Vince

So far as I know there is no evidence that he has or ever will drive a van on the motorway under the influence of drink and drugs. I have never been into the drug thing at all but know plenty of people who did/ do dope on a regular basis without ever going on to bigger stuff. I would have thought growing up would include realising others are entitled to an opinion even if it isn't the same as yours! As far as I am concerned what was reported from the court last year makes this pale into insignificance even given that he was found innocent. That really was distasteful while this latest episode is hardly crime of the century. He is still young and imo an ar****le but plenty of people manage to put their lives in order as they mature and lets hope he has the right people around him to help him with that.

Strangely enough I had to go on courses to get certificated as a Clerk of the Course and another as a Scrutineer and yet another as an instructor for Motocross. I was given a machine examiners licence by the SCB because an amateur club asked for it, no testing or tuition of any sort. I would say that both the clerk of the course and scrutineers jobs at MX are at least as difficult than their Speedway counterparts. Anybody who has been around Speedway a while could cope as a pit marshall quite easily so that leaves the ref. I would agree that good referee's wouldn't be easy to find but that seems to apply to all Speedway up to GP level. I could certainly find several experienced Speedway people who could do a decent job and none of whom would do what a qualified ref did at Weymouth a few years back when the announcer had to put the red light on because she hadn't noticed the rider laid in the middle of the track a few yards from the start line as the rest were coming round for their next lap. All in I would say that it wouldn't be very hard for somebody like the Courtneys who have plenty of contacts within Speedway to assemble a crew as good as any.

Really? I have never organised a Speedway meeting but have been around enough to see how things are run and even helped out a bit at times. I have been involved in a large number of MX meetings with up to 300 riders taking part. That's 300 riders who need to have entry forms filled out and acceptances sent before the meeting, 300 bikes to scrutineer, a track to build within specific guidelines with posts, rope, start gates, signing on/lap scoring facilities all needing to be transported to the site. Insurance cover to be sorted, medical cover arranged, toilets put in place, lapscorers and anything up to 50 marshalls arranged. Then there are the results from 20 to 30 races to be sorted and posted before finally awarding the trophies (that somebody had to arrange before the meeting) and dismantling everything to be transported back to where it came from. I doubt getting 14 riders into a purpose built stadium with a permanent track is infinitly more complicated.

None of those things could ever happen now, no promoter could ever end up owing money to landlords or riders. Easily solved if proof of funding is asked for.

I wonder if the good idea was to do with the way the event was run rather than the riders involved, perhaps there were ideas of how to promote the event to get non Speedway supporters along, possibly they were going to do something between races or vary the format, we know from biker fm that there was to be a 6 man final. Perhaps there was to be something done with admission prices and so on, there are any number of possibilities. Would be good to know if any or all of these would work surely. Besides that if you have a carefully selected field of riders over roughly equal ability you are likely to see better racing than when a couple of superstars are involved anyway.

I don't think anyone is saying that these meetings will be fantastic or anything else, only that if the promoters want to run them and pay for it then they ought to be allowed. If they can make money or even break even, which they clearly think possible, then there is something to be learned from their efforts. If they weren't succesful I am sure you would get your 20 pages of 'what a stupid idea' and 'I told you so'.

How will it deplete the earnings of 'proper promoters' and wreck the league? Nothing to hear is more like it as you are just making statements without any substance to back them up. Anybody would think the promoters have jumped in with both feet before giving it any real thought if their opinions match yours. Isn't that the point? If they do then you would have to ask how they managed it and look to copy some of their ideas, if they don't a few tracks still make money and the rest lose nothing.

And still not one person has explained what harm these metings could do to the sport.

Yet two promotions, the very people who you feel would be worst affected as they would be holding meetings at their track clearly felt that wouldn't be the case. Perhaps the chance of a guaranteed income rather than 'minimising losses' was actually an attractive proposition. No Promoter who felt that way would be forced to hire their track out so I think we are still to find a genuine problem. Whisperer says that nobody consulted with the SCB or BSPA. Do we know for a fact that nobody in a senior position within one or other of those organisations was consulted? I know it was posted earlier but can anybody say that with certainty.

I would like to know why some people, apparently including some at the BSPA, are so against this. For the life of me I can't see how it could do the sport any harm. It has been said that if these meetings were a success then they would want to run many more in the future. However for that to happen they would firstly be doing something very right in order to get enough people through the gate to make them want to do many more. Secondly as they have to hire the tracks current promoters can have complete control over how many meetings are run. All the stuff about insurance and regulations is nonsense as they are quite capable of covering all of that. If the only dispute is that they didn't go to the SCB/ BSPA first then it seems a bit petty to deprive 6 tracks and about 30 riders of some additional income. It's also not certain that is the case, they may well have spoken to people within the BSPA and not expected it to be an issue. Clearly the two members who agreed to hire the track out didn't foresee it becoming a problem. So what is the problem? What harm do people think these meetings can do? Whether this series gets to run this year or not I think trying to stop it could open a very large can of worms. The history of motorcycle sport is littered with examples of the ACU turning molehills into mountains only for it all to backfire in the not so distant future.

It is terrible that people PAY Speedway promoters to use their tracks, money which they can use to help subsidise Speedway meetings. So far on this thread we've seen people who pay to use Speedway facilities called both parasites and leeches, can't understand why the promoters involved can't see how they are being abused

Bunch of amateurs who have Red Bull as one of their series title sponsors, run events at the prestigous O2, Odyssey, LG and Echo arenas and even have guaranteed TV coverage for their Minibike Championships in 2013. Perhaps the professionals at the BSPA should pay attention to these 'amateurs' as they seem to do some things very well and be growing quickly, remind me just how fast Speedway is growing at the moment. Usually I tend to side with the promoters when they are being knocked on the forum but this time I really believe they could have made a very big mistake by not working with these people rather than against them.

For years it was in black and white that ACU riders would have their licence revoked if they competed under another organisation, then it was challenged, found to be illegal and changed. Similar thing with tracks. Many things are accepted as unchangeable until somebody challenges them. I just can't understand why the BSPA / ACU would run the risk of toppling their house of cards because somebody wants to put a couple of extra on top. Here was an opportunity for something slightly different to be tried at no risk or cost to themselves. If the series didn't do well they could say 'told you so' and if it succeeded they could pinch the ideas they/ the public liked and use them for their own events. I think they really need to hope that the MCF don't think the issue is worth butting heads over because having given up the opportunity to work alongside them the last thing Speedway needs is division.

Nothing like getting carried away is there! it's half a dozen meetings over a whole season, not a replacement league and it would have to be run with the agreement and assistance of the current promoters whose tracks were being used. Quite clearly despite the SCB's stance there are people within the BSPA who think the series a good idea. Parasite: derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return - not somebody who pays for the use of a stadium then.

The SCB must be mad, what have they to gain by stopping or trying to stop this series? As things stand the promoters had stated that they would be doing everything to avoid clashing with SCB events and it would be six meetings as an addition to the season, replacing nothing. Tracks get a bit more income as do riders, the ACU, BSPA, SCB lose nothing at all but would rather try to stop something because they aren't getting a slice. Now I guess the options are to change the name (is Speedway really trademarked/ copyrighted as a word?), carry on and call their bluff, after all if 6 tracks sign up are the BSPA really going to try and shut them down? Finally if the MCF feel strongly enough it could turn into a legal battle (quite possible, the ACU really like to spend their members money without considering whether it's what their members want) in which case the MCF will win as there are many precedents with the ACU trying to revoke riders licences. As for all the nonsense about insurance and liabilities I bet the MCF provide a much better option than the ACU, that's why these alternative organisations exist and so many clubs leave the ACU to affiliate to them. Riders can hold both MCF and ACU licences which entitles them to ride in ACU and FIM Championships, many of the countries top MX riders do this as the MCF authorised Red Bull series runs very succesfully alongside the ACU's British Championships with no problems between the two. In my opinion the SCB/ BSPA would be far better employed going along to watch the series and see if there are any ideas they could pinch to improve their own meetings.

No, they could run independantly or under any of ACU, AMCA, BSMA, YMSA, and probably some others I haven't thought of and that would apply whether it was a permanent or temporary track. Clubs sometimes switch their affiliation from one governing body to another.

Surely the whole point of alternative organisations to the ACU is their ability to provide insurance and organisational backup to organising clubs, usually at a better rate given the ACU is like a government department when it comes to finding ways to spend it's members money. There is no reason the MCF can't provide insurance for a meeting held on a Speedway track, the flattrack series is running with them this year. There are a large number of sancioning bodies throughout motorcycle sport these days, no reason why Speedway should be different. In fact if I want to run a meeting or practice on a Speedway track or anywhere else I can go directly to the insurance company and get cover, even from the same insurers that the ACU use. The licence issue should be no problem as it must be well over 20 years ago that the AMCA and ACU were at loggerheads and it was eventually settled in court that the ACU could not revoke riders licences for competing in events not sanctioned by themselves. I don't know how the SCB will feel about it but it's difficult to see how they could legally be any different. The only exception would be if they competed in one of these events and missed a BSPA meeting which they will automatically be expected to attend by signing for a team. Hence the Tuesday meetings I would imagine. Many years ago the FIM stopped an alternative Road Race World Championship by threatening to not use tracks that held the alternative meetings. Can't see that Speedway would be willing to risk half a dozen tracks by trying the same thing which would very likely be illegal anyway.

Do the heat shields need to be approved or can you fit anything suitable? I noticed on Ebay it says they are suitable for approved silencers which could be a different thing.

According to Hansards average wage for a manual worker was £3 9s in 1939 so round it up to £3.50 and you are talking over 25 times that. Struggled to find a recent average wage for manual workers but the overall average is £26k so if we assume 20 which is near as £400 week as makes no difference that would make the rate today well over £10,000 week riding for one team who supplied a mechanic to look after your bike in their workshop. Apparently that is nearly as much as some NL riders!!

You just gotta love the whingers on this forum, they don't even need to know what is happening before they start knocking it.

You say that as if it's a bad thing!

I have to say one thing for robert72, he doesn't give up........................................ever!

For me this is the biggest flaw of the asset system. It actually encourages promoters to bring in untried foreign riders and give the a long run in the team to try to get them to a point where they have some financial value. There is no point in their helping a young Brtitish lad make his way in a higher league because there is no long term benefit for their club. Much better if British lads could not become assets until they had ridden 10 or 12 meetings for the club that wants to sign them. A fee could be applicable to be paid to NL clubs if the lad then qualifies to become an asset in the higher league.