Halifaxtiger

I have now been advised that as Jack Thomas was privately hiring Scunthorpe for practice, no medical insurance was included - this is actually stated in the terms of the hire. That is not to say Scunthorpe were at fault in any way. As it was not an injury incurred during an SCB meeting, then based upon Jim Lawrence's Speedy Star statement he would not be entitled to SRBF assistance.

I think the last two posts are almost certainly correct. It is almost unthinkable that any kind of meeting would be run without either the track providing insurance or it being available to the rider to purchase.

First of all, apologies for the thread nap and the fact that I might repeat myself from earlier posts. I have now had the opportunity to read Jim Lawrence's statement in Speedy Star. It appears to me that he talks a lot but says little - indeed, its a bit of a case of 'the lady doth protest too much, methinks'. Regarding the four points about riders, it is perfectly reasonable that SCB insurance is not valid at NORA meetings; riders should indeed take alternative cover (NORA offer such cover); it is debatable whether SRBF funds would not be made available although if that is the case riders only need to be aware of it; and maybe a rider should indeed ask the BSPL for permission to ride in NORA meetings. On the latter point, though, the question that Lawrence won't want to answer is whether a promoter has the right to refuse permission, because he doesn't under restraint of trade case law. As Lawrence himself says ' we can't (ban a rider) even if we wanted to'. To my mind, that makes the need to request permission pretty superfluous. The particular case Wattleworth v Goodwood (2004) quoted by Lawrence is of relevance here but I do not believe that the SCB would be called to account in the event of an accident even if they had licensed the track. That's simply because they licensed it for SCB events, nothing else. What the case law states is : 'The court held that the duty of the governing body was to ensure that the track licensed for racing was reasonably safe and that appropriate protocols for ensuring this safety had been followed by a reasonable and competent inspection'. The critical words here are 'governing body'. In a NORA meeting the governing body would be NORA. I fail to appreciate how the SCB might be liable in such circumstances or even that they would be part of any litigation. Clearly, they cannot in anyway held be responsible for a meeting that takes place outside their control, and to suggest that they would seems, to me, daft. The critical difference between the established case law and the NORA league is that alternative governing body exists (ie NORA); that wasn't the case in the circumstances of Wattleworth v Goodwood. What is absolutely clear - and Lawrence admits this - is that NORA meetings have been held at Scunthorpe and Redcar in the past. As an explanation for the apparent inconsistency between those meetings and the proposed NORA league, he states: 'we unknowingly ran the gauntlet ....and we got away with it and nothing happened'. I'll let you decide whether that is untrue because if it isn't he is grossly incompetent and certainly not fit to be the chairman of the SCB given the potential consequences he has himself stated. As to officials, track staff etc Isle of Wight don't seem to have had any difficulty with that issue. Why would anyone else ? Lawrence is apparently at pains ('racking his brains') to find a solution. In effect, he is desperately trying to find a way that an alternative league can use his (SCB's) tracks.To me, that's a bit like Sainsbury doing everything they can to allow Morrisons to sell their goods in Sainsbury's shops and, as such, I believe it to be entirely untrue. What is far more likely to be the case is that in actual fact he is doing precisely the opposite : doing everything he can to prevent that happening. One of the difficulties he faces is that he represents the BSPL here, because the SCB are anything but an independent body (how can they be when two members are BSPL promoters ?) and we are all aware of the standards of integrity that apply to them. Lawrence's comment that we would leave 'as friends' is utterly false; ask Isle of Wight whether they regard the BSPL as such. I suspect that it is possible that this matter will go to litigation, but I further suspect that the SCB will back out before it does because I really don't see that they have a case.

You might well have a point. But, given the choice, give me Barry Bishop over Rob Godfrey any day. There's simply no comparison.

I think its different, at least at the moment. Back in the 1960's what you had was a completely separate league with a significant number of teams operating from their own stadiums. Here, you have just 4 teams, only one of which has its own track (two share with SCB clubs). Still, it is something for the SCB to be concerned about because it could snowball (hence their attitude). What is undoubtedly true is that this situation is of the BSPL's own making, resulting from their own selfishness and incompetence.

Jim Lawrence must take us for a pack of fools. The SCB doing everything they can to ensure that an alternative league can run meetings ? That is about as sincere and truthful as saying that if Plymouth and Kent do choose NORA they will part 'as friends'.

I have to disagree or at least question what you are saying. True, there might be some question over whether an authority other than the SCB can run 'speedway' events. But even if a track is licenced by the SCB, that should not prevent it running meetings that are not SCB. Secondly, if a meeting at an SCB licenced track is run by NORA, then the rider should not need permission from anyone to compete because he has a right - enshrined in case law - to ride where he chooses without interference. I fail to see how the SCB can be held liable for a meeting that is completely outside their control simply because that meeting is held at a track they have licenced for their events but - crucially - not others. Riders would not be insured by the SCB for such a meeting but NORA has its own insurances that they can purchase. At this stage - I must admit I haven't read the Speedy Star article - I fail to see any ground why a track cannot run both SCB and non SCB meetings and the SCB's actions look to me like nothing more than doing their best to stop an alternative league from developing. I'm certainly not convinced that anything they have come up with is for any other reason, despite the attempts to dress it up as such. As I have said before, attempting to prevent a track using its own facilities or a rider from competing looks very much like a restraint of trade (definition :The principle that an individual should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference. The principle renders a contractual term purporting to restrict an individual's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary) to me, because it has the effect of stopping the track or rider accessing a further revenue stream. Within the terms of English case law, that's illegal and other sporting authorities who have tried to do so - darts, cricket, ice skating come to mind - have all been very much put in their place by court rulings.

As far as I can see, the SCB has no power whatsoever to decide who benefits and who does not from the SRBF. I would be very surprised if the charity that runs the fund, the beneficiaries (ie the riders) and those who donate (substantially but not entirely the paying fans) would agree with the SCB's view.

I am not absolutely certain of this but I believe the SCB has a monopoly on 'speedway' events in this country. Its why the Isle of Wight termed their meetings for the last couple of seasons as 'dirt track'. The wording could therefore be important if not decisive. What you have quoted - I haven't seen the article - sounds very much like a restraint of trade which is, based upon case law, illegal. It won't be the first time that the SCB has tried to enforce something that they know won't stand up and from which they will back away from at the first sign of litigation (the attempt to bar Scott Nicholls riding Championship springs to mind). What they are doing, in no uncertain terms, is blackmail. Its a high stakes game, however, because the potential loss of 2 more tracks (reducing the number of stand alones to just 17) would be disastrous and they well know it. The statement 'part as friends' is so absolutely insincere and false the mind boggles, but then that sums the SCB up. (Apologies for the thread nap).

This is what the 7 February statement says (I must admit I haven't read the Speedy Star article): Competing at events held on non SCB Homologated (licenced) Tracks and / or events for which an SCB Event Permit has not been issued.The SCB wishes to bring the following to the attention of all riders holding an SCB Riders Registration.1. Personal Accident Insurance.Your British Speedway Insurance cover is NOT valid at non SCB Permitted events and / or on non SCB Homologated tracks.Riders are strongly advised to check the level of Personal Accident Cover provided by the organiser.Additionally, riders should consider taking out an additional Personal Accident Insurance policy.2. Injury at a non SCB Permitted Event and / or on a non SCB Homologated Track.In the event of rider who holds an SCB Riders Registration sustaining any injury at either a non SCB Permitted Event and / or at a non SCB Homologated track, a ‘Fit to Return’ letter from a their doctor / consultant must be submitted to the SCB prior to resuming racing at an SCB Permitted event on an SCB Homologated track. 3. Speedway Riders Benevolent Fund.In the event of any injury sustained at a non SCB Permitted Event and / or on a non SCB Homologated track, with the exception of whilst competing for ‘Team GB’ anywhere in the world, you will not be entitled to any funds or other benefits from the SRBF.4. BSPL Riders Agreement.Riders who have a BSPL Rider Agreement with a BSPL Promoter / Club must seek permission from their promoter / club prior to competing in non SCB Permitted Events and / or on non SCB Homologated tracks. The first two seem pretty reasonable to me but the NORA advanced licence gives pretty decent cover : Scunthorpe Raceway Licence & Memberhsip - NORA Motorsport (nora92.com) The third one is extraordinarily petty (possibly even vicious) and appears to me to be outside of the stated aims of the fund : 'The Fund was registered as a Charity for the purpose of assisting British Speedway Racers, their dependants and family, following serious or life-changing Speedway related accidents' . There is nothing about SCB events only and the fund is a charity which is entirely independent of the SCB. The fourth is not enforceable. If a rider is refused permission by the BSPL, in my view that constitutes a clear case of restraint of trade which is illegal in relevant case law. I think your final point could be the very important one. Just how the new league is described ('speedway' or 'dirt track' ) might make all the difference.

Workington were affected in the same way.

I have done a few stadiums that held speedway but for other sports, all of which you could clearly still see either the track or the stands that were curved for the track. Stamford Bridge (Football, Chelsea, Stamford Bridge), Cliftonhill (Football, Albion Rovers, Coatbridge) The Boulevard (Rugby League, Hull FC, Hull), Brooklands (Football, Romford, Romford), Pilot Field (Football, Hastings United, Hastings). I don't think any stadium would beat Hyde Road for atmosphere and quality of racing, but my most memorable trip was to Park Road, Barrow back in 1985.

Never forget your daughters face with that dripping fat monstrosity you were about to eat at Sheffield

Barrow (Park Road) Belle Vue (Hyde Road, Kirky Lane & NSS) Berwick (Shielfield) Birmingham (Wheels and Alexander Stadium) Boston Bradford Buxton Canterbury Coventry Cradley Crayford Eastbourne Edinburgh (Armadale) Ellesmere Port Exeter Glasgow (Ashfield) Hackney Hull I(NCP)npswich Isle of Wight Kent Kings Lynn Lakeside Leicester (BP) Long Eaton Mildenhall Milton Keynes (Groveway) Newcastle Newport (Queensway) Oxford Peterborough Plymouth (SBA) Poole Reading (Smallmead) Redcar Rye House Scunthorpe (Normanby Road) Sheffield Sittingbourne Somerset Stoke Swindon Weymouth (Wessex) White City Wimbledon Wolverhampton Workington (Derwent Park) Workington (Northside)

No. Only really started going again in 2004 and, to be honest, I have always avoided speedway food because it has always been - in my limited experience - overpriced rubbish (my most recent experience has been watching my old pal Youngy desperately chewing a sausage in a roll at Belle Vue - it looked like he was eating firewood), occasionally bordering on not fit for human consumption. It doesn't surprise me that one or two have been ill after eating it. Then again, its not much better at any sports ground. Football is probably worse, and the stuff they serve at rugby league across the north occasionally has to be seen to be believed (I once got into trouble at Halifax RLFC when a mate and I smuggled fish and chips into a reserve game). The exceptions for me were pies at Wigan RLFC (the country's pie capital, if they aren't good there abandon hope), John Anderson's burgers at Berwick (you could tell he was a high quality butcher) and Isle of Wight's food, particularly the sausage casserole and the chicken curry. Home made, absolutely delicious and very reasonably priced too (Barry Bishop once told me that on every occasion they were on the menu both sold out).

Used to skip a meal to have John Anderson's burgers at Berwick (the pies were apparently as good). The only other place to eat speedway food is Isle of Wight. The chicken curry - personally cooked by Barry Bishop - is the best home made I have ever tasted.

That's definitely how I saw it. The first EL match I went to at Hoddesdon on a Saturday night had a massive crowd, way bigger than anything I had seen there before.

If memory serves me correctly, the entrance to Derwent Park was no better. Nor, for that matter, are the car parking facilities at places like Edinburgh, Scunthorpe or Ipswich. Buxton was like a minefield, trying to avoid potholes and chunks of concrete. I do take your point, though. If the speedway club own the road - or at least have responsibility for it - then they could be liable. Isolated is a better word than remote, but I'd say the track is the best part of two miles from the centre of town along main roads or unlit paths. I really can't see many walking it, especially early or late season. I thought the track was, in no uncertain terms, superb. If people do have expectations higher than the basics to start with then they are being entirely unreasonable. Building a stadium from scratch in this manner takes years, as can be seen at Plymouth, Redcar and Scunthorpe.

When I came up the other week, I walked to the track from the town centre. The walk is too far and too difficult to be comfortable - unlike Derwent Park - and I can't see many trying it but in terms of being remote it is nothing like Buxton or Mildenhall, for example. Eastbourne - which is accessed by a short drive down a narrow unlit road - is similar.

Half of Championship clubs ride on a Friday night, so they see that as the best for meetings. However, that means the need for lights, a not inconsiderable expense. Speedway rarely runs on Saturday afternoons, probably because that is prime time for leisure, particularly participation and spectator sport. Saturday nights - like Fridays - require lights. Sunday afternoons would run directly against Workington Town RLFC, the towns most popular spectator sport. My suspicion is that speedway fans would also come from Whitehaven, so there would be direct competition with that towns RL team. None are absolutely ideal but my preference would be Saturday night - even allowing for the necessity of lights. That is, after all, Workington's more traditional race night, and moving away from that can be an absolute disaster - ask Poole or Sheffield about that one. Alternatively, if it is possible to coordinate with Workington Town and run speedway when the rugby team are away, that maybe a solution that could work to the benefit of both clubs.

Slightly biased here as I count Hoggy as a good friend but I don't think the role of presenter should be underestimated and there's no doubt that he is one of the best. Moreover, I know just how much he thought of Workington Speedway and the people up in Cumbria. While he may not be able to contribute at this stage, it won't do the Comets any harm at all if they can confirm that he has been recruited for race nights.

The game at Kells (you need to know exactly where they play) was early season (April or so).The wind was howling off the Irish Sea and had flecks of sleet in it. The pitch wasn't frozen, but small puddles had ice on them . I and about 40 or so other hardy souls endured wind chill of about -5 and the game degenerated after every other pass was dropped into a major brawl . I remember my hands were so stiff with cold I couldn't undo my coat. Coldest I have ever been watching any sport.

Much appreciated As I indicated, the RL matches aren't until June, so there maybe developments before then. I suspect most would prefer Saturday nights but it will be recognised that lights represent a significant cost. I used to love my visits to the Wild West so lights and rugby or not the plan is make the trip a couple of times. Derwent Park could get pretty cold at times and I daresay Northside will be the same. However, if I do go to Kells RLFC first I will be fully acclimatised as that is the coldest place I have ever watched any form of sport.

THJ Do you know what time and day for meetings ?? Marksman said 3pm on Saturdays, but he wasn't sure.

Very disappointing and I'm surprised its 3pm on a Saturday - that is exceptional. Without lights, I suppose it has to be afternoon meetings. Thanks for letting me know, anyway.