Gordon Pairman

But they can use Chris Harris at home and Scott Nicholls away!

In the past, BSPA refused facilities for FIME meetings, believing they were an unnecessary distraction and disruption to domestic speedway. The counter argument was that they would give British riders more exposure to events abroad thus improving the standard. Eventually BSPA relented but, at the same time, a large group of young riders starting coming through from the BYC and were getting FIM and Polish league chances which rather negated any benefit of FIME meetings. Yesterday was interesting - if you are wanting to run an event of stature, why put it up against a GP meaning none of the top riders would be available - and even if they were, with play offs taking place or about to take place all over Europe, would they want to take part? GB last night were hugely disappointing but would Dan, Robert or Tai have ridden for their country had they been available? I rather doubt it and I am aware that several other Brits were approached about the event and declined to take part. The reality for speedway is that the FIM is almost entirely a European operation when it comes to championships (although attempts are being made to stage meetings further afield in the near future) so what purpose does FIME serve other than putting on the SEC? Or is it just to run championships for second tier riders, a sort of second division and, if so, should their events be allowed to disrupt British domestic speedway? I don’t know the answers, maybe others do

They were allowed a temporary increase for the Pairs to 3,000 which I assume is the number through the gates

Every rider is given a list of banned drugs when they are issued with their licences and few cannot be aware of what is and is not permitted. Very few prescription drugs are banned, only those that are believed to affect performance, often through making riders fearless or indeed reckless. I very much doubt that there are many riders “who in extreme pain and under pressure to ride have taken a prescription drug” that would be in breach of the rules. Indeed, I recall Shane Parker back in 2005 riding with a recently broken collar bone saying he was unwilling to take any pain killers for fear of breaching the anti-doping rules. Drug testing at UK speedway meetings is carried out regularly and independently and it is testimony to the “clean” nature of the sport, possibly fuelled by a fear of being banned, that few are caught. I would expect that the same systems operate in other countries which have caught very few over the years either. Your comment that “Whatever the outcome the Sport needs MORE tests and more education and not just gloat that they have caught one and then sit back and do naff all for another 3-4 years.” is, in my view, very wide of what happens. Riders ARE educated and tests are already frequent. I have no inside knowledge about the current case but am aware that there are clear procedures for the hearing that will take place and these are laid down in section 018.5 of the 2022 SCB Regulations. Until that takes place and a decision made, it would be pointless to speculate further.

That was a chap called Stuart Bamforth in 1987, long before I had any involvement with speedway promotion. That was a dark time for the Aces for sure. I think Bamforth was really a stock car guy and he seemed to do well financially from the sale. From what I can make out, he was in his late 30s when he sold Hyde Road. He died in 2004 at the age of 55. He and I were born around the same year but our paths were very different.

I’ve just spotted this. I will leave others to decide whether they categorise me as a spiv, a wide boy or both (!) but you are wide of the mark on the three names you quote. Rick Frost sold out of Peterborough but remained in the sport as the main sponsor of Poole. He has now sold out of ReadyPower but is still a welcome friend at Wimborne Road. Sandhu was only ever interested in what he could get for Brandon as development land. To my mind, the vandalism at the site pre-sale to Brandon Estates bears that out. I think Ged Rathbone only managed to make decent money at Peterborough when he received a substantial payment from Toruń so they could use Jack Holder even though he was committed to ride in England, and he was roundly condemned for doing so. I suspect it was that action rather than anything to do with BSPL which made him sell up.

Without going into details, when Chris Holder and Darcy Ward were riding together at Poole, there was a suggestion by another team that they would sign a GP star for their team as long as each away track paid them £1,000 when he rode at their venue. The Poole promotion pointed out that some of the best crowds other teams had were when Poole brought Chris and Darcy to their tracks - more because they wanted to see their riders beat these two upstart Aussies rather than because they wanted to admire their skills! - and Poole hadn’t asked to be compensated. But we would if there was to be a GP star levy. The matter wasn’t mentioned again.

Mason rode for Glasgow in 2012 but I think there might have been visa problems which stopped him coming back in 2013. We wanted him back in 2014 but he’d been “got at” by Workington which was in Laura’s time. In fairness, Glasgow 2012 was not a good set up, and he wasn’t happy there. We tried really hard to keep him but his mind was made up. It was a good move for him and ok for Glasgow who at least got some money for him. Unfortunately, it was a conditional deal with a small amount up front and the balance when he hit a certain average, which he never did. Mason was a decent hard working rider who kept getting tripped up with red tape which meant he gave up on the sport earlier that he might have. But he seems pretty content back home with plenty of time for fishing despite being a dad twice over!

You’re too kind!

Buster Chapman is not on the Management Board. He’s not had any say since he stood down two years ago. Having been a member of the BSPA, it’s my view that having a sports’ professional with no affiliation to any club as CEO would be far better than the current situation which tends to rely on well intentioned - and hard working - amateurs. Running a sport needs different skills to running a team, and needs to be a full time job

I think you misunderstand the role of the SCB. It is certainly not independent as it comprises two representatives from ACU and two from BSPA plus a non-voting chairman, nor has it any responsibility for promoting the sport. It is purely an administrative, operational and disciplinary body

Don’t ask! But I’ll be at Ashfield tomorrow.

Tell me about it…..see my previous comment about pockets being emptied

It’s fine at 3pm. Unfortunately after that…..

I did say “around”! 2014, the year of the Burger King Not one of our better years but, thanks to the board members and the deep pockets of our sponsors (after mine were emptied) we survived

Glasgow have been fined in the past for missing meetings. I think it was five or six grand in around 2013. I’m not aware of Poole being fined but that’s because I’m not aware of them being unable to fulfil all their fixtures. It’s nothing to do with bias, everything to do with breaking the rules.

As neither the BSPL Chairman or Vice-Chairman thought the biggest speedway event held in Britain this year worthy of their attendance, it’s no wonder that the belated press release - nearly 14 hours after the event was completed - gets it wrong. Having overseen the near collapse of the NDL, the league that was one of the things that helped all four of the GB riders find their way in the sport, they should now bow their heads in shame and walk away. The disastrous last few years, with problems accelerated rather than caused by Covid has shown that vested interest in decision making is dragging British speedway down the road to ruin. The new GB Team operation shows what can be done with skill, initiative, forward planning and total commitment. They deserve to be supported by people who understand about sport at the highest level and what it takes to be successful.

Amen to that…..as I know to my cost

Thanks for the reply. It sounds like, although unlikely to recover its set up costs, speedway at Newcastle could be viable on a day to day basis, especially at NDL level. For information, I had some serious and lengthy discussions about a supporters’ run operation at Glasgow some years ago, but concluded that, although the initial enthusiasm would set it all up, long term, that wouldn’t continue so it wasn’t viable. The only supporter assistance model that seems to work is the one run at Edinburgh, where the supporters have been willing to help the club for many decades now.

Can someone explain why there is an urgent need, or is it just a desire, to move away from the current stadium? A figure of £150k for a very basis new track has been quoted but, if that sort of money could be found, would it not be better spent promoting and supporting the sport at its existing venue?

Nora licensing only works for amateur events. If the National Development League did what it ought, and returned to amateur status, then that whole league could run under Nora 92. In my view, this is something that could work at Eastbourne, Newcastle and Birmingham, though maybe not under the current promoters. It is also my view that BSPL would then be mad to threaten those riders riding in a Nora 92 NDL with exclusion, as has happened this year, as they’d then struggle with rider shortages.

Guilty as charged! I have kept in contact with Barry and Martin since I met them at one of Neil Vatcher’s junior training sessions in February 2017 (I think) but last Thursday was my first chance to attend an event. Although this was the first meeting after the kids had gone back to school and many of the holidaymakers had gone home, the crowd was better than was often the case when the Islanders were in the PL. In my view, the reason is simple: this was a value for money evening’s entertainment and I would commend it to anyone who can go. It’s a shame that there is a restriction on which riders can race there - I know many more would if they didn’t think it might jeopardise their chances of having a speedway team place, but maybe something can be sorted for next year. After all, if the likes of Chris Harris or James Shanes can race grass track here and in Europe without needing the consent of their British speedway teams, I’d like to think they could race at the IOW without fear of being banned. Just my view, though.

The rules were (are?) that overseas riders had to ride a minimum number of times before they can be added to a retained list. Vaculik and Zmarzlik, and I think, Przedelski, didn’t do enough meetings. Interestingly, when Birmingham brought Zmarzlik in, then promoter, Alan Phillips thought he was just another foreign rider, and had no idea of what he’d got. Bartosz only rode one meeting for Birmingham before they sacked him for declaring himself ill and unable to travel. He was accused of pulling a sickie.

To be honest, I hope they are gone for good. They worked when overseas leagues were small or blocked to foreigners so UK riders mainly rode in UK. Now, when they can ride all over Europe and, in some instances, in more than one league in the same country, then being “retained” for greater than the length of your contract makes no sense. This is an instance where “we’ve always done it like that” does not justify its continuing existence.

To pick up on this topic, clubs were required to have a retained list - I have always disliked the term “asset” - with a minimum value plus a cash or bank secured bond. BSP valued the list and, if it fell below the minimum, a club had to lodge additional cash to make up the minimum. An example of this was in 2013 when Glasgow changed ownership, BSPA advised that the rider value was insufficient. We challenged this and asked for the Management Committee’s valuation but they wouldn’t tell us. Instead we had to find the extra cash. A rider on a club’s retained list can be loaned out for a fee which was calculated as a rate per point multiplied by their average. There was a sliding scale so the higher the average, the greater the rate. I don’t remember the numbers, but my recollection is that a reserve or second string in the lower league would be a few hundred whereas a heat leader in the top league would be many thousands. Purchasing a rider would then either save you a loan fee or allow you to lend him out. The “value” of a rider could therefore be assessed as what you might save or earn from the rider over how many years you might expect him to ride for you. That’s it at its most simplistic, of course - having first call on a rider might be beneficial in team building, but how do you value that? One of the benefits of the system was that being able to sell riders helped to balance the books and some teams, like Scunthorpe and Edinburgh have been particularly good at unearthing riders with potential that they could nurture for future sale. For rider values to keep increasing, then so do loan fees but they have remained static for many years and, in hopefully a one-off for this year, have been reduced to very little. This then means that the transfer market has been largely inactive for some time - why pay thousands for a rider when you can loan him for a few hundred? The reason behind clubs having to have a minimum value in their retained list was, in the case of a financial default, the riders could be sold to cover some or all of the deficit. The flaw in that is that, as only clubs can buy the riders, then the deficit is covered within the system - no new money comes in A solution would be to wind down loan fees and wind up bond amounts. That way, cash would be available instantly rather than there having to be an auction of riders. Now to the accounting procedures: firstly, the answer to whether you buy the riders registrations when you buy the licence is yes. You are purchasing something that will either earn you or save you money, so why should you get it for nothing? And now to assets. The best definition I can find is: As holding a rider’s registration does provide a future benefit, then, if you believe that benefit will last more than one year, it is reasonable to capitalise the purchase cost and write the value off over a period The question then is what period? My guess is that the maximum should be four years but, as accounting rules mean that you have to consider values annually, then the period chosen could be shortened or increased. My final point - the above is based on how things were when I was a promoter. I handed my licence back in 2018 and many things have changed since then. Whether the rules on retained lists are part of the changes, I know not