Halifaxtiger

I was on a speedway tour once and needed to answer a call of nature (the sit down kind) and stopped at Watford Gap. Sat down and getting on with it, a mobile phone rang and I realised it was in the trap next to me. The call was answered and : 'Yes, I am on my way'. 'About an hour or so' 'Watford Gap' 'Having a sh@t' 'What do you mean again?' 'I am not always on the bog, so f@@k off'. I remember trying desperately to control myself.............

To my knowledge, the BSPA can't touch Isle of Wight other than making it difficult for them to recruit riders for their meetings (which I believe they have done, despite protestations to the contrary). The BSPA's selfishness and incompetence certainly led to Isle of Wight withdrawing from the NDL and by all accounts they have done pretty well outside of it. Running meetings over a much shorter season and being able to make their own decisions - rather than petty, vindictive and stupid rulings from the BSPA - will certainly have helped. My suspicion is that Kent would have withdrawn from the NDL anyway due to Si Kellow's apparent personal difficulties but the BSPA's savage decision to suspend their licence and fine them last season might well have prompted that decision anyway. Its not totally unreasonable to suggest that BSPA actions have cost the NDL two teams, and that could easily be the difference between the league continuing and folding.

I have nothing against NDL racing and have, in the past, frequently championed the third tier. As a regular at places like Isle of Wight, Mildenhall, Belle Vue and Scunthorpe over the years, I have seen - and often greatly appreciated - the NDL. The new Workington track is superb and a great credit to Andrew Bain and Steve Lawson. The NDLRC should be the showpiece event of the year with all the league's top riders taking part. By my calculation, there are just 4 of the top 16 that should be there, and Belle Vue and Oxford are sending riders who aren't even in the teams top 5. That's not good enough.

Could have been. I certainly stood on the top of the second bend.

Sort of Not sure what happened but from watching 70-80 meetings a season prior to the pandemic I simply lost interest on return this season. The straw that broke the camel's back was the appalling BSPA decision to fine Kent Speedway for something that was entirely out of their control and was nothing less than vicious. Workington was, however, always one of my favourite places to visit so - with the bonus of a superb run up through the Dales and the chance of some walking - I did think about coming. That line up pretty much rules it out.

Rob Godfrey has often had the attitude that the NDL is secondary to the upper leagues (after Scunthorpe left it, of course) and can be used for their benefit regardless of the effect on the third tier. Its why Isle of Wight are no longer part of the BSPA set up. I did think of ending my speedway retirement for this one - the weather looks good, its a superb run up to Cumbria and I can do some walking in the Lakes - but that line up doesn't exactly encourage me to do so.

Saddened to hear this news. One of first meetings watching Wimbledon in the early 1980's was against Eastbourne and Gordon became one of my favourite riders after that. By all accounts a true professional, he was by the same accounts quiet, modest and extremely likeable. Sincere condolences to his family.

Based upon some knowledge from a few years ago, riders do get expenses but its nowhere near enough to cover actual costs. The way I see it, you simply pick the best rider for the role. Whether that is Connor Bailey or not is open to debate, but what should not happen is that he is ruled out as a result of some pathetic sort of punishment. Then again, we are talking about the BSPA/SCB here so no-one should expect anything different.

Quite. The problem with this forum is - and Daniel said that himself - is that there are a lot of idiots who can't wait to stick the boot in whatever Hoggy (or any other promoter or team manager for that matter) might say or do. Aside from the fact that Dave may not wish to disclose everything in such a public arena, he shouldn't be asked to set himself up as a focal point for those who have nothing better to do than bash him, Keith Chapman and King's Lynn Stars. On the other hand, there are a lot of genuine and long term Stars supporters - my old mate Bagpuss for a start - who only want the best for the team and the club. That doesn't preclude them from being critical, but it also means they are likely to listen to what Hoggy has to say, especially given the fact that he is, as I said before, entirely approachable and reasonable. It is for that reason that I believe they should take him up on his offer to engage - and surely it is better to do so face to face. I somehow can't see those who are completely negative doing that, as they are far happier sitting behind keyboards.

Firstly, let me say that I count Dave Hoggart as a good friend so I am slightly biased. Secondly, after being critical on the pages of this forum (in my opinion, both reasonably and with full justification) I have had some very hostile and aggressive - and even abusive and threatening - responses from promoters, team managers and riders both on here and in person. I have long said that speedway's PR and the way it treats its paying customers often leave a great deal to be desired. Some years ago and as a result of comments made about Sheffield , Hoggy invited the diehard Tigers fan Spin King and I for a chat. I went along with some reservation given past experiences but Dave was as accommodating as he could be about the situation at the club. He couldn't tell us everything, but went as far as possible. Take it from me, it was an enlightening experience and gave us both a better understanding of what was actually happening. I have no doubt that Spinny would agree. As I understand it, Hoggy has responded to a request from Keith Chapman to help out at King's Lynn although he had, to my knowledge, been out of the sport for some years. Most of my time watching speedway was as a neutral but, having supported clubs, I know how frustrating and annoying it can be when they are performing badly. Usually, however, there are circumstances why that is the case of which the ordinary paying punter is unaware. In the post above, Hoggy has requested that any Stars fan see him after Thursday's meeting and he will try to give some insight as to what precisely is going on - clearly, the club and team are in a difficult position following the departure of the former promoter. My advice is to take the opportunity to speak to Hoggy if you can. I'm sure you won't hear everything you might want to hear, but he is entirely approachable and reasonable and you will get some idea of the present situation. If you are very lucky, he might even buy you a beer.

I'd certainly echo what Crescent Girl has said. In all my years watching speedway, I have never known anyone more passionate about the sport than Laurence Rogers. That doesn't necessarily make him a good team manager, but I can remember a few years ago Wolverhampton fans turning their ire on Peter Adams after a string of rubbish performances and a poor final league position. Adams was - and remains - the most successful in top flight speedway's history. I don't think that this is a matter of spite, but it is a matter of looking for someone to blame for Birmingham's disastrous on track performances over the last couple of seasons - in other words, a scapegoat. What you seem to believe is that if he left and the 'inept buffoon' was replaced by someone apparently more competent on track performances would dramatically improve. Looking through the 2023 predictions thread, most have Birmingham bottom and none have them in a play off spot. That means the team is poor - which it clearly is - and therefore whoever comes in is extremely unlikely to turn things around without significant changes. Booting Rogers out, then, will almost certainly make very little difference. I am not aware how much say Laurence Rogers had in building the team, but given a reported £250k loss last year even if he was wholly responsible it is more than likely that his hands - not unreasonably - were significantly tied in terms of the budget for the team. Blaming him - and only him - for Birmingham's present form seems to me, then, to be totally unsupported by the actual circumstances in existence.

Its not only a clash with football. I am coming to Cumbria this Saturday................to watch Kells play Siddal.

Not that deluded, I am not going again either. I suspect that very few others will take the same step, but it does highlight - yet again - how the stupidity, spite and crass actions of those running speedway have led to paying customers abandoning the sport.

My suspicion is that at the sign of a legal challenge the SCB would back down immediately (as they did following their decision to bar Scott Nicholls from riding in the Championship). From what I can make out, Si Kellow has been fined and had his track licence suspended because the owner of Iwade stadium has permitted a NORA league meeting to take place. That's arbitrary, stupid and almost certainly illegal, and cannot be justified in any way. Kellow could appeal within the sport, but its very unlikely he would get an independent review. Alternatively, he might mount a legal challenge but that could be expensive. What is quite possible - in the circumstances I would certainly do it - is to pull Kent out of the NL. The one who really has a case is the stadium owner. What the SCB have done effectively places a restriction on him using his facility to its maximum potential, and that clearly is a restraint of trade which, within English case law, is illegal. Such an action can be held to be reasonable, but in exceptional circumstances. Having read Jim Lawrence's Speedy Star statement, he referred to a case which, he suggested, may mean that the SCB could be subject to litigation should an incident occur during a NORA meeting. Having read the judgement in that case, that is tenuous at best and nonsense at worst and, what is more, I have been told the SCB know it. How they might be held liable for something that takes place utterly outside their jurisdiction is beyond me, and it can be said that any incident won't even happen during a speedway meeting, because the NORA league is 'no brakes racing' (it is effectively the same, but because the SCB hold a monopoly on speedway events it is called something else). I am no legal expert but it seems to me that a legal affidavit issued by NORA exempting the SCB from any responsibility for events under their banner would resolve the situation. Then again, it wouldn't, because the SCB's purpose here is not to avoid such responsibility but to destroy the NORA league. Lawrence's statements to the contrary in Speedy Star were so disingenuous they were nauseating. What is especially galling is that NORA events have been held at SCB tracks - particularly (and slightly ironically) Scunthorpe - but no action was taken by the SCB against them at all. Lawrence stated in Speedy Star that 'they got away with it'. If that's trrue - and I don't think for a single second it is - he is grossly incompetent and should be nowhere near a position in the sports governing body. Perhaps needless to say, this has made me very angry and I, too, am done with speedway (not, I should say, 'no brakes racing).

Most of my pals from Plymouth thought the same thing, particularly highlighting decision to use R/R for Worrall and the comparative strength of the reserves (it should be said they are, and always have been, a pessimistic lot).

From where I was sitting - and I had a very good view - the referee's decision was correct.

Presumably the 'black clouds' had been around all day, because it was clear that the amount of water put on the track prior to heat 1 was hopelessly inadequate. Certainly no weather forecast anywhere said rain so I could not understand why not. It seems to me what you are saying is that Mark Phillips said 'I will hold off watering due to the black clouds, but I'll just go out now and water the track'. Who waters the track when they are reasonably convinced rain is coming ?? The way I saw it, Phillips was very, very lucky indeed. Maybe they saw the 'black clouds' too ?? To be fair, I paid £18. Argyle were away last Tuesday. They are at home next Tuesday.

I thought Gilkes was harshly excluded in heat 6. Kerr didn't make contact but if Gilkes hadn't turned hard he would have. All four back for me. I also thought Barker was slightly disappointing - especially when he threw away the lead in heat 14 - while Turner was impressive in his first competitive rides at SBA. It was somewhat fortunate that the rain (which had not been predicted anywhere) fell because initially the track was a dustbowl. The amount that came down was just enough to make the surface fit for good racing without ever looking like causing an abandonment. On a final note, I thought the crowd was poor.

Disappointed because I was looking forward to this one but that is the right decision. All forecasts said rain (of differing amounts) from at least 11am so there was a chance of a call off with riders at the track, which is hugely expensive. In addition, there would have been a considerable number of fans reluctant to travel, resulting in a low crowd anyway.

I live near Halifax and its no different (most of the borough of Calderdale is as rural as Sussex or Kent). What I am finding, though, is that they tend to build bits on to the edge of towns or use brownfield sites within them. The area owned by the Dugards is pretty big, completely rural and any houses in the area are seven figure prices, suggesting that the current residents would deeply object to the number of houses that could be built and may well have more clout than normal. I have to say that I'd find it surprising if it was sold for housing. Worth an enormous amount, no doubt, but the income from current activities at the stadium isn't peanuts. That's why I am surprised at the speedway being refused and will await any comment from Eric Dugard.

I think there would be a lot of objections to housing planning permission given just how rural the area round Arlington is and just how big a site would be involved (the stadium and car park constitute about half of the total land area), In addition, the stadium makes a considerable amount of money from the activities that take place there. It will be interesting to see what Eric Dugard has to say (if he says anything). One thing is certain: the site (with or without planning permission for housing) would be worth a fortune.

I certainly got told by a very good source close to the family that following Bob's death Eric was very supportive, to the extent that the speedway promotion were not charged rent for holding meetings, only expenses. It might be that experiences with Jordan changed all that, although it would be harsh to tar every potential promotion with the same brush as a con man like him. I would like to hear what Eric has to say about the statement that they will not allow speedway given that the Dugard family have been involved with the sport at Eastbourne for decades.

If the stadium is still owned by the Dugard family - last I heard it was Eric - I am very surprised that they won't allow speedway at Arlington. The Dugards have always been extremely supportive of the sport and it will be interesting to see what they have to say about the situation.

Even if that were true, speedway fans contribute to the SRBF on the basis that it will assist a rider injured while taking part in speedway, wherever that maybe. I very much doubt that one single one would draw a distinction between Ben Morley, for example, being injured at Kent or being injured at Isle of Wight. This is about riders, not who contributes to the fund.

You're absolutely right here. Scunthorpe do make it absolutely clear that no medical insurance is provided in their hire conditions, so they cannot in any way be blamed if an accident occurs during a private hire session and the rider has not taken out adequate insurance cover. The position regarding SRBF assistance is not quite so clear, but it would be extremely difficult to justify assisting a rider injured in a private session and then refuse to do so if the same occurred in a NORA meeting (for myself, I think it would be hard to justify the latter refusal anyway).