500cc

I think he's 26, but still not U-25 of course

To be honest, British speedway has zero credibility. So Scott Nicholls gets effectively 'threatened' when asking to take part and now they allow Tai to participate. So to those in authority, any chance of publicly apologising for your treatment of Scott Nicholls? The BSPA are a total embarassment. Sadly, the worst thing that could happen is for Sky to continue to subsidise them. They would dance up and down celebrating extended funding without recognising that elite level sport in this country needs a fundamental overhaul. I'm one of those fans who attended weekly for years but now just watch on Sky (and now also Eurosport) for free.

I'm dreadful at using bookmarks for sites I visit regularly. Normally I just start typing the name in my address bar and select it from the drop down as it appears. For the speedwaygb I've typically typed BSPA and grab the link that the google search engine displays.. But all of I sudden this week it doesn't work. In fact I'm strugglingto search on anything that will find me the site; even speewaygb. Only one I've got to work is "Official British Speedway GB" and even that picks obscure old articles. Only used Google. Is this just me, or is Google no longer finding the site?

Bit confused why because you haven't heard of him, you categorise him as a weak link. Why not include Niklas Klingberg from the year before. No Rickardsson in the top 3 that year either. Klingberg had one other top 3 (no Rickardsson again) but that's it. Danno has more than one GP final. The younger Klingberg none. Danno had a previous world final. Their British League averages were very comparable. Was Danno a superstar? No. A Duff no. He's won more Swedish titles than Karlsson/Max/Lindgren combined in the last 20 years. That suggests to me that the Swedish title isn't that easy to win. Would he be a duff if he'd won 3 times, like say Andy Smith at the British? 10/12 years is a career in speedway terms. If you've dropped out of speedway for that long then your obviously not going to know the details of many riders. You seem determined to categorise him as a duff despite being shown the quality of the field he beat in 2003 and a pretty good international career. Just look at the quality of the top 3 for the the 15 years before he won. It's virtually a who's/who of world class riders. He's not a duff because he didn't break that stranglehold. It's like calling Mark Loram a duff world champion.

Can they let Pawlicki have a bit of beauty rest from his last heat as his doctor suggested !!!

Surprised Freddie Lindgren yet to win a title.

Can't be a week day as that clashes with British speedway !!!

Re the training day that's an absolute must. Failure to do that should initiate an investigation into whether those responsible are fit to run speedway in this country. If the Danish team can arrange a pre-season mini-camp at KL, then so can our authorities. Don't know the regulations, but I hope they haven't left it too late due to a by-law preventing testing at a track x days before an official FIM Meeting (I assuming nothing like this exists).

Well the date I was told (with confidence!!!) is Saturday 7th June. Would prefer Saturday 31st May myself.

Speedway fights social media and that is its biggest downfall. Scott Nicholls excellent interview in Speedway Star emphasised this. Embrace it don't hide from it. Yes there is the nasty side of social media and Scotty recognised that, but unfortunately that's the world we live in.

In most businesses those employed or contracted could be subject to disciplinary action for leaking information to the public domain. In this case an element is already public knowledge, but BSI are probably not happy with the images portrayed by the riders.

Which is fine providing we have a raceable track for a 5pm start time later today. Anything else and BSI will have run out of excuses. Must say we were in stitches this afternoon. It was announced that practice was delayed until 6pm due to further track preparation. What happened was nothing; it was a variation on watching paint dry, except we were watching a track dry, not that it was puddle wet of course.

Scott Campos American ? That's reasonable then !!!

Was that the same October that BSI decided that Harris would no longer a permanent wild card? I love watching Harris, but there is no question that he has been the biggest benefactor of the commercial aspect of the Grand Prix series. If I remember rightly wasn't Nicholls a semi finalist last year if it weren't for a re-run? Personally I believe the decision to award Harris the wild card was a done decision last October, with the likelihood the nobody was going to be good enough to make this a seriously unfair decision. It worries me more what BSI's strategy going forward is. If you are going to hand pick a wild card, then for the sake of the future, priority must go to an up and coming youngster. I accept there is nobody who is probably ready yet. But there comes a point when a progressing youngster should get the chance even whilst Harris remains the better rider. Sadly I suspect commercial decisions will override that.

Who do they consult with in GB then?

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 !!!

The BSPA would simply deduct all Batchelors points and fine Swindon. Whatever we think of the rules they are the rules, and more importantly the BSPA decides on every contentious issue. And thats fine and correct. You have to be very careful with legal challenges. Challenging how an association regulates their sport is not something anybody is likely to win. You have to challenge things like restraint of trade (including unfairly limiting reasonable earnings) or unfair dismissal. Yes, there is a cross over, but its the true employment issues that are key. Courts do not look kindly on anybody abusing their position. There is an agreed precedent to pay loan fees that with the odd exception everybody has accepted without complaint. If a promoter were to legally challenge the asset system, I would suggest they'd be very unwise to do it whilst blatantly refusing to pay loan fees. I'm somebody who strongly believes the asset system will not stand-up under a legal challenge. However, because of its long term precedent, I doubt any judge would simply insist its removed in one full swoop. A judge would protect riders freedom of movement outside of a financial contract, but in terms of the interaction between promoters, I very much doubt he'd make their assets worthless immediately. I suspect he/she would support (or at least not object to) a phased loan system providing it didn't unfairly restrict riders

Absolutely agree. Would have saved us all the acrimony from the last year too !!! It is the worst illustration of the asset system. I stand to be corrected, but I believe 2006 was AM's first season in British speedway. For Swindon to get any fee 6 years later for simply being the first to employ a foreign rider who didn't appear in the UK in the interim 5 seasons, and for which Swindon occurred no additional costs (in fact it would have cost them more if he was already an asset of another club) is simply ludicrous. The only thing I'd like to see is a system in place to ensure compensation to clubs who develop young British riders. But even that needs managing. Being the first National League club to track a star 15 year old for one season isn't an open cheque book for compensation. The key is rewarding development and over a reasonable time frame.

There was actually some discussion as to whether he was an Ipswich or BSPA asset. One bright spark who believed he was a BSPA asset went on to say that therefore he was effectively a Matt Ford asset !!! Don't show this thread to any Poole fans though, as they may latch-on and claim Gollob as a Poole World Champion !!!

The only problem with that is that the BSPA would refuse to accept the Swindon declaration if they thought they were being that deliberate. If the BSPA refused to budge then Swindon's only recourse would be the courts. On this one I suspect they would lose because they were using an asset without following the standard precedent of paying at least a loan fee to Peterborough. I think the BSPA would lose a lot of court cases involving the asset system, but this is one approach that wouldn't work.

I agree with the principle of what you are saying Philip. But the current asset system effectively supports 'ownership' of a rider in terms of you can get income from them when they ride in the UK. Miedzinski was out of British Speedway (2006?) for about the same length of time Hancock has been away, but Swindon were able to get a loan fee last season, and in truth should really have been able to sell him. The set-up is wrong, but as things stand, in terms of British Speedway riders like Hancock remained "owned" as far as the BSPA are concerned. I suspected Reading had bought him, but according to the local Coventry newspaper, he won the 2011 World Championship whilst a Coventry asset. Whether that's true I don't know.

Many thanks for the info. The scenario I was wondering about are foreign riders who haven't ridden in the UK for many years. Take Greg Hancock for example. To the best of my knowledge he was a Coventry asset in 2011, presumably owned by Sandhu. It appears Horton has bought the Coventry assets. Does this mean that Hancock had to sign transfer forms to transfer his ownership from Sandhu to Horton? What happens if he doesn't want to? Or is that the part you refer to in your last sentence where its an automatic transfer. Whilst Hancock probably is au fait with what's going on in the UK, I'd be less sure about a Pole who rode briefly as a youngster and wouldn't be aware of things such as club ownership changes. Equally Peterborough's asset list contains a number of riders unlikely to ride in the UK. Would any of them have to sign transfer forms if they were for example "individually swapped" with another promoter? Does it mean that an asset can only be sold (individually) if the rider agrees and signs the forms? If Bjerre signs for Peterborough, then there is no place for Batchelor. Peterborough say the BSPA require Swindon to purchase him to ride this year. What happens if Batchelor refuses to sign the transfer form. Doesn't that prevent the purchase? Is he forced to sign the forms in order to ride for Swindon?

Highlights an interesting point that not all riders will necessarily know who they are an asset of as when they are inactive there is presumably no correspondence with their 'owner'

According to the Peterborough promotion (as reported In their local paper anyway) the BSPA determined that as a result of an illegal approach Kings Lynn were required to buy Sclhlien. in contrast the BSPA decided that Iversen could be loaned.

I think your last sentence is probably the crux of this. I too remember 'dead heats' being out lawed not long after the graphics were screwed by one in a BSI event (Lingren and Harris at the 2008 World Cup Qualifier in Coventry perhaps?). Fairly certain that was the Sky commentary team who announced that. Now whether anybody will admit that a referee has been instructed not to award them is another matter. Bet we NEVER see one awarded in a GP or World Cup Finals event though.