Gordon Pairman

Ok. Remove the word “social” from my post - it may have been posted on mainstream media, but I read it on social media. And the method of disciplinary action of the SCB has “gotten” (horrible American word) me a relaxed retirement safe in the knowledge that, when I was a member, it was my opinion that we took whatever action was needed without feeling the need to massage our egos by running to the press every time. Referees make mistakes - goodness knows we’ve all seen them - but do they really deserve public humiliation, beyond what they already get?

Uninformed nonsense. SCB has quickly suspended and disciplined referees adjudged to have fallen short of expected standards. But we didn’t feel the need to take to social media to boast about our actions. If I make an error in my job, I accept the need for some for of correction but not for the whole world to know. Mr Stepniewski’s “management board” is basically himself and he just loves being the big “I am”, cleverly covering up that he is the one responsible for appointing sub standards referees. Tonight’s was just one of many.

Mine turned up this morning. First time it’s been on time since the lockdown. Things are looking up!

And there was me trying to be nice to you, ya wee #######! If you’re not careful I’ll demand my money back for your book (available now in all good charity shops )

King Jamie is a positive contributor though, the Duchess anything but!

Oh god! He’s back

It looks like maybe you jumped the gun then started a thread with an accusation without first trying to ascertain the facts? I don’t have any answers to your questions but how many is the “plenty of riders”? Is it more than the 28 team places available? Then I could see some would be anxious. If it’s less than 28, then I’d have thought they’d all be excited at the possibility of being part of a top league set up? Because of the enthusiasm of supporters and other hard working individuals, we have moved from a time when there were very few young British riders coming through to a vibrant scene. You just need to look at how many young riders attended the GB Team training camp at the weekend and how many are at the Young Lions course in the Isle of Wight this week. Individuals have stepped in to make this development happen and the often maligned Neil Vatcher deserves great credit for what he’s done, as do those involved with the NJL and, after it was tidied up 3 or 4 years ago by the SCB, the MDL and the newly re-formed SDL. Now we get to 2020 and, at long last, the powers that be in the BSPA rather than individual promoters have picked this up and hopefully will move things even further along.

Can someone please clarify what is happening? From the above post, it sounded like opportunities for junior riders were being swept aside, along with the nomadic team names. From the BSPA press release though, it seems there will be greater opportunities for junior riders, and it’s only the nomadic names that are being restricted. Is that right? From what it looks to me, as well as the initiative in the PL, any CL or NDL team could run a junior development league team, so there are more, not less opportunities for juniors. I know the over 40s riders who have been used in the past to pad out MDL/SDL teams will miss out, but there has always been the argument that they shouldn’t have been allowed to ride in these teams in the first place.

My view, for what it’s worth, is the Reading SDL volunteers are the ones who deserve to find a way to resuscitate the Racers. Exeter were on borrowed time (for a long while) and there is still a possibility of them finding somewhere, but the Reading supporters were made promises that weren’t kept. It is also my view that those calling themselves Crayford or New Cross or Milton Keynes know they are using an historic name that is unlikely ever to stage Speedway again. And perhaps they then tarnish the name of teams that might have a chance of resuscitation? I’m I do think that, no matter how well intentioned, one team running out of another team’s stadium, and this applies in other sports too, should only ever be a temporary measure. The original supporters will soon fade away. MK Dons, anyone?

Why can’t the made up team of “Crayford” run at Eastbourne or Kent, “Reading” at Swindon, “Exeter” at Somerset, “Weymouth” at Poole, and so on, all operating under the name of the track on which they are based? Do any of them contribute to rent costs, referee costs, medical costs, track prep costs, or do they expect to get these free of charge? And, even if they do bring “10 or 20” supporters, how many get in free as mechanics and helpers? I’ve seen the other side of these MDL (in particular) and SDL meetings where there haven’t been enough riders so there are long gaps between races (inconveniencing the referee, paramedics etc), where one rider rides for one team one week and another the next and where the “development” riders are guys in their 40s. SCB worked hard three or four years ago to tidy this up, and it seems to me that this process is continuing. I am all in favour of giving youngsters as much track time as possible and, to this end, I assume you know that the Premiership tracks are going to run their own 2nd half junior league. This is not a witch hunt or a conspiracy but part of a process to encourage young British riders in a proper, controlled, professional manner. I’m sure the offer of assistance from any of those involved with the former nomadic teams will be appreciated.

Having done some research, I gather it’s only the teams with nomad names that are involved. The rules on this have been clear for a very long time - only people actively looking for new premises, and with a realistic chance of success could use the name of a defunct team. I’ve never looked into this but would guess that it’s something to do with protecting the intellectual property behind the name so if someone is able to open a track at the named places, they would have the right to use the name. The rules were loosened for SDL/MDL but maybe some people were abusing the privilege? Anyway, what is there to stop the so called nomad teams coming to an arrangement with whatever track they are using to run under their name? It’s been done plenty of times before.

I don’t go with rumours. I ask. It wasn’t Neil Vatcher’s decision. I don’t know any more

I can’t say first hand about other teams, but I know Glasgow have done this for years and still do. On the “oop north” team manager, I did offer but somehow they thought Havvy was a better bet. From my point of view, I think they’re right

I don’t know what that means. What Premier League lawyers? What loophole? In all the cases mentioned - Summers to Glasgow, Kus to Newcastle, Palovaara to Leicester, Miedzinski to Poole - the rider wasn’t blocked. Glasgow and Newcastle agreed to the purchase, Poole went to SCB arbitration and Leicester declined to pursue their interest. I’ll give you a fifth if you like - when Chris Morton, David Gordon and I bought Belle Vue at the end of 2006, we were desperate to keep Kenneth Bjerre. Further, BSPA had issued a “hands off” warning to all the other teams. Despite this, Kenneth chose to ride for Peterborough in 2007 and neither Belle Vue nor BSPA could stop him.

See above. Glasgow didn’t stop Palovaara riding.

My postman is very disappointed. For years, he thought I was the recipient of some very dodgy material as it was sent in a “brown plain wrapper”. Now he realises it’s just Speedway porn

As I said, a very fine line. Another example might be 2012 when Poole wanted to use Adrian Miedzinski who was on Swindon’s retained list. Swindon wanted AM but he didn’t want to ride for them. He signed for Poole and the transaction went to SCB for a binding arbitration.

How was he blocked? Leicester chose not to use him because they decided that the cost was too high. If I choose not to use a plumber because the cost is too high, then I’m not blocking him. The footballer and the teacher are employees. The speedway rider and the plumber are self employed contractors. As I said before, it’s a fine line but the line does exist.

Palovaara wasn’t blocked from riding. Glasgow said Leicester had to buy him. Leicester said no. Had Leicester really wanted him, they could have appealed to SCB and used him while the appeal was being held.

I like the analogy! To be honest, I have never liked the retained list system but it has its merits. It acts as an additional level of financial security, over and above the bond monies. It worked better when there were more transfers and keeping them has been fought for by the lower leagues who often need to sell a rider’s registration in order to balance the books. With loan rates remaining relatively low, however, it’s been cheaper to “rent” rather than to buy and so the transfer market has all but dried up. In my view, the solution to getting rid of retained lists would have been to double the loan rates in year one - thus repaying the teams that had invested in riders - but also increase the Bond level. Year two loan rates would be 80% of year 1, year 3 60% etc and each year the bond would increase. By year 6, there would be no retained lists so no transfers, no loan fees and the cash bond level would be at the sort of level needed nowadays in the case of a default. It all sounds easy to me

The rider can ride wherever he wants to. BSPA cannot block that. The only thing they can do is enforce the circumstance under which he is permitted to ride. Teams can ask SCB to arbitrate, and any decision might restrict the team but not the rider. I accept it’s a fine line, but the line is there nonetheless

If you can elaborate on why you think it’s not legal or enforceable, I’ll be happy to explain to you why it is. The Bosman ruling is often cited but it has no relevance, nor, as far as I know, has it ever been used for any sport other than football. The main reason why Bosman is not relevant to Speedway is because it relates to contracts of employment and the aftermath. BSPA’s retained list system, which encompasses purchase/sale agreements and loan fees, is a commercial agreement amongst promoters. Riders are, at all times, free agents.

Back on to the topic. It’s easy to be down on Kirkmanshulme Lane but, we should not forget that it was the original site of the Belle Vue Aces when it opened in July 1928 and, had it not been there when Hyde Road closed down, Speedway might have been lost to Manchester for good. My first visit there must have been 2003 or 2004 when I was first involved with Glasgow. At that point, I went to few away tracks so my “standard” for speedway stadia was Glasgow Ashfield, Edinburgh at Armadale and Workington. All “serviceable” rather than comfortable. After a rain off at Hull, I went to Kirky Lane with one of the Glasgow riders and was knocked out by what I saw - a fully enclosed glass fronted stand with plush seats indoors. I thought it was properly luxurious. When Chris Morton, David Gordon and I joined forces at the end of 2006 to buy Tony Mole out of BV, I couldn’t wait to be part of the operation. It was only when you saw it close up, you realised how dilapidated it had become, how poor the viewing was on the terracing, and what a mess was made to the track by the stock cars. We were contracted to let them race there in exchange for them making a contribution towards track repairs. My recollection was the payment was around £1600 but it cost us more than that to effect repairs. We had a decent relationship with the stock car promoter - well, some of us did - but the cars, especially the F2s, were so powerful, they cut through to the track base. But that is all in the past. I will be sorry to see the old stadium go, inevitable though it was as soon as speedway moved out. It’s on prime development land after all. People talk in hushed tones about Hyde Road, and so they should, with Speedway being ridden there continuously for nearly 60 years. But Kirky Lane did the next 29 or 30 years, so it was a little more than just passing through. I’ll miss it when it’s gone and hope that, rather than departing the earth completely, some of its soul heads down the road to the somewhat austere (imo) NSS. (I’ll probably get pelters for saying that )

Amen to that!

18.1.9 was supposed to stop that but (as with so many rules) is written wrongly That was certainly the intention - a guest (a) couldn’t come from another team involved in the play offs and (b) couldn’t guest for more than one team in the play offs. Instead, the rule refers to “in any one leg”. I would expect Leicester to use Allen as the guest, for Glasgow to appeal it, and for MC, for obvious reasons, to reject Glasgow’s appeal