Leicester Lions 2017

[weatherwatcher]

I was mearly asking a question, to try and find out what actually went wrong with the club this year. When we where told at the end of the previous year that the club was in very stable condition finance wise. So what went wrong in those few short months. We will never find out, it is a question that is never going to be answered. Not a slight at DH. but somehow things went badly wrong in less than 6 months, it should be a matter of great importance that the B.P.S.A/SCB make it that all clubs must pay riders after every meeting, If they fail to do this, then questions should be asked before it gets to the stage it has done this year with at least 4 clubs in difficulties, if they are found to be near to having to lock the gates, then the powers that be should take the steps to get a new promotor to take over the club, before the are actually faced with a huge amount of debts.

Things need to change if the sport needs to carry on. Because a time will come when the debts can't be cleared up and the fact that yet another club would be added to the long list of defunk clubs, we have seen to many go that way in the past, we can't afford to see any more go to the wall, or the sport will no longer be viable, other than in an amatuer way.

[The Voice Of Reason]

There is (or there certainly was) a paper signed by both team captains prior to racing the meeting; confirming riders, all checks carried out to satisfaction and that basically everything was good to go.

 

There was also a comments box to add any other issues, etc.

 

As Machine Examiner and stand-in Clerk of the Course previously, I've seen a number of occasions whereby the visiting Captain has made it quite clear that monies were outstanding from X (whichever club), from the meeting held on X date - but it was often a matter of months rather than weeks!

 

This paperwork was handed to the Ref. and, I assume, sent to the SCB in Rugby.

 

My question is what exactly does the SCB do with such comments - chase the respective promoter and allow them to continue; or conveniently overlook them?

 

Whatever they do, or more likely DON'T do, it is a sad indictment of the lackadaisical, unprofessional body supposedly running our sport.

 

Because the fact remains if these scenarios manifest themselves, as they clearly appear to have still been doing in 2016, then action clearly needs to be taken much sooner.

[Big Al]

Q

The riders will be paid through the promoters bond money held by the bspa

If there was anything left after other expenses were taken out?

There is (or there certainly was) a paper signed by both team captains prior to racing the meeting; confirming riders, all checks carried out to satisfaction and that basically everything was good to go.

There was also a comments box to add any other issues, etc.

As Machine Examiner and stand-in Clerk of the Course previously, I've seen a number of occasions whereby the visiting Captain has made it quite clear that monies were outstanding from X (whichever club), from the meeting held on X date - but it was often a matter of months rather than weeks!

This paperwork was handed to the Ref. and, I assume, sent to the SCB in Rugby.

My question is what exactly does the SCB do with such comments - chase the respective promoter and allow them to continue; or conveniently overlook them?

Whatever they do, or more likely DON'T do, it is a sad indictment of the lackadaisical, unprofessional body supposedly running our sport.

Because the fact remains if these scenarios manifest themselves, as they clearly appear to have still been doing in 2016, then action clearly needs to be taken much sooner.

There is (or there certainly was) a paper signed by both team captains prior to racing the meeting; confirming riders, all checks carried out to satisfaction and that basically everything was good to go.

There was also a comments box to add any other issues, etc.

As Machine Examiner and stand-in Clerk of the Course previously, I've seen a number of occasions whereby the visiting Captain has made it quite clear that monies were outstanding from X (whichever club), from the meeting held on X date - but it was often a matter of months rather than weeks!

This paperwork was handed to the Ref. and, I assume, sent to the SCB in Rugby.

My question is what exactly does the SCB do with such comments - chase the respective promoter and allow them to continue; or conveniently overlook them?

Whatever they do, or more likely DON'T do, it is a sad indictment of the lackadaisical, unprofessional body supposedly running our sport.

Because the fact remains if these scenarios manifest themselves, as they clearly appear to have still been doing in 2016, then action clearly needs to be taken much sooner.

Wasn't David Hemsley on a mission to try and make the governance and administration more professional? Look what happened to him! Edited December 9, 2016 by Big Al

[waiheke1]

I was mearly asking a question, to try and find out what actually went wrong with the club this year. When we where told at the end of the previous year that the club was in very stable condition finance wise. So what went wrong in those few short months. We will never find out, it is a question that is never going to be answered. Not a slight at DH. but somehow things went badly wrong in less than 6 months, it should be a matter of great importance that the B.P.S.A/SCB make it that all clubs must pay riders after every meeting, If they fail to do this, then questions should be asked before it gets to the stage it has done this year with at least 4 clubs in difficulties, if they are found to be near to having to lock the gates, then the powers that be should take the steps to get a new promotor to take over the club, before the are actually faced with a huge amount of debts.

Things need to change if the sport needs to carry on. Because a time will come when the debts can't be cleared up and the fact that yet another club would be added to the long list of defunk clubs, we have seen to many go that way in the past, we can't afford to see any more go to the wall, or the sport will no longer be viable, other than in an amatuer way.

Do u think it is easy for BSPa to find a new promoter to take over a club. Why would someone want to be a speedway promoter. And if the existing promoter owns the lease, how do you propose that the BSPa legally can force this to be transferred to a new promoter?

[weatherwatcher]

I presume an awful load of matters come into play.

1. Does the lease holder play ball with the BPSA. If not that needs addressing very quickly to sort things out.

2. Is the land the stadium sits on belonging to the owner, or as in the case of BP the Local Council, what is the working partnership between both parties. I am sure if they have problems, then the lease on the land could be cancelled, then taken over by other parties. Because when all said and done, all the owner has are a few buildings a fence and a load of shale.

3. Lots of clubs still race inside greyhound tracks, so they are there only until they upset someone. as with Birmingham the other year, no rent no speedway club.

Things need to be sorted out quickly if the sport hopes to carry on for many more years, soon there will be no one out there who wants to take the risk of becoming a promoter, after all the way the sport is now it is a very big gamble.

Hope that those in power, can do something to get the crowds back again to decent levels, instead of seeing about 100 fans turning out to watch the top flight clubs, even at reduced rates when Sky are there. It looks terrible on the telly and I am sure it will not give people the heart to turn up to a track with hardly anyone there.

How they do it have not got a clue, it certainly needs more in the way of advertising, plus some big name sponsers. It would be great to see crowds like the ones in the 1950 to 70's but I think those days are lost to the history books.

[1 valve]

I presume an awful load of matters come into play.

1. Does the lease holder play ball with the BPSA. If not that needs addressing very quickly to sort things out.

2. Is the land the stadium sits on belonging to the owner, or as in the case of BP the Local Council, what is the working partnership between both parties. I am sure if they have problems, then the lease on the land could be cancelled, then taken over by other parties. Because when all said and done, all the owner has are a few buildings a fence and a load of shale.

 

You raise some good point but things are not that complicated - if you follow contract law and normal business practice.

1. Does the lease holder play ball with the BPSA. The presumption you are making here is that the lease holder is also the speedway promoter. However, as a lease holder there is no need for him/her to play ball with the BSPA other than to ensure the stadium/track is suitable for speedway should he wish to promote the sport or hire it to a promoter.

2. I am sure if they have problems, then the lease on the land could be cancelled. The only grounds that would give cause for cancelation of the lease by council would be if monies due for the lease were not paid or if the property was being used for activities outside of the specified purpose. standing empty and unused would not constitute suitable cause if the lease was being paid for - Unlike as it appears the NSC in Manchester.

 

It appears some people think that as the leaseholder DH will be out of pocket without speedway he should cut his losses and just walk away. However, the facility has a future value which like it or not DH has created. i.e. there is a stadium which a promoter can run meetings and earn money from. So it would be a fair presumption that DH as the leaseholder is (as is his right) to seek compensation for the use of the stadium for which he is the rightful tenant either by sub letting (if the lease allows) or selling the lease.

 

I do agree that so we fans know for certain we will have speedway at Leicester in 2017 it would be great to see this matter sorted sooner rather than later. However, we also need to recognise that there are business interests being served here and they need to be sorted out to the satisfaction of the vested parties. clearly some serious and detailed negotiation are going on and frankly, we don't need to know the details, just that they have been concluded and that the Lions will roar (Hopefully with more effect on track than in recent times) next season.

Edited December 11, 2016 by 1 valve

[Skidder1]

I thought Buster Chapman was taking over the promotional reins at Leicester?!

 

the ongoing negotiations - aside from the financial debt situation - is likely to be about the level of control the promotion will have over some of the stadium facilities owned by DH!!

 

Not least the track and any alterations the new promotion may wish to make which may go against DH's own opinions or wishes?!

Edited December 11, 2016 by Skidder1

[SCB]

Iversen to Leicester?

[beckettlion]

Iversen to Leicester?

 

and then I woke up!

[SCB]

 

and then I woke up!

This about it. Holder is signing or Lynn but Iversen wants to ride in the UK. Why would Lynn replace Iversen with Holder? Makes no sense. What does make sense is Holder wouldn't want to ride at Leicester but would love to ride at Lynn, so have Holder at Lynn and that free up Iversen to go to Leicester. That way Lynn and Leicester get a 12+ number 1 and everyone is happy.

[waiheke1]

What about the three league ruling?

[Bagpuss]

Polish restriction?

[Skidder1]

So which league is NKI dropping? Poland or Sweden? Or is he just standing up to the Poles' new rules?

[SCB]

So which league is NKI dropping? Poland or Sweden? Or is he just standing up to the Poles' new rules?

The same one as Holder, obviously!

[Star Lady]

The same one as Holder, obviously!

 

Does Holder ride in the Danish league? I thought Aussies have the UK classed as their home league so add Sweden and Poland and that makes three. Thought your maths was better than that SCB

[A ORLOV]

 

Does Holder ride in the Danish league? I thought Aussies have the UK classed as their home league so add Sweden and Poland and that makes three. Thought your maths was better than that SCB

Looking at his profile he only rode in Poland and Sweden plus Poole UK last year, so can ride in the UK if he wishes.

[SCB]

Denmark is Puks home league. Poland, Sweden and GB would be 3. Holders in Poland, Sweden and GB would be 3. I thought a riders home league was excluded?

[tellboy]

Pretty sure a riders home league is included.

[SCB]

So Holder is Poland, Sweden and Australia then. He can't sign for Kings Lynn. I'm confused.

[A ORLOV]

So Holder is Poland, Sweden and Australia then. He can't sign for Kings Lynn. I'm confused.

I thought that during the Polish speedway season Aussies could nominate Britain as their home nation if they rode in GB, and it is a total of 3.

Edited December 11, 2016 by A ORLOV