Halifaxtiger

Your boys might yet have dropped a real clanger letting him go. Good to see you Saturday, mate

Shanes performance was extraordinary. First of all in heat 13 he went through the middle of Atkin & Carr on bend 4 of lap 1, a stunning move that the presenter said was the best had seen all season (and I think few would disagree - its one of the best I have seen anywhere) and then in heat 15 he went round Atkin & Blacklock to lead after gating last. I can't remember the last time I saw a rider ride the outside like that at Buxton, and it says everything that when Morley tried it he came off.

I think that in the 600 or so meetings I have seen in 10 years that is the most amazing result of all. Plymouth were quite simply by far the better team. When they didn't hit the starts in front (which was almost always) they still managed to come through on occasion. I am delighted for my pals at Plymouth and, in particular, for their promotion. That sort of result might just make the stay aways think again. Should be a cracker tomorrow.

And I think everyone would support you in that. I wonder how much support you would get if you moved into that house in the full knowledge that the pub was open until 3am and then tried to put a stop to it. Considerably less I would imagine, and its the second set of circumstances that apply in the Mildenhall case. In my view (and I suspect in most) the unreasonable ones were the house owners. Move in next to the stadium and then demand that it holds just 12 events is completely unacceptable. You're absolutely right, Malcolm. The bizarre part of this case is that the compensation award to the house owners is just £20k. The £500k legal costs comes mostly from 'bonuses' in the legal contract between the house owners and their lawyers who took this case on a 'no win, no fee' basis. Its an absolute indictment of our legal system. The plaintiff has a destroyed house and £20K compensation. The defendant is likely to go bankrupt. Only the lawyers have done well out of it. I'd maintain that whatever time the noise was made until - and I stayed in the compound and it was still going on at 2am, although I would say that I slept through it - the fact that the people moved in next to it simply must be a relevant factor in any legal ruling. It has been stated that it is of no relevance whatsoever, and that's the bit I can't stomach. You might just about run an NL team on 12 meetings a year, but there's no way that would make the stadium economical. Any other events - stock cars, bangers, greyhounds could not be run at all. Your last sentence is, however, just about spot on. If planning permission has expired, how are the speedway and stock cars still running ? I doubt if anyone will buy it with the 12 meetings judgement hanging over it and the (albeit slim) possibility that someone will move into the house at some point in the future.

The legal principle on which the case turned is this one: The court ruled that the owner of the stadium could not raise as a defence the fact that the neighbours had “come to the nuisance”. It also ruled that planning permission is irrelevant which means you can't run speedway without it..............but even if you have it it is no guarantee of being able to continue. Both of those principles might be legal, but to my mind they also (to repeat) defy common sense, reason and culpability. One thing was confirmed in the supreme court judgement: unless the house is re-occupied, the terms of the injunction relating number of meetings allowed has no force.

Rubbish. What you are basically saying is that if you move in next door to a cat food factory it is right that you can have it closed down because you don't like the smell, regardless of the fact that it has been there for years and employs countless people. Your position also accepts that the purchasers of the property have absolutely no responsibility for ensuring that the locality suits their needs and requirements, because it is right that they can have it changed to suit them again regardless of how other local people think or how their actions might affect the community and its facilities. Mildenhall Stadium has been in existence for 40 years. it is, to say the least, in the outback (only Buxton might be more remote) so it can't be placed anywhere where it is less likely to be a noise nuisance. The stock cars have been operating for years. Two people move in and demand that the stadium is restricted to just 12 operating days a year, and they win their case. The fact that they moved in next door without first confirming what its usage was (although they apparently were told) is, also apparently, irrelevant. Wealdstone is dead right. In this case, certainly, the law is an ass and defies reason, common sense and culpability.

Spot on, Tony. Loyalty to your team doesn't seem to count for much in any sport but I think speedway suffers more than most, with a hard core who will stay no matter what but a significant percentage who will only go if the team is winning. I saw a truly brilliant speedway meeting at Scunthorpe last Friday week (taking aside the Tungate affair) and I think its recognised that EWR is the best racing track in the country, yet Rob Godfrey has said that gates are so poor that he is thinking of shutting up shop. Have a look at the Scorpions performances at the start of the season and there is a very strong indicator why they are in difficulty - speedway fans to a degree aren't interested in a losing team.

Ask Eastbourne & Birmingham about that one. Both apparently have gates that are at least equivalent of what they got in the EL and in many cases it is stated that the racing is better. Dropping down a level (or, in the above cases, two levels) in speedway doesn't necessarily mean that the sport is going to die. Quite the opposite, in fact - it means that a team can exist within its means. Having said that, I agree with tmc. Most riders simply have to accept that speedway isn't a full time occupation, even in the summer.

I have said this on the Berwick-Rye House thread, but I am saddened by this news and hope that a solution can be found. I believe that John Anderson has tried very hard to make speedway in Berwick attractive enough to pull in sufficient customers to make it pay or make the losses sustainable. He deserves better. Scunthorpe, Plymouth and now Berwick. Edinburgh had the begging bowl out in April. Workington's gates have been poor and only a week or so ago Brian Havelock was saying that Redcar are 150-200 down per week. You really have to fear for the future of the PL (and I am an optimist) unless some radical changes are made.

Had it been a 'little' more respect, I'd agree. They didn't want a little. What they wanted was enough to make the stadium completely uneconomical. - as Iris has said, used just 12 times a year. Their demands were at least as unreasonable as the stadiums, and lets not forget they moved in without making any attempt to find out just what usage there was (although both the previous owner and the estate agent told them). So, in effect, they moved in next to the stadium and now want it, effectively, shut down. It beggars belief_that just two people in such circumstances can go through our legal system and have judgement made in their favour. I think you have to ask yourself a question. Before buying a home, do you make sure its right for you ? I doubt very much that they will move back. To my knowledge, the house has been burned down and stripped. Even if locals disagree with that, I doubt very much that they have made themselves popular in the locality. Also to my knowledge, the court judgement only applies if they move back in. After all, the stadium wouldn't be running now if that wasn't the case. With that in mind, I am a little more optimistic. The stadium isn't going to go away, so even if the present owners lose it there's every chance it will still be open for business.

Its now on the club's facebook page: AN ANNOUNCEMENT : On behalf of his fellow-directors, John Anderson today issued a statement regarding the future of speedway at Berwick. “Speedway has been an integral part of the fabric of life in and around Berwick for nearly fifty years, and we want this to continue – but it might be time for fresh attitudes, people with newer, younger ideas to take over the task and help us share a burden which has become very, very heavy to carry”. “I don’t want to be thought of as scaremongering – this isn’t us saying that we are closing down, we’re not!” “But when I look back, I see the previous custodians of this great club – the Taylor family, the Fairbairns and Peter Waite – all had a burn cycle of around a decade, and maybe our own ownership has reached the point where new blood is required”. “This is about owning the club, paying the bills – not about promoting or managing the team”. “Myself, my son Ryan, George Hepburn and George Fairgrieve are the shareholders, the ones who have to ensure the club comes up with the money each week – and we are proud to say we have always paid our riders, and our bills, right on the nail”. “In the past, this speedway has been able to soldier on through thick and thin, and we truly, deeply want the club to continue into the next fifty seasons – but we just can’t do it alone any more”. “It isn’t just the financial burdens we are carrying, heavy though these are, it is a terrible strain on our mental and physical health, and when that begins to take its toll it has to be time to take a step back”. “So what I am saying is, there are two ways to go from here”. “We would welcome further investment from interested parties who might share our wish to see the sport remaining as a vital, irreplaceable part of a Saturday night out in Berwick-upon-Tweed and who might want to take on a part of our shareholding and stand beside us, working with and taking some of the load off the present directors and in time perhaps taking more and more control”. “Alternatively, we would be prepared to sell the company outright. Lock, stock and barrel to a new custodian who -- and I make this clear – we feel could be trusted to serve the Bandits and their fans in the way of our honoured predecessors”. “If a total sale was to happen, this would be required to be decided well in advance of the BSPA’s AGM in mid-October, so any new owner could decide who should represent their interests as promoter(s) at the AGM and other meetings”. “I said there were two ways to go from here, but there is a third option”. “Our dearest wish is that speedway continues at Shielfield Park, but to be honest, we could close the doors at the end of the season and cash in. Take the money and run!” “We’d take our share of the League’s profits from big events, sell off the rider-assets, the safety-fence and regain our bond – and by doing so, our company would almost certainly end up well in profit for the year!” “But this is the last thing we want to do, despite the obvious financial advantage”. “We really want new partners to join us to take the club forward, or we want to sell it on as a going concern to a suitable buyer”. “We are saying this now, at the end of July and with a three-week gap before we race again, to allow any interested parties to make contact while we aren’t too busy preparing for matches”. “But we have to make clear that if we don’t find new investment, or we don’t find a viable purchaser before October then the dreadful alternative of closure has to be contemplated as a serious and very final option”. I am genuinely saddened by this because as far as I am concerned John Anderson and his fellow directors have tried very hard to make Berwick Speedway a success. Some clubs - with their team, their track, their racing and, often most importantly, their attitude - simply don't deserve to attract the kind of support that makes the sport pay or at least make it sustainable. In my view, Berwick isn't one of them.

Not true. See my post above. Its British passport holder or patriality. That's why there are different averages for those who are passport holders and those who are not.

Wouldn't that apply to every rider who comes out of the NL, then, not just Wilson Dean ? They'd all be going in on a 5.00. I think its clear that any rider coming from the NL into the PL is a 3.00. From my understanding of the UKVI, they have been extremely reasonable with British Speedway. Basically, they set the ground rules a few years ago and members of the BSPA completely ignored them. They could have slung the book at the sport but chose simply to write off past misdemeanours in favour of a 'do it our way in future or else' approach (needless to say, at least one promotion has tried to break that already). I doubt very much that Wilson-Dean doesn't have patriality - its a qualifying condition to race in the NL that is in addition to being a British passport holder, so he doesn't necessarily need one. 9.9.2.5 All Riders must hold a UK Passport or have UK Patriality.

Very good meeting..but then those that are close and some decent racing thrown in usually are. Top quality performance from Hansen, the only one really to challenge Ostergaard and Grajczonek. Comets match winner, though, was Williamson - easily the best meeting I have seen him have at this level. I have made no secret of my respect for the Workington promotion so it was pleasing to see what appeared to be an improved attendance. First time I have seen cars parked on the green outside for a while.

18.6.1 Riders new to Premier League racing are categorised as follows: Cat 1: Riders with an “end of the previous season’s published average” in the Polish Ekstraliga or the Swedish Elitserien of above 6.00 points and a Rider subject to a Certificate of Sponsorship Cat 2: Riders with an “end of the previous season’s published average” in the Polish Ekstraliga or Swedish Elitserien of 6.00 and below plus ALL other Riders riding currently in any Professional Speedway League, Cat 3a: Riders not riding in a Professional Speedway League Cat 3b: Commonwealth or USA (to a maximum of 4 each season) Riders new to British Speedway Cat 4: Riders who have ridden in the National Development League as an Amateur 18.6.2 The Assessed MA's for new Riders to the PL racing is: Cat 1 8.00 Cat 2 7.00 Cat 3a 5.00 Cat 3b 7.00 Cat 4 3.00 That makes him a 3.00.

That's how I understand it. I know of two PL clubs who asked after him and were told he comes in on a 5.00. If he is eligible to ride in the NL, his PL average is a 3.00.

Based upon the forecasts this morning, I'd certainly have called it off.

Fair point. What I would say is the view I had is way, way, better than you get on that youtube clip.

Personally, Rob, I thought that was a foolish and unnecessary action. I can't see what he had to gain and I can very much see how he might have incited the crowd. Nonsense. I'd say that the only ones who are saying Tungate isn't guilty are Ipswich supporters (and even they aren't unanimous). Everyone else (who draws a conclusion) says otherwise. I was 20 yards away, had a very good view, saw the whole thing very clearly, am not a Scunny supporter and am certain it was deliberate. I am sure he didn't intend to injure Auty. I am equally sure he intended to run into him. The thing is if you run into another rider you know that he can fall and he can get injured. I was thinking earlier in the meeting that Tungate would be a good signing for Scunthorpe Somehow I can't see it happening.

The really ironic thing is that not at Scunny it isn't. Taking Tungate out for a moment, that's two superb quality speedway meetings back to back I have seen there. Somerset perhaps aside, I haven't seen that anywhere else. Its a real shame but it is pretty much inevitable that Sunday evening won't suit some. I prefer Fridays, but Sunday at that time would be OK. The thing is all that Rob said about Fridays was true and his attendances simply aren't good enough then. He has to change.

Your view of that incident was quite possibly the only place in the stadium that was better than mine. To be fair, Shads, while birds eye is a little optimistic his view was raised (the verandah of the bar between the first/second bends) and given that the incident took place on the exit of the second bend probably the best position to give judgement on what happened.

Couple of incidents worth mentioning from this meeting : a totally bizarre decision to exclude Tom Stokes in heat 6. Stokes went through cleanly on the inside and some how got blamed for Woolley (who was very impressive indeed) falling. No contact whatsoever. Aside from that, credit Chris Durno (not for the first time) for trying (in vain) to keep the meeting going. Second was a quite extraordinary team ride from Liam Carr in heat 11 as he protected David Holt from Jake Knight until the last bend, when Holt slowed down that much that Carr hit him. Real shame it didn't succeed, because its the best go at team riding that I have seen this season (and quite possibly for several seasons). Knight is going to be a real asset for King's Lynn. For a rider that has been out for a while, he looked like he had never been away.

Lets hope he can find a way to continue. I have only met him once but I have never heard a bad word about him and have heard many, many good ones. Speedway can ill afford to lose the likes of Jon Armstrong.

Who Tungate ran into is completely irrelevant. I think the point made by some - including me - is that Auty did exactly the same thing during the first running and has a reputation for it. No-one wants to see a rider injured, but someone prepared to make reckless moves that result in crashes for others might just think twice about doing it again if they are on the receiving end.

I think what you say is absolutely fair point. I don't think anyone would blame Peter Clarke if he missed the incident. The thing is though is if he wasn't satisfied that Tungate had done anything wrong, why did he impose a maximum fine ? From that, you can only conclude that he was satisfied that that was the case and therefore should have excluded him from the rest of the meeting.