IOW 2020

[ch958]

once this genie is out of the bottle things will change drastically

[old bob at herne bay]

Good luck to the Isle of Wight  PROMOTION team.  There surely must be enough out of work UK based riders (thanks to the "rising stars"  scheme )who don't give a tuppenny damn about the BSPL,who would be interested in  riding for an IoW team in a series of invitation events. 

Expect loads of BS from the promoters  at the BSPL threatening all sorts of action to prevent this entertainment taking place.

 

 

 

[gee jay]

if i remember right speedway had a one meeting a month rule that was allowed during the off season ie hull or brighton indoor in nov/dec ? , nyc at newport in jan and telford in feb. i'm sure newport ran an extra meeting one year , again if i remember right , tony atkin had alot to do with it being a speedway team vs a grasstrack team and run it under the grasstrack association banner so the powers that be had no say in the matter. maybe that might be worth a look at if there's any problems . 

[cityrebel]

1 hour ago, Trackerman48 said:

Wait for the BIG  response from the BSPL to say you can't run anything.  Take them to court and it would be thrown out.  Buxton run stuff without being part of the BSPL.  Good luck hope it works out sure it will .

 

So do Lydd. There is a full fixture list already published for Crayford meetings at Belgar Farm.

[Sings4Speedway]

I would think (but im sure details will be released as things progress) that speedway meetings can be held as IOW will remain members of the ACU & SCB and only withdrew from the BSPL mafia but as stated there have been several other events held under different banners/names (dirt track spins to mind) but i would be surprised if isn't the header used as the BSPL don't own the rights to that name.

Again there might be a petty attempt to prevent any riders who are under the jurisdiction of the BSPL from competing but i would hope that a public rejection of this will suffice as there is no legal cases to be brought and they would do the sport no favours anyway. "in the best interests of the sport" the more opportunities for bikes to be on tracks the better whatever banner it may operate under. 

One thing for certain is that the IOW team know how to put on a show and now they have a blank canvas to work with may the speedway circus begin.

[Halifaxtiger]

45 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

I would think (but im sure details will be released as things progress) that speedway meetings can be held as IOW will remain members of the ACU & SCB and only withdrew from the BSPL mafia but as stated there have been several other events held under different banners/names (dirt track spins to mind) but i would be surprised if isn't the header used as the BSPL don't own the rights to that name.

Again there might be a petty attempt to prevent any riders who are under the jurisdiction of the BSPL from competing but i would hope that a public rejection of this will suffice as there is no legal cases to be brought and they would do the sport no favours anyway. "in the best interests of the sport" the more opportunities for bikes to be on tracks the better whatever banner it may operate under. 

One thing for certain is that the IOW team know how to put on a show and now they have a blank canvas to work with may the speedway circus begin.

My suspicion is that any attempt to bar riders from riding or threaten to ban them from BSPL meetings would be a restraint of trade and therefore illegal. It would likely collapse at the first legal challenge.

Very best of luck to Isle of Wight. 

[iris123]

13 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

My suspicion is that any attempt to bar riders from riding or threaten to ban them from BSPL meetings would be a restraint of trade and therefore illegal. It would likely collapse at the first legal challenge.

Very best of luck to Isle of Wight. 

Would it though ? If you are in an association, you agree to abide by the rules. If you then go against them or go outside them, you are surely breaking them. It is probably ok to do that if you don't want to take part in any meetings under their auspices. You can't I think play in both darts associations, even though you might claim it is restraint of trade. And as we see in Poland they restrict the meetings you can ride in, i.e restrict the leagues when you sign a contract 

There was the mooted series that was going to be run a few years ago that didn't happen

Edited March 19, 2021 by iris123

[PotteringAround]

40 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

My suspicion is that any attempt to bar riders from riding or threaten to ban them from BSPL meetings would be a restraint of trade and therefore illegal. It would likely collapse at the first legal challenge.

Absolute nonsense.

The BSPA choosing not to use the services of a rider who rides for a rival organisation is no different to someone choosing not to buy cosmetics from a company that tests their products on animals, or a vegetarian boycotting McDonalds.  

[Halifaxtiger]

1 hour ago, iris123 said:

Would it though ? If you are in an association, you agree to abide by the rules. If you then go against them or go outside them, you are surely breaking them. It is probably ok to do that if you don't want to take part in any meetings under their auspices. You can't I think play in both darts associations, even though you might claim it is restraint of trade. And as we see in Poland they restrict the meetings you can ride in, i.e restrict the leagues when you sign a contract 

There was the mooted series that was going to be run a few years ago that didn't happen

That depends on whether those rules themselves are within the law specific to restraint of trade. The rules themselves are not law and can be subject to challenge in the courts if they are contrary to legislation.

To bar a rider would effectively restrict his ability to earn money from a different employer  - that, to me, is a clear restraint of trade.

Its akin to a builder refusing to alliow a self employed bricklayer to work for a rival firm even though he only employs him for one day a week.

If memory serves me correctly, a couple of years ago the BSPL refused to allow Scott Nicholls to ride in the Championship because the rules said his Premiership average was too high. They carried on saying no until Nicholls consulted a solicitor, when they gave in very quickly indeed.

1 hour ago, PotteringAround said:

Absolute nonsense.

The BSPA choosing not to use the services of a rider who rides for a rival organisation is no different to someone choosing not to buy cosmetics from a company that tests their products on animals, or a vegetarian boycotting 

I think you rather miss the point.

Every speedway promotion has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not.

What they do not have is the right to prevent him riding for an alternative employer, and that is effectively what a ban would do  - and unquestionably would be the motivation behind it.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Halifaxtiger

[East End Fan]

12 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

That depends on whether those rules themselves are within the law specific to restraint of trade. The rules themselves are not law and can be subject to challenge in the courts if they are contrary to legislation.

To bar a rider would effectively restrict his ability to earn money from a different employer  - that, to me, is a clear restraint of trade.

Its akin to a builder refusing to alliow a self employed bricklayer to work for a rival firm even though he only employs him for one day a week.

If memory serves me correctly, a couple of years ago the BSPL refused to allow Scott Nicholls to ride in the Championship because the rules said his Premiership average was too high. They carried on saying no until Nicholls consulted a solicitor, when they gave in very quickly indeed.

I think you rather miss the point.

Every speedway promotion has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not.

What they do not have is the right to prevent him riding for an alternative employer, and that is effectively what a ban would do  - and unquestionably would be the motivation behind it.

All this is fascinating stuff, but what is it doing on an IOW thread ?   I think if the Speedway rules were subject to scrutiny, there would be quite a lot of

legally questionable items, restraint of trade being a glaring one.  No restraint of trade on the Island, though....sadly.

[Halifaxtiger]

Just now, East End Fan said:

All this is fascinating stuff, but what is it doing on an IOW thread ?   I think if the Speedway rules were subject to scrutiny, there would be quite a lot of

legally questionable items, restraint of trade being a glaring one.  No restraint of trade on the Island, though....sadly.

Its actually highly relevant. Barry Bishop has said that he plans to run a full programme of events this summer, so presumably he will use existing Speedway riders to do it. Question is whether the BSPL will allow that and if they don't, whether such an action is legal or not.

[iris123]

29 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

That depends on whether those rules themselves are within the law specific to restraint of trade. The rules themselves are not law and can be subject to challenge in the courts if they are contrary to legislation.

To bar a rider would effectively restrict his ability to earn money from a different employer  - that, to me, is a clear restraint of trade.

Its akin to a builder refusing to alliow a self employed bricklayer to work for a rival firm even though he only employs him for one day a week.

If memory serves me correctly, a couple of years ago the BSPL refused to allow Scott Nicholls to ride in the Championship because the rules said his Premiership average was too high. They carried on saying no until Nicholls consulted a solicitor, when they gave in very quickly indeed.

 

Think it is very suspect

As I said a couple of ex riders wanted to do a series on a few tracks a few years ago and it came to nothing, because of threats I am sure from the BSPA

I also know in Hamburg the local Ice Hockey club folded and a Russian promotion wanted to start a team there in the International Continental Ice Hockey League. The Bundesliga protested that it would be a rival promotion and have a negative effect on the national league. I'd guess the BSPA could well claim the same, with a rival league taking place on their turf. I wish it well as it is a good idea, but I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons. Covid and BSPA

[Halifaxtiger]

15 minutes ago, iris123 said:

Think it is very suspect

As I said a couple of ex riders wanted to do a series on a few tracks a few years ago and it came to nothing, because of threats I am sure from the BSPA

I also know in Hamburg the local Ice Hockey club folded and a Russian promotion wanted to start a team there in the International Continental Ice Hockey League. The Bundesliga protested that it would be a rival promotion and have a negative effect on the national league. I'd guess the BSPA could well claim the same, with a rival league taking place on their turf. I wish it well as it is a good idea, but I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons. Covid and BSPA

Definition of restraint of trade: 'The principle that an individual should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference. The principle renders a contractual term purporting to restrict an individual's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business (a restrictive covenant) void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary'.

 

To me, its clear that any ban would be a restraint of trade within the above definition. Where it is less clear cut is in the second part, but for what its worth I would find it hard to believe that a once a week meeting on the Isle of Wight threatens the existence of any of the BSPL leagues (and there is a precedent - Lydd ). I daresay, however, this won't be the last we'll hear of this.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Halifaxtiger

[mac101]

58 minutes ago, iris123 said:

Think it is very suspect

As I said a couple of ex riders wanted to do a series on a few tracks a few years ago and it came to nothing, because of threats I am sure from the BSPA

I also know in Hamburg the local Ice Hockey club folded and a Russian promotion wanted to start a team there in the International Continental Ice Hockey League. The Bundesliga protested that it would be a rival promotion and have a negative effect on the national league. I'd guess the BSPA could well claim the same, with a rival league taking place on their turf. I wish it well as it is a good idea, but I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons. Covid and BSPA

yes pretty sure it was Scott Courtney @Betwick he wanted to run a mini GP series around a few tracks through the MCF federation which is like the acu but cheaper to run events and mostly used by MX  clubs but the clubs  were told if they ran at there stadiums  there scb licence would be revoked 

[heathen52]

Firstly good luck to the IOW Speedway with whatever it is they going to put on, I wish nothing but the best for the promotion Team of Barry Bishop and Martin Wildman who have been by far and away the leading promotion in British Speedway when it comes to making Spectators welcome and putting on a first class show when it came to Speedway events at Smallbrook, when the promotion made it known that they had decided to withdraw from the BSPL i personally was very disapointed because though i live a fair way from the IOW it was somewhere that i had planned to visit once again, however having read the latest press release from the promotion at IOW speedway it again will give me the opportunity/excuse if i needed one which i dont, to come over again.

With regards the BSPL and the NL co-ordinator not contacting the IOW promotion it shows complete disrespect to Barry, Martin and fans of speedway on the IOW, and whatever may become of this it will be of the BSPL,s own doing, I have to say the NL co-ordinator and the Chairman of the BSPL do not come out of this very well from what i have read or heard, and the latest information on use of tyres only goes to show, that those at the top table do not understand the meaning of common sense but frequently come out with nonsense instead, and as such does not fill me with any faith that the BSPL can find a sustainable future for our Speedway in the UK.

[PotteringAround]

2 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

I think you rather miss the point.

Every speedway promotion has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not.

What they do not have is the right to prevent him riding for an alternative employer, and that is effectively what a ban would do  - and unquestionably would be the motivation behind it.

It's you who missed the point.   Yet you so nearly get there, and then completely miss.

As you say, the BSP Limited has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not.  If they choose not to employ someone who is riding/has ridden with a rival organisation that's their prerogative.   They are breaking no laws.

What they do not have is the right to prevent him riding for an alternative employer

  But no one said they did!  A rider is completely free to go and ride for whatever alternative organisation the Isle of Wight club might propose to race under.   

All we are saying is that such a rider would have to be prepared for the BSP Ltd to say, if you're riding for another organisation, you're not riding for us.

 

[PotteringAround]

2 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

To bar a rider would effectively restrict his ability to earn money from a different employer  -  No it wouldn't.    If I choose not to use a particular plumber, it's not stopping him doing plumbing work for anyone else.  

Its akin to a builder refusing to allow a self employed bricklayer to work for a rival firm even though he only employs him for one day a week.     No. It's akin to a builder saying to a bricklayer "If you're going to be doing work for someone else, then I won't be giving you any work.   (or if you want a sporting analogy, it's akin to the British Darts Organisation saying "If you want to play in the Professional Darts Championship, then you can't play in our organisation too.)

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by PotteringAround

[Islander15]

2 hours ago, iris123 said:

Think it is very suspect

As I said a couple of ex riders wanted to do a series on a few tracks a few years ago and it came to nothing, because of threats I am sure from the BSPA

I also know in Hamburg the local Ice Hockey club folded and a Russian promotion wanted to start a team there in the International Continental Ice Hockey League. The Bundesliga protested that it would be a rival promotion and have a negative effect on the national league. I'd guess the BSPA could well claim the same, with a rival league taking place on their turf. I wish it well as it is a good idea, but I doubt it will happen for a number of reasons. Covid and BSPA

If you genuinely think fans won’t attend the Premiership or Championship meetings just because the IOW are putting on an individual meeting or open event, then you are highly mistaken. It isn’t BSPL ‘turf’ when the Warriors have withdrawn from the league and association  

I hope the BSPL don’t attempt to block this attempt, but in reality it will make no difference to any other club’s businesses. At the end of the day, the Warriors have a surprisingly high number of core island based fans who have bought into the Bishop & Widman plan and frequent, but ever changing, holiday makers. So they have no direct rivals.

[Halifaxtiger]

1 hour ago, PotteringAround said:

It's you who missed the point.   Yet you so nearly get there, and then completely miss.

As you say, the BSP Limited has the right to choose whether to employ a rider or not.  If they choose not to employ someone who is riding/has ridden with a rival organisation that's their prerogative.   They are breaking no laws.

 

  But no one said they did!  A rider is completely free to go and ride for whatever alternative organisation the Isle of Wight club might propose to race under.   

All we are saying is that such a rider would have to be prepared for the BSP Ltd to say, if you're riding for another organisation, you're not riding for us.

 

Definition of restraint of trade: 'The principle that an individual should be free to follow his trade and use his skills without undue interference. The principle renders a contractual term purporting to restrict an individual's freedom to work for others or carry out his trade or business (a restrictive covenant) void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary'.

Glossary | Practical Law (thomsonreuters.com)

I think you're right - 'if you're riding for another organisation, you're not riding for us' - is just about spot on. The BSPL would issue a written statement to that effect, presumably in the form of a new rule or part of the riders contract (or both). That would, however, fall very squarely within the highlighted part of the definition I have indicated above, because they would, in effect, be restricting a riders 'freedom to work for others'.

In such circumstances : 'Courts or tribunals would normally rule against a blanket ban on working for a competitor because it would be a 'restraint of trade' – a general legal principle used to stop attempts to stifle competition'. That is, however, precisely what you are suggesting the BSPL would do and, indeed, that they could do it.

Restraint of trade | WorkSmart: The career coach that works for everyone 

As such, the BSPL would indeed be breaking common law by insisting that they had an exclusive right to a riders services.

Within the definition of restraint of trade there are circumstances (see above) that would allow such a restraint to be effective.  My view, in this case, is that they would not.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Halifaxtiger

[Ringitsneck]

Perhaps as the IOW have ‘ withdrawn ‘ from BSPL they will no longer have a SCB track licence and therefore on a sticky wicket with insurance for speedway events ?

The last time riders threatened to ride in an unlicensed event they were told their race licences would be revoked, now that would cause a problem !