BWitcher

Quite simply yes, anyone could put an application in but of course it would need to have a strong case backing it. Again, that isn't the discussion.

Edinburgh have already confirmed what they have been told, as has Steve Evans, the USA team manager and the rider himself. They haven't been given a reason. Yes, we all know the application process is a minefield and lessons were learned no doubt over the Ty Proctor situation. As such the BSPA should be quite clear, this is the criteria, if you don't fit THAT IS IT. End of story. Leaving the door open as they are doing is simply continuing their traditional approach of.. depends who is asking/paying/loaning us a rider. So on the one hand the BSPA could be deemed to be doing the correct thing.. yet somehow they still manage to turn it into adverse publicity!!

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.

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

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.

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.

It hasn't failed on criteria set down by the UKVI. Do try and keep up. A discretionary endorsement is precisely FOR those who don't meet the criteria set down by the UKVI. It's not rocket science. All the BSPA had to do was give their reasons why they don't feel a discretionary endorsement is valid. Simple. If the BSPA wishes to operate a hard and fast ruling in regards to the permits, which is fair enough, then remove the appeal system.

Then the BSPA should clearly state 'how' it has failed. They haven't done so. Those two bullet points are not conditions, they are 'factors' to be taken into consideration. Now should the BSPA believe the first of those bullet points is a factor that they feel Becker doesn't meet sufficiently for them not to give the discretionary endorsement then they should present to the club/rider why they feel that to be the case. If they had done that, case closed. Perhaps some may not have agreed with it but the correct procedure would have been followed. They haven't done that, that is the issue.

No they aren't. Why don't you try reading the 'black and white' rules?

Except it isn't, but don't let that stop you inventing things! The rules as they are have been both stated and linked too. Edinburgh have not broken them, the BSPA have.

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

No they haven't. Please explain how you apply for a discretionary endorsement if you already fit the rules. It is there for that purpose, where someone does not fit them. The BSPA have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent (again) and have a severe lack of understanding of their very own rules. Again, I re-iterate, the BSPA have the right not to give him the endorsement. However, as per THEIR OWN RULES, they are required to give full written reasons why. Saying he didn't fit the automatic criteria is not a reason, that is something that is already known and why the discretionary endorsement appeal system is there.

Further to the rule I quoted above the very next paragraph states "Injuries. Exclusions from competing due to injury will be a factor that is taken into account when applying the requirements both in initial applications and extensions. Clubs should submit supportive medical evidence in such cases, stipulating the period of injury and the total number of meetings the rider has missed."

Indeed it could, however the average of his scored from the other three rounds would have seen him in a comfortable 3rd place. Far from a bold statement. They are telling lies. The UKVI confirmed that Becker met the criteria for a discretionary endorsement, so the rejection of his application was nothing to do with them as the BSPA are claiming. As in my post above their reasoning makes absolutely no sense either.. rejecting an application for a discretionary endorsement because he doesn't fit the regulations for an automatic endorsement? Just think about it for a moment and it will dawn on you. Again, I have no qualms with the BSPA rejecting his application, however they should have the balls to give the reason why.

See my post, it helps when someone posts the full rules, not just a snippet they feel proves their case. The BSPA have the right to reject a discretionary endorsement and are required to give full reasons for doing so. They haven't done that, they've lied by saying he doesn't fit the criteria. If he fitted the criteria they wouldn't be asking for a discretionary endorsement in the first place!!

Conveniently missing out the salient part there Lucifer whereby it states: "The BSPA will consider applications for discretionary endorsements for riders who do not meet the above requirements on an individual discretionary basis. Decisions will be made by the BSPA Management Committee who will consider written applications from the club and/or rider concerned. The Management Committee will give written reasons for their decision. Factors to be taken into consideration will be: Whether the riders record in speedway has been at the highest level and they will contribute significantly to the development of the sport. Whether exceptional factors prevented the rider from meeting the aforementioned endorsement requirements" Luke Becker missed the 2nd round of a 4 round series in the US Championships due to injury. He would only have needed 5pts to have finished in the top 4 and meet the requirements so clearly was an exceptional factor. The UKVI have already stated he meets the criteria for a discretionary endorsement so the BSPA statement on the issue is quite simply an out and out lie.

You are comparing the end of last season I assume? That's a false comparison if so.

That's my view as well. Actually, not a view, it just is!

It's a good point when you refer to the 'end of last season'. The league is certainly stronger than at the start of last season, not quite so much compared to the end of last year.

Ah apologies, misread it amongst the nonsense being spouted about the weaker league. Wolves are weaker, that's a natural thing when a team is successful, however it's not as simple as saying we've lost and replaced those riders. Thorssell and Howarth are both much better riders this year than last. You could say Greaves is better too. Also, let's not forget, we didn't start 2017 with Riss, or indeed Schlein. So the real comparison is Lindgren, Skornicki and Clegg out. Rory Schein, Cameron Heeps and Ashley Morris in. Still weaker, but no much as the original comparison.

So if all teams are built to 42pts, you don't think they would be stronger than if all teams are built to 40pts? The reality is, the league is stronger this year and quite a bit stronger if Iversen ends up at Kings Lynn. There is simply not an argument to say otherwise.

Nurse!

Never mind Ivan Mauger, it casts doubt over whether he would ever have won a single senior World Title. Even without that issue there are absolutely no guarantees. Let's not forget Emil Sayfutdinov was described as an absolute certainty to win World Titles too.. he may still win one or more, but he's not opened his account yet for varying reasons.

I've posted about it in the Wolves thread, try and move it over there