MSDL Destroyed by BSPA?

[Gordon Pairman]

5 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Hopefully those who made the decision will make themselves known soon enough. Non of the the committee, the board etc but those who have been appointed to be the guardians of British speedway and do what is in its best interests at all levels and who will offer a genuine justifiable reason why teams using nomad names cannot participate in a development league and why they are willing to destroy a development league in the process.

Having done some research, I gather it’s only the teams with nomad names that are involved. The rules on this have been clear for a very long time - only people actively looking for new premises, and with a realistic chance of success could use the name of a defunct team. I’ve never looked into this but would guess that it’s something to do with protecting the intellectual property behind the name so if someone is able to open a track at the named places, they would have the right to use the name. 
The rules were loosened  for SDL/MDL but maybe some people were abusing the privilege?

Anyway, what is there to stop the so called nomad teams coming to an arrangement with whatever track they are using to run under their name? It’s been done plenty of times before. 

[Ringitsneck]

I think Mr.Pairman has hit the nail on the head.

Simply a case of rules being enforced, either by the SCB or the BSPA. Whilst it appears to some to be a witch hunt , it isn't.

If the people involved still want to run a team, they can!

The NJL are all ' amateur ' teams run by volunteers not the club's themselves, the idea is to give youngsters a chance of rides so the name should make no difference.

[Sings4Speedway]

The difference is that whilst these volunteers do an amazing job of running development teams they also have their own interests in promoting the defunct teams they support.  It could easily be argued that by keeping the team names on track they are still assisting the chances of a revival at their own tracks. Reading, Crayford,  MK, Exeter and Weymouth are all run by supporters of those sides. Remove those and with no Camarthen it leave just IOW and Birmingham from last year hence no league. Next up IOW will be blocked from running as their riders are not actually wizards!

[Gordon Pairman]

10 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

The difference is that whilst these volunteers do an amazing job of running development teams they also have their own interests in promoting the defunct teams they support.  It could easily be argued that by keeping the team names on track they are still assisting the chances of a revival at their own tracks. Reading, Crayford,  MK, Exeter and Weymouth are all run by supporters of those sides. Remove those and with no Camarthen it leave just IOW and Birmingham from last year hence no league. Next up IOW will be blocked from running as their riders are not actually wizards!

Why can’t the made up team of “Crayford” run at Eastbourne or Kent, “Reading” at Swindon, “Exeter” at Somerset, “Weymouth” at Poole, and so on, all operating under the name of the track on which they are based?

Do any of them contribute to rent costs, referee costs, medical costs, track prep costs, or do they expect to get these free of charge? And, even if they do bring “10 or 20” supporters, how many get in free as mechanics and helpers?

I’ve seen the other side of these MDL (in particular) and SDL meetings where there haven’t been enough riders so there are long gaps between races (inconveniencing the referee, paramedics etc), where one rider rides for one team one week and another the next and where the “development” riders are guys in their 40s. 
SCB worked hard three or four years ago to tidy this up, and it seems to me that this process is continuing. 
I am all in favour of giving youngsters as much track time as possible and, to this end, I assume you know that the Premiership tracks are going to run their own 2nd half junior league.

This is not a witch hunt or a conspiracy but part of a process to encourage young British riders in a proper, controlled, professional manner. 
I’m sure the offer of assistance from any of those involved with the former nomadic teams will be appreciated. 

[JamesHarris]

Look I know my comments here are not going to make me any friends but here we go. The bottom line I think is that the BSPA has finally lost patience with "Ghost Teams" popping up year after year in the junior leagues and now that Cradley have folded, the thorn in the side of that argument has finally been removed. I've sat on the fence over the last few years and watched the MDL/MDSL with interest and In my honest opinion for what it's worth it has started to look a bit silly with all these old names being used. One or two like we had a few years ago is fine but when the league is made up of more defunct teams than actual junior teams of the promotion it starts to look a bit of a joke. Do the speedway star still run a fantasy league for people wanting to use such team names? I know the people running these teams are helping juniors get track time and that has to be applauded. But, I do believe that people running the likes of Reading, Weymouth, Crayford, New Cross, Wembley, etc, etc, have a very different agenda to those running the junior teams at Birmingham, I.O.W or Belle Vue. I could be very wrong of cause. I do sympathise with the people running the ghost teams. I know it takes a lot of hard work and enthusiasm, but if you are genuine about giving young lads track time and helping them develop then just swallow the bullet and call your teams Swindon juniors, Plymouth reserves, etc. After all if you are genuine then you will not care about team names, trophies and so on as long as the lads (and girls) are benefiting from a meaningful team competition. I know the objective of such enthusiast's it to find land and build a new track to revive them, but please, please, please wake up and smell the coffee. Unless you have endless pockets of cash, and are even lucky to get a patch of land when councils are after more land for homes, then you are just living in a romantic fantasy land. Cradley have failed and given up. Take lessons from that. The other thing you have to take into account is the 2 men now running the BSPA have no time what so ever for the junior leagues

I will just finish on this. The language used in recent weeks on social media by the organisers of such teams to describe the powers that be has been very unsavoury when you are "promoting" yourselves as a family sport on the other side of the coin. It makes you look childish and like you are throwing your toys out of the pram. 

Sorry if my comments are a bit harsh but there's no point sugarcoating the truth. 

 

 

[RobMcCaffery]

I can understand the need to ensure that these events are organised and run properly but the key point is that it is volunteer organised and there are limitations, as at higher levels of speedway, how much you can control and restrict volunteers. 

The point being missed is that these people are running the nomad teams out of love for their lost tracks. As a by-product they give opportunities for riders, and a bit of extra entertainment for the track's customers.

Expecting them to instead run a junior team on behalf of, and in the name of the staging track needs a different motive. I know what it's like to lose my track, in my case 47 years ago so I know where these guys are coming from. 

Speedway has a dreadful record in quashing the enthusiasm of volunteers. Too often the attitude is "You did that? Well you can do much more - get on with it". 

It surely is possible for the sport to find room for this enthusiasm without applying the big stick?

 

[Ray Stadia]

8 minutes ago, JamesHarris said:

Look I know my comments here are not going to make me any friends but here we go. The bottom line I think is that the BSPA has finally lost patience with "Ghost Teams" popping up year after year in the junior leagues and now that Cradley have folded, the thorn in the side of that argument has finally been removed. I've sat on the fence over the last few years and watched the MDL/MDSL with interest and In my honest opinion for what it's worth it has started to look a bit silly with all these old names being used. One or two like we had a few years ago is fine but when the league is made up of more defunct teams than actual junior teams of the promotion it starts to look a bit of a joke. Do the speedway star still run a fantasy league for people wanting to use such team names? I know the people running these teams are helping juniors get track time and that has to be applauded. But, I do believe that people running the likes of Reading, Weymouth, Crayford, New Cross, Wembley, etc, etc, have a very different agenda to those running the junior teams at Birmingham, I.O.W or Belle Vue. I could be very wrong of cause. I do sympathise with the people running the ghost teams. I know it takes a lot of hard work and enthusiasm, but if you are genuine about giving young lads track time and helping them develop then just swallow the bullet and call your teams Swindon juniors, Plymouth reserves, etc. After all if you are genuine then you will not care about team names, trophies and so on as long as the lads (and girls) are benefiting from a meaningful team competition. I know the objective of such enthusiast's it to find land and build a new track to revive them, but please, please, please wake up and smell the coffee. Unless you have endless pockets of cash, and are even lucky to get a patch of land when councils are after more land for homes, then you are just living in a romantic fantasy land. Cradley have failed and given up. Take lessons from that. The other thing you have to take into account is the 2 men now running the BSPA have no time what so ever for the junior leagues

I will just finish on this. The language used in recent weeks on social media by the organisers of such teams to describe the powers that be has been very unsavoury when you are "promoting" yourselves as a family sport on the other side of the coin. It makes you look childish and like you are throwing your toys out of the pram. 

Sorry if my comments are a bit harsh but there's no point sugarcoating the truth. 

 

 

Personally, I do not know why enthusiasts who wish to preserve the old teams of speedway, don't find a sympathetic farmer, with land near former tracks and carve a track in a field and don't call it speedway, but something similar, which means it has nothing to do with the BSPA. Then run 'speedway' in a similar way to Grass Track. In my opinion, a 'track in a field', is probably the future/only future for speedway. 

[skydog]

Just to respectfully clarify a few things that people have questioned... Firstly the BSPA Management Committee are in charge of the Development Leagues, not the SCB.

Yes the rules about proving that you are actively looking for a track have always been there and we at Reading are and we feel we have backed that up. We obviously have to omit certain details if asked by landowners but we sent copies of emails that we feel proved what we are doing. We certainly dont feel that we abused any privileges. I havent seen what any other team sent to the BSPA. If someone else appeared and said they had the capacity to run a team in Reading we would happily step aside and we wouldn't ever think we could stop them using the Reading Racers name. But the truth is nobody else is looking. 

As far as calling ourselves Swindon we feel certain this would completely detach the remaining Reading fans and they would quickly lose interest. We came into this to get Speedway back in Reading, it is important to this aim to keep the name alive otherwise racing in the league doesnt help our cause.

Most of the nomadic teams pay their hosts to run at their stadiums and those that dont, know they are fortunate and are very grateful. Reading have never got any fans in the back gate under the guise of a mechanic or anything else, I dont know about any other team. Swindon want us to run there, as Reading so we cant be causing them too many problems.

Yes some teams have used riders in their 40s, I cant deny that.

If riders lining up for different teams each week, long gaps between races and not enough riders to complete a team is making Speedway look bad, maybe the PL, CL & NDL should eliminate these things happening first?  Thats where most people are looking, not at us.

I find it very interesting that the PL are going to run their own junior league this year, just when they decide we cant run.

Mr Pairman you know more about the inner workings of Speedway than I ever will and you are always willing to educate the rest of us so thank you for taking an interest in this thread, but at the end of the day if they wanted to stop us because they dont think we are doing it properly I would rather they said so instead of saying it's to do with the name we use.

 

[Sings4Speedway]

56 minutes ago, Gordon Pairman said:

I assume you know that the Premiership tracks are going to run their own 2nd half junior league.

Out of interest where has this been announced? If that is the case then are the prem clubs not crushing the league to start their own?

[Gordon Pairman]

15 minutes ago, skydog said:

Just to respectfully clarify a few things that people have questioned... Firstly the BSPA Management Committee are in charge of the Development Leagues, not the SCB.

Yes the rules about proving that you are actively looking for a track have always been there and we at Reading are and we feel we have backed that up. We obviously have to omit certain details if asked by landowners but we sent copies of emails that we feel proved what we are doing. We certainly dont feel that we abused any privileges. I havent seen what any other team sent to the BSPA. If someone else appeared and said they had the capacity to run a team in Reading we would happily step aside and we wouldn't ever think we could stop them using the Reading Racers name. But the truth is nobody else is looking. 

As far as calling ourselves Swindon we feel certain this would completely detach the remaining Reading fans and they would quickly lose interest. We came into this to get Speedway back in Reading, it is important to this aim to keep the name alive otherwise racing in the league doesnt help our cause.

Most of the nomadic teams pay their hosts to run at their stadiums and those that dont, know they are fortunate and are very grateful. Reading have never got any fans in the back gate under the guise of a mechanic or anything else, I dont know about any other team. Swindon want us to run there, as Reading so we cant be causing them too many problems.

Yes some teams have used riders in their 40s, I cant deny that.

If riders lining up for different teams each week, long gaps between races and not enough riders to complete a team is making Speedway look bad, maybe the PL, CL & NDL should eliminate these things happening first?  Thats where most people are looking, not at us.

I find it very interesting that the PL are going to run their own junior league this year, just when they decide we cant run.

Mr Pairman you know more about the inner workings of Speedway than I ever will and you are always willing to educate the rest of us so thank you for taking an interest in this thread, but at the end of the day if they wanted to stop us because they dont think we are doing it properly I would rather they said so instead of saying it's to do with the name we use.

 

My view, for what it’s worth, is the Reading SDL volunteers are the ones who deserve to find a way to resuscitate the Racers. Exeter were on borrowed time (for a long while) and there is still a possibility of them finding somewhere, but the Reading supporters were made promises that weren’t kept. It is also my view that those calling themselves Crayford or New Cross or Milton Keynes know they are using an historic name that is unlikely ever to stage Speedway again. And perhaps they then tarnish the name of teams that might have a chance of resuscitation? I’m 
I do think that, no matter how well intentioned, one team running out of another team’s stadium, and this applies in other sports too, should only ever be a temporary measure. The original supporters will soon fade away. MK Dons, anyone?

[RobMcCaffery]

3 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

My view, for what it’s worth, is the Reading SDL volunteers are the ones who deserve to find a way to resuscitate the Racers. Exeter were on borrowed time (for a long while) and there is still a possibility of them finding somewhere, but the Reading supporters were made promises that weren’t kept. It is also my view that those calling themselves Crayford or New Cross or Milton Keynes know they are using an historic name that is unlikely ever to stage Speedway again. And perhaps they then tarnish the name of teams that might have a chance of resuscitation? I’m 
I do think that, no matter how well intentioned, one team running out of another team’s stadium, and this applies in other sports too, should only ever be a temporary measure. The original supporters will soon fade away. MK Dons, anyone?

Inter Milan & AC Milan? 

I respect your involvement in and opinions of our sport but would suggest that this matter should e taken on a team by team basis rather than a blanket ban. At Rye House in 1999 we had to overcome a great deal of official hostility but it worked. Both Weymouth and a certain Mr.Godfrey's Scunthorpe both ran as nomadic teams. I know, I presented a meeting featuring both one at Iwade ;-)

With some it works, with some it doesn't. In any case these junior league matches are only a step up from after-meeting practice. If a track like Swindon is happy to allow Reading to play a very minor [part in their meetings then why not? 

A little colour has been lost and some competitive second half action along with it. 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by RobMcCaffery

[The Doctor...]

4 hours ago, RobMcCaffery said:

Inter Milan & AC Milan? 

I respect your involvement in and opinions of our sport but would suggest that this matter should e taken on a team by team basis rather than a blanket ban. At Rye House in 1999 we had to overcome a great deal of official hostility but it worked. Both Weymouth and a certain Mr.Godfrey's Scunthorpe both ran as nomadic teams. I know, I presented a meeting featuring both one at Iwade ;-)

With some it works, with some it doesn't. In any case these junior league matches are only a step up from after-meeting practice. If a track like Swindon is happy to allow Reading to play a very minor [part in their meetings then why not? 

A little colour has been lost and some competitive second half action along with it. 

 

Agree with all this, especially as a Reading fan, but the Milan situation isn't the same really as it's a council stadium with both teams as tenants.  Milan way before Inter but still it wasn't the case of one piggy backing the other. 

I'd love to see the official criteria of how the bspa deem a club to be actively looking for a stadium - Reading have been doing so most definitely but it seems they're being punished for not making a song and dance of all the failed attempts etc.  Sad state of affairs indeed.  Good luck to the other clubs also affected. 

[steve roberts]

5 hours ago, RobMcCaffery said:

Inter Milan & AC Milan? 

I respect your involvement in and opinions of our sport but would suggest that this matter should e taken on a team by team basis rather than a blanket ban. At Rye House in 1999 we had to overcome a great deal of official hostility but it worked. Both Weymouth and a certain Mr.Godfrey's Scunthorpe both ran as nomadic teams. I know, I presented a meeting featuring both one at Iwade ;-)

With some it works, with some it doesn't. In any case these junior league matches are only a step up from after-meeting practice. If a track like Swindon is happy to allow Reading to play a very minor [part in their meetings then why not? 

A little colour has been lost and some competitive second half action along with it. 

 

...which is important in my opinion.

[Sings4Speedway]

Fundamentally yes the competitive 2nd half action is the most important aspect. The cloak and dagger stuff is all unnecessary. If the announcement was we intend for all Prem clubs to run a 2nd half side in the MSDL (or whatever it is re-branded too)  along with a maximum of 3 additional teams. Teams who run under the host clubs name/promotion will be given priority. 

The biggest issues is that the information drips out rather than controlled releases (sound familiar) and that all riders involved get incredibly late notice. Thousands have been spent by riders already in preparation and potentially many could see themselves left out ?

[*JJ]

14 hours ago, Gordon Pairman said:

 

Do any of them contribute to rent costs, referee costs, medical costs, track prep costs, or do they expect to get these free of charge? And, even if they do bring “10 or 20” supporters, how many get in free as mechanics and helpers?

 

ONE each. I spent a couple of years helping a rider in the MDL, and had to pay to get in. (It was I who paid as I am a pensioner and so paid less than the rider's father).

[greyhoundp]

Another case of short sightedness by the BSPA, as an example during the years that Cradley had no team i went to 2 meetings once to see Coventry including H & H beat Wolves at Monmore, and the other was Birmingham V Edinburgh, my allegiance is to Cradley not to any other Team, the point i am making is i wont go to watch Wolves Kids race against whoever, but i will/would go to watch Cradley Kids against whoever.. this is backed up by Wolves running in the 3rd tier for a couple of seasons watched by one man and his dog, then someone had the bright idea to name the team Cradley Heathens and we all know what then followed, crowds of up to 1500.

With regards the Reading situation at Swindon, yes a few Reading fans would go to watch THERE team (Reading) in a competitive League, but they wont go to watch Swindon, so its Swindon that will lose our financially.

There was and is an easy solution to all of this,  what is there to actually stop Teams from track sharing if there is support from fans ?, I notice Milan were used as an example, however we could also use Coventry City FC sharing the Birmingham City ground this season, I sometimes wonder if there are ulterior motives when the BSPA make these ridiculous decisions which have NO benefit to the Sport. 

Then they avoid taking decisions which could and should be made ie end doubling up/down, and having new riders from abroad when our own riders such as Nathan Greaves cant get a Team place, I wonder what the UKBA would think about sponsoring Clubs requiring visas when UK passport holders cant get rides?.. 

Oh and while we are at it, Would Edinburgh have been as succesful being known as Armadale ?.

Edited February 18, 2020 by greyhoundp

[RobMcCaffery]

I take it Coventry's match at Leicester is still on? ;-)

Re Milan, it doesn't matter what the balance is between landlord and tenant the argument was put forward that all ground sharing is undesirable. The fact thast it works in a major sporting league is surely relevant, whether Internazionale are landlords or joint tenants?

[iris123]

Is there a feeling that there has to be a cut off date for something certain to have happened? Year after year of saying we are looking for a place to build a stadium can’t be an ideal situation. And maybe there was a feeling some of these clubs were getting nowhere? But in all honesty I can’t see the harm at the level we are talking about. Call these teams what you like imo

[Sings4Speedway]

Has to be an argument that if one of these teams found and co-operated in the opening of a new venue it has to be a positive thing that none of the take over clubs will be doing. Of course there was a lot of lip service and most of the current dev league promotions could not actually fund a full stadia but they are/were keeping the prospect and supporter base open. How many new tracks have opened in the past 10 years (3? Kent, Leicester & Redcar?) versus how many have closed. The stats speak for themselves that every possibility has to be supported not shot down.

[Sings4Speedway]

The truth is out, MSDL crushed by Prem clubs to run a second half league for a season or so until they get bored. Promoting local riders to each club despite the vast majority of riders being spread far and wide and unlikely to even be remotely local. 

Enter teams in the league great, maybe even split the M & SDL's back up, no problem  with that as more rides and more competition will always benefit the sport but don't hail yourself heroes BSPA when you have directly replaced an established product and cast good honest hard working volunteers side without so much of an acknowledgement.