SPEEDY69

Even though this finished early the lack of a PA system for half of the meeting I felt it went on longer. Nicholls looked painfully slow on the new Godden in his first two rides and couldn't seem to get off the start but upped the pace at the end. Ostergaard impressed for me, along with Schlein. Reserves were the weak point for Ipswich but I expected that anyway. New track shape is meant to help the inside coming out and it looked like it did.

I see nothing wrong with Grid Girls or whatever you want to call them. This is part of the whole industry called modelling/marketing. When Beckham wore tight pants to advertise the brand it was seen to be ok, when TV shows feature titillation such as Love Island or BB they get viewers. How many 'celebrities' promote themselves/their industry with revealing outfits/wardrobe 'malfunctions' etc. There were two shows on British TV just last week where men and women got their kit off to 'raise awareness' of cancer - was it strictly necessary? The fact is that image and sex sells - this applies to both men and women so does there need to be a ban in speedway? I find that offensive to my intelligence in that I can't be expected to make the decision for myself of whether to watch or not.

What if they're all ready in advance of the 2 minutes, hang around?

The BSPA really are clowns - who asked for the rule to be changed back and why. I certainly don't buy the discriminates against shorter riders baloney, so does Basketball!! Two minute clocks are not needed, the ref has a watch, just stick to it. Don't let the riders come on track until the two minutes starts, then as soon as the start marshall calls them into line (say 15 seconds before the time runs out so the rider will know) if they delay, they'll be excluded. Too much p'ing about at starts these days

I see Summers fared well today, multiple rides and only one point, any news on why Barker has gone? ( other than it was mutual consent)

This only makes them much weaker.

Thing is, we only have one side of the story here - post above says "some details were written on meeting certificates", which doesn't appear to be conclusive that both parties agree there's a debt. Disputes over what riders think they're owed and what promoters think they are due are quite common. This can be down to the fact that not everything is in writing or that funding may be coming from another source.

Looks a good team 1-5 but the reserves will be the weakness - depends I suppose if other teams are the same.

You mean martin or malcolm smith? Think one of them is still running it.

As far as I know all EU countries committed to bring in equality legislation - we have the Equality Act 2010, Poland has the Equal Treatment Act 2010.

How does that apply to Rory Schlein?

The BSPA causing confusion? Surely not......

Not actually true because the SCB were never going to allow the rule to stand and according to Mr Rising they told the BSPA this previously. In my view if they wanted it done fairly then all riders with a PL average above 6 should have been prevented from riding CL, so that includes Morris, Harris, Worrall, Howarth and the others. I'm happy they've decided to open the gates to British riders, it's British Speedway. The Swedes and Poles do it, about time we grew a pair.

Odds looks far too short priced for the top 3 so I'd not bet on that. For the winner, I'd go for Lindgren at 16-1

I doubt it, they're not yet quick enough. Maybe could try one at the Ben Fund to see how it compares? The video clips of him and Ellis racing them in France showed they may have potential.

For a worker yes. The two I've highlighted for self employed they do not meet and these have been used as the key criteria in several tribunal cases over the last year, where the 'worker' was able to refute SE status. I'm not a legal buff so don't know why I'm going on about it really, it's just that I don't think speedway riders are actually self employed for employment purposes (tax is different). I will now shut up.

I think some of the confusion is because you can be self employed for tax purposes but actually a worker for employment law purposes. The latter is what could have been used to challenge the BSPA 'proposed' rule. This is the definition of a worker according to Gov.UK and the test for self employed for employment purposes: 2. Worker A person is generally classed as a ‘worker’ if: they have a contract or other arrangement to do work or services personally for a reward (your contract doesn’t have to be written) their reward is for money or a benefit in kind, for example the promise of a contract or future work they only have a limited right to send someone else to do the work (subcontract) they have to turn up for work even if they don’t want to their employer has to have work for them to do as long as the contract or arrangement lasts they aren’t doing the work as part of their own limited company in an arrangement where the ‘employer’ is actually a customer or client Checking their employment rights Someone is probably self-employed and doesn’t have the rights of an employee if they’re exempt from PAYE ... Checking if they’re exempt from PAYE Someone is probably self-employed if most of the following are true: they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it they can hire someone else to do the work they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work they can work for more than one client

This is a misconception - they are not self employed according to law. They are unable to turn down work e.g. "I don't fancy riding at Edinburgh tonight" and neither can they arrange for another rider to take on their work e.g. "Ted Spittles will take my place tonight Mr Team Manager". They are contracted and considered workers, (who have more rights in employment law) even though they account for their own personal taxation.

It's a bit different though because they are actually employers of contracted workers. With private members clubs you mostly pay to join.

You misunderstood - the swift action I referred to was by the SCB when confronted with what they could see was against the law. As far as I know they weren't involved until relatively recently. Not the BSPA, who seem utterly incompetent.

No, because it applied to everyone.

But it complies with the law. Were you also proposing that Nick Morris, Chris Harris, Danny King, Steve Worrall, Rory Schlein, Richard Lawson, Kyle Howarth and Charles Wright, all with PL averages >6 be stopped from riding CL, because that would at least have been fair? Yep, the discrimination was disgusting, hence the swift action from the SCB. In years gone by 1st Div averages were doubled when riders went to the 2nd division (halved if going the other way) and therefore it was impossible to go above 6 as that would make it over 12 in the 2nd div. The fact that riders who now ride in both demonstrate a much lower conversion is the reality says a lot about the strength of the leagues. Not long before an amalgamation I think as Mon/Weds will be financial ruin for some of the top division clubs.

Absolutely the right decision (and it doesn't just affect those two riders?). If they then also disqualified all the other riders in the CL with PL averages >6 then it would be clear but at the moment it is inequitable and unfair.

I think the Q boxes remain owned by Sky, similar to the Virgin deal - maybe it depends on if replacing your older box or starting new with them. I have had a few friends whose Virgin boxes have developed faults though which is really annoying when all your recordings are irrecoverable so free or not, that would be the biggest concern for me. Has anyone used the BT sport app? I've been offered this for £2.50 a month and it can be cast to the TV - seems a good deal to me.

Yeah, I'm sure they're really disappointed to now have a Premiership No.1 in their side instead.