Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Glasgow V Edinburgh - Pl & Scottish Smug Trophy - Sunday 14th June 3pm


Recommended Posts

It's hardly shameful. You do realise that all the promoters vote in the management committee and could go on the committee themselves if they want to. If it was the massive advantage people seem to suggest they would all be lining up to be on the committee. I am willing to bet that when they ask for volunteers the majority of the room are all very quiet knowing how much of a poisoned chalice it is.

 

In a perfect world all of the administrators would be neutral and I would prefer that but it would cost money that speedway doesn't have. That money has to be spent on rider development not administrators that everyone would just disagree with and have a go at anyway. All the promoters sign up to it and could propose a vote to change it. In fact they would have voted collectively to bring in the change to the rule that we are taking about. You haven't explained why they are wrong in this instance.

 

The bspa and British speedway have lots of problems and in many areas get it wrong so I don't really want to defend them but to say this is shameful is just plain wrong.

 

First of all, I'd ask how happy you would be if Debbie Hancock and Colin Hamilton were to make a ruling on whether a rider was eligible to ride for Edinburgh or not. If you said 'not very' I'd understand completely yet here we have Alex Harkess and Rob Godfrey (at least potentially) deciding whether an ex Scunthorpe rider can sign for Edinburgh's nearest and dearest and one of their most serious rivals for the PL this season. I have rarely heard a word to question Harkess' integrity (outside of Coventry, that is) but the scope for allegations of bias is unquestionable.

 

On Sunday I was told that one promoter, when told of Glasgow's plans to sign Howe, commented 'but that means you'll win the league'. His motivation in making such a decision is clear and hardly gives confidence that there will be an informed and objective conclusion to this matter.

 

I fully take your point about cost but, like everything else, its whether the outlay would be worth it. With fans incensed about the corruption at the heart of the sport and the potential for bent decisions being made it might well be worth a levy of £10per week per club (or less than one entry fee) accepting a fee of £500 for the person concerned and there being 10 or so decisions made per season.

 

British justice is based upon openness, lack of prejudice, explanation, reason, culpability and precedent. BSPA rulings are directly the opposite: closed and arbitrary decisions with precedent being disregarded made by interested parties without explanation. That has to end, and its not lost on me that exactly the same circumstances could arise next season and a completely different conclusion drawn to which we, paying spectators, will not be party or allowed the benefit of a statement of reasons.

 

Recent decision making certainly doesn't inspire confidence. Bradley Wilson-Dean of Eastbourne rides in the NL so must have patriality. SCB regulations clearly state that a rider coming from the NL has a PL average of 3.00, yet Wilson-Dean has been ruled to have a 5.00. Why ? Your guess is as good as mine, but inevitably there is a suspicion that bias and jealousy regarding the availability of a very talented but very southern based rider come into account.

 

Perhaps the most pertinent point is that even if a person could be found with the right credentials to make independent decisions for free there's no doubt that the BSPA wouldn't be interested. They want to retain the present system because it suits them, regardless of the damage it does to the sports credibility. I'd accept that 'shameful' might be a little strong to describe actions in this case but on this point it is very apt indeed.

Edited by Halifaxtiger
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with no word on how the appeal went then it is safe to say we won't be signing Howe, why people are allowed to make desicions with a clear conflict of interest is beyond me will just need to accept it and move on

 

I heard we are trying to sign a new Chinese sensation

 

Sum Ting Wong.

Edited by Gazc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules is rules.

Never stopped them before

 

(Not applying the rules).

 

They should invite Sepp Blatter to work with them he is looking for work even with his past history he is probably more transparent than what is there.

Edited by Gazc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule might not be well written but it's there.

 

Any time rules have a discretionary element to them, this kind of argument will arise.

 

Agree 100%

 

Interesting point is would a team be allowed leeway in the other direction, ie 7pt rider obviously only being a 3pointer (Konopka springs to mind) would a team be allowed to bring in a rider to replace an injured team member and use say an extra 2 or 3 points over the limit?? Now that would cause some debate on here, but if the rule is there for fairness.......

Edited by northyorksbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First of all, I'd ask how happy you would be if Debbie Hancock and Colin Hamilton were to make a ruling on whether a rider was eligible to ride for Edinburgh or not. If you said 'not very' I'd understand completely yet here we have Alex Harkess and Rob Godfrey (at least potentially) deciding whether an ex Scunthorpe rider can sign for Edinburgh's nearest and dearest and one of their most serious rivals for the PL this season. I have rarely heard a word to question Harkess' integrity (outside of Coventry, that is) but the scope for allegations of bias is unquestionable.

 

On Sunday I was told that one promoter, when told of Glasgow's plans to sign Howe, commented 'but that means you'll win the league'. His motivation in making such a decision is clear and hardly gives confidence that there will be an informed and objective conclusion to this matter.

 

I fully take your point about cost but, like everything else, its whether the outlay would be worth it. With fans incensed about the corruption at the heart of the sport and the potential for bent decisions being made it might well be worth a levy of £10per week per club (or less than one entry fee) accepting a fee of £500 for the person concerned and there being 10 or so decisions made per season.

 

British justice is based upon openness, lack of prejudice, explanation, reason, culpability and precedent. BSPA rulings are directly the opposite: closed and arbitrary decisions with precedent being disregarded made by interested parties without explanation. That has to end, and its not lost on me that exactly the same circumstances could arise next season and a completely different conclusion drawn to which we, paying spectators, will not be party or allowed the benefit of a statement of reasons.

 

Recent decision making certainly doesn't inspire confidence. Bradley Wilson-Dean of Eastbourne rides in the NL so must have patriality. SCB regulations clearly state that a rider coming from the NL has a PL average of 3.00, yet Wilson-Dean has been ruled to have a 5.00. Why ? Your guess is as good as mine, but inevitably there is a suspicion that bias and jealousy regarding the availability of a very talented but very southern based rider come into account.

 

Perhaps the most pertinent point is that even if a person could be found with the right credentials to make independent decisions for free there's no doubt that the BSPA wouldn't be interested. They want to retain the present system because it suits them, regardless of the damage it does to the sports credibility. I'd accept that 'shameful' might be a little strong to describe actions in this case but on this point it is very apt indeed.

 

Too sensible by half - you are clearly on the wrong forum.

I suggest you do something more constructive with your time :)

Edited by Joseq7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agree 100%

 

Interesting point is would a team be allowed leeway in the other direction, ie 7pt rider obviously only being a 3pointer (Konopka springs to mind) would a team be allowed to bring in a rider to replace an injured team member and use say an extra 2 or 3 points over the limit?? Now that would cause some debate on here, but if the rule is there for fairness.......

No. And thats why the rule says, "may"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules is rules.

 

 

Await with baited breath on the onslaught on how this was able to happen from the usual suspects.

One of our Monarchs friends above seems to have supplied the answer to that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy