Whats actually going on?

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, Sings4Speedway said:

The NL has always been a hidden gem of ability and entertainment. Yes its got its faults but far less than the higher divisions which is why is a huge shame that it is being torn down to reduce the threat to higher divisions and only serve them rather than serve the riders and existing fans.  There is a minimum standard people are prepared to pay for regularly and especially at current rates. I fear this year or next it will be tough to get £13-15 for a lesser product at stand-alone meetings especially with so few meetings to generate any bond/interest. 

Not sure genuinely how many clubs could accommodate double headers for two levels and would get support with price increases to fund it. I remember Peterborough recently asked opinion of would and extra £5 be ok for a NL 2nd fixture and was met with a resounding no.

It will be interesting to see how many times "30 heats of Speedway" actually get completed for those who run the double headers..

Maybe they should put the NL meeting on first? That would provide some motivation to ensure all done I am sure..

Simon Wigg always said there should be 'The Starter' before 'The Main Course'...

And if an argument against it is there may be delays to the main meeting due to a possibility of more fallers, then these lads shouldn't be riding in the first place at a team level..

[TheWatcher]

Regarding Buxton, does anyone know if other people have asked about running a team there since it closed? Or is it a case of the Moss family or nothing?

[False dawn]

1 minute ago, mikebv said:

It will be interesting to see how many times "30 heats of Speedway" actually get completed for those who run the double headers..
Maybe they should put the NL meeting on first? That would provide some motivation to ensure all done I am sure..
Simon Wigg always said there should be 'The Starter' before 'The Main Course'...
And if an argument against it is there may be delays to the main meeting due to a possibility of more fallers, then these lads shouldn't be riding in the first place at a team level..

I think the argument against running the NDL meeting first in recent times has more to do with the amount of shale (or lack of if) on the track. By the time the second meeting is run the track is like a badger's bum.
This came to my notice when listening to interviews with junior riders who were used to racing after the seniors in double headers or second halves. I was surprised to hear these lads saying they would have to get used to riding with some shale on the track when they moved up to riding on a track earlier in the procedings.

[mikebv]

41 minutes ago, False dawn said:

I think the argument against running the NDL meeting first in recent times has more to do with the amount of shale (or lack of if) on the track. By the time the second meeting is run the track is like a badger's bum.
This came to my notice when listening to interviews with junior riders who were used to racing after the seniors in double headers or second halves. I was surprised to hear these lads saying they would have to get used to riding with some shale on the track when they moved up to riding on a track earlier in the procedings.

Heard pretty much the same, and I think I some double team tracks do prepare the track a bit slicker for their NDL side..

If 'the powers that be' are serious though about bringing the talent through, and also serious in actually providing a quality, value for money entertainment package for the fans, then they should completely relay the track between meetings and give both meetings the same amount of focus..

As I said previously, if riders fall off because the track isnt bereft of shale and billiard ball smooth, then they really shouldn't be out there in the first place..

Edited February 28, 2021 by mikebv

[crescent girl]

Instead of going on and on, bemoaning a lowering of rider quality and the regrettable loss of a club as a result of the drop in team averages, should we not be welcoming Newcastle and Armadale (after more than 15 years) and Berwick (after quarter of a century!) back to boost the division?     

If this format suits the majority, and can be seen to work this year, we might hope and pray that any such success can draw the loW and maybe Buxton back into a revitalised NL structure in 2022?

Always look on the bright side (whistle) 

[Sings4Speedway]

1 hour ago, crescent girl said:

If this format suits the majority, and can be seen to work this year, we might hope and pray that any such success can draw the loW and maybe Buxton back into a revitalised NL structure in 2022?

If the new format works this year and next and beyond i will happily state that my misgivings were unfounded and that the powers that be did indeed make the right choices for British speedway. 

If of course in a year or two the league is a shambolic unworkable shell i hope that the powers that be will be gracious enough to admit that they were in the wrong also.

[mac101]

off subject but just found out also the riders that paid over £130 for their licences last year without putting a leg over their bikes have now got to do the same this year not even a discount shocking from the scb what if it ends up not going ahead this year it’s hard times for everybody not just the governing body 

Edited February 28, 2021 by mac101

[crescent girl]

36 minutes ago, mac101 said:

off subject but just found out also the riders that paid over £130 for their licences last year without putting a leg over their bikes have now got to do the same this year not even a discount shocking from the scb what if it ends up not going ahead this year it’s hard times for everybody not just the governing body 

ACU, rather than SCB, but I agree that would be shocking.

[phillwhitewasmad]

44 minutes ago, mac101 said:

off subject but just found out also the riders that paid over £130 for their licences last year without putting a leg over their bikes have now got to do the same this year not even a discount shocking from the scb what if it ends up not going ahead this year it’s hard times for everybody not just the governing body 

That's not as I understand it . If you rode at anytime last year whilst holding a licence you have to pay this year practice is classed as riding . If you didn't ride at all I believe there is some form of credit. This may have changed but that was how it was explained to me.

[mac101]

52 minutes ago, crescent girl said:

ACU, rather than SCB, but I agree that would be shocking.

you have to  buy 2 licenses 1 from the acu and 1 from the scb 

Edited February 28, 2021 by mac101

[alang]

6 hours ago, mikebv said:

It will be interesting to see how many times "30 heats of Speedway" actually get completed for those who run the double headers..

Maybe they should put the NL meeting on first? That would provide some motivation to ensure all done I am sure..

Simon Wigg always said there should be 'The Starter' before 'The Main Course'...

And if an argument against it is there may be delays to the main meeting due to a possibility of more fallers, then these lads shouldn't be riding in the first place at a team level..

As it looks like quite a few teams will be having double headers with championship and national league matches would it not make sense to run the national league matches to the old 13 heat formula with either 6 or 7 rider teams.Might just help to get full meeting over in alloted time if curfews are an issue.

[Halifaxtiger]

6 hours ago, crescent girl said:

Instead of going on and on, bemoaning a lowering of rider quality and the regrettable loss of a club as a result of the drop in team averages, should we not be welcoming Newcastle and Armadale (after more than 15 years) and Berwick (after quarter of a century!) back to boost the division?     

If this format suits the majority, and can be seen to work this year, we might hope and pray that any such success can draw the loW and maybe Buxton back into a revitalised NL structure in 2022?

Always look on the bright side (whistle) 

The thing is that a 35pt limit is unsustainable year on year. Every season in the region of 20 new riders (accepting that there are 7 teams) will be required and numerous lads from the preceding season will be dumped because their  averages don't fit. 

One thing is certain : if the Isle of Wight promotion refused to ride using a 35pt limit this season, its very unlikely they will run in 2022 using the same figure.

[Halifaxtiger]

9 hours ago, mikebv said:

It will be interesting to see how many times "30 heats of Speedway" actually get completed for those who run the double headers..

Maybe they should put the NL meeting on first? That would provide some motivation to ensure all done I am sure..

Simon Wigg always said there should be 'The Starter' before 'The Main Course'...

And if an argument against it is there may be delays to the main meeting due to a possibility of more fallers, then these lads shouldn't be riding in the first place at a team level..

Almost all I suspect (Newcastle have apparently confirmed that).

The thing is with a double header you pay one set of match fees. I am not sure if the ambulance costs would be the same, but doubt they would be double.

Run them separately and you would have to charge a minimum of £10 while persuading your Championship fans to support a lower standard of rider with a team based upon a low points limit and effectively have a full set of additional costs.

Edited February 28, 2021 by Halifaxtiger

[Islander15]

Another statement from Barry Bishop here after the comments by Jason Pipe in this week’s Speedway Star.
 

‘Of course it is 100% our business to know why we didn’t take part of the NL in 2021 and leave the BSPL. We know why, that’s why we left.

However, I have to say that if I was coordinating anything from a picnic to a trip to Mars and one of the most popular, level headed members of my team/association, who incidentally was a big award winner, including amongst my peers, decided to leave and leave the governing body, I would at the very least want to know exactly why that member had left. Why would I do this......

1. To find out why they left for example - better pay, better organisation, interpersonal issues, bullying, corruption, job opportunities, lack of progress or personal development - you know this sort of thing.

2. To find out how I can improve my picnics or trips to Mars so that my other valuable members don’t follow suit and leave too.

3. For my own self development and the betterment of whatever I was organising. Where have I gone wrong or how can I improve. 

But no, back in the real world, not one Director of the BSPL or its “coordinator” gave a hoot if we left or not. You see, not one of them contacted us, spoke to us, emailed us, called us, texted us, watsap’d us, or sent a pigeon. Because they view it as “it was our business to know why we had left”......... NO ITS YOUR BUSINESS TOO..... a question in itself.... 

Then there is a final question, is the leadership of the National League and BSPL fit for purpose ? Fit to lead the sport out of its current position....?

I also note that none of the 8 teams taking part said a word of the 35 point limit, yet unless I have enjoyed very vivid dreams with fellow promoters and people throughout the sport, we know (and NL fans know) this isn’t true - so why keep up the false pretence that this was agreed and not imposed with no other option. Take it or leave it.’

[SSL84]

1 hour ago, Islander15 said:

Another statement from Barry Bishop here after the comments by Jason Pipe in this week’s Speedway Star.
 

‘Of course it is 100% our business to know why we didn’t take part of the NL in 2021 and leave the BSPL. We know why, that’s why we left.

However, I have to say that if I was coordinating anything from a picnic to a trip to Mars and one of the most popular, level headed members of my team/association, who incidentally was a big award winner, including amongst my peers, decided to leave and leave the governing body, I would at the very least want to know exactly why that member had left. Why would I do this......

1. To find out why they left for example - better pay, better organisation, interpersonal issues, bullying, corruption, job opportunities, lack of progress or personal development - you know this sort of thing.

2. To find out how I can improve my picnics or trips to Mars so that my other valuable members don’t follow suit and leave too.

3. For my own self development and the betterment of whatever I was organising. Where have I gone wrong or how can I improve. 

But no, back in the real world, not one Director of the BSPL or its “coordinator” gave a hoot if we left or not. You see, not one of them contacted us, spoke to us, emailed us, called us, texted us, watsap’d us, or sent a pigeon. Because they view it as “it was our business to know why we had left”......... NO ITS YOUR BUSINESS TOO..... a question in itself.... 

Then there is a final question, is the leadership of the National League and BSPL fit for purpose ? Fit to lead the sport out of its current position....?

I also note that none of the 8 teams taking part said a word of the 35 point limit, yet unless I have enjoyed very vivid dreams with fellow promoters and people throughout the sport, we know (and NL fans know) this isn’t true - so why keep up the false pretence that this was agreed and not imposed with no other option. Take it or leave it.’

What do people expect when the person running the league NDL is a total disaster and doesn't do anything good for the sport. 

[Ringitsneck]

7 minutes ago, Trackerman48 said:

What do people expect when the person running the league NDL is a total disaster and doesn't do anything good for the sport. 

Love him or loath him, He is a ‘ volunteer ‘ and as such tries his best no doubt but shouldn’t a so called professional sport be run by professionals ?

[phillwhitewasmad]

39 minutes ago, Ringitsneck said:

Love him or loath him, He is a ‘ volunteer ‘ and as such tries his best no doubt but shouldn’t a so called professional sport be run by professionals ?

Having spent the last 4 or 5 days virtually non stop with little breaks, I’ve now completed the National ‘Development’ League Fixtures. It’s certainly been a challenge this one has, with it going to be a short season and less dates to play with and trying to please every club by spreading out the away fixtures the best I could. I must thank all 8 clubs for their patience, help and understanding. As stressful as it was, it was enjoyable to do and I’m looking forward to working with these 8 clubs during the 2021 season when we get going in May. A couple of nights even involved me staying awake to between 3-4am, checking dates, availability and clashes and I wasn’t even on nights. Just shows the commitment and time I put into this Voluntary job! I’ll be sleeping a lot for the next 3 days, so no more fixture changes yet please!
 

[barrybishop]

Reply to the BSPL Chairman's and NL Coordinator's comments in this weeks Speedway Star.

Hi all, 

Take your time reading this as it’s a long one and please read the article too. 

I feel we must respond to the article below in this week’s Speedway Star, not to cause confrontation but it is very clear that the BSPL and National League Co-ordinator still do not understand why Martin and I took the decision to leave the NL and BSPL. So here goes. 

It is correct to state that we do not agree with the 35 point limit, but more importantly we do not agree with how this limit was imposed on the league without discussion or agreement of the NL members at an AGM or any other meeting. It is also true to say that during the 2019 NL AGM, the Chairman of the BSPL in heated discussion about the then attempt to reduce the points limit from 39 to 37, told NL clubs “well it’s coming, the NL will revert to like the Conference League”…. And that was it, it was a statement of change, not a method to change and how that method would be achieved.

It is not true to say that we were made aware of what was happening before 2021. At the 2019 NL AGM, yes, we were told, as detailed in the NL AGM minutes that the Chairman reiterated that the league will be tailored more to a development league but being a development league does not mean you must reduce the point limit. 

Even with a year of no racing, so time to discuss plans, theorise how to implement any such changes that were in place, the next time there was any communication on how the NL will be run was in February 2021 when we received an email with the following statement in “The Board of Directors have discussed, at length, the NDL and agreed the following changes to the current regulations …… regulations listed” and finished with “if you wish to participate in the NDL with these regulations please respond so that you can participate in a zoom call to discuss who will be taking part and NL fixtures…” There was no option to ask questions, which we obviously wanted to do, just a simple statement of are you in or out. None the less, we did ask some questions.

We asked if the practice of the Board of Directors deciding the rules will continue at the end of this season. Response – could not confirm this but would look to league members to have an input going forward. 

We asked if Mr. Len Silver attended any meetings in which this was discussed – no answer.

We asked if we had additional restrictions on the IOW like fewer ferry crossings and could not fulfil our fixtures that we would not be fined –Response - that could not be guaranteed.

So, you see while we do not believe in the 35 point limit, equally we were not allowed to discuss it, buy in to it, share our opinion as to why it could have a terrible effect on our business, offer advice as a club that runs NL speedway how we think it should be. If we had, and still did not agree with 35 points, we probably would be still in the BSPL with our license on hold looking forward. 

Furthermore, the 35 points limit is a perceived short-term fix and yet it has clearly increased the number of mid average riders being pushed out of the league just when they need to push on with more competitive racing to step up to CL standard and when all the teams are announced, how many new riders are introduced this year who were not already named in 2020 line-ups?

The article states “the points limit was the will of every PL/CL promoter to implement these changes” – will the Chairman prove that? And if it is the case - doesn’t this mean clubs who’s second team are NL should not be included due to conflict of interest? Will he also prove that the NL representative Mr Len Silver attended, or was invited to attend these meetings during which the NL was discussed, as per the reason for creating that position, and if he was why wasn’t these messages passed on to NL members. 

Let us now analyse why were we told in 2019 about the desire to change but heard nothing about the method of change until just before we had to agree to it to be involved. As we said earlier during the 2019 NL AGM, it was said that there was a requirement to bring the league to be more like the Conference League. However, at the time the reasoning for change had nothing to do with rider development and everything to do with wage costs for those riders exiting the NL and going up to the CL. Why? In the National League a rider can earn X but, in the Championship, unless that rider has a guarantee he may well earn less. Meaning NL riders looking to progress to the higher leagues (and leave the NL with no double-up) ideally need a guaranteed amount to be able to do so. This “guarantee” is not out of greed but so as to not affect their income as they turn professional and stepping away from semi-professional/amateur. The problem with this is we were told CL clubs feel this level of pay is too high for them to commit to provide a comparable income. So, in short the plan was to take semi-professional riders, make their status professional to earn less.

Our view is that any points limit change has in reality nothing to do with producing riders at all because the NL has done (and will continue to do) a great job in this regard plus natural talent will make it regardless of a NL or not. So if we now look to the view of costs, the only way to reduce cost is to have more supply than demand (more riders than jobs) and you achieve this by encouraging new clubs and teams to join with a structure of development – Speedway School, MDL, NL, CL, PL plus of course the Youth Series and amateur tracks. What you don’t do is cut off the very supply of your next riders. 

Let’s also touch on Kent and Plymouth applying to go up in the Championship because of the NL changes. As far as we know, this is not true. Neither club would have known the changes to be implemented as they were only decided and communicated in February. Kent have stated for some years, depending on planning, it had been their wish to go up and Plymouth applied in 2020 only to be denied, before any changes were imposed or decided, before a successful application this year following Somersets exit. 

Then there is the comment that PL/CL clubs subsidise the NL. This has been a bone of contention at every AGM we have attended and at every NL AGM, especially requested by Mr. Len Silver an explanation of this statement was requested and never supplied. They say the NL has reduced BSPL Fees – true, but standalone clubs are not full members only Associates Members and receive no TV money (so now the only club in the sport to receive no TV money is Mildenhall). They state we have reduced referee’s fees. That is true, but these are charged by the SCB not the BSPL and it is the referee’s contribution to grassroots league speedway. They will say our insurance is cheaper – again true, but only because the benefits are much less than in the other two leagues. So, please, if as the BSPL say they subsidise the NL – tell us how so that clubs can understand the valuable contribution it makes to the sport, because the answers we have been given at the AGMs we attended stated it was because: That’s why you don’t get TV money, It pays for your fee reduction, You get it cheaper because you are Associates and don’t have full membership rights… the list of “reasons” goes on. 

The new National League at 35 points will develop riders, for sure it will, but it will not develop any more than it always has. So why would Martin and I let decisions imposed upon us, that will not produce more riders moving into the Championship than previous years, risk our business, our product, our fans entertainment, and our credibility? There is no just reason, because the only benefit is the perceived view that CL will start to pay less for their reserves, which if doubling up to the National League is prevented, has a very low likelihood of being a successful strategy. 

Our view is, if the BSPL truly wanted to 
develop they would have invested a percentage of the TV money (and other revenue streams) into the grassroots and youth of the sport instead of spending on ever increasing wage bills. For example, if you look at the US and its new stimulus package, everyone who works in finance expects the result of this to be inflation solely because there is extra money in everyone’s pocket to spend. Now back to our sport, the BSPL announce they have a TV deal and what happens? Wage expectation goes up because clubs have cash to spend when the BSPL should investing in youth, stadia (invest in an asset and build the sport on it), promotion, advertising but our sport spends it on short term, “quick wins” and investment that has zero return for the organisation. They could also make commitments in higher leagues to have 3 riders for example under 21, or an experience restriction in the NL for example number of meetings at certain levels, or every UK club staging second halves, but restrict the travel to get there to encourage more local riders and for sure, bring back nomadic clubs in the MDL. 

The last thing to say on this report…. Where in the report is there any reference to you the fans, to your night out, to your club, to your investment both financially and emotionally? Do you feel like you have been taken into consideration with the new league?   

All the best and Tomorrow will be a better day 
Barry and Martin.

[arnieg]

I thought Mr Godfrey's comments about Plymouth and Kent were particularly disingenuous, short sighted and stupid. Without a third tier that works for stand-alone clubs there would have been no Kent or Plymouth available to supplement the crumbling ranks of the senior leagues. Somerset, Trelawny, Mildenhall, Rye House, Berwick, Eastbourne, Stoke, Isle of Wight and SCUNTHORPE all moved up to/ returned to the professional leagues after running as stand alone clubs in the third tier. (In addition it provided a place for Birmingham and Oxford to carry on when they went bust mid season)

There are now fewer 'professional' clubs running than at any time since 1959. Next time Godfrey wants re-inforcements for his crumbling edifice where will he find them?

[mikebv]

The reality is that the standalone clubs were invariably running Speedway at the level that is both affordable for customers and delivered VFM, whilst also being profitable for them...

How very dare they....

That's not the way to run a business....

Well not in UK Speedway anyway...