Sir Sidney

Thanks Steve. I see that. I'm just surprised that there is no specific regulation that lists it as a disqualification reason or lists as a starting offence - or even a cover all reg such as a non compliant bike is a reason for disqualification. Just me being a pedant!

Scott Nicholls was excluded from his first race for starting without a dirt deflector. Could any one tell me the specific regulation that covers that please? Thanks

Isn't IOW match on Thursday?

If plans had been submitted they would be on the Council Planning Web site

I suspect BSPL are just running it because they think they should. IOW are running the Women's Championship because they believe in it and are committed to it.

A potential loophole in SCB regs? Surely not

From the 2023 Regulations 010.3 TEAM DECLARATIONS Teams must be declared prior to the start of the season to the BSP Ltd office, to confirm it complies with the current regulations. Where the declaration or re-declaration complies with the current regulations it will be approved and confirmed in writing to the relevant Promotion. Should the declaration or re-declaration NOT comply with the regulations the reasons for rejection will be explained, in writing, to the relevant Promotion. Any appeal against the decision of the BSP Ltd office should be made to the SCB Co-Ordinator as per Chapter 19 of the Speedway Regulations Changes must be made at least 3 days before the start time of the meeting at which it is intended to be used. In any declaration where 2 or more riders hold an identical MA (cannot be determined by a 3rd or more decimal point) then the re-declaration must nominate the hierarchical order. Where riders have a previous MA, then the higher placed rider from the previous issue shall retain the higher position. In the Premiership and Championship Leagues a rider taken out of a team through injury cannot be re-declared in that team, within 28 days. 010.3.1 Cut Off Date No team changes will be allowed after 28th August with the effective date being 31st August. Except riders returning to the team after injury who can only replace their original replacement.

Exactly that. SCB now need to be absolutely clear on the basis on which they have fined Kent and revoked its licence ( suspended for a year), and I would suggest that they need to publish the evidence they have used and the advice they have relied on - and then how this is different to how they are treating other tracks.

Thanks Very interesting information. I don't have the Speedway Star article with Jim Lawrence in front of me, but from recollection it included 3 main points: 1 confirmation that riders could ride in NORA meetings if they chose to ( I suspect we all knew that) 2 clubs, such as Scunthorpe, had run meetings / practices under NORA in the past and had gotten away with it, but they were all under SCB now; and 3 there is a potential insurance risk to SCB if an incident happens at a NORA event on an SCB licenced track, confirmed by SCBs insurers ( who incidents are the same insurers as NORA uses. SCB could of course publish that advice for transparency, so we could all see it. It's interesting that you say Scunthorpe does allow other motorcycle events to take place on it's track 7nder NORA, as indeed does King's Lynn. I've no doubt SCB will be getting a number of emails from concerned fans about the issue. I'd encourage anyone doing so to be factual in their contact and follow it up if any response is not credible.

He's injured not sick isn't he? Unless you are saying that he is not actually injured then I don't see the problem.

Clubs don't normally have the backing of the Local Plan, and not one that is so specific. That's why the Club (or any prospective new promoter) needs to be working with the Council to ensure that the Local Plan is honoured. Given the scale of the prospective development the Developers will be well aware of the requirements of the Local Plan and will be able to well afford a replacement facility - in fact the Local Plan says that the Council should not grant planning approval without it

What's your evidence for saying that?

Actually, if Peterborough lost every meeting this season and that meant that the club had a future, possibly on a new facility, that might not be a terrible outcome. However, the club needs to be open and honest about the plan, how it might be achieved and how the fans can be a part of that. Alienating either side won't help.

Different to Swindon. As far as I know the Council has stuck to it's planning decision and restrictions at Swindon - the new stadium has to be built before any more houses are built. Terry Russell has given Gaming International the way out by saying speedway is not viable on the site - and that's why it is vital that the Panthers remain viable

Have a read of the Local Plan. It's not the Council that has to provide a new stadium, it's the prospective developer - and that's why people are waiting to see what the developer proposes.

There are plenty of links on Facebook groups about the meeting. I'm sure there will also be on other social media platforms. Get along to the meeting. I'm sure you will enjoy it

The team will put on a slick show for the supporters who I hope give it a chance and back it with support.

And coupled with LP36 the Council should not approve planning permission without suitable or better provision for any existing sport facility proposed to be lost.

It would be nice to have some figures to show how beneficial or otherwise streaming / TV is on attendance and income. That would of course require transparency

Maybe streaming is a double edged sword?

Well, someone needs to make clear if Panthers are pursuing this line, otherwise they may well have lost so much money and so many supporters that it will make no difference. A brief statement to acknowledge that the Local Plan exists and they are aware of it might suffice for now

I'll say what I said a couple of days ago. The Peterborough ownership or prospective ownership need to be clear about what their plans are Are they in contact with the Council and the Showground owners about enforcing the requirements of the Local Plan? What response have they had? Is there a potential stay of execution at the Showground? Will the developers be held to the Local Plan and have to provide an alternative site before planning permission is approved? All of that might well prevent a £1m investment being required. If MT is a savvy businessman he will know that - but he needs to keep fans informed, if only in outline. If no communication is forthcoming and results continue the way they are so far this season fewer people will attend, losses (both on the track and financially) will build and the club could become unviable.

So, for those who read this Forum, there will be some knowledge now about what is included in the Local Plan. Is that more widely known in the Panthers fan base? It's still my view that a more nuanced communication could be released, but I accept you see it differently

I'm glad to hear that the Panthers will be seeking to make sure the requirements of the Local Plan are enforced. I do believe it would be beneficial for the Club to make a statement to that effect, so that all supporters know what is happening. There is a danger otherwise that supporters will just drift away, and the Club will not be able to say it is a viable option. On a wider point it demonstrates that the BSPL and all clubs should be working with local Councils to make sure that the Local Plan includes protection against venues being lost to development without a suitable replacement

Unless I go to Leicester