important topic, needing the qualifying position to be clear and not varying. The discretionary rule should no longer be there (i.e. on the BSPA website) and will be removed. As I personally do not agree with discretionary rules, agree with it's removal and recognise that "clerical oversights" can occur. What is unsatisfactory is that this discretionary exemption issue was raised by both the AMA & Edinburgh at least three months ago and apparently the above explanation has only been provided now. Thus the AMA & Edinburgh could have been spared unnecessarily wasting their time over the interim period if the aforementioned explanation and the expunging of the discretionary rule from http://www.speedwaygb.co./sponsoredmigrantspolicy had been actioned when first raised. (the Section for consideration of applications for discretionary endorsements is still there btw ! ). In Edinburgh's case they could have been exploring alternative signing avenues earlier.

Low and behold he raises his ugly head phillipsr , so now you think Newcastle looks a poor side. Let’s wait and see come end of August .. I bet a lot of Newcastle fans are just really happy they have Speedway to watch this season , like Workington , worrying times for Promotions trying to keep Speedway running .. There will be 7 guys getting on their bikes and riding their hearts out for these “poor” teams as you call them , you should maybe pop yourself on a bike before you start making judgment

But it’s not going against the general perception , it’s a few snowflakes who get offended at just about everytthing and think that everybody else should give up their way of life to suit theirs , personally I hate snowflakes and believe they are not worthy of breathing the free air they are given but I don’t start a campaign to try to get them shot

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.

No, I can't see any holes here either. What Horton is saying here goes against what BE have said in their planning application. If he was being funded by them then they won't be happy with this. Basically saying this isnt a long term solution and we need somewhere local, two things BE don't want to hear. BE are worried about having to help finance somewhere new hence in their application they worded it like Leicester would be a long term solution. We now have the owner of the club stating it isn't a long term solution and we need to get back. Sandhu now needs to do the same regarding stox and put huge pressure on BE.

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 haven’t anywhere suggested that. Very few on this thread have. You’re failing to grasp a very simple concept.

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......

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

Even though he wouldn't be doubling up ?

You serious? The comments by Horton are the opposite what Brandon Estates said in their planning application. Brandon Estates made out Leicester was the long term option and Horton in this interview has said it isnt and we need to get back to the local area. He basically rubbished that whole section of the application! Don't see how that's helping BE?

I agree. So long as the women involved are happy to do the work. Personally, I don't care whether we have them or not. They now only appear at the NSS for shared BSPA events and I can't say that I think the presentation or entertainment level has suffered but that is my opinion and I wouldn't dream of imposing my opinion on others who think otherwise. I have never come across a female supporter who has ever said they feel strongly and are offended by the start line girls nor have I come across anybody who has given it as a reason not to attend any of the sports where they or, their equivalent, appear. In the present climate too many seem to be afraid of offending the snowflakes who believe they know what is right and best for the rest of us.

Swimming,diving,gymnastics,beach volleyball all in boiler suits.Tennis and hockey in long trousers.Full body beachware high neck lines skirts to the ankle etc.How far is it going to go it seems that some politically correct people will not be happy until we go back to Victorian times. If most of the population do not have a problem with something then leave it be.If the odd few over the top head case's have a problem with something then let them get over it and let the rest of us get on with life blissfully not thinking there is any problem.

for me - a highlights package would be best - 3 matches a week and keep schtum about riders riding for 2 teams! Oh and riders appearing for their rivals.

Possibly Mads Korneliussen ? The name of the sheep, I couldn't possibly comment on!!

I think I can be blamed for 'inviting' you Absolutely correct, though Its why my first two matches pencilled in this season were Redcar v Newcastle. Although I have made clear that I think Peterborough - after the huge success of the past two seasons - would be a better option, some of the comments about Redcar are simply not fair. Its way better than a 'dump' and although there were few visible signs it was clearly a different place last season after the departure of Havelock. I don't doubt it will step up again this season and, with a bit of luck, the track will get back to something near what it was like at the outset. It was one of the best then.

You should give up. You're trolling at the levels of Starman. You seem to be displaying a complete inability to understand basic English. The original criteria are IRRELEVANT. Had he fitted those criteria he wouldn't be applying for a discretionary endorsement. There is a long section that explains this in the rules if you'd bother to read it where it explicitly explains what is required for a discretionary endorsement to be given by the BSPA. That same section says that full reasoning would be given if the discretionary endorsement was turned down and why the information provided was not sufficient. Again, the original criteria at this point are IRRELEVANT. You don't seem to be able to grasp that nobody is denying the right for the BSPA to turn it down. Indeed I may even lean towards supporting them in that decision. What isn't correct is giving a reason that he doesn't fit the original criteria. That is just ridiculous. It's like being found guilty in a court of law, appealing, arriving at your appeal and the judge saying.. "You're guilty because the original jury said so" and not bothering to even look at any new evidence or the appeal. Again, had the BSPA, from the outset stated that no discretionary endorsements would be considered this whole situation would not have occutred.

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!

The girls that do the job do it without pressure and it's their own choice. Do'gooders telling others they are offended. Tell them to clear off.

Come on Grachan, you aren't that dumb are you? That is the criteria for an automatic visa. Becker wasn't applying for an automatic visa. Becker was applying for a discretionary endorsement. An entirely different thing where you are NOT required to meet the initial criteria (you wouldn't be applying for it if you did). Saying you aren't eligible for a DISCRETIONARY ENDORSEMENT because you don't meet the criteria for an automatic visa is about as stupid as you can get. As I've already stated, all the BSPA had to say was they didn't feel Becker was of a sufficient standard or some other excuse to cover themselves. Instead, they act like idiots and alienate another bunch of fans. All could very easily have been avoided.

Dave, are you putting ya name down for the 'post box' ???

How can you make that stupid statement, when you don't know which option we're taking to fill the number 1 spot. ?

Errr, yes, but Newcastle are still riding on a Sunday

ALSO a limited production budget which determined the. number of meetings they covered. Probably the same number this year albeit with an earlier start

Some how I don't see any comeback being at Newcastle.

He didn't sell it, the bank did.

Heard a rumor the no 7 will be either guest or rr

Can you list the holes then please so I can avoid falling into them? At my age I find it easier letting someone else explain instead of trying to understand things myself.

On todays St. Petersburg ladies tennis semi final Petra Kvitova and Julia Goerges were led on court by 6 ladies in bright red tennis outfits and looked very fetching. So if you ban them you would also have to ban the players as they were wearing similar outfits I wonder what the politically correct people would say about this

That works as long as no more than 3 coach loads of Poole fans want to go.

I think it's time for @Dandelion to produce a list of available 8- and 5- pointers for our delectation and delight. How about it, marra?

Tsunami might know....

dont forget barrrbaraaa

Questioning the suitability of Redcar to hold a shared event is not unreasonable. Calling it a 'dump' (in my view at least) is.

Mary, Betty, Ethel to name just a few.

Whilst I 100% agree, in the interests of fairness it appears to have been the same in the past when Redcar have visited Newcastle.

LMAO How can you call it a dump when Newcastle is know as Rough Park The stands get full when Diamonds go? OMG this is so funny you should do stand up. The only reason we see Diamonds fans there is because they go to appreciate a decent track, but leave in tears when beaten haha. Don't hurry back this season to our dump will ya lol

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

You must be deliberately missing the point, you just have to be. We all know he doesn’t meet the criteria; hence the request for discretionary consideration. Turning down that request is fine but giving “he doesn’t meet the criteria” as the reason for doing so isn’t and doesn’t make sense.

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.

3 Gps every year in poland and now 3 swc/pairs in a row. Maybe FIM staging fees are too high for anywhere other than the big polish clubs, its starting to look a little silly with everything in Poland.

Can't remember which ex member of the MC said it, but in the SS one week a good while ago, he said promoters would ring round from one MC member to another until one of them eventually agreed with what that promoter wanted to do. Often asking for a decision to include a rider with literally minutes to tapes up... Basically they were looking for just one (any) MC member to interpret a rule the same way they had, thus giving them the green light.. Cannot run a Sport like that if it wants credibilty and to be viewed as 'professional'... In any sport (or indeed in any walk of life) where decision makers can be viewed as potentially acting with vested interest, then there is even more need for transparency with publicly detailed reasoning for any decisions reached...

Which is entirely the problem! In other words, it depends who is asking, which is a big factor in the sport being in the mess it is.

So there is no discretion? Perhaps that's what the official guidelines should say then? I've no axe to grind either way, I'm a Bees fan . But this is February and clubs are still debating various rules with the authorities which directly affect team building. That can't be right, surely?

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.

Edinburgh weren't breaking the rules. They followed the rules to the letter. The BSPA have broken their own rules with their reply .

Speedway wouldn't do anything for a figure like that..there is too much self interest...hence the state it's in now. They should have let John Berry run it whilst he was alive.

The most telling document within the new planning permission is the 2017 Framework Master Plan. It shows houses where the "new" stadium was originally supposed to be. These plans are simply being submitted in order to unlock further house building. http://pa1.swindon.gov.uk/publicaccess/files/48810D4EB6A3C6FD126E1250D0E7D8C3/pdf/S_RES_18_0027-2017_FRAMEWORK_MASTERPLAN-646104.pdf

I'd have thought it was obviously a ploy to demolish the current stadium then find some good reason why a new stadium can't be built on top of the smoking ruins and how they will sadly be forced into completing the housing estate instead of a new stadium. I hate to be cynical but this plan has stunk to high heaven ever since the initial proposal was to put the new stadium car park on the centre 'green'!