21st century heathen Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Anyone's opinion on whether or not it's a good idea, whether it would be run legally and/or competently etcetera really is irrelevant. It will surely come down to a statement of fact as to whether the proposed meetings break the regulations that the like of Rye and Lei are bound by. I refer you to an extract from section 4. OFFENCES of regulations which would appear, taken at face value, to clear it up. 5. competing for, accepting or offering to accept, or advertising an award, in the nature of a title or Championship, in respect of a motorcycle competition, unless such award is recognised by the ACU or SCB I note it states "...motorcycle competition" rather than using the word speedway so it doesn't matter what you call it. The SCB has made it's position in not sanctioning the series perfectly clear. So unless there's a right to petition the ACU to overturn the SCB's decision that's an end to it I would have thought. http://www.scbgb.co.uk/pdf/regulations/2012%20SPEEDWAY%20REGULATIONS.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyd Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Six round with four wildcards and 12 riders competing in all rounds. That's 36 riders and 6 tacks who are thrown out by the SCB by the time the series is completed. I can't see that impacting much on the premier League - go on then BSPA. The dozen permanent riders including up to now Berwick's #1 and two of the Newcastle side would be banned at the beginning of May as well as Leicester being without a league place. InJune it would be Rye House's turn to be booted out. Yeah, that'll happen. Aside from the points of if the event is legal or not and if it can be run as a speedway event, what about the following. .......... How can they ( BSPA / SCB) boot any club out of the league for having one of these events at there stadium? If whoever owns the stadium gets a call asking them to hire out the stadium on such a such a day for the right price how can this affect to speedway promotion of that stadium? If the speedway promoters are not involved with the running of the event then it is nothing to do with them. If the event was run and succesful and they decided to approach say 20 or more stadiums around the country to run events through the year would they ban all the teams or promoters from the leagues? (ok dont answer that as its like asking the BSPA get a gun and shoot each other in the foot) What happens when these events are run regular at Wimbledon and say Oxford and other stadiums around the country where speedway cannot even get a foot in the door? My view is that the BSPA / SCB are running scared of these events being better organised and attended than anything they can put on and they would rather try and kick it into touch now rather than attempt to talk or work with the organisers. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Well said 21stCH. Does anyone know if the organisers did approach the SCB/ACU in the first instance?? If not, then one has to assume they knew they wouldn't get permission - but went ahead anyway (almost as if they had some sort of axe to grind against the SCB/ACU/BSPA?? Surely not!!!). If they did approach - as I was informed they did! - then one has to assume they were told 'No, go away', or 'Yes, work with us within the regulations' - neither of which seems to have happened!! Either way, it seems that a 'promising new initiative' has been attempted in totally the wrong way and may well fail before its even had a chance. On the subject of tracks, every track has to be given a SCB/ACU track licence in order to operate speedway. Notwithstanding who owns the stadium, surely the contract between the BSPA Promoter and the track owner would include some sort of condition that would stop any 'one-off' competitive events?! From the track/stadium owners point of view, why would you accept a booking for a one-off meeting that could jeopardise the longer term value of the March to October BSPA club contract? Short term gain for (possibly) long term pain!! Edited February 7, 2013 by Skidder1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Aside from the points of if the event is legal or not and if it can be run as a speedway event, what about the following. .......... How can they ( BSPA / SCB) boot any club out of the league for having one of these events at there stadium? If whoever owns the stadium gets a call asking them to hire out the stadium on such a such a day for the right price how can this affect to speedway promotion of that stadium? If the speedway promoters are not involved with the running of the event then it is nothing to do with them. If the event was run and succesful and they decided to approach say 20 or more stadiums around the country to run events through the year would they ban all the teams or promoters from the leagues? (ok dont answer that as its like asking the BSPA get a gun and shoot each other in the foot) What happens when these events are run regular at Wimbledon and say Oxford and other stadiums around the country where speedway cannot even get a foot in the door? My view is that the BSPA / SCB are running scared of these events being better organised and attended than anything they can put on and they would rather try and kick it into touch now rather than attempt to talk or work with the organisers. The circuit would lose its licence therefore the club could no longer operate out of that stadium. In most, if not all, cases that would lead to the immediate closure of the club. Whether you're pro-FIM/ACU/SCB/BSPA or not it does not alter what's in black and white. All licensed circuits/promoters/officials/competitors have accepted the regulations. Rye, Lei and the riders named so far should not have accepted the invite to stage or compete in the series without it having SCB or ACU approval, which clearly it doesn't. Whether or not we, as fans of the sport, agree with the regulations is another debate entirely (and one that comes up about 5 times a week during any average season). *edit* I should state that I understand a rider's 'I just want to ride my bike' attitude but they all have to abide by the regulations and take steps to ensure they're seen to be doing so. In cases like this I'd have thought an email or letter to the ACU/SCB asking whether the meeting is officially sanctioned would suffice. The rider would be able to demonstrate he'd acknowledged the regulations and tried to gain an assurance that it was okay for him to accept the invite to ride. A simple yes or no reply from the ACU/SCB would let the rider know where he stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) The circuit would lose its licence therefore the club could no longer operate out of that stadium. In most, if not all, cases that would lead to the immediate closure of the club. So the track could then be forced to run under the other organisation? If Six tracks were expelled for doing this event, they'd run their own mini league not under the SCB/ACU. If fans see it as being better speedway... more would/could jump? Best to negotiate with these people, us as fans can only win surely? We've been asking for a while for a fresh set of eyes and ears to step in and run something. Edited February 7, 2013 by Deano 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 For years it was in black and white that ACU riders would have their licence revoked if they competed under another organisation, then it was challenged, found to be illegal and changed. Similar thing with tracks. Many things are accepted as unchangeable until somebody challenges them. I just can't understand why the BSPA / ACU would run the risk of toppling their house of cards because somebody wants to put a couple of extra on top. Here was an opportunity for something slightly different to be tried at no risk or cost to themselves. If the series didn't do well they could say 'told you so' and if it succeeded they could pinch the ideas they/ the public liked and use them for their own events. I think they really need to hope that the MCF don't think the issue is worth butting heads over because having given up the opportunity to work alongside them the last thing Speedway needs is division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 So the track could then be forced to run under the other organisation? If Six tracks were expelled for doing this event, they'd run their own mini league not under the SCB/ACU. If fans see it as being better speedway... more would/could jump? Best to negotiate with these people, us as fans can only win surely? We've been asking for a while for a fresh set of eyes and ears to step in and run something. No, because... Under the authority of the Auto-Cycle Union The Speedway Control Bureau is the sole national body appointed to encourage and control the sport of motorcycle Speedway racing throughout England, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Perhaps another organisation could petition the FIM if it felt the ACU didn't have the authority claimed in this statement, and/or perhaps go to court to challenge the ACU, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backless Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 No, because... Under the authority of the Auto-Cycle Union The Speedway Control Bureau is the sole national body appointed to encourage and control the sport of motorcycle Speedway racing throughout England, Scotland… The MCF isn't under the authority of the ACU. So, unless the ACU are going to recruit Thatcher's SPG to club everyone in attendance,they can't stop the meetings from going ahead. The MCF licence the tracks, set their own standards & regulations (similar to - or maybe better than - those at present) and obtain all necessary insurances. So there's nothing in theory to prevent the meetings going ahead. If the BSPA blindly dig their heels in, they ban around 36 quality riders & 6 tracks from the PL. If that continued to its logical conclusion, there's the basis for a pretty exciting and dynamic league. And another one run by the BSPA - before consideration is given to anyone (rider or club) jumping ship. Still, in the short term, the next MC meeting should be fun: "So, Uncle Len, been doing much lately?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymondbudd Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Whilst I'm not surprised at the SCB response I'm astounded by some of the negativity on this topic. Like it or not MCF is a legitimate sporting organisation, running several high profile MX events (Red Bull nationals etc). It's also worth pointing out that its sister company events22 (also run by Matt Bates) are currently running the UK Arenacross series, so far this year events have been held at the 02, Oydessy Arena, LG Arena and this weekend at the Echo Arena. They also run the Weston beach race, which is one of the largest, motorcycle events in the country. My view is that the SCB should explore every avenue to accommodate these guys, whom have demonstrated ability to professionally run events. As a former MX rider I'm not surprised that some of the best talent in speedway comes from this discipline (Craig Cook etc), clubs should welcome the opportunity to work with these guys and tap into the MX talent on offer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 It seems to me that a situation COULD come to pass whereby there is a repeat of 1964 (remember Unlicensed Tracks then). Perhaps another Provincial League type of arrangement is on the horizon. Who knows? We must wait and see. I don't think that this has run it's course yet though - far from it. Interesting times.......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backless Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Not a bad thing then… not a bad thing now. Incidentally, if it did come to that and the MCF licences tracks & made regulations - but didn't run their own club - wouldn't that by default be the independent regulatory body that some on here is essential for the sport? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skodaman Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Under whose duristiction are the Flatrack meetings held. These meetings have been held at Leicester, and Scunthorpe amongst others. There have also been some MotoX meetings held at Leicester; who sanctions those? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 It may prove academic whether a circuit licence holder is prepared to take a stand against the SCB. How many riders will risk losing their license for what at the moment is just 6 meetings (actually it's only 2)? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvm Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Under whose duristiction are the Flatrack meetings held. These meetings have been held at Leicester, and Scunthorpe amongst others. There have also been some MotoX meetings held at Leicester; who sanctions those? I was wondering the same thing. In order to ride in those events you didn't need a ACU licence, just a IOPD licence. http://www.shorttrac...egulations.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backless Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 It may prove academic whether a circuit licence holder is prepared to take a stand against the SCB. How many riders will risk losing their license for what at the moment is just 6 meetings (actually it's only 2)? Do you REALLY think the BSPA would rip the heart out of the PL by pulling their licences? Don't bother answering that - if you're gullible to think its only 2 because that's what's been announced, it's easy to guess your response. The BSPA is (allegedly) so full of self interest they're not going to be able to vote that through. Of the 6 announced so far, 4 of them ride for MC member owned teams & what happens to their antiquated asset system then? Back to reading your speedway a star in your bobble hat. 21st Century? Ha ha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Perhaps another organisation could petition the FIM if it felt the ACU didn't have the authority claimed in this statement, and/or perhaps go to court to challenge the ACU, I don't know. The FIM recognise the ACU as the organisation responsible for motorcycling in the UK, so there's no chance of them overruling the ACU with respect to a decision about the SCB. It's possible that another promoters' or club association might get recognised by the ACU if there were enough demand/lobbying, but I think the BSPA actually has some sort of observer status at the FIM. Realistically though, if a group of promoters/clubs/tracks want to run speedway under their own auspices, they'd have to run outside the ACU. Maybe this would be a good thing though, as neither the ACU or the FIM seem to do a lot for speedway other than selling the family silver... It may prove academic whether a circuit licence holder is prepared to take a stand against the SCB. How many riders will risk losing their license for what at the moment is just 6 meetings (actually it's only 2)? Nothing would happen. It's already been legally investigated by various motor sports bodies and the recommendation was that they can't ban competitors or tracks involved in unlicensed meetings. It might be frowned upon (sometimes for good reasons), but the authorities wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were subjected to a legal challenge and I'm sure they already know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac101 Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Having came from mx to speedway last year and having done. A Few red bull and dep challenge meetings I can tell you they are very well run organised unit . And very strict with every thing very well equipped with sound meters for sound checks on silencers and machine testers/ examiners with tool for checking barrel sizes which a couple of riders are chosen randomly after every race and checked most mx clubs moved over to MCF because they were a lot cheaper to run there events through with the clubs making a bit more money as the acu used to charge clubs a fortune for licences permits insurance the MCF are now working in the 21 century with everything on line rather than a stamp and cheque book can't see why they can't work together on something like this. I take it most if not all of the riders that will ride in this are British and don't ride abroad can't see any harm competion is good for business in every sport Edited February 7, 2013 by mac101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Duppcomic Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 The MCF isn't under the authority of the ACU. So, unless the ACU are going to recruit Thatcher's SPG to club everyone in attendance,they can't stop the meetings from going ahead. The MCF licence the tracks, set their own standards & regulations (similar to - or maybe better than - those at present) and obtain all necessary insurances. So there's nothing in theory to prevent the meetings going ahead. If the BSPA blindly dig their heels in, they ban around 36 quality riders & 6 tracks from the PL. If that continued to its logical conclusion, there's the basis for a pretty exciting and dynamic league. And another one run by the BSPA - before consideration is given to anyone (rider or club) jumping ship. Still, in the short term, the next MC meeting should be fun: "So, Uncle Len, been doing much lately?" The point is there wouldn't be an exciting and dynamic league. The series is devised to make money from one off individual events not to suffer the pain of a Glasgow v Plymouth league match financial disaster or similar week after week 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byker Biker Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 The point is there wouldn't be an exciting and dynamic league. The series is devised to make money from one off individual events not to suffer the pain of a Glasgow v Plymouth league match financial disaster or similar week after week I suppose you're right, without the 40 or so (more with guest and double up appearances) loss making meetings PL riders get from a BSPA/SCB/ACU affiliation they probably wouldn't be in a position to agree 6 plum bookings for the MCF. Then on the othe hand if the MCF gives them all vans, mechanics, tyres, insurance, workshops, engines to sign on for 6 meetings, 50 pence a mile and £100 a point then the BSPA could save a fortune and start to make money instead of subsidising the sport to keep it alive. I wonder why the MCF didn't approach the BSPA/SCB/ACU with this great idea, you don't think it's 'cos they wanted to make money do you? Oh no of course not it's to benefit British riders! Yeah right.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backless Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 At the moment. But if 6 tracks were chucked out on their ears along with anything up to 36 riders, do you suppose they would sit around talking about t'old days? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.