BWitcher

Ever thought of a career in promotions? You seem a natural.

Just as with Woffinden, there will always be the jealous, bitter, xenophobic haters. Doyle is a rider who has grown on me tremendously over the last couple of seasons and one who certainly has achieved far more than I ever thought him capable off.

The league in 2018 is stronger that at the start of 2017. Comparing to the end of a season is foolish as teams who get off to a poor start strengthen during the season. Compare how Swindon would have looked without the Musielak change as an example. Or even how Wolves would have looked if they had stuck with Skornicki and he had continued to struggle.

The difference is as close as it has ever been. It was far further apart in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

A fair enough reason... so simply say that!

You should give up. You're trolling at the levels of Starman. You seem to be displaying a complete inability to understand basic English. The original criteria are IRRELEVANT. Had he fitted those criteria he wouldn't be applying for a discretionary endorsement. There is a long section that explains this in the rules if you'd bother to read it where it explicitly explains what is required for a discretionary endorsement to be given by the BSPA. That same section says that full reasoning would be given if the discretionary endorsement was turned down and why the information provided was not sufficient. Again, the original criteria at this point are IRRELEVANT. You don't seem to be able to grasp that nobody is denying the right for the BSPA to turn it down. Indeed I may even lean towards supporting them in that decision. What isn't correct is giving a reason that he doesn't fit the original criteria. That is just ridiculous. It's like being found guilty in a court of law, appealing, arriving at your appeal and the judge saying.. "You're guilty because the original jury said so" and not bothering to even look at any new evidence or the appeal. Again, had the BSPA, from the outset stated that no discretionary endorsements would be considered this whole situation would not have occutred.

Yes it is their discretion, nobody has ever said that, something you seem quite keen not to grasp. However, when at their discretion they are not going to endorse a rider they are required to give their reasons in writing as to why the reasons given for the discretionary endorsement are not sufficient. Saying he doesn't fit the original criteria, which the BSPA did (initially) is not doing that. That is stating the bleedin obvious and why the discretionary endorsement was applied for in the first place. The BSPA have had all winter to make a simple statement. "No discretionary endorsements will be considered. If you don't fit the criteria, that is it". Is that really such a hard thing for them to do? Why leave the door open, drag processes out, waste people's time when they had no intention of ever awarding an endorsement? That leaves the door open for people, with good reason given past history, to wonder if it is done so if someone in favor applies for an endorsement, one can be given. It's simply another mess they've brought upon themselves that could very easily have been avoided.

I know Grachan isn't dumb, so am confused why he seems to be missing the point here.

Well you're acting it, suggesting that the criteria which makes you apply for a discretionary endorsement is the reason used for not giving one. Seems Rob Godfrey has clarified that Becker DOES fit the criteria, but the BSPA have simply decided they aren't giving any discretionary endorsements. So again, it's having one rule and doing another thing that is the issue. If the BSPA had told Edinburgh and indeed every other club right from the beginning that there will be no discretionary endorsements given there would never have been an issue. It's this moving of the goalposts that is a fundamental issue in the governing of the sport.

Yes you do.

Come on Grachan, you aren't that dumb are you? That is the criteria for an automatic visa. Becker wasn't applying for an automatic visa. Becker was applying for a discretionary endorsement. An entirely different thing where you are NOT required to meet the initial criteria (you wouldn't be applying for it if you did). Saying you aren't eligible for a DISCRETIONARY ENDORSEMENT because you don't meet the criteria for an automatic visa is about as stupid as you can get. As I've already stated, all the BSPA had to say was they didn't feel Becker was of a sufficient standard or some other excuse to cover themselves. Instead, they act like idiots and alienate another bunch of fans. All could very easily have been avoided.

Correct, neither did Becker. That's why a discretionary endorsement is applied for. So what was the argument behind Douglas applying for a discretionary endorsement?

Quite simply yes, anyone could put an application in but of course it would need to have a strong case backing it. Again, that isn't the discussion.

Edinburgh have already confirmed what they have been told, as has Steve Evans, the USA team manager and the rider himself. They haven't been given a reason. Yes, we all know the application process is a minefield and lessons were learned no doubt over the Ty Proctor situation. As such the BSPA should be quite clear, this is the criteria, if you don't fit THAT IS IT. End of story. Leaving the door open as they are doing is simply continuing their traditional approach of.. depends who is asking/paying/loaning us a rider. So on the one hand the BSPA could be deemed to be doing the correct thing.. yet somehow they still manage to turn it into adverse publicity!!

Is this really such a difficult concept to understand? It clearly states that should it be rejected the reasoning would be given. Saying it didn't meet the initial criteria is not a reason, that's the whole purpose of making the application. Nobody, not even Edinburgh or Luke Becker is complaining it has been rejected. They are complaining because no reason has been given. Transparency, that is what people want and once again it is lacking.

There is no need to guess Grachan. The wording is quite clear and explicit. Riders/clubs can apply for a discretionary endorsement if there were extenuating circumstances that prevented a rider from hitting the original criteria. In the case of injury, medical evidence must be provided. This was all done. The wording also states that the BSPA will provide in writing full reasoning why the discretionary endorsement was rejected. They haven't done that. Saying he doesn't fit the initial criteria is just dumb. We know that. Edinburgh knew that, Luke Becker knew that. That's why they were applying for a discretionary endorsement. Had the BSPA said we don't feel based upon Beckers overall record he meets the standard required, then job done. Some may not have agreed but a reasoning was given. This has nothing to do with immigration laws, it is to do with the BSPA being unable to do their jobs professionally.. again.

Remove the appeal process then and simply have a hard and fast rule.

Which is entirely the problem! In other words, it depends who is asking, which is a big factor in the sport being in the mess it is.

Quite correct and indeed I don't particularly have a problem with the appeal failing. However, the appeal is for cases that don't fit the criteria. So saying the appeal has failed because it doesn't fit the criteria is dumb even by BSPA standards. If they wish to stick to the hard and fast criteria, remove the appeal procedure and say so. Otherwise, once again, it leaves the door open for one rule to be applied for one and another for someone else.

It hasn't failed on criteria set down by the UKVI. Do try and keep up. A discretionary endorsement is precisely FOR those who don't meet the criteria set down by the UKVI. It's not rocket science. All the BSPA had to do was give their reasons why they don't feel a discretionary endorsement is valid. Simple. If the BSPA wishes to operate a hard and fast ruling in regards to the permits, which is fair enough, then remove the appeal system.

Then the BSPA should clearly state 'how' it has failed. They haven't done so. Those two bullet points are not conditions, they are 'factors' to be taken into consideration. Now should the BSPA believe the first of those bullet points is a factor that they feel Becker doesn't meet sufficiently for them not to give the discretionary endorsement then they should present to the club/rider why they feel that to be the case. If they had done that, case closed. Perhaps some may not have agreed with it but the correct procedure would have been followed. They haven't done that, that is the issue.

No they aren't. Why don't you try reading the 'black and white' rules?

Except it isn't, but don't let that stop you inventing things! The rules as they are have been both stated and linked too. Edinburgh have not broken them, the BSPA have.

Edinburgh weren't breaking the rules. They followed the rules to the letter. The BSPA have broken their own rules with their reply .

No they haven't. Please explain how you apply for a discretionary endorsement if you already fit the rules. It is there for that purpose, where someone does not fit them. The BSPA have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent (again) and have a severe lack of understanding of their very own rules. Again, I re-iterate, the BSPA have the right not to give him the endorsement. However, as per THEIR OWN RULES, they are required to give full written reasons why. Saying he didn't fit the automatic criteria is not a reason, that is something that is already known and why the discretionary endorsement appeal system is there.