If I Was In Charge

[AndyM]

Really tinkering around the edges (imo revolution not evolution is looking more and more the only way forward) but having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21.  Prior to this he could ride as a 'free agent' from year to year without any loan fee issues.  This would help end the scrap for 15 year olds signatures and hopefully by 21 clubs would know what they were getting (as an aside I am with HenryW in that a fairer method would be rides rather than age but take the point about complicating things further)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Inclined to agree with you, Green Man. But before any radical proposal, there must be a change in mindset - helping British youngsters = good, helping foreign youngsters = not so good!

Edited April 4, 2006 by AndyM

[Kevin Meynell]

Absurd!  No matter how bureaucratic the rules, some teams will always make better selections than other. Much better to keep it as simple as possible

 

It's not so simple though. Unfortunately, market forces don't work properly in sport, but presumably we want to take transfer fees out of the equation because the system has become a farce and is of questionable legality anyway.

 

I'd therefore suggest that some protection should be given to teams who develop riders, and one way of doing that is allowing such riders to ride on a minimum average, but only if they stay with the team that brought them on at particular level. That would hopefully reduce the incidences of chequebook speedway, but would not preclude them advancing to a higher level if they were proved goof enough.

 

allow the riders concerned to stay at reserve until they're 22

 

Whether they stay at reserve or not, is neither here nor there - some riders might benefit from moving-up into the main body of the team. The important thing is to ensure that they have a place in a team, and are not sacrified at the altar of the points limit if they happen to improve their average by .01 or whatever.

 

to give first pick to the teams at the bottom end of the scale.

 

The theory is fine, but the problem is that the British leagues are in competition with other national leagues. In addition, I think you want to encourage tracks to take responsibility for developing new riders, and being able to reap the benefits if they do. I see little sense in rewarding crap teams who make no effort to find or develop new riders.

[Kevin Meynell]

Originally start off next season with the rule, there must be three Brits in one team.

 

But this is not possible because of EU regulations, which sport has to work within the same as every other industry (and rightly so I might add). It might be possible to specify that a certain number of 'home-grown' riders (e.g. those who started riding in the BCL) must be used, but even that concept is being challenged in football.

 

In any case, actual nationality is much less of an issue than developing a crop of UK-based riders. I can't really see that it matters hugely if a few Aussies or whatever come through as well, because the system would largely be Brits anyway.

 

This includes open meetings and competitions such as the European Championship.

 

I can't see that these competitions have much value. British riders will generally get more rides and a higher standard of competition in the BEL/BPL.

[Kevin Meynell]

5) All teams will have at least 2 brits, at least one of these has to be from the nation you are riding in (ie scotland, england, wales etc).

 

I can't really see the point of the requirement for one rider to be Wales or Scotland. We compete in speedway as Great Britain (and have done for 25 years, despite what the BSPA might claim), and it's hard enough to get teams to include British riders as it is.

[Jeff.]

But this is not possible because of EU regulations, which sport has to work within the same as every other industry (and rightly so I might add). It might be possible to specify that a certain number of 'home-grown' riders (e.g. those who started riding in the BCL) must be used, but even that concept is being challenged in football.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What regulations are these then Kevin. As far as I am aware an EU citizan has right to work over here, but it is not compulsory to employ them. A promoter can employ seven English riders if he wishes although of course it could not be a written rule that they will only employ English riders. It would only take an informal chat at the AGM and teams could agree to not employ less than a certain amount of Brits.

[Kevin Meynell]

As far as I am aware an EU citizan has right to work over here, but it is not compulsory to employ them.

 

Of course, but collusion to deliberately exclude them would be illegal as well. In any case, unwritten regulations aren't worth the paper they're written. It would only take one promoter unable or unwilling to track the requisite number of British riders, and the whole system would come crashing down.

 

Sorry, but we need to find legitimate ways to encourage British riders. It can be done if the will is there.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Kevin Meynell

[SCB]

What regulations are these then Kevin. As far as I am aware an EU citizan has right to work over here, but it is not compulsory to employ them. A promoter can employ seven English riders if he wishes although of course it could not be a written rule that they will only employ English riders. It would only take an informal chat at the AGM and teams could agree to not employ less than a certain amount of Brits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So explain PL grading?!

 

If the BSPA want to ban the Johnny Foreignors, they can and will.

[Kevin Meynell]

So explain PL grading?!

 

I'm sure the BSPA would explain it away by saying it applied to ACU-licensed riders rather than British riders. Furthermore, there's not so many foreign riders trying to ride in the BPL that they're being put out of work, which means there's less likelihood of a legal challenge.

 

The BEL is entirely a different kettle of fish because of the sheer number of foreign riders involved. Start introducing artificial restrictions, written or unwritten, and someone could well get disgrunted and take the BSPA to court. The current average reduction for British riders is probably illegal, but it's so insignificant that it's just not worth anyone trying to make a case out of it. Equally though, it does little (if anything) to encourage the use of British riders.

[Kevin Meynell]

having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21.

 

Although the current asset system is just an exercise in getting signatures, tracks do need some protection if they go to the trouble of running development programmes. There's no inherent reason why every track can't do this, and it's unfair to those that do if another team can come along and simply sign-up the riders they've given BCL or second-half rides to.

[enotian]

Although the current asset system is just an exercise in getting signatures, tracks do need some protection if they go to the trouble of running development programmes. There's no inherent reason why every track can't do this, and it's unfair to those that do if another team can come along and simply sign-up the riders they've given BCL or second-half rides to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

After the Bosman ruling, considering an individual as an asset is no longer valid as anyone whose contract expires is free to sign a contract with any other employer.

 

As speedway riders tend to sign contracts for the length of a single season and to all intents and purposes are self employed they are essentially a contractor and therefore free to sign as many contracts they are able to fulfill. Hence, riders riding in different countries.

 

Therefore, last years saga surrounding transfer fees for Nicholls, Hancock, Hamill etc was totally dubious. Regardless of their legality transfer fees in general are a total drain on resources. I'm sure most promoters could do without having to shell out 10's of thousands of pounds to build a team. Surely it would be much better if they spent that kind of money on producing new riders.

 

The problem speedway has is how to adapt a system without the notion of assets but which would still encourage investment in young riders, rather than importing foreign riders. Who'd spend money training a rider only for them to go and ride for a rival?

 

To do this I believe that training contracts for riders should be formulated, designed to give structured instruction on all aspects of speedway. It might be necessary to offer different levels as not all riders start at the same level of ability.

It would essential be a formal qualification in speedway.

 

A "trainee" rider would sign a training contract with their preferred training provider/promoter who would provide the training required to reach the qualification standard.

 

Once a rider qualifies they are then allowed to sign for any club they wish without any transfer fee being exchanged.

 

However under an agreement between all promoters the riders training club would be compensated a nominal fee per season based on the riders ability (ie starting or finishing average for that season) and the standard cost of training. Essentially a loan fee payable each season to the training club.

 

This would reward those clubs who provide the best training which should inturn increase the standard of training and hence improve the standard of riders produced.

 

Riders without the qualification, ie foreign riders, would be subject to a similar loan fee but with a premium to encourage the use of qualified ie British riders so that it would be more cost effective to track a team of British riders than foreign riders.

 

The annual loan fee for non qualified riders would go to the BSPA who could then use the pool of cash for the benefit of the sport in general. Eg, funding a winter tour for young riders or supplying air fences etc etc depending upon how big the fund totals.

[TonyM]

Sounds OK enotian but still creates assets by another name or would the loan / training reimbursement fees be payable for the first (say) 3 years after which the rider would be a complete free agent. Either way would still see the scramble for 15 year old signatures that currently exists, although the idea re foreign riders with loan fees to a central pot sounds better than at present

 

The main criticism would be that it does not compensate ongoing development in a way that the current transfer system does ie Scunthorpe could produce 4 'qualified' riders a year who go on to PL team places, 2 of these riders go to PL teams with good development programmes and make to to EL level but receive nothing for this work whilst Scunthorpe pocket a (presumably) higher loan fee for getting 'their' riders EL places

 

As discussed before I would prefer 2 year rolling contracts with compensation for a club who wished to retain the rider for the second year but the rider wanted away and with the option of a 1 year loan to allow for riders who could not fit in average wise in the second year ie riders could only be loaned out for 1 year of any 2 year rolling contract so if loaned out in year 1 and were not part of a teams plans for year 2 would have to be released as a free asset / nominal fee.

 

This should reduce transfer fees as it is the purchase of rights to a rider for 2 years not forever and would limit 'asset building' clubs thus creating a more level playing field for team building each season. Combined with some form of average incentive for 'returning' riders we could see a reduction in the end of season merry-go-round which I am sure all fans would appreciate

[Kevin Meynell]

After the Bosman ruling, considering an individual as an asset is no longer valid as anyone whose contract expires is free to sign a contract with any other employer.

 

The Bosman ruling actually only applied when moving between countries, not within countries. However, it effectively ended the domestic transfer system in football because it was obvious intermediary clubs could be used in other countries to circumvent any domestic transfer rules.

 

Ironically, speedway was already Bosman-compliant, as there were never any restrictions on riders competing abroad. This said, previous legal challenges in football suggest that any domestic transfer system would likely be ruled illegal if it were ever challenged.

 

However under an agreement between all promoters the riders training club would be compensated a nominal fee per season based on the riders ability (ie starting or finishing average for that season) and the standard cost of training.

 

In principle this is fine, but we perhaps want to get away from money changing hands completely. Even at the top-level of speedway, the tracks do not have riches of football clubs, and money would be better spent on improving stadia etc..

It would be surely be better, for all tracks as a matter of course to have to develop their own riders. Therefore any system should primarily reward this, and penalise those teams signing-up talent from elsewhere.

[Kevin Meynell]

to allow for riders who could not fit in average wise in the second year

 

It's madness to have developing riders forced out of a team because their average doesn't fit. All such riders should stay at the minimum average until they've become 'established'.

 

Combined with some form of average incentive for 'returning' riders

 

I'd allow teams to build to a higher limit for each rider retained from the previous season (say 0.5 points per rider). Therefore a team retaining all seven riders could build-up to 3.5 points more than the basic points limit. If they retained just two riders, they only be able to build to point higher.

 

This system would still force very successful teams to release one or two riders, but wouldn't penalise up-and-coming mid-table teams. It would also provide more of an incentive for riders to stay with the same teams, whilst still retaining a degree of team equalisation.

[enotian]

It's madness to have developing riders forced out of a team because their average doesn't fit. All such riders should stay at the minimum average until they've become 'established'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You'd need to define 'established'. I'd base it on number of matches rather than average. This would reward teams who provide better training by allowing them to use developing riders at lower average until say they've riden 100 competitive matches or so.

 

I'd allow teams to build to a higher limit for each rider retained from the previous season (say 0.5 points per rider). Therefore a team retaining all seven riders could build-up to 3.5 points more than the basic points limit. If they retained just two riders, they only be able to build to point higher.

 

This system would still force very successful teams to release one or two riders, but wouldn't penalise up-and-coming mid-table teams. It would also provide more of an incentive for riders to stay with the same teams, whilst still retaining a degree of team equalisation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very interesting. I'd rather see it phrased "all teams build to the same points limit but a rider who remains with the team he rode for in the previous season has his average reduced by 0.5". So say Simon Stead average 7.5 for Belle Vue in 2006 he'd come into the 2007 Belle Vue team on a 7 point average but would be a 7.5 rider to anyone else! Great idea.

[Kevin Meynell]

You'd need to define 'established'.  I'd base it on number of matches rather than average.

 

Sure, the exact details would need to be worked-out. You could also define an established rider as one who had ridden for so many seasons, although I'd say all riders under-21 should be considered juniors (which wouldn't preclude older riders being juniors).

 

I'd rather see it phrased "all teams build to the same points limit but a rider who remains with the team he rode for in the previous season has his average reduced by 0.5".

 

There are a couple of problems with using average reductions instead of points limit increases. The first is that it skews the averages for the purposes of determining the reserves and guest/rider replacement etc.. In effect, you'd need to maintain two sets of averages (one for team selection and one for team line-ups) which is confusing.

 

The other problem is that you'd run into problems with the minimum average. I rider with (say) an average of 3.2 would only get a reduction of 0.2 instead of 0.5. Even if you allowed them to have an average of 2.7, it would then cause complications if you had to replace them with a No.8 or guest.

[TonyM]

It's madness to have developing riders forced out of a team because their average doesn't fit. All such riders should stay at the minimum average until they've become 'established'.

 

Wouldnt disagree - my 'second year' phrase was in relation to the rolling contract not second year at a club, thus this year Rye could not continue with their top three of Neath, Robson and Werner so had to let someone go, in this instance I would allow any of these riders to be loaned out for the season but if Rye wished to continue to hold their contract they must return in the 2007 line up otherwise be sold / released ie no ongoing loan income which is the root of the asset system

 

Less of an issue for developing riders although how often have you heard the phrase 'he would benifit from a loan spell at a smaller / bigger track' so in effect it could be a seen as rider development, again the rider would have to return to his original club the following year for them to keep his registration

 

Whether riders should stay at a minimum average is debatable as it would lead to a cliff edge when the 'established' kicked in. Better to keep with the reductions you outlined re average manipulation which would allow riders to progress without setting a one size fits all limit to development ie must make it by 21 / 100 meeting etc

 

There are a couple of problems with using average reductions instead of points limit increases. The first is that it skews the averages for the purposes of determining the reserves and guest/rider replacement etc.. In effect, you'd need to maintain two sets of averages (one for team selection and one for team line-ups) which is confusing.

 

The other problem is that you'd run into problems with the minimum average. I rider with (say) an average of 3.2 would only get a reduction of 0.2 instead of 0.5. Even if you allowed them to have an average of 2.7, it would then cause complications if you had to replace them with a No.8 or guest.

 

Personally I would rather have the 'problems' associated with reducing a riders average than try to explain how team equalisation equates to unequal teams - really a reduction is only an extention of the 2.5% British reduction we currently have and no one seems to have a particular issue with its operation

 

Guests could be viewed either way, why should the opposition be disadvantaged by riding against a stronger side when the reason for that strength (a returning rider) is not in that side. This presumes that sides with returning riders should have resulted in a team strength greater than could have been compiled without the reduction / increase

 

Minimum averages are going to be an issue either way - if +0.5 then all riders on 2.5 or above can be retained with a 3, if -.5 then move the starting average to 2.0, the maths work whatever (the subtracting of averages would naturally lead to riders starting at a lower figure, the adding to teambuilding limits leads to higher introductory averages)