Sir Sidney

It's used as a qualifying round for the Grand Prix rather than just an open meeting I think, so reasonable justification for him to ride in it

Is it only me that feels a tad sympathetic towards Plymouth? They sign a 7 MSN team and through no fault of their own the number 1 is injured pre season. As a result of moving to Saturday race night there are few, if any, suitable replacements. I wonder if it would have been easier to get a replacement for Tuesdays? They do a load of work on the track, and are met with a very wet winter, meaning, perhaps unsurprisingly, it hasn't dried out in time. Who'd be a promoter in a sport that is not a great money earner if not a loss maker?

Not determined until 18 April I think

Did Richie pay the fine? If not the ban time will not expire will it?

The Sun has Search Results for "speedway" | Page 1 | The Sun 'They should pay us to FIGHT' - Three-time world champion blasts bosses but fans hit back at 'poison dwarf' | The Sun

And Tai's good point, about what gets the most views, is lost because of his delivery. We all know all the key promoters of the past encouraged their riders to put on a show, to encourage apparent controversy. However, in my view, his inability to hardly speak a sentence without swearing has become the talking point - rather than the launch of the season in a more professional way.

Well, I suspect most of us were taken to speedway by a parent or adult when we were not old enough to go on our own to start with. I'd suggest that is a fairly big market that Oxford, for example, have been very high profile about targeting, and where swearing will not be prevalent. Would any other youth or older potential supporters who may well swear themselves have been put off if the press conference hadn't involved swearing? I doubt it The sport is trying to relaunch its self over here, to be more professional, to appeal to the media and to gain more sponsors. On balance I suspect the number put off by a top rider swearing regularly on camera will exceed those who are attracted. If not, why don't the stars of all sports swear on camera as a matter of course?

Yes, we are talking about him when the idea was to launch the British season in a new and professional way. How many media outlets or sponsors would now be able to use that content? None I suspect.

https://www.leicesterlionstv.com/ It's up now

Keep the pressure up on the Council to enforce the Local Plan. If a new stadium is required then AEPG should pay for it. AEPG wants everyone to give up. Don't give up.

If it ever turns out to be true, and that's a big 'if' given the history, then the good news would be that the proposed new site is closer to Swindon than might have been envisaged

Given the star names are used to this procedure in Poland and GPS I doubt they will be the ones caught out

I have read it thanks. Council to consider action against developer. The people to blame are Clarke Osborne and Terry Russell, not the Council I'll comment on that post and not put a distraction on the Brandon thread

But that is precisely what Terry Russell has done. As far as I can see Swindon Council has stuck to its side of the deal.

Not sure that would stand up in law, but that's up to any aggrieved party to test. SCBs stand is clearly aimed at 2 individuals, as Si Kellow said in Speedway Star. Whether that is acceptable is up to individual's own views. Personally I'd like to see an agreed way forward, where all parties benefit - especially young riders

It's a bit more nuanced than that. It wasn't Kent that ran the NORA meeting, but Iwade ( who continued to run NORA meetings including one in which an SCB board member took part!) If the SCB were evenhanded they would also have threatened Kings Lynn ( who allow Dirst Track Events to run NORA Events on the track) and Scunthorpe ( who allow flat track Events not under SCB licence on the track). Using the case law they are relying on then SCB would be as liable to have a duty of care for those Events. But it is clear that the SCB was selective in the action they took.

I think this is the source https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Oxford-City-of-Dreaming-Spires/#:~:text=Oxford is the county town,architecture of these university buildings.

This is the case Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine Look at the duty of care issues. In simple terms, The MSA was held to have a duty of care to Mr Wattleworth, even though the event at which he lost his life was not an MSA event. Indeed MSA were found to have a duty of care for any motor activity on the circuit. Therefore, using that logic, the SCB concludes it has a duty of care for any NORA events on an SCB licenced track and could be exposed to a legal liability - however, they chose only to take issue with Iwade staging a NORA league meeting, not any other NORA events (including one shortly after where an SCB board member took part). If you accept the SCB interpretation of the case then any motorcycling event on an SCB licenced track creates a potential liability for them - and so whether that is motorcross, Dirt Track Events meetings, Flat Track meetings, track days, practice sessions, private hire etc not held under SCB then it should have applied the same sanctions to the promoters of those tracks as it applied to Kent. As it happens, I believe the SCB interpretation is incorrect, but if I was an affected party then I would get a legal opinion. As a postscript then it is worth noting a quote from Si Kellow in Speedway Star where he is quoted as saying ' Secondly, after being used as a tool to get at a club which isn't part of the SCB and BSPL anymore, I can't condone being part of a group which uses those practices'. (page 7 Speedway Star December 2 )

Correct Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Actually, that's not correct. It's got nothing to do with whether riders are being paid or not. The SCB are using motor racing case law (Goodwood case) to say that no other motor bike activity should take place on an SCB licenced track outside of SCB events. Therefore, in it's view, no NORA licenced events (or any other non SCB event), training or otherwise, should be taking place on SCB licenced tracks. However, SCB only chose to enforce that to stop the NORA league meeting taking place at Iwade.

We will have to agree to disagree. I did have a chat to Lee Complin at the time, who explained to me what he felt Michael was doing wrong. Lee was very direct! The referee had no issues with his riding. If your only experience of him is that one meeting, and given that he didn't really engage with anyone during the meeting, it's difficult to see how you concluded he was unpleasant. If you have other experience of him then all well and good.

You are being too harsh on Michael West. Very focused and with potential. The issue in his one meeting on IOW was not caused by him. I was there when it happened. Brayden McGuinness also worth a shot. Neither would necessarily be a big name in the Championship next season

Thanks for the clarification. I trust the resubmitted application will provide time for comments again.

I'm not clear on the basis on which the Planning Committee decision has not been enacted. My understanding is that AEPG are being allowed to modify its application and take it back to Planning Committee, rather than having to submit an appeal about the decision to refuse.