BSPA Ltd.

[Big Al]

Reasons, implications, ?

[IainB]

Rider control? If all assets have been transferred to the company. Meaningful shareholder meetings to push rules through, share sales if an interested party comes along wanting to buy the sport, collective bargaining power for purchasing shale or riders time, spread of profit/loss. I think this could be the most positive step in years for the sport

[PHILIPRISING]

AMAZING that this wasn't done before. Provides protection (limited liability) for promoters who could otherwise have been in danger of having to contribute financial support to the Association in the case of debts, etc. No doubt the Gerhard fiasco sharpened some minds!

Many other potential benefits, too, but ultimately will not bring additional people through the gates.

[winstoncigar]

Impending lawsuits?

[cityrebel]

1 hour ago, PHILIPRISING said:

AMAZING that this wasn't done before. Provides protection (limited liability) for promoters who could otherwise have been in danger of having to contribute financial support to the Association in the case of debts, etc. No doubt the Gerhard fiasco sharpened some minds!

Many other potential benefits, too, but ultimately will not bring additional people through the gates.

You've hit the nail on the head Phil. Crowds might improve slightly at tracks that have moved up, but they will fall at those that have dropped down. The sport desperately needs new blood coming through the turnstiles, but non of the decisions made will help rectify this.

[IainB]

14 minutes ago, cityrebel said:

You've hit the nail on the head Phil. Crowds might improve slightly at tracks that have moved up, but they will fall at those that have dropped down. The sport desperately needs new blood coming through the turnstiles, but non of the decisions made will help rectify this.

Absolutely not in the short term... But it opens up the possibility to do so in the longer term, the way things were, as has been proved over the decline of the last 50 years or so, big ideas were almost impossible to implement

Edited November 16, 2018 by iainb

[Humphrey Appleby]

4 hours ago, PHILIPRISING said:

AMAZING that this wasn't done before. Provides protection (limited liability) for promoters who could otherwise have been in danger of having to contribute financial support to the Association in the case of debts, etc. No doubt the Gerhard fiasco sharpened some minds!

Would have thought there was always the risk of a rider taking the BSPA to court over the asset system, winning the case, and then getting damages that the promoters (or at least those on the Management Committee) would be collectively liable for.

Maybe it wasn't done before because of the need to publish accounts which would open the promoters to financial scrutiny. The law has been changed in recent years though, to increase the amount of turnover before you have to publish full accounts, and I doubt 6.5 million per year is going through their books. 

[Humphrey Appleby]

2 hours ago, iainb said:

Absolutely not in the short term... But it opens up the possibility to do so in the longer term, the way things were, as has been proved over the decline of the last 50 years or so, big ideas were almost impossible to implement

Rider allocation, centrally-contracted riders, wage control, standardised equipment and procurement thereof are all possibilities. 

[cityrebel]

5 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Rider allocation, centrally-contracted riders, wage control, standardised equipment and procurement thereof are all possibilities. 

Possibilities that should be embraced.

[MattK]

I think people are reading into it too much. My theory is that with so many clubs up for sale the BSPA want to give themselves the protection of working within the structure of a limited liability company. I can't see any benefits in what people have described above such as collective bargaining or pooling of profit/loss.

[SteveLyric2]

20 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Rider allocation, centrally-contracted riders, wage control, standardised equipment and procurement thereof are all possibilities. 

None of which will attract new fans - unless clubs reduce prices and effectively promote their product to their required audiences within their respective catchment areas.

[Humphrey Appleby]

4 hours ago, Skidder1 said:

None of which will attract new fans - unless clubs reduce prices and effectively promote their product to their required audiences within their respective catchment areas.

That wasn't really my point.

Things like the points limit, lack of control over wages, and an engine tuning arms race have forced up costs beyond what is sustainable.

Of course you have to get fans through the door as well, but can't reduce prices until you reduce costs. And even if you do get more fans through the door, teams will just spend any extra money on trying to lure riders unless there are controls on this, which doesn't get you any further forward.

[Big Al]

So sounds like it's a defensive move first and foremost, but could bring benefits in terms of potential costs saving. After Scott Nicholls won his case, it may have acted as a wake-up call?

[Daniel Smith]

21 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

That wasn't really my point.

Things like the points limit, lack of control over wages, and an engine tuning arms race have forced up costs beyond what is sustainable.

Of course you have to get fans through the door as well, but can't reduce prices until you reduce costs. And even if you do get more fans through the door, teams will just spend any extra money on trying to lure riders unless there are controls on this, which doesn't get you any further forward.

Which costs need reducing to achieve lower admission costs? 

For me it's just rider's wages the clubs can really look at. The cost to the rider's is irrelevant for lowering admission costs. Lower a rider's wage they have a choice to make, keep up the expense out of their own pocket or find a new supply chain / engine tuner at lower costs.

No way should British Speedway clubs and rider's be lining the pockets of engine tuners.

[PHILIPRISING]

LOWERING costs for promoters and riders is a chicken and egg situation. Both should be tackled in harmony.

[1 valve]

On 11/16/2018 at 3:04 PM, Humphrey Appleby said:

Rider allocation, centrally-contracted riders, wage control, standardised equipment and procurement thereof are all possibilities. 

All possible within an Association. Limited liability company not required. Will however provide protection to officers of the organisation. 

[MD]

Shareholder in a private limited company have to be invited to join. Who are the actual shareholders?

[Humphrey Appleby]

1 hour ago, MD said:

Shareholder in a private limited company have to be invited to join. Who are the actual shareholders?

Would guess it would be established as a company limited by guarantee, with the track owners as the company members.

[Humphrey Appleby]

21 hours ago, Daniel Smith said:

Which costs need reducing to achieve lower admission costs? 

For me it's just rider's wages the clubs can really look at. The cost to the rider's is irrelevant for lowering admission costs. Lower a rider's wage they have a choice to make, keep up the expense out of their own pocket or find a new supply chain / engine tuner at lower costs.

Wages will constitute one of the biggest, if not the biggest cost for a promotion, and is something that the collective will of the promoters can control unlike most other costs.

No point simply saying reduce wages and the rest will follow, because there's a certain inherent costs involved in manufacturing small numbers of specialised engines, and then finding the handful of rebuilders/tuners to maintain them.

Of course the equipment costs have got beyond the point of stupidity and what can be afforded, but it's partly incumbent on the promoters to find solutions to that - either through bulk purchase of engines, maintaining a common pool of engines, or severely restricting how engines can be modded (and that still won't stop the use of selected parts engines).

Edited November 19, 2018 by Humphrey Appleby

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

36 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Wages will constitute one of the biggest, if not the biggest cost for a promotion, and is something that the collective will of the promoters can control unlike most other costs.

No point simply saying reduce wages and the rest will follow, because there's a certain inherent costs involved in manufacturing small numbers of specialised engines, and then finding the handful of rebuilders/tuners to maintain them.

Of course the equipment costs have got beyond the point of stupidity and what can be afforded, but it's partly incumbent on the promoters to find solutions to that - either through bulk purchase of engines, maintaining a common pool of engines, or severely restricting how engines can be modded (and that still won't stop the use of selected parts engines).

And that’s where holomagated parts only come in, it is not difficult to implement but there is no will to do it, there will always be a tiny advantage for someone somewhere but speedway is one of the very few motorsports that is all but a couple of rules a free for all, which is the reason prices have rocketed