500cc

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.

You probably highlight the crux of all of this, the lack of clear rules from the BSPA. The more I hear the more I see that the system appears to be run by long term gentleman's agreements and case by case decisions. The latter especially worries me as the apparent inconsistency probably perversely is an attempt to bring overall balance to all parties but the foundations now appear to be collapsing. Despite that Peterborough would still need to prove they were offering a fair deal. If (and I'm not accusing here, especially as I have a lot of sympathy for Peterborough's position) the offer wasn't consummate of a number one or the available spot was already contractually agreed with another rider, then Peterborough could not hide behind the BSPA rules. In fact I suspect the BSPA would not back them so as to protect themselves. The BSPA are the ones who need to get a grip. Is there any rule that forces Swindon to purchase if they want him in the team. If not, then ultimately Peterborough can't stop him riding on loan if they don't sign him themselves.

Providing they are reasonable financial offers and no deal is signed and sealed for Bjerre. If either of those two points aren't true then if Andersen were to take legal action, then Peterborough would be in a very difficult position, as would the BSPA actually. I've said this before, it's a game of dare. If a rider instigates legal action against a club or the BSPA, how far would either party go before backing out. He who blinks first. I fully understand Peterborough protecting their financial assets, but due to the incompetence of the BSPA, this remains a grenade waiting to go off in the sport. I believe Coventry have been totally screwed by the system in recent years, but it appears they are blocking Auty's move to Birmingham. If I was Auty I'd consider sending a letter to Coventry giving them 14 days to either offer him employment for 2013 or allowing him to go on loan to Birmingham. If they don't do either, Auty's should then inform them that his 'asset agreement' will become null and void and he becomes a free agent. The BSPA need to get their backsides into gear, and quickly. Coventry and Peterborough amongst others must be reasonably protected against their asset investments but surely the BSPA can't walk into the problems that 2014 are likely to bring. Surely. But then again their legal advisers tell them they can't give preferential opportunities to British riders, so I wouldn't rate their advice.

For Peterborough to have any rights to Batchelor there must must be some contractual agreement between the two parties. I suspect that something does exist, probably in terms of an asset agreement. For a contract to have validity it must be beneficial to both parties. Peterborough benefit in terms of loans or selling ability. The massive question is what benefit does Batchelor gain. I suspect nothing. If he is receiving a retainer fee then that me be a different matter. However, I doubt that is the case. From the outside I suspect legally there is nothing to stop Batchelor riding for who he chooses. The complications then are two fold. Firstly other clubs may choose not to break gentleman agreements and sign Batchelor. Secondly, and most complicated, the BSPA may prevent Batchelor signing where (and how) he wants. That becomes very messy and a huge legal battle. If it ever reached that level, whilst I suspect the asset system as it stands would be invalidated, at the same time riders wouldn't become total free agents A rider would probably be owned, but to an agreed financial contract. Otherwise the rider would become a free agent.

Fair point. The problem is that Janet Mahoney has been directly quoted by the paper. If this is not true she needs to do something fairly quickly as rightly or wrongly this will now be treated as Peterborough's view.

Kings Lynn have been accused by some of choosing to purchase Schlien instead of Iversen. The facts appear a little different now. Kings Lynn were found guilty of illegally approaching Schlien. In order to be allowed to track him in 2013 they were required by the BSPA to purchase him. In contrast the BSPA agreed that Iversen could be signed on loan. So apart from the initial illegal approach to Schlien (for which I assume Kings Lynn have been fined) everything now makes sense in terms of the following moves. Peterborough are now objecting to BSPA's decision to allow Inversen to join Kings Lynn on loan hence the current impasse. However, it is interesting the despite what is being discussed, currently the BSPA agree with Kings Lynn on the make-up of the 1-7 and also the loan/purchase of each relevant rider.

The BSPA is simply not fit for purpose. The inconsistency in recent years beggars belief. What we are now seeing as the end game. It is likely all Sky money will be lost in a years time. 2013 will be the toughest year this country has experienced in recent times, because the credit culture of modern times has hidden the true financial problems faced by families. To pre-empt this it appears the BSPA are attempting to spread the assets. The trouble is some clubs aren't stupid. Birmingham won't pay over the odds for Barker, because amongst other things, they have no guarantee how the asset system will work going forward nor the real value of these assets. Last years AM decision by the BSPA will now come back to bite. Allowing him to go on loan, allowing that loan period to be abused to the extent that all value from AM has potentially been lost was scandalous. Now it appears Swindon are being forced to buy Anderson and Batchelor if they want to use them. They may buy them, but I doubt they will for the amount requested by Peterborough. Best option for Swindon may be the rumoured 'Schlien' rule. Agree to buy them, see the state of the sport at the end of the season, and if things are poor, let them revert to Peterborough by not paying the fee. And I totally understand Peterborough's position. The BSPA have walked into this as usual. There has been no long term strategy and its all come to a head particularly because of the Sky money and the recession. There does come a point at which promoters or riders may take the legal route. The brink of bankruptcy is one. No further interest in British speedway is another. Are the BSPA prepared to risk a legal challenge. Who blinks first? Who is more daring? We have contentious issues every year. I do fear that because of the current state of speedway and the economy, this may be the year something finally blows.

I guess Bjerre may be a bit disillusioned that Hans was first choice to ride for the Panthers this year.

Next your going to tell us that was the reason AM was a loan deal and not a full purchase.

For somebody who only joined this forum a fortnight ago you are very aggressive to some long term posters. For a Weymouth fan you seem to have a lot to say about Peterborough. Also you mention that fishers average has been adjusted. Can you explain why this was changed as the info is that there are no changes to the 2012 regulations in this area.

A couple of questions if anyone can help the BSPA (sorry I mean help me) Can some one point me at the regulation that states that the rules for transfering from PL to EL are different to EL to PL as this little subsection doesn't appear to differentiate. 17.2.4 Where only one (EL or PL) average has been established the previous season, then that is the Average used, converted where necessary as per SR 17.2.2 for both Leagues whether full-time or Doubling-Up. 17.2.5 Where a Rider has a 2011 PL MA and a 2010 EL MA due to transferring Clubs before the 2011 season, then the EL MA will apply if transferring to the EL. 17.2.6 Where a Rider has a 2011 EL MA and a 2010 PL MA due to transferring Clubs before the 2011 season, then the PL MA will apply if transferring to the PL. How will Ryan Fisher's converted 5.27 work alongside his existing 6.02 Rolling Average. We were told Rolling Averages were to be retained. So if Fisher is injured (or dropped) in his first meeting, then he can be immediately replaced by a 6 point rider. What prevents this?

If Swindon only want to sign them for part of a season, then Peterborough have no right to demand a transfer, even if Peterborough want them in their starting 1 to 7.

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.

Isn't it rather that dead heats are no longer declared in GP's. You can't change the law of physics that there may be no measurable difference between two riders. Athletics ocasionally has dead heats when no difference can be detected and the quality of their technology is significantly better than those camera's we see at speedway which don't even seem to be in line. Is the referee simply instructed to guess, pick his favourite when he his not presented with any discernible evidence, toss a coin, award to the rider leading after the third lap or select the rider his mate has had a bet on !!! It is a serious question, what are the referees instructions when it is impossible to separate two (or more !!!) riders?

Where a GP race ends in a dead heat, who is awarded the win? Same question for the minor placings? Is the win awarded to rider with the lower riding number (i.e. Greg Hancock will always be given the win in a dead heat, whilst Andreas Jonsson would get the win against everybody but Hancock). Does a track reserve get the benefit over a temporary rider (not the wild card) replacing an injured 1-15 rider? Or is there a different rule for deciding the winner?

Isn't the facility for the lower average? If I was Birmingham I'd sign Ryan Fisher as his Barker's doubling-up partner. If a fixture clash ever occurs, the facility will be based on Fisher's 6.02 average. If Barker is injured, then Fisher is the best replacement I can imagine in the PL. I'm not aware of a rule specifically preventing a double-upper from the same PL team, although it is slightly abusing the system.

Am I correct that the use of 2010 meetings is dependant on the status of the rider. For example Riders A and B both rode 10 meetings in 2010, and both rode none in 2011. So in 2012 Rider A's Rolling Average includes those 10 2010 meetings. He only starts dropping them once riding is 19th meeting of 2012. In contrast Rider B's 2012 Rolling Average is exclusively made up from 2012 meetings (his 2010 meetings are all ignored) Am I correct the both scenario's can be played out in 2012? Equally is it true if Rider's C and D both rode 6H/3A in 2010 (but none in 2011), that Rider C could get a new average after his first 2012 away meeting, whilst Rider D would have to wait at least eight 2012 meetings (4H/4A) to get a new average? I think the scenarios for Riders A, B and D are all possible. Not so sure about Rider C.

In fairness to Allen, he didn't realise Wimbledon was an anti-clockwise track so wasn't expecting a left turn at the first bend !!! I don't actually remember Lee Strudwick ever falling. I was actually referring to the fact that he and cousin Niall were regular second-halvers at Plough Lane and their 'pits' area was on the stock-car track. I'll get my coat !!!

Lee Strudwick probably spent more time on the Wimbledon Stock Car track than virtually any other rider in the 2002-2005 Wimbledon Speedway era.

Sweden seeded directly to the final. Only the winner of the Race-Off qualifying for the final. Better or worse ?

And so Hans has been offerred and accepted the last spot. Where this all leaves the GP series going forward is another question. So two of the three newcomers (not participating in 2011) turned down their places. Two more who had to be offered a place turned them down as well. And that's all we know about officially. How many more, who knows. I can see the organisers changing the rules on automatically offering places to riders from the Qualifier if any of the first three turn it down. The danger is that is that the quality of rider may be totally out of his depth in the GP series. Throw in the Polish regulations and some of the top riders nearing international retirement, I think we are entering a really challenging period for the GP organisers.

Has always surprised me that extreme track records are never verified by match video. The entire Track Record History of Wimbledon's last track was incorrect (albeit for two heats). Wayne Barrett's first ever heat on the track was inaccurately recorded by between 4 and 5 seconds. He was heading into the River Wandle at the point the "track record" was recorded, not the finish line !!! So Martin Williams track record in Heat 3, Rory Schlein's a week or two later and finally Chris Neath's were never recognised. Why or why wasn't this verified. I understand that Wimbledon had wanted to build publicity around possible new track records, but it was never going to happen as this original heat was based on about 3 and two thirds of a lap. I should point out that the time keeper did an excellent job. This is the only glitch I'm aware of; but unfortunately it happened in the first ever heat on the new track. If this had happened later in the season, I guarantee you it would have been obvious to all regular followers that it was never that fast. Why or why didn't someone just check the video? It was a videoed match.

Does anybody know how many years can count in a rider's rolling average going forward? In an extreme scenario would a rider making a single appearance per season carry his 2010 EL meeting all the way through to form part of his starting average for the 2038 season? i.e. 28 meetings over 28 years? Or do "old seasons" get dropped off after a certain period? Personally I think that only the previous seasons meetings should count when calculating the starting averages for the following season, provided the rider has ridden a qualifying minimum, e.g. 4H and 4A. Two years is a long time in speedway. It would make sense that the 2012 starting averages were based on 2011 meetings only (subject to 4H & 4A). Although small, the building of teams below 42, effectively means that year on year, a rider should have a small increase on his average.

I guess none of the Elite League stadiums are good enough to host any of the 5 League level events