Birmingham Speedway

[SpeedwaySlider72]

45 minutes ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

It is the Speedway Control Bureau that dish out the facilities not BSPL

[LagutaRacingFan]

1 hour ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

Fairly certain Sheffield got a facility for Woffinden.

Don't the rules say you can't have a facility for a rider who hasn't ridden for you.

[GiveusaB]

I think its difficult to have a debate about BSPL rules and regs....the sport's on its knees in this country and there never seems to be any logic to most decisions that come from a bunch of boring old farts who don't have a clue of how to bring the sport forward.....

It's sad to see B'ham fold again, but I've lost interest in paying to watch it anymore!

Might be different if I was a BV fan and was treated to half a dozen exciting races per meeting?

Really hope that when the new Coventry stadium emerges, they give serious thought to a decent race track....although I think the stock cars will ruin it.

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, szkocjasid said:

It would be a shame to see Birmingham struggle (more than they already are) but they shouldn't "invent" rules mid-season to keep them competitive, when year after year they pick awful teams.

If the league knew teams would struggle, then should have made a lower limit, allowing Oxford & Birmingham to be more competitive, rather than "gifting" them an underserved facility.

However Birmingham were only given a 75% facility for Zagar & effectively replaced him with Hume till he returned. So if Brummies riding under strength then wasn't a threat to them finishing the season, why would it be now?

Edit: I've just realised I'm looking for logic & consistency in decisions made by the BSPL. That probably answers my question lol!

It is simply yet another "sticking plaster" which gets used ad nauseum to either get a meeting on, or get a team to not disappear before the season ends...

These "sticking plasters" have become more and more used in the past decade as the clear fundamental flaws in the plan for each season starts to naturally unravel....

This constant "making it up as you go along",  speaks volumes as to how much even those who compete in the competition's don't take them too seriously...

One of then will "win" at the end of the season, but it is clear that far more important than winning something with delivers such small publicity, kudos, and rewards, is that all make it to the end of the season...

With "survival" taking on such importance, it is not a great position with which to try and grow your sport....

Birmingham would have been better off running Mondays in Div 2, using all those same contrived ad hoc rules as and when required, to put decent, competitive teams out when their riders were riding in a Div 1 match...

[arnieg]

5 hours ago, PersonalResponsibility said:

I don't think there's ever been a case of "ah, just give them a facility and let them get on with it" than this. I can see it being extended until the end of the season - standard season, Birmingham's ended months ago sadly - unless Brum want to replace MJJ.

How about Exeter in 1984 and Ivan Mauger's away guest facility

[GiveusaB]

29 minutes ago, LagutaRacingFan said:

Fairly certain Sheffield got a facility for Woffinden.

Don't the rules say you can't have a facility for a rider who hasn't ridden for you.

Its ok....he rode for them last year ! 😀

They got a facility for him most likely due to the fact that he is a contracted Sheffield rider?

[LagutaRacingFan]

1 hour ago, GiveusaB said:

Its ok....he rode for them last year ! 😀

They got a facility for him most likely due to the fact that he is a contracted Sheffield rider?

That's not what the rules say.

[GiveusaB]

In speedway its ok to make/bend the rules to accommodate most situations.

I mean, how on earth have B'ham got an extension for MJJ, when the powers that be knew he had only signed till the end of May ?

Is it because he's No.1 in the averages ??? 😀😀😀

[tonyd]

1 hour ago, LagutaRacingFan said:

That's not what the rules say.

When have the rules in speedway mattered? Everyone knows they are written on toilet paper and flushed when they need re-writing .😉

[mikebv]

59 minutes ago, tonyd said:

When have the rules in speedway mattered? Everyone knows they are written on toilet paper and flushed when they need re-writing .😉

"For one night only" on several occasions....

[szkocjasid]

13 hours ago, Teromaafan said:

Do you realise that you’ve used ‘logic’& ‘BSPL’ in the same sentence.😂

That's why I'm looking for answers from others, because I can't understand it lol!

[szkocjasid]

11 hours ago, LagutaRacingFan said:

Fairly certain Sheffield got a facility for Woffinden.

Don't the rules say you can't have a facility for a rider who hasn't ridden for you.

That ruling has been used a few times, most notibly with Covatti at Plymouth, they were allowed a 28 day facility when he got injured before his first match.

I can't remember other examples of the top of my head, but feel it's happened often enough to believe it's a consistent ruling not a special dispensation for Woffinden / Sheffield.

[ouch]

15 hours ago, tonyd said:

When have the rules in speedway mattered? Everyone knows they are written on toilet paper and flushed when they need re-writing .😉

TBH this special dispensation is no different to when Belle Vue have benefited from such a thing.

 

Link to follow, still looking.

[orion]

On 6/2/2025 at 12:55 PM, arnieg said:

How about Exeter in 1984 and Ivan Mauger's away guest facility

You sure. I thought there were no silly rules in the old days and thats why the crowds were so big .

 

[foreverblue]

6 hours ago, ouch said:

TBH this special dispensation is no different to when Belle Vue have benefited from such a thing.

 

Link to follow, still looking.

Robert Lambert?

[NeilWatson]

On 6/3/2025 at 12:35 AM, szkocjasid said:

That ruling has been used a few times, most notibly with Covatti at Plymouth, they were allowed a 28 day facility when he got injured before his first match.

I can't remember other examples of the top of my head, but feel it's happened often enough to believe it's a consistent ruling not a special dispensation for Woffinden / Sheffield.

SR010.5(p) has been approved in a teams declared 1-7 at the start of the season but due to extenuating circumstances is not available, a facility may be granted, up to a maximum of 28 days, at the SCB Co-Ordinators discretion. In the NDL and NDT this only applies if the rider was in that teams 1-7 at the close of the previous season