500cc

Just as well the entrance fee hasn't gone up and the same rate as the program then. I don't think many people would turn up at £50 a shot !!!

Which is EXACTLY what caused a lot of the problems this winter. Who remembers Harkess saying the promoters would ring around MC members until they got the answer they wanted. And here we go again. Does anybody actually manage at BSPA. Perhaps they are all preparing their sketches for Friday night on the BBC. Harkess should have sent an official memo to all promotes that they were no longer allowed to quote that an individual MC member verbally told them about a decision. But he (presumably) hasn't has he

It means that Swindon can now pay Glasgow for Morris which is good news. I'm surprised they didn't mention it in their quote, it would have been good PR for Swindon. But it doesn't really tell us anything we don't know already. Of course Batchelor will be riding for Swindon. What we don't know is whether Swindon will suffer any sanctions over their methods this winter. There is more to this than Swindon are choosing to let on in the press releases. 1st March is totally irrelevant as Peterborough named their full team in January. Therefore, something is different about this case, and we all know what this is. I don't actually agree with the fact Swindon were being forced to purchase Batchelor. However, I believe Swindon's methods were pretty underhand. The NFL is currently in a three day 'legitimate tampering' phase. Teams may approach the agents of free agent players. However, they are not even allowed to arrange flights to discuss terms until the official signing period ends tomorrow. The NFL has warned the teams that any team abusing this will be treated harshly. The teams are very scared of putting a foot wrong. Oh how speedway could do with that kind of leadership.

Can't fault that overview from a Swindon perspective. But, from a Swindon perspective, it doesn't explain. 1. Peterborough completed their line-up in January. That made Batchelor a free agent. So why didn't Swindon sign him then.? Either they weren't allowed due to a BSPA dictate or Swindon were using this for another motive. 2. If the 1st March is so cut and dried as the Swindon promotion claim, why have they continued to state the Morris situation is dependant on the Batchelor resolution. I am beginning to wonder if there is more going on. Money appears to be Swindons problem. Perhaps knowing he had the upper hand, Batchelor was able to negotiate a higher wage on the 1st March. This may mean that Swindon no longer have the money available to finance the purchase of Morris. I appreciate that's total conjecture, but circumstances have changed over the winter. We know for example that Swindon pulled out of a potential purchase of Andersen.

I have little doubt that Batchelor will be in the 1-7. Whether Swindon will be happy about the resolution of the related issues is another matter. The rules pretty much allow any rider to ride where he likes. But then the rules allow the BSPA to impose sanctions/compensation as they choose. We are not privvy to what has gone on this winter, but there is enough published information from all parties to give us a good idea. In a nutshell, the BSPA have dictated that Swindon must purchase Batchelor, Swindon disagree and have made use of a potential loophole. The ball is now in the BSPA's court. They can either let this lie or take action against Swindon. Swindon are totally dependant on whether the BSPA will back down. Procedures will be in place for Swindon to protest any decision. However, simply ignoring a decision of the ruling body and looking for a loophole is a different matter. The BSPA can hit them hard. Swindon badly weakened their position by announcing publicly how they intended to get around the ruling and by dragging the agreed deal with Glasgow into this. In many other sports Swindon could face some major sanctions. The current weakness of speedway as a sport may actually be Swindon's biggest saviour here as I'm not sure the BSPA are in a position to fully use the powers available to them.

That's what is frustrating. Not that the discussions were known about, but the impression two years running that it was going to happen. Did I hear that Sky were going to broadcast the matches. If true another nail ..... The concept was obviously flawed, but I have no problems with the discussions, just the fact it was announced as happening. What about Adrian Miedzinski, or were Poole going to use him on loan as he was only needed for part of the season !!!

It's all part of the propaganda. In attempt to prevent the BSPA insisting on Batchelor being sold, they've drawn Glasgow into the issue. The insinuation is if you don't back down on dictating Batchelor must be bought, then we'll renegade on the Morris deal. As there is no enforced sale notice on Morris and no spots available (note the timing of the issue), then Morris will have to be loaned. Force us into purchasing Batchelor, and then we won't purchase Morris. I still think dragging Glasgow into this has been a big mistake. Nobody is sure that the BSPA have insisted on a Batchelor sale. However, if this weren't the case, why would Swindon's purchase of Morris be dependant on the resolution of the Batchelor affair and the we only budgeted for one purchase. Its worth noting that Peterborough are very quiet now awaiting the outcome of the Swindon game. Assuming that a decision was made by the BSPA that Batchelor must be purchased (and Swindon seem to be suggesting this is the case by their press releases), then await Peterborough's demands for compensation from the BSPA. At the moment the Peterborough press say Swindon claim to have signed Batchelor. Swindon are awaiting ratification from the BSPA, and Peterborough await that same decision. For what its worth I expect the Swindon 1-7 to be ratified, but also I expect the Swindon promotion to be disciplined again. Last year it was a technicality based on Swindon not understanding the regulations. Not so sure this year.

I very much doubt Swindon will get away with this. I fully expect them to be charged with: 1) An illegal approach to Batchelor 2) For bringing the sport into disrepute 3) .. and possibly failing to submit a valid 1-7 in required time frames. Whatever the rights or wrongs (and there are many of the latter), Swindon's biggest mistake has been publicly announcing how they were going to get around a situation they were aggrieved with. By dragging Glasgow and Morris into this, they have lost all credibility. Whoever has been advising Swindon would be well advised to keep a low profile. They have stupidly given the BSPA ammunition to fight back when initially they had a reasonable case to argue. I don't think this one will end here. In the first instant I'd expect their submitted team to be rejected. And while they are fighting that, they'd better hope an opening at another team doesn't become available, as you could quickly see Glasgow and that team doing a deal over Morris.

So presumably you agree that Swindon should purchase Hans Andersen this season if Peterborough want to sell him. Peterborough offered him a contract, but Andersen turned them down. No we can argue whether it was a reasonable offer and whether they would have actually given him the spot had he agreed, but it still stands that he was offered a place and rejected it.

I've made a number of posts this off season stating I was supportive of Swindons position on the Andersen/Batchelor issue. I also said I'd have no problem supporting Peterborough if they were screwed. Well I now think Swindon have abused the whole process. I find their stance on Morris disgusting. He is irrelevant to the Batchelor situation. Yet the promotion are directly linking the two. So they had budget for one purchase who was Morris. Yet still made an offer to Peterborough to screw the Panthers. Yet now they wait on the Batchelor resolution. And the plan is obvious. If they are forced to buy Batchelor they will renegade on the Morris deal. Because you see there are no spots left for Morris, so Glasgow won't be able to prevent his loan. What would be hilarious is if Peterborough used the proceeds of a Batchelor sale to purchase Morris and then loan him to Swindon. The issue I think most people are missing is that the BSPA don't have hard and fast regulations. They appear to work on a fairness give and take approach. Which is fine until clubs stop playing ball. It seems Batchelor is being force sold to balance the situation from a few years back. And that's where it gets messy. It's a bit like trying to be equally fair to your kids. That is only achievable by subtlety moving the goalposts to maintain the status quo. By dragging Morris into this, Swindon have shown their true colours

Apologies for going off topic, but can you tell me the best places to watch speedway in Canada? I'm looking to visit in about three months time and would like to catch some action. Many thanks.

Based on how the BSPA appear to be trying to handle this, you’d assume they need to charge Batchelor with bringing the sport in to disrepute.

Which may be true. So once again the BSPA MC was asleep on its watch. Why weren't Swindon required to purchase Batchelor last year? Oh they forgot, so they'll try again this year. Its worth noting that arrangements between clubs and the organisation are different to a rider's employment rights. It's irrelevant that the majority (or even all) promoters vote to retain the asset system. If the system itself is proven to unfairly prevent a rider gaining employment, then that rider could legally challenge the outcome. Non-EU riders are a different issue, but an EU rider could easily launch a challenge, especially if he doesn't care about his longterm future in the UK

Do we even know he still has a work permit. Having 'worked' in the UK for over five years he may already be entitled to residency. Also working in Europe and long spells in Australia complicate it for speedway riders, but American's playing basketball in the UK pretty much to my knowledge never need a sixth work permit after consecutive seasons. Then there's the complication of getting work permits. I expect speedway riders are on one year work permits which are extended annually (the easiest process). So I'd be very surprised if Batchelor isn't currently in the last month of his current work permit if he has one. Which all probably means he is currently an employee of Peterborough. A work permit ceases (with a period before you need to leave the country) when you are sacked / made redundant. Somehow don't think Peterborough will do this.

Wow, I didn't realise Wolves had cut Masters already !!!

And there in lies the problem with Matt Ford. I actually think he is one of the people who could help make this sport better, but he is too focused on making it better for his own club. And now it appears he’s lost the trust of other promoters who no longer appear to be backing his ideas. He went to the press about how Holder and Ward needed to job share, how it would get Crump back into the EL etc. Did he mention double-uppers? Did he mention PL riders? I don’t think so. What he was actually after were rule changes allowing rides to pick and choose when they rode in the UK. It was about managing the top riders workload. That was all he was interested in. It was about rides not riding in the UK and the threat of Holder or Ward choosing not to. Did he once discuss the problem of guests for the riders committed to the UK who get injured? Matt Ford’s ideas are always based on self-interest and are played out publicly Of course his first priority is his own club and that’s fine, but constantly trying to get one over the other clubs is another matter. Clubs need to work together if the sport is to survive.

Absolutely. Not ideal, but there aren't many alternatives. A squad system wouldn't eliminate it and would bring different issues. What is so wrong is that in January we already know meetings where teams will be running three guests, and that's before we look at covering injuries. This is a very important year for the sport (recessions, Sky contract), and they've managed to create that situation. Dreadful administrative management.

But why did he sign as an asset in the first place? Are riders forced to? What's in it for them? Why should a rider buy out a contract (well its not a contract is it) that he was forced into. Don't see a problem being asked to be released from his "contract", but the financial side has nothing to do with the rider. The BSPA would not dare take the Batchelor approach to a EU citizen. I understand why there is an issue because of Peterborough being forced to buy in the first place, but its really nothing to do with Batchelor.

That does highlight that riders on low PL averages may find their services very quickly dispensed with if they suffer short(ish) term injuries. Morris could fall into that category. Wells most certainly would. Your stats do highlight the biggest weakness of the Swindon team. They look a strong team to me, with the biggest question mark at reserve. They are built on a powerful top 5. But if Morris misses at least a third of those meetings and the quality of replacement is not great, then there is massive pressure on Gomolski. Certainly could be their achilles heel.

And even worse .... if Proctor were to be missing for Poole away (which isn't currently the case), then track specialist Doyle could replace him despite having an average a whole point higher. There is a real danger that the season be totally manipulated by the selection of these guests on dodgy averages. It's almost as if the promoters feel unable to participate unless success is based on finding ringers (the new foreign 4 point scenario). The cleverest (and richest) promoters will be the winners here. There is a lot of data for them to consider. For example, Doyle is a great guest at Poole, but as a Wednesday night rider (Birmingham) opportunities will be limited. So Doyle is eligible to replace Wolves fifth rider (Proctor) in the averages, yet he can only replace Eastbourne's number one. Whereas Proctor can replace Eastbourne's entire top 5. That is SO WRONG.

Interesting if you read between the lines. It would appear Peterborough still haven't given Swindon permission to talk to Andersen. Bit of bad blood over this winter's dealings me thinks.

Fair point ... but then you could say that all the other EL matches on Good Friday are no more than just qualifiers.

Are you absolutely sure this is how it will work? Surely current EL averages will be used where they exist. Masters, Wells and Proctor all (will) have 2013 averages. Bjerre is more questionable. Do you use his 2012 average, or 2013 PL. Even where the PL average is used, why not convert it? Otherwise we are going to end up with some stupid scenarios. For example Simon Stead doesn't make a great start to his PL season and after 8 matches is averaging just below 8 (not bad, but a few mechanical problems and on just 8 matches your average is easily skewed. In contrast Sam Masters slightly increases his PL average such that he now averages the same as Stead. Meanwhile without the mechanical gremlins Stead has pushed his EL average above 6 (and his season's average is actually around 7). Being a Friday double-up rider Masters hasn't ridden much in the EL so far so his average is slightly increased at 4. Yet based on all of this Stead is allowed to ride at reserve for Masters. So the season becomes about who can take most advantage of the guest options. Instead of looking for a 4 point ringer, teams are trying to manipulate the guest options to get a PL ringer. And don't be surprised to see certain riders turning down guest appearances as the richer clubs pay them to effectively be on their reserve lists. And yo'd have the situation where Wells can guest for Poole's reserve Tungate, but not Coventry's Heat leader Zengota even though the latter's EL average is nearly two points higher than the former. Or even better, if Masters is unavailable, redeclare dropping Wells and replacing him with somebody like Nermark, and then use Wells as a PL guest for Masters. Stretching it a bit, but it is a silly rule if it exists as described. I hope your interpretation is wrong, as it only makes a bad situation even worse.

Agreed. Not possible by road. I do think its a shame that the opening high profile fixture of the season has more than a fifth of the riders missing due to administrative issues. I've been plugging this point on the (I think) Coventry thread. At least the opening leg doesn't appear to be affected. Despite all ten clubs riding on Good Friday it only looks like three others will miss out, Doyle, Barker and Niemenen. I'm guessing Kozza will be given preference to his Kl meetings.

Good news. Swindon have once again asked for permission to talk to Andersen and Batchelor. My understanding is that they no longer have a right to refuse this. In unrelated news (!!!), Peterborough have cancelled their pre-season meeting with Swindon. Swindon have subsequently cancelled the return fixture.