Tsunami

Lots of points there Chris, some of which I will challenge. Others I will either PM you or discuss them when we next meet. The ruling might have been passed at the AGM but would have been known weeks before at the PreAGM meeting, so the decision could have been pre-empted. The decision would have been made with the best intentions of clarifying who could drop down, but unfortunately for Kennett and Nicholls they had no Championship average to fall back on, like say Harris. Presumably the ruling was for genuine stabilisation between the two leagues and that was the AGM decision. That's the way an organisation operates cos it is the ruling body for the sport. To say a member in a 'closed shop' can't challenge things is rather ignoring reality. All matters are discussed, voted for and a decision arrived at, and in many cases by a majority vote as few things are unanimous. That's how all committees generally operate. The difference in this case is the legality of that decision. The BSPA, obviously having made the decision, thought it was legal and enforceable, and therefore would have tried to uphold it. When faced by objections from the SCB and a legal challenge, they had no alternative to overturn their own decision. That is not as you say "incompetence, viciousness or both" unless you are preprogrammed to the mantra that the organisation "deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets". I have no information to what you allude to with the IOW matters, but I would have thought that generally within the BSPA ranks and other fans that Barry and Martin, their efforts have been applauded and are in the vest interest of the continuance of our sport. The fact that Barry has just won an award just recently would suggest your 'jealousy' tag may be a bit offline. You say Ged was 'fined heavily'. Hmmm. Yes he was by the BSPA to the tune of £28K, which coincided with the amount of what he received by breaking rules of the organisation, which he signed before the season started as agreeing to uphold the rules of he organisation. Everyone seemed to think that was rather relevant and justified. In the subsequent review by the SCB, that fine was cancelled and replaced to about £1k and scrubbed the free meeting I believe. Who thinks that the SCB decision was better or more appropriate than the original one from the BSPA. I think the BSPA got it spot on and I am disappointed in the level of the SCB revised fine. So we have rules that get broken and Ged makes a profit of about £26k is a punishment ? Not right. Rob, who you have championed before for his style and achievements with the Scunny track, was stupid to do what he did. No argument with that. It is not unprecedented but cannot be accepted under any circumstances. There has to have been some review of his actions and maybe his warning or punishment has not been published, I don't know. But what I do now is that that meeting was under the control of the referee acting for the SCB, and it is them not the BSPA to take any appropriate action. if you accept the SCB acted according regarding the reversing of an illegal decision with the over 6 rule, I would hope you will also hold a similar view regarding the view that the SCB with Rob's actions. As I said earlier, there are things I can't put on here as you will understand. Will be in touch.

The reports I have had back about how his sessions have gone is very positive, but thats like racing on your own without the hurly burley of normal racing. One thing I am pleased about is he hasn't signed for us, as the pressure on him with his father a promoter would be immense and not fair.

Pies haven't arrived ?

Steve has taken a great interest in Danny whilst they were both at Newcastle. He has worked hard on Danny's gating and has rode together with him. I would say with Steve's influence, it a betting cert it is Danny, and he is your best choice.

Always good to hear you so enthusiastic Carl. Hope you and us Diamonds have a good year.

Remember that well, Jason was turned around at the start gate. Poor weather for August wasn't it.

Nothing to do with cost cutting, Our points were used on a top heavy team with Lambert and Stevie W at the top, and after Danny Phillips got hurt, just prior to getting a 4.5 average, we had to go with the best of what was left.

Getting things wrong, Hmmmm. Bit of a tenuous link that . It was stated on here that Scott had been signed in December/January and I quoted that, but I have now been told that he was signed before the AGM, early November I hear, and I reported that.

So really it didn't matter how wide the straight was. Actually at Newcastle other riders used to do exactly the same to James.

There could be two versions of the truth though.

Your opinion, but others could say a person who breaks rules he has signed to uphold, deserves sometimes a harsh sentence.

Narrow tracks don't stop it now do they.

Surely it has been Ged's decisions that has caused the problems and attracted opposition, especially his actions on Holdergate. The Scott affair was deemed illegal and now been corrected, but Ged has not played a straight bat with this matter, and could and should have acted in a less combative way. I think there has been a bit of twit for tat between Ged and the BSPA, but there is a way of working with your partners in any organisation and this is not a good case of that.

Not everything makes it to the News release as well we all know. Actually I might have to revise my previous statement when I said that Ged had signed Scott in December or January. I'm told he signed him before the AGM and it was well known.

Mute point that as all transfers between clubs have to be signed by all 3 participants. The riders signature is for him to agree to take a 10%age of the deal, or to forgo his share at that stage to collect his share of a future and larger transfer deal. If he doesn't take a %age I think after 10 years, he is entitled to a benefit meeting. In the case of KK, or any non ACU/SCB riders, their ownership transfers to the BSPA to decide what is the best solution. When you sign a non ACU/SCB rider, it is the BSPA who acts as the agent with the riders federation to issue 'rights to ride in the UK' not the club.

That's right, and it is used to pay all speedway debts, that is to the BSPA, Clubs and riders.

No, that's an over statement. It was agreed at the AGM when Peterborough was not represented. Ged signed Nicholls in about December or January, when he could/should have known it was not allowed under the AGM decisions. Far better to highlight is illegality and test the decision, and not sign Scott, which really was an attempt to rock the boat rather than seek clarification of its lawfulness. Problem is when onlookers dislike the BSPA, along comes someone who breaks the rules and rigidly flaunts actions against a AGM decision , and he suddenly becomes the peoples champion. Sad Sad. Swop the personalties and substitute Matt for Ged and the speedway world would go mad with such arrogance. It is and has to be a closed shop, embracing ALL the BSPA, how else can a committee in charge of British Speedway operate ? The latter part of that para is way over the top IMO. Which is exactly what I said. They ALL need to work together to run speedway, even if they have natural leanings for or against other promotions. Again spite and vindictiveness is way over the top IMO.

It is correct that they have to have riders to a value of, or place a financial bond with the BSPA to that value. Obviously for the riders to have value to the new promotion, they would have to own them, otherwise they would just be loan riders. The value of the bond is considerably higher in the higher league. If the promotion sells an asset, and they are below the bond value, or now below after the sale, they can be urged by the BSPA to sign riders, or place a financial bond for the difference. NB Asset in terms of holding the riders permit to ride in the UK.

Well done to the Berwick promotion.

Have to agree there. How many times, other than the start, is the track needed to be wider than say 8m which is the minimum width as laid down by the SCB Regulations. There is usually only need for about 2m used when two bikes are alongside each before taking a line into the bend. Extra width on the bends is far more beneficial but, like Glasgow is, the width will only get used with decent banking for the outside and under lines being a challenge to each other A flat track being widened on the bends does nothing for the outside racing lines.

But it doesn't say that couldn't change, just he has not had offers.

In 2016 he rode for Sheffield and I spoke to him after his 0 0 0 meeting at our place. He said he hated it, and couldn't get round it, but I held the second half back for him to have another couple of rides to help him. His average at the Newcastle meetings was 2.18, against his PL average of 2.09. It wasn't a good year for him coming the season after a bit of bother on the track I believe. Last year in the PL he had a Newcastle average of 4.89, as against a PL average for Ippy of 4.49. So actually his average for Brough was better in both years than the average of all the other tracks. Source :- SCB - Speedway Stats

Not assets, but clubs hold the registration to ride in the UK. How does the law stand then when a rider has a visa, but wants to change clubs midseason. Surely your statement can't be true in those circumstances.

Don't agree Chris. Only if Ged tries something on will he get opposition, abide by the rules and it's welcome back. Don't forget you have to work together every week in the background regarding fixtures , guests, etc, so no point in making it harder to cooperate with each other. Every team needs favours from the rest of BSPA from time to time, to resolve issues ongoing all year.

Think you had better move on before you make a bigger fool of yourself,