Halifaxtiger

Just to correct this post....... I am advised that this is a matter between employer and migrant, not the BSPA. Indeed, they have been proactive in trying to sort this issue out. I am further advised that the difficulties are not insurmountable. Fingers crossed, then.

The answer is, of course, that he wasn't. He got in as a result of a crooked deal between the BSPA and a number of teams. While some might argue that speedway (or perhaps more accurately, the BSPA) have reaped what they have sown I think that the UK V&I are being unreasonable in taking this action at this point. Would it have been so unthinkable as to insist that they all attend courses in October ?

I think you are right Not that it helps !!

Perhaps they got approval from the same person at the BSPA who agreed Jack Holder could come in on a 5.00.

That's in the FIM Regs relating to the U21 championship: 072.2.1 Eligibility The limit for the minimum age (16 years) starts on the date of the rider's birthday and the limit for the maximum age (21 years) finishes at the end of the year in which they reach 21 years, pursuant to the FIM Medical Code. That's for individual championships only and has no relevance to racing in leagues in this country. SCB Regulations most certainly do.

The rule quite clearly says under 25 at 'the start of the season'. The season is defined: Season: The period from March 15th (March 8th when Easter falls in March) to October 31st (both inclusive) and Meetings may only be held outside this period where specific written permission of the SCB has been given. As far as I can see he will be 26 at the start of the season, so he is ineligible to ride in the NL if he is riding in the PL. As I say, though, that's the 2014 Regulations, which also state that Jack Holder's average is a 5.00.

NL eligibility: 19.9.2.2 A current PL Rider under 25 years-old with a PL MA of 4.00 or below at the start of the Season. He's 26 at the start of the season (because it doesn't start on the 1st January, it starts on 15th March), so he can't ride for Birmingham and Plymouth. That's the 2014 regulations, though, and we all know how accurate they are..................... I sense a crooked interests of speedway, no public justification, say a word against it and you'll be shafted from all sides decision.

I think Penny Cross is right - Benko is a loss. True, his away form was appalling but with a full season under his belt and the prospect of better equipment on a 3.00 average he was as good as Plymouth could get, especially taking into account that he was just 18 and a club asset. Whoever the Devils get to replace him won't be any better. Holder's performance in the Aussie U21 gives some cause for optimism. Mixing it with Fricke and Kurtz means he just might better that 7.00 average.

I think the surprising bit is that he has chosen the NL over the PL. He can, at the moment, ride EL & PL or EL & NL but not PL & NL. Once the season starts he will be able to gain a PL place while continuing to ride for Birmingham & Lakeside.

Shads said it earlier - if Scunny are struggling, there's not much hope for the rest. It is the best race track in the country, Mr Godfrey is one of the best presenters and there are as few delays as possible. That's what people want. I have never had a problem with the PA system at EWR or completing my programme either. There's an awful lot that Rob Godfrey and Scunthorpe can teach a few other tracks. What June is saying, though, is that the connection with paying customers isn't as good as it was. She's saying that the return of the days when there was interaction between the promotion, the riders and fans has almost gone and bringing them back might help. That's not knocking the club, its trying to help (and you're right, Scunthorpe are not the only ones to whom it applies). There are a lot on here who have all the ideas in the world about bringing fans back, but her point is one of the best and most practical I have seen. Moreover, it doesn't cost a penny. Surely its got to be worth considering ?

Maybe they think they don't need as many in the NL. That's just common sense. Kevin Coombes, though, is one of the best in the game - he will be a big loss.

The presence of the air force base wasn't even mentioned in the stadium noise case.

You're right, but I suspect dropping down two divisions will radically change Eastbourne's status in relation the terms they can offer when compared with other teams. It would surprise me if they weren't one of the better payers now they are in the NL.

Nothing wrong on track, clearly (and I would be the first to agree with that). What June refers to, though, is off track. I have little reason to doubt what she's saying and, as such, she makes a very good point. Dead right. Sometimes I think that some promotions regard supporters as a necessary evil to be tolerated but not embraced.

I think so too. So far, the league looks competitive, of a standard that will attract paying customers (because Dean is right, people simply won't pay to watch amateur meetings composed solely of novices) and is full of British youngsters. I suspect I will watch more NL speedway this season than I have in the past couple.

To be fair, the points limit had to be set low to ensure that all teams were competitive and avoid the fact that last season there weren't enough top riders to go around. Its possible that they have gone a little too low but its easy to be wise in hindsight. On the basis of what we have so far, I think the NL will be enormously competitive, will just about hit the standard required to attract paying customers and is packed full of British youngsters. That hits the nail firmly on the head for me and I suspect I will be watching more NL speedway next season than I have for a few years.

Shame on you, Blobby, for saying that it was Allied Vehicles who had bought the Tigers. Its the two blokes that own Allied Vehicles that bought them and Allied Vehicles are only the sponsors. How could you get it so wrong ?

Nonsense. Firstly, most riders can roll forward without touching the tapes - breaking or touching the tapes is unusual, moving is anything but. Secondly, its seeking to gain advantage over your opponents by a better start. Finally, of course, it is stated that riders must be stationary in SCB Regulations. I think the latter is probably why races are called back. The pity is it isn't applied consistently by any means.

My problem hasn't been so much the jumping at the start (although I totally agree with you) as the inconsistency shown by referees. Lets call rolling at the start what it is : cheating.

In theory, yes. In practice

To double up between a PL & NL club at the start of the season its 4.00. If you start the season at NL only you can double up later in the season if you are below 5.00. In Ellis' case, he can't start the season doubling up but if he gains a PL place later in the season he can continue riding for Birmingham.

That is one intention behind the NL but for the majority of the clubs (if not all of them) it is not the only one, nor can it be. All of the stand alone clubs in the NL are there because their attendances and overall income are insufficient to be in the EL or PL and that's precisely why Tony Mole and Bob Dugard entered their teams in that league. If all of their circumstances were favourable enough to enable a move to a higher level I have little doubt that they would be there - Birmingham, Eastbourne, Stoke & Mildenhall have all tried and there has been much talk about Cradley & Kent moving up. Buxton are the sole exception. The NL is therefore just as much a business as the EL or PL and, in order to be viable, they have to attract fans in exactly the same way - by having a successful, winning team that serves up an entertaining product. It might be the NL, but if a team starts losing every week its supporters will still be out the door as fast as any at a PL club regardless of the development of young riders. I doubt that there are many (if any) who aim to be a serial NL rider when they start out. Whether they end up like that is very much another matter. Dean has, as usual, a point.

So can Ellis as his PL average is under 5.00. I am pretty sure that that is something that Birmingham considered. 19.9.2.1 A Rider with a PL MA of 6.00 or below if not declared in a PL 1–7 at the start of the season, although any such Rider who moves back into the PL will be ineligible if he has a PL MA of 5.00 or above. NB. A Rider with a PL MA of 5.00 or below joining a NL Team after losing a PL Team place may not remain in the NL Team if he subsequently gains a PL Team place,

I think you need to read the court case: The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police. McDonald, who was also on trial, gave evidence that the complainant approached him in Queen Street. He asked her where she was going. She replied by asking where he was going. He said that he was going to his hotel and she said that she would go with him. He then sent the text message in case the applicant was worried about where he had gone. According to McDonald's evidence, in the hotel room sexual activity was initiated by the complainant. She gave every indication that she was enthusiastic and enjoying herself. He did not force her to do anything she did not wish. In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the jury acquitted McDonald, there could be no sensible basis on which they could convict the applicant. (The Court of Appeal stated)‘’But however it is examined, and assuming that he was wrong about the basis on which the jury reached its conclusion, we find nothing illogical or inconsistent about the verdicts”. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency. The final ground of appeal was whether, looking at the facts overall, in the light of the concerns drawn to it’s attention, the court should consider whether this was a case in which to apply the "lurking doubt" principle identified in R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267, 53 Cr App R 82. (The court commented that this was not an appropriate time at which to examine why it is inappropriate to describe the Cooper principle as a "lurking doubt" principle). The court saw no possible basis which would justify their interference with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge. Court cases that appear to be almost identical are often given different verdicts - and I'd certainly accept that that can be due to the inconsistent approach of judges and the quality of juries - on the basis that the precise circumstances are not the same. The devil, very frequently, is in the detail. Lying to get in and using the fire escape is not conclusive proof of rape. What it suggests, though, is that the person doing it did not want his actions to be discovered. It points towards wrong doing. According to the evidence presented at the trial, there was every reason to believe that she did not know what she was doing: CCTV footage, which was recovered, showed her outside the bar, inside and outside a kebab shop, and eventually her arrival at the hotel where the offence with which the court is concerned took place. The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. If that was the case, no consent was given and there was no reason to believe that consent had been given, the verdict was correct - or, at the very least, sound. Actually the court judgement - and the difference in the verdicts - was based upon the fact that the girl went to the hotel room willingly with McDonald and knew what was going to happen - or, more accurately, that he had every right to believe that she did even if she did not actually consent. There is certainly no evidence of force. I repeat (and quote) : 'What did she think they were going to do, play Scrabble ?'. She did not go to the room with Evans. He lied to gain entry and left by the fire escape. None of that applies to McDonald. The difference is clear : one had grounds to believe that whatever her state she had consented to sex with him. The other did not.

Best speedway news I have heard all winter .