Halifaxtiger

I think you are dead right. I also think they have good reason to be frightened. With the prospect of a good summer. huge numbers of staycations, the Isle of Wight"s superbly customer focussed promotion and their plans for Speedway to be only part of the entertainment on race nights, the BSPL should be scared.

I'd say your probably right on that. Dropping from 39 to 35 means replacing a 7pt rider (who has probably been in the NL for some time) for a 3pt one and, on the face of it, its not a huge change. What I would say on the lower limit is that it is not sustainable. We have seen this season that clubs have had to scour the ranks of retired and semi retired riders on low averages to make teams up (and leaving themselves very low on replacements should injuries happen); that will only get worse in 2022 with the possibility that some deserving riders are frozen out. I'd also accept the point that lowering the points limit doesn't necessarily mean a drop in what happens out on the track. If it did, then NL speedway would be massively inferior to PL speedway, and it isn't. The problem - and I have mentioned this before - is one of perception rather than reality. People equate a lower points limit with a drop in standards (both in performer and racing) and hence they are less likely to attend. The huge amount of criticism levelled at the upper leagues in the past is evidence of that and there's little doubt that people have walked away because of it. Its why when Scunthorpe ran a very weak NL side a few seasons ago every meeting was tied to a Championship one, because there was a recognition that people wouldn't pay to watch the NL team alone. (staying to watch an NL meeting after a CL one is one thing; paying to watch NL only is very different and Isle of Wight do not have the former option). Martin Widman has made it absolutely clear that the problem is not about the points limit but about the way it was introduced, and its very hard to disagree with his view (particularly if you stand in his shoes). I think it is indefensible that a team is not consulted about the way their league regulations are to be decided, particularly when that is determined by others who have no involvement in that league whatsoever and, as Martin has also made clear, there is absolutely no evidence that that will change in the future. For that reason, the decision Isle of Wight made is not only understandable, its justifiable. What is not so are the BSPL's attempts to prevent them running at all.

TMW is right. You need to look at the full circumstances before judging the Isle of Wight promotion - I haven't seen anyone yet try to defend the decision making process that led both to the points limit and the Warriors withdrawal. Nor have I seen a Warriors fan who is anything but 100% behind the decision they have taken (and there are many others who agree). Truth is, the stupidity, incompetence and selfishness of certain members of the BSPL may have caused the loss of by far and away the most innovative and customer focussed promotion in Britain at a point when we need every track we can get. In any case, Isle of Wight can still have an excellent season without needing the attraction of a Championship match to ensure an adequate attendance - if the apparent (and illegal) threats of fines and bans being given to riders are dropped.

You're dead right, although that would have to be done very much off the record. I don't see the difference between refusing to select and a ban - they are effectively pretty much the same thing. However, we do know only too well how bloody vindictive the BSPL can be. Two other points : If 14 NL riders compete in just one meeting on the Island they can't dump them all because there just aren't enough at NL standard as it is. Verge, King & Wirtzfeld all have close ties to the Warriors; could Eastbourne drop all three ?? My suspicion is that put to the test not all clubs would actually behave the way the BSPL might want them to. There could be a lot more understanding out there for Isle of Wight than they might like.

It doesn't to me. I maintain, though, that any restriction - be that ban or fine - is illegal within the terms of UK case law Greig v Insole (1978). https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/greig-v-insole.php

Kirky Lane had said that the 35 point limit was introduced because of a glut of young riders (he didn't actually refer to 'reserve riders' at all) and a low figure was needed so that they could all get team places - 'reducing the total was a way to get all these young lads in to racing'. In actual fact, the opposite is true - there actually aren't enough to justify that limit. If there were, then the riders I listed would not be riding. What has happened is that teams have been forced to scour the country for 3.00 point (or so, Dugard might not be 3.00 but at 3.09 he's hardly way over) riders and there are now some in teams who have been around for years and never progressed beyond that point. I must admit I don't see what difference riding at reserve or in the team makes. If you have three talented young lads, you are not going to leave one out because he'll have to ride at no 2 and replace him with an NDL journeyman. In the entire league there are just 3 riders in second string roles who are averaging above 3.81. I have to say I haven't seen it stated anywhere that the points limit was lowered for that reason.

I don't think that's true. If it was, you would have to ask why the likes of Ryan MacDonald (27), Jamie Couzins (25), Kelsey Dugard (23),Nick Laurence (30) and Paul Bowen (32) have team places. I could certainly make a case that the low points limit has actually opened up more opportunities for riders who have been around for several years but have not progressed, especially bearing in mind that the talented three point lads would have gained team places regardless of the limit (as they always have). My understanding is that the low points limit was there to 'take the NDL back to its roots' and 'bring on the youngsters'. Given that every single British rider in the Premiership and Championship this season plus our GP representatives started in the third tier of the sport, that's nonsense because quite clearly the NDL (and the CL before it) has always done that.

The problem is more one of perception than reality. It seems to be a widely (if in my view very often mistakenly) held belief that it is automatic that as the standard of rider lessens, so does the standard of the racing. When Poole proposed dropping down last year, around 30% of their fans said they would not watch a Championship team. When Birmingham and Lakeside moved into the NDL a few seasons ago attendances - at least initially -crashed. In addition, we will all be aware of the number of people who have over the years at least said that they will not go again because of points limit reductions. Assuring them that the quality of racing is the same usually cuts very little ice indeed. As such, Isle of Wight had every reason to fear significant loss of supporters and consequent loss of revenue resulting from a points reduction. Besides which, their issue is not just what happened but the way it happened. Had there been a vote amongst NDL clubs (and I have yet to see anyone suggest that there need not have been) rather than having regulations imposed on them by and at the behest of PL & CL clubs (most of whom have no connection with the NDL) then it is entirely possible that the Warriors would still be part of that league. Then again, its extremely likely that had there been a vote the points limit would not have been reduced, which is almost certainly why it was imposed.

Either that or they sacked him immediately afterwards due to a poor performance - I daresay we will find out in time. It does seem rather bizarre that they would sign him knowing full well he would have only a couple of meetings.

Its on Barry's own Facebook page (not the Warriors one) and as far as I can see its still there. The late evening catamaran seems to have been cancelled but the 11.00pm car ferry still runs. Knowing what the club is like, I'd be very surprised if they did not put some alternative arrangement in place to ensure that those travelling from the mainland can still make it. I have no doubt that just as soon as it is reasonable to clarify the situation we will hear something.

The loss (??) of Isle of Wight is very different. That is purely down to the incompetence and selfishness of certain members of the BSPL because had due and correct procedure been followed they would almost certainly be part of the National League. I am, however, saddened to read of the loss of Somerset Speedway and have little doubt that the circumstances indicated by Debbie Hancock are true. Perhaps the loss is greater than normal because the OTA's reputation as a fine racing track was much deserved. For me, I'll never forget an astonishing night in 2015 when Plymouth Devils turned up and battered the Rebels, much to my amazement and the delight of my pals from the south west.

The thing that surprises me here is that people actually seemed to be surprised by rule fiddling, cheating and general bunkum authorised by the BSPL. They have, after all, been doing it season after season for decades so we should be entirely used to it. 'Bring on the youth'. By my rough calculation, around one third of those named in NDL teams would not qualify to take part in the league under the conditions indicated in Speedy Star by Jason Pipe.

If truth were told, I think Warriors fans (and I think you have to take all circumstances into account before forming a view) would prefer league racing. Having said that, I am not aware of one of them that does not fully support the decision to pull out of the NL. Its a view shared by many others across the sport, including Peter Oakes, Bruce Cribb, Bert Harkins and James Easter as well as fans from other clubs. At the very, very least, it is completely understandable. That's because of the particular way Isle of Wight have been treated, which is shabby at best. Forced to accept a points limit that they believe - entirely reasonably - will damage their business without any consideration whatsoever and at the behest of and by clubs who have no involvement in the NL whatsoever, they have had enough and that's scarcely surprising. Perhaps what sticks in the craw most is if there had indeed been a vote by NL clubs alone - I doubt if anyone does not accept that that was not the correct way forward (after all why should Glasgow have more say about the Warriors future than the Warriors themselves) - the 34 point limit would almost certainly have been thrown out, which is probably why it was imposed. They now at least have far more choice over their own destiny, and its not difficult to argue that that is better than being subject to the incompetent, selfish and inept control of the BSPL - because if there is indeed anything 'Mickey Mouse' about Speedway, its that. I'd say a major part of Speedway's problems have stemmed from the fact that there has been so little attempt to make it entertaining and a reliance on taking its fans for granted because its a sport. The two, in my view, are indelibly linked.

According to their Facebook page, it looks like the Warriors will indeed have the 7 same riders.

I think the threat of a ban (and hence a rider losing the chance to ride in the NL, Championship or Premiership) is more likely to be the action to be taken. My suspicion is that Isle of Wight could launch a legal challenge to such an action (even though they are not directly affected in terms of earnings) using restraint of trade because of the effect on their business. Clearly, it would be designed to suppress competition. I really hope you are right about the BSPL but experience suggests they can be vindictive to those who cross them (even if their selfishness and stupidity has been the cause of a dispute). We haven't had a direct challenge like this for years so it will be interesting to see just how they react. Very difficult to argue with your final point. You would think the BSPA would have better things to do than picking a fight with the Warriors but then failing to focus on important issues rather than trivia has often been one of their faults. The fact that a person is part time, low earnings in my view does not affect restraint of trade. The fact of the matter remains that an employer would be attempting to stop them working and receiving pay from an alternative source, and that is the very essence of why this piece of common law exists.

Restraint of trade is well established in common law and has the intention of stopping employers being able to prevent employees from earning a living as they see fit. It is defined as :'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 (a restrictive covenant) void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary'. Glossary | Practical Law (thomsonreuters.com) In such circumstances : 'Courts or tribunals would normally rule against a blanket ban on working for a competitor because it would be a 'restraint of trade' – a general legal principle used to stop attempts to stifle competition'. Restraint of trade | WorkSmart: The career coach that works for everyone As such, should the BSPL attempt to ban riders from riding in meetings at the Isle of Wight they would almost certainly be acting contrary to common law. An individual sport can write all the rules and regulations they want but at no time do such rules and regulations supersede legislation, as sports such as cricket, darts and skiing found out when they tried to stop players competing for rival organisations (or impose punishments when they did).

None whatsoever. Then again, I never said there was - just confirmed that any attempt to do so would be contrary to common law. What I would point out is that when a number of former riders - possibly including Scott Courtney - attempted to create a kind of GP series outside of the BSPL a few years ago the SCB confirmed that any track that held a round would have their licence revoked.

You might well ask, but I doubt that the BSPL will view favourably someone attempting to run speedway outside their control - it could, after all, lead to more clubs breaking away. Moreover they have a nasty reputation for being vindictive. You are absolutely right about success or failure, but at least the Warriors promotion will have the satisfaction of being able to control their own destiny rather than being dictated to by others who have no financial involvement in the NL whatsoever.

I tend to agree here. Unfortunately for this season at least the Warriors don't have any choice and, given the circumstances, I suspect the overwhelming majority will understand - if not totally agree - with their decision to pull out of the NL. Couple of points, though. First of all, freed from the - in my view, stifling - control of the BSPL, they are expanding the content of the meeting to embrace other forms of on track racing so that the speedway becomes the major part (rather than the whole) of the evening. Secondly, they won't be hampered by a 35pt limit (they will use 41.5 I understand) so the teams will be much stronger than standard NL fare. Thirdly, the handicap meetings are anything but the usual individual and are brilliant (particularly with the 6 rider final) and well worth a go. Finally, you get the Warriors experience (not to be underestimated) - the remarkable degree of customer care being very clearly shown by Barry Bishop's continual engagement with fans on the pages of this forum. As I said, I do agree with your point but Isle of Wight are very much the exception.

They do apparently. Its why Isle of Wight have referred to their season as 'shale track racing'. Humph has mentioned that an attempt to ban riders - no matter how it is dressed up - will be a restraint of trade and that is contrary to common law. I have looked into this a bit - see the IOW 2020 thread - and he's almost certainly right.

Brilliant news Missed my trips to the wild west.

I think you're right. But being uncharacteristically cynical I can't help but wonder how many people on the terraces at the time would have preferred 'world class' riders to putting money aside for development

Perhaps surprisingly, I don't agree. What's to stop an independent authority acting in exactly the same way as the BSPL have done here ? The answer is a simple one : Let the teams in competing in each league control their own destiny without outside interference but place adjudication of disputes and decisions under independent control. That means that those ploughing time, money and effort into our sport have the final say on operations within their sphere but that the abuse, corruption and self interest we have seen countless times as interested parties determine the outcome of matters relating to the sports regulations ceases.

I am not aware that any of the clubs who have joined the NDL have said publicly that they would not have done so without a reduction in the points limit. Given that that would support the decision made by the BSPL (of which they are all members), I find that surprising if indeed it is true. According to a post from Islander a week or so ago, Eastbourne, Belle Vue and Kent had confirmed that they had no difficulty with a higher points limit. Given that Kent will have to - due to planning permission requirements - run NDL meetings on a different night to Championship ones and given that the Colts have always had separate race nights from the Aces, that's no wonder (the Colts have always built teams to the full points limit with a definite eye on winning the competition). Mildenhall made it clear that they wanted no reduction, and Isle of Wight were the same. Its not difficult to conclude why no NDL AGM was allowed and why the points limit was imposed : because the changes planned to suit the Premiership and Championship (over half of whom don't even have any involvement in that league) might well have been voted down. If those that have entered the NDL did so with the primary intention of development, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is and thus it would have been no reason for them not to join. There's no doubt if Barry had felt that Isle of Wight could have reasonably have continued to participate in the NDL they would have done. Faced with an organising body that could not care less about his opinions and the success of his business (only their own self interest) and with absolutely no guarantee that this situation might change, its little wonder that he took the action that he did. If we are to point fingers at who is to blame for Isle of Wight's withdrawal, lets make sure they are pointing in the right direction.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1102107/eu-general-court-isu-competition-rules Indeed. The General Court upheld the original decision with the exception of the ordered change to arbitration. '.The European Union (EU) General Court has determined that International Skating Union (ISU) rules prohibiting athletes from participating in events not run by the governing body were in breach of the EU's competition law'. You're right, thougb. Tthat probably won't cut much ice with British courts now. My understanding of the Darts case is that the organisation that tried to ban players reversed their decision in a plea bargain. On a final note, I'd say that the common law relating to restraint of trade is pretty clear, and it is accepted principle that in a legal dispute any party that wishes to take advantage of an exception has to prove that it applies to them. In this case, that would be the BSPL.