Halifaxtiger

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_5184 'The European Commission has decided that International Skating Union (ISU) rules imposing severe penalties on athletes participating in speed skating competitions that are not authorised by the ISU are in breach of EU antitrust law. The ISU must now change these rules'. Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "International sports federations play an important role in athletes' careers - they protect their health and safety and the integrity of competitions. However, the severe penalties the International Skating Union imposes on skaters also serve to protect its own commercial interests and prevent others from setting up their own events. The ISU now has to comply with our decision, modify its rules, and open up new opportunities for athletes and competing organisers, to the benefit of all ice skating fans".

Definition of restraint of trade: '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) I think you're right - 'if you're riding for another organisation, you're not riding for us' - is just about spot on. The BSPL would issue a written statement to that effect, presumably in the form of a new rule or part of the riders contract (or both). That would, however, fall very squarely within the highlighted part of the definition I have indicated above, because they would, in effect, be restricting a riders 'freedom to work for others'. 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'. That is, however, precisely what you are suggesting the BSPL would do and, indeed, that they could do it. Restraint of trade | WorkSmart: The career coach that works for everyone As such, the BSPL would indeed be breaking common law by insisting that they had an exclusive right to a riders services. Within the definition of restraint of trade there are circumstances (see above) that would allow such a restraint to be effective. My view, in this case, is that they would not.

Definition of restraint of trade: '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'. To me, its clear that any ban would be a restraint of trade within the above definition. Where it is less clear cut is in the second part, but for what its worth I would find it hard to believe that a once a week meeting on the Isle of Wight threatens the existence of any of the BSPL leagues (and there is a precedent - Lydd ). I daresay, however, this won't be the last we'll hear of this.

Its actually highly relevant. Barry Bishop has said that he plans to run a full programme of events this summer, so presumably he will use existing Speedway riders to do it. Question is whether the BSPL will allow that and if they don't, whether such an action is legal or not.

That depends on whether those rules themselves are within the law specific to restraint of trade. The rules themselves are not law and can be subject to challenge in the courts if they are contrary to legislation. To bar a rider would effectively restrict his ability to earn money from a different employer - that, to me, is a clear restraint of trade. Its akin to a builder refusing to alliow a self employed bricklayer to work for a rival firm even though he only employs him for one day a week. If memory serves me correctly, a couple of years ago the BSPL refused to allow Scott Nicholls to ride in the Championship because the rules said his Premiership average was too high. They carried on saying no until Nicholls consulted a solicitor, when they gave in very quickly indeed. I think you rather miss the point. Every speedway promotion has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not. What they do not have is the right to prevent him riding for an alternative employer, and that is effectively what a ban would do - and unquestionably would be the motivation behind it.

My suspicion is that any attempt to bar riders from riding or threaten to ban them from BSPL meetings would be a restraint of trade and therefore illegal. It would likely collapse at the first legal challenge. Very best of luck to Isle of Wight.

What's interesting about that is that when Scunthorpe were in the third tier if you wanted to use their facilities you had to sign for the club. The change to the asset system was brought in after they joined the Premier League. After NL clubs were denied the right to have assets, a 'training fee' was introduced. For example, if Chad Wirtzfeld rode for the Warriors for a few seasons and then signed for Poole, the Pirates would pay a fixed amount to the Warriors. Not quite as lucrative as owning assets, but a form of financial recompense nevertheless. That, too, has apparently now been dropped.

My first meeting there was back in 1983, the Ole Olsen Farewell meeting won by Kenny Carter. It was absolutely packed.

I also agree up to a point . You certainly wouldn't use your 'come and pay £15...' as a means of promoting the meetings If the limit is 39, you don't have to build to that but instead include riders who you believe deserve a place regardless of their average (although I might suggest (ironically as it happens)that there would be a lower points limit). That means that results could be uneven (some may have a noticeable advantage in terms of team strength) and thus that the competition (ie the NDL) would not be as balanced as if all built to the same limit. If its about development, that doesn't matter. It would not, however, prevent young riders busting a gut to beat other young riders and thus they would have the on track competition that they need, there would be a sense of achievement after winning races and, hopefully, they would improve.

Therein lies the problem - the inept, incompetent and utterly selfish (Rob Godfrey has stated in this weeks Speedy Star that the Premiership and Championship clubs decided that the NDL had to change - quite extraordinary when you think that over half of them don't even have NDL clubs and that Mildenhall and Isle of Wight had no say at all) way this has been handled. I think it is entirely possible that the new entrants might have wanted a lower points limit but we'll simply never know. Islander says that wasn't the case, and certainly Mildenhall's Phil Kirk has said that they did not want a reduction. Its therefore equally entirely possible that had it gone to a vote 39 would have been retained (which maybe why there was no vote). What is certain is that Isle of Wight would not be attracting the support from speedway fans if this had been dealt with with any degree of intelligence and there had been a vote for 35 and they had still pulled out. I wouldn't for a second have questioned such a decision - that it is for an individual promotion and we are talking about by far and away the best in the country - but they would not have been able to point fingers at the BSPL at all.

The way I see it, if the league is all about development and not competition it doesn't matter if the points limit is 35 or 39. If that is the case, results don't matter - just experience and track time.

It is, indeed, possible that other clubs might not have joined the NDL with a points limit at 39. However, we'll never know that because the limit was imposed without any discussion, consultation or negotiation at all. From what Rob Godfrey has said in this weeks Speedway Star, even though the likes of Poole, Kings Lynn and Glasgow have no interest in the NDL they had more say in its regulations for 2021 than either Mildenhall or Isle of Wight did. That, surely, cannot be right. Had there indeed been consultation - as there most certainly should have been - then the BSPL could state with some assurance that the limit had not been imposed but agreed upon. Just because it is accepted doesn't mean that it was wanted - Mildenhall's Phil Kirk made that point very clearly in Speedway Star last week. The other thing is that if the NDL is to be about development not competition it doesn't matter whether the points limit is 35 or 39. As to what Isle of Wight fans think of Barry Bishop's decision, I am struggling to find anyone who has not supported it - a quite remarkable situation given that he has closed their team down. That, to me, is very indicative of how people view Barry and his partner Martin Widman and all that they have achieved on the Island and precisely what they think of the way that the BSPL have dealt with this matter.

Almost all I suspect (Newcastle have apparently confirmed that). The thing is with a double header you pay one set of match fees. I am not sure if the ambulance costs would be the same, but doubt they would be double. Run them separately and you would have to charge a minimum of £10 while persuading your Championship fans to support a lower standard of rider with a team based upon a low points limit and effectively have a full set of additional costs.

The thing is that a 35pt limit is unsustainable year on year. Every season in the region of 20 new riders (accepting that there are 7 teams) will be required and numerous lads from the preceding season will be dumped because their averages don't fit. One thing is certain : if the Isle of Wight promotion refused to ride using a 35pt limit this season, its very unlikely they will run in 2022 using the same figure.

I don't totally agree and would argue that as a result of reducing standards we have lost Isle of Wight (and that loss should not be underestimated). In addition, I am of the opinion that there were other reasons for Buxton finishing - not least that Sheffield were to ride on the same day. To me, its a matter of compromise (and indeed always has been). The double up clubs - particularly if they run double headers - want the league for development without the same need to attract paying fans. The stand alone teams still have an interest in development but need to make the product good enough to pull customers in. The NDL has, for years, achieved such a compromise but that has been torpedoed for 2021 by the BSPL imposing a points limit without any discussion or negotiation - its a been a case of take it or leave it. In my view - and I suspect in Barry Bishop's - that is what is most unacceptable. There seems to me a slight contradiction in what you are saying, too. You indicate that the league should permit a competitive Buxton to join, but then go on to state that winning the league - ie being competitive - should not be a priority. I'd point out that the latter view does not seem to be shared by double up club promoters, given that the NDL has been won for 2 out of the last 3 seasons by their teams. The way I see it, if the league is about development and not competition there is no need to reduce the points limit at all. Retaining 39 does not prevent the double up teams from putting out their developing riders, but it means that the product - and hence the ability to pull in customer - is not weakened for both Mildenhall and Isle of Wight. On a final note - and as I have said before - it is nonsense to suggest or even imply that the NDL has not performed its development function in the past. Every single British rider in Championship and Premiership teams started in the third tier, as did our GP representatives Tai Woffinden and Robert Lambert.

I agree. His injuries have been awful. When I have seen him he has been a little wild but there is some potential there, and it would very wrong to simply dump him as failing to develop.

In truth, I think it is to encourage more clubs to enter the league. You can argue that is not unreasonable - with Plymouth, Cradley and Stoke leaving and a question mark over the Colts there would only have been Kent, Leicester, Mildenhall and Isle of Wight left - but it still should have been done following full discussion with member clubs. It wasn't and was imposed by BSPL members who don't even run NDL teams. The upshot is that we have lost by far and away the most innovative, customer focussed and progressive club in the sport (and that is anything but just my opinion).

Couple of points : Barry Bishop says the limit was imposed and there was no discussion. Forgive me being pedantic but you said Isle of Wight 'havent closed', I said 'They could, indeed, have closed for good'. One is a statement of fact, the other of possibility. I'd maintain no rider stays in the NDL unless they feel it absolutely necessary. If there are or were indeed riders who sat in that league just for the money, care to name them ?

The financial situation and team building in the NDL is very different to the other leagues. As greyhoundp has pointed out, the points limit was imposed - apparently without any discussion or negotiation - on NDL clubs by BSPL members who, in some cases, do not even have an NDL team. That is not the case in the higher leagues. A few years ago, Scunthorpe ran an extremely weak NDL side but every one of their matches was run as a double header with the Championship team for one reason and one reason only: Rob Godfrey knew no-one would pay to watch it if it ran the NDL meetings seperately. My understanding is that Newcastle (at least) plan to do the same. Consequently, a double up club can afford to run a weakened NL side - Isle of Wight cannot, as they rely on putting out a competitive and attractive team to pull in spectators. The reasoning for weakening the NDL - or at least the team strength - is an attempt to get other clubs to join. It has to be questioned just how many of the new teams would have joined the league if the points limit had stayed at 39. No rider is in a 'comfort zone for easy money' in the NDL. True, some have been there for years but that is simply because they have reached their level and have nowhere else to go. It would be ludicrous to suggest that any rider would remain in the NDL if their ability guaranteed a place in one of the higher leagues. You must know something I don't because at no point have Isle of Wight simply said this is a matter of 2021 only. They could, indeed, have closed for good. You say 'go back to its roots of bringing on young riders' as though that has not been done for years. One check of the British riders in the Premiership and Championship for 2021 will show that they all started their careers in the third tier of the sport, as did our two representatives at the highest level, Tai Woffinden and Robert Lambert. The NDL has no need to 'go back' to developing riders as it has been doing a pretty decent job of that since it was formed. You're obviously not aware of the reputation that the promotion at Isle of Wight have built up since 2016.When Mimmo said that they were the 'most forward looking club at any level, that I can remember seeing for many a long year' his comments were neither exaggerated nor misplaced - that's the general view of a large number of people from right across the sport who has either had the opportunity of attending one of their meetings or has followed their progress closely. One glance at facebook comments following the news of their closure will show that while there is a significant degree of sadness and disappointment at what has happened there is no anger or criticism whatsoever - indeed there is a large amount of support for their actions. As far as their supporters are concerned, while there are those to blame for the demise of the Warriors that does not extend to Barry Bishop and Martin Widman.

Where payment of riders is concerned, each NL club picks up the tab for their riders home and away. So when Mildenhall ride at IOW, the Fen Tigers meet the wage bill for their team. If you run a challenge or an individual, you pay all 12,14 or 16 riders. Aside from the fact that challenge matches are likely to attract lower attendances, they could increase the clubs costs. i don't know the full reasons why they have withdrawn but the above might be one, and I know they were against any reduction in the points limit as it almost inevitably lowers the standard of the product at this level (something that is most important if you are a stand alone club but matters little if you are running all your NL meetings as double headers with a higher league match, as Newcastle apparently plan to). If the clubs were simply told about the points limit without any form of negotiation amongst members and the Warriors promotion believed that that would damage their business taking into account other factors - the lack of fixtures, likely difficulties with sponsors, the confidence of fans returning to stadiums following covid etc - its little wonder they withdrew. Why should they accept being dictated to without even the chance to discuss the situation by persons who don't even run an NL team ? Following the BSPL's approach to arguably the most innovative meeting held in Britain for some years - the 2019 NICE challenge - the chances of them going out of their way to accommodate the Isle of Wight promotion were non existent.

Taxi for Holta

They are going to need him. They are being beaten to the first corner every time.

I don't want stock cars at the NSS but I am not the one meeting the losses that it is making. For that reason, any new revenue stream must be considered. For what its worth I don't think speedway at Scunthorpe has suffered unduly following the introduction of stock cars (I don't think I have ever read a report that suggests it has either) probably due to some considerable care about the timing and number of stock meetings.

I disagree. The handicap meeting at IOW was among the best I saw last season anywhere, and that includes the NSS. It might be called a gimmick, but if it is going to improve the quality of the spectacle (and I think it will) I am all for it.

Bit of a gamble at reserve but probably one worth taking. Jenkins has a lot of potential and I was impressed with Lawlor last season - an NL average increase of almost 1.5 shows there could be more to come.