Sir Sidney

I think it might be more appropriate to say 'once they find out how best to prepare it' and then do that consistently

Most teams will lose most of their away meetings. Northampton are unfortunate, because of circumstances, to have four of their first five meetings away, and doubly unfortunately that two riders are already injured. It's also a bit of a head scratcher that the captain didn't check the size of his home track before signing! Stick with them. Season 1 will be a challenge, but beyond that will be the real test of team strength.

Yes, they can get there. Various flights available but not a lot of leeway

Don't give up on them after 1 home meeting. They will need all the support they can get, to remain viable. Given the lateness with which the team was put together it was always going to be a challenge this year. Klindt acknowledged at Belle Vue yesterday that his performances have not yet been up to scratch. The question is who would be available to come in to improve the team now, and I suspect the answer is that there are very few options

No dust nor blue groove though at Phil's house

There are parallels in cricket, where players have opted out of international cricket to play the more lucrative white ball circuit

Tickets bought. Let's hope it's a great success

As per the fixture list, but, admittedly not much leeway for postponements

More likely to be as at Kings Lynn and Scunthorpe, where the speedway fence rests against the stock car fence, and is higher than the steel posts and wire, and then with a polyfoam fence attached to that on the bends

The referee should clearly be taken to task.

Surely to goodness Northampton have already had a conversation with SCB and it's track inspector about what is required to get a licence and what they need to have in place before his visit. Tuesday should just be a check to make sure it has been done. I would also be amazed if someone hasn't already ridden a bike around there to test that there are no hidden horrors in the surface. I cannot believe that this has all been left to chance on Tuesday

Per the Regs 02.2.11 Duties of Referee g) where provided the Referee must use multi angle re-play technology supplied by Eurosport, BSN and the tracks own streaming service via a monitor

There are many parts of this that need to be fully clarified. I don't see how the Chairman of an organisation that has led this can survive. Firstly, what is actually in riders contracts this year and how does it compare to previous years? Secondly, who is actually saving the money? I believe Ben Barker had previously said that riders had £5 per race deducted to cover insurance. If that was the case, and that is not happening, then surely it is the riders and not the clubs making a saving. If the riders were aware then they could have used this to take out their own personal accident insurance, as some have published that they have done. Whether that is comparable is another matter. If the clubs were paying the insurance previously, and now are not and are making a saving, then surely they are complicit in this - even more so if they didn't explain this to their riders. If clubs either took out insurance to the same value, or advised their riders of the change - allowing riders to negotiate a contract so that they were no worse off, then the club may be exonerated. It remains a completely unedifying, and very seriously situation

I'll bet the SCB still fines them both

Why would he? He has nothing to do with the Championship

Thanks for the update and for being so open. From that it sounds like you received no explicit guidance about the change in insurance levels, and only as a result of the annual licence application - and because Luke hadn't previously had a specific deduction to cover insurance you didn't know what the difference was between the insurance cost in 2025 and the extra licence cost in 2026 - I've seen a figure of £28 mentioned. On the face of it, and unless Luke has had an uplift in his points money to reflect it, then it seems like the club is making a saving ( if it is no longer making insurance premium payments), and Luke has incurred an extra cost as he has had to take out an additional policy to provide a level of income protection against loss of income if he is unable to do his scaffolding job. I of course do appreciate that you can only comment on Luke's position and not on others, but if we assume a lot of riders are in the same position then it is understandable that Ben Barker is really pushing this. By the same token, were I a rider, I would not ride without taking out a personal policy as Luke has done, because the risk is too great. I very much hope that BSPL / SCB issues a much more transparent statement, with a chronology of events which can be substantiated with evidence - and that this dispute can be brought to a conclusion that sees riders in a comparable position to previous seasons without any significant cost issue. Thanks again for taking the time to provide some clarity, albeit as you rightly say, with the caveat that this is how it applies to Luke

Thanks for the info One of the big issues around this is the lack of clarity - at least it is if you are a supporter Are you able to provide any of the clarity that shows the difference between last year and this (for Luke) such as: - Was the change for 2026 communicated to riders, and if so, when? - In 2025 was rider's personal accident insurance included within Luke's contract and did he have to pay that on a per race basis? (it's been suggested riders were paying £5 per race, deducted from their points money) - In 2026 is personal accident insurance included in Luke's contract at all? If not, is he making a £5 per race 'saving', allowing this to be used to purchase the policy that Luke has taken out this year? - Does the policy that Luke has taken out this year provide comparable personal accident insurance to what was provided through his contract, or per race deduction last season? I appreciate very much that you may feel that it is not appropriate that you provide this information, but given the complete absence of relevant comment made by either BSPL or SCB, the speculation and potentially ill informed comment is just going to continue. Much appreciated

Certainly not 'happy clapper's as you put it. Plenty of constructive ideas and business contacts were put forward. Much constructive criticism and suggested solutions also supplied, mirroring quite a lot that is put forward on here. One thing I would say, having looked at some of the suggestions and comments in response, is there is a lot of disagreement between fans on what to do. Having been to Poland last year, and having seen the atmosphere created by the drumming and chanting section of the crowd, I tentatively suggested trying that here - to be told by one fan that if I brought a drum near him then he would shove the drumsticks inside me though an opening ( and it wasn't down my throat).

It exists. Every Premiership club has a rep. In addition there is a rep who is not club specific, so that they can feed information and ideas on from fans of Championship and NDL clubs and those with no club to follow. Some reps are more active than others within their clubs. David Lowe at Leicester is a good example of an active rep. The Facebook group Speedway Fans Network UK collects ideas and comments, tabulates those and feeds them to Phil Morris periodically. At the 2024 AGM the spreadsheet was presented to all attendees. It was also available for the 2025 AGM but they may have had other priorities! The challenge as ever is to get clubs to engage with the reps

I might well agree with you, but I was only responding to another poster who suggested BSPL was negligent in some way, without saying what they should have done

It demonstrates again what untapped potential there is when so many people don't know what speedway is

Yes. It's obligatory to provide a certificate, I did query it with SCB a while ago when someone didn't turn up for a meeting after it was highly rumoured on here that they were just giving a meeting a miss. It's approach is that the SCB is in no position to doubt or challenge a medical certificate, but imposes a 7 day ban regardless. The 7 days commences from the day of the first meeting missed, not necessarily from the date of the illness or certificate.

Kurtz will have been required to provide a doctor's certificate to miss a meeting in the UK for illness. The Regs state that you get a mandatory 7 day ban even though a certificate has been provided 010.5 Facilities h) sick or carrying a non-speedway injury. The rider must immediately inform the SCB and their club. A Medical Certificate must be supplied to the SCB within 48 hours of the sickness/injury occurring in which case the rider will receive a mandatory 7 day suspension of his SCB Registration from the day of the first meeting missed. This facility will apply automatically for a period up to a maximum of 28 days. The Promotion may apply to the SCB Co-Ordinator for an extension

What do you suggest the 'powers that be' should have done to cater for a rider incurring significant damage and cost in his first race of the season? - signing on fee? - higher points money? - increased admission charge?

https://www.bellevue-speedway.com/blog/latest-news-2/preview-atpi-aces-v-leicester-481