Belle Vue 2023

[Roger Jacobs]

1 hour ago, PotteringAround said:

If you mean the regulation about the transfer window exception in the event of "Proven long-term injury"  then it's the last paragraph of SR 012.2

 

1 hour ago, foreverblue said:

Thanks.

"A Premiership Transfer Window opens after 25% of the League fixtures are complete and closes when 75% of League fixtures are complete. This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

1 hour ago, Roger Jacobs said:

 

"A Premiership Transfer Window opens after 25% of the League fixtures are complete and closes when 75% of League fixtures are complete. This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."

But provides no context for "long term"

An injury could occur in early August meaning a rider would be out for 4 weeks. Not really long term and certainly not season ending - only miss 30% of remainder

A lesser injury in mid September resulting in 2 weeks rest being required is similarly not long term in itself but effectively season ending as potentially misses 100% of remainder

 

 

[hyderd]

12 hours ago, foreverblue said:

Can you quote the regulation regarding long term injury replacement? in my opinion you should not be allowed a change during the play offs.

That's your opinion, but then again, you're a Poole fan and if it doesn't benefit Poole it's not fair. Grow up and get a life. 

[foreverblue]

1 hour ago, hyderd said:

That's your opinion, but then again, you're a Poole fan and if it doesn't benefit Poole it's not fair. Grow up and get a life. 

It is my opinion and I am not sure why being a Poole fan has any bearing on it, telling me to grow up and get a life is a bit of a childish thing to say in my opinion.

[therefused]

Well at least all Belle Vue fans know that it was a tainted victory for 2022. 

[Bald Bloke]

1 hour ago, foreverblue said:

It is my opinion and I am not sure why being a Poole fan has any bearing on it, telling me to grow up and get a life is a bit of a childish thing to say in my opinion.

I think you do FB. It's because Poole have pulled off many questionable things over the years to benefit themselves. Including using a guest over the points limit against Lynn in the play off final in 2018. Yes it was allowed for some reason, although i've never known it before or since. As said by many Poole fans in the past have used the " anyone could of done it, Matts a cleaver bloke" kind of answer. It was just another loop hole found my Lemon and co. I don't agree with  rest of huyderd's comment btw.

[Roger Jacobs]

3 hours ago, therefused said:

Well at least all Belle Vue fans know that it was a tainted victory for 2022. 

Except that it wasn't.

[Roger Jacobs]

On 1/30/2023 at 1:37 PM, stevebrum said:

Some article in SS or on BSPL (can’t remember which) confirming that change will happen.

Being able to bring a new signing replacement mid play offs wasn’t in the rule book neither otherwise many teams before them would have used that particular rule (now known as the Belle Vue only rule) not that it ever was a rule which was pretty obvious.

Yes there was, as per the wording in Regulation 12.02 which I have posted.  It's quite clear - even if the term "proven long term injury" is vague.  Also, it isn't a Belle Vue only rule, because as previously stated (do you read replies?), both Sheffield and Ipswich took advantage of that Regulation - and neither of the injured riders were out of acton for a significant length of time - both returning in the Championship, but for some reason neither required by the Tigers or the Witches (except Riss was eventually reinstated to the Witches line-up when they realised he would need to be in the final 1-7 so that they could use him in 2023).

Edited January 31, 2023 by Roger Jacobs

[foreverblue]

1 hour ago, Bald Bloke said:

I think you do FB. It's because Poole have pulled off many questionable things over the years to benefit themselves. Including using a guest over the points limit against Lynn in the play off final in 2018. Yes it was allowed for some reason, although i've never known it before or since. As said by many Poole fans in the past have used the " anyone could of done it, Matts a cleaver bloke" kind of answer. It was just another loop hole found my Lemon and co. I don't agree with  rest of huyderd's comment btw.

Yes I fully appreciate Poole did do some questionable moves in the past and I have never denied it but as they are not in the Premiership and it was about last season I didn't think the fact that I am a Poole fan was relevant but you make a good point. I said in a previous post it wasn't a breaking of the rules, unfortunately the rule book has always been open to manipulation and covered by in the best interests of the sport etc. In 2018 I think it was because the powers that be in their infinite wisdom decided that it would look bad if the two teams had the same rider riding for different teams in the final so Poole has Nick Morris in both legs and Kings Lynn had Adam Ellis in both legs, that is how I remember it. 

 

 

[therefused]

2 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said:

Except that it wasn't.

It was, deep down you know it. 

[stevebrum]

21 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said:

The article in the Speedway Star mentioned transfer windows - it made no mention at all of the Regulation containing the Long Term Injury statement.

 

2 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said:

Yes there was, as per the wording in Regulation 12.02 which I have posted.  It's quite clear - even if the term "proven long term injury" is vague.  Also, it isn't a Belle Vue only rule, because as previously stated (do you read replies?), both Sheffield and Ipswich took advantage of that Regulation - and neither of the injured riders were out of acton for a significant length of time - both returning in the Championship, but for some reason neither required by the Tigers or the Witches (except Riss was eventually reinstated to the Witches line-up when they realised he would need to be in the final 1-7 so that they could use him in 2023).

The “regulation “ is as vague as it useless.

Of course these “regulations” have been adapted and amended for any promoter who chooses to challenge it for their own benefit.

Previously over abused by Poole and Matt Ford it seems Lemon has taken on that role of fudging the regulation. It will just need yet another amendment after the farce of bringing a rider in just for part of the play offs.

Yes both Sheffield and Ipswich took advantage of this vague regulation and one may well say they might have abused the terminology but when has it ever been allowed to bring a rider in AFTER the play offs start? It’s never happened before so you have to question why now?

If the regulation allows interpretation on the ‘proven long term injury’ line why have no other teams in the play offs  been allowed to replace a rider before 2022. 
The play offs are littered with teams decimated by injury over the years ruining their possible chances of a title victory. Why have those season ending injuries never allowed teams to replace that rider before?

Wolves had a season with both Freddie and Jacob have season ending injuries yet permission to use Woffy was denied. Seems there was no such thing allowed in the interpretation that year.
 

Certainly seems it depends on who asks as to whether it’s a yes or no.

Let’s be clear here. It’s the regulation/rule that’s the issue as well as the interpretation of that regulation. 
No doubt there will be changes and amendments after the Lambert  farce of 22. That said some promoters will be looking at self interest at the business end of the season when they can potentially open a loophole to gain an advantage.

sorry, that’s a total farce. A hollow victory in 22.

Edited January 31, 2023 by stevebrum
Added punctuation

[Daniel Smith]

2 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said:

Except that it wasn't.

Of course it's tainted, it took a solicitor to get the Robert Lambert signing done. 

The rights or wrongs on either side is irrelevant, the title win is in question by many, that makes it tainted. 

In the same way many of Poole's title wins have question marks over them. 

[Roger Jacobs]

On 1/31/2023 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Smith said:

Of course it's tainted, it took a solicitor to get the Robert Lambert signing done. 

The rights or wrongs on either side is irrelevant, the title win is in question by many, that makes it tainted. 

In the same way many of Poole's title wins have question marks over them. 

It took a solicitor because the BSPA and SCB originally approved a poorly worded Regulation, yet refused to interpret it, even though precedents were set with previously approved changes - that's the only taint.

People are wrong to question the necessary change made by Belle Vue - they should question the continued poor quality Regulations, and the BSPA's & SCB's inability to use them (nobody even knew the clearly written Regulation for tied teams in the Pairs - including the Sheffield team manager!).

If Sheffield had beaten a Belle Vue team that was using a random guest or R/R, then their win would have been tainted, as have previous wins against weakened opposition. As it is, Sheffield's defeat was tainted by Holder's miserable failure at Belle Vue.

[Roger Jacobs]

On 1/31/2023 at 3:52 PM, stevebrum said:

The “regulation “ is as vague as it useless.

Of course these “regulations” have been adapted and amended for any promoter who chooses to challenge it for their own benefit.

Previously over abused by Poole and Matt Ford it seems Lemon has taken on that role of fudging the regulation. It will just need yet another amendment after the farce of bringing a rider in just for part of the play offs.

Yes both Sheffield and Ipswich took advantage of this vague regulation and one may well say they might have abused the terminology but when has it ever been allowed to bring a rider in AFTER the play offs start? It’s never happened before so you have to question why now?

If the regulation allows interpretation on the ‘proven long term injury’ line why have no other teams in the play offs  been allowed to replace a rider before 2022. 
The play offs are littered with teams decimated by injury over the years ruining their possible chances of a title victory. Why have those season ending injuries never allowed teams to replace that rider before?

Wolves had a season with both Freddie and Jacob have season ending injuries yet permission to use Woffy was denied. Seems there was no such thing allowed in the interpretation that year.

Certainly seems it depends on who asks as to whether it’s a yes or no.

Let’s be clear here. It’s the regulation/rule that’s the issue as well as the interpretation of that regulation. 
No doubt there will be changes and amendments after the Lambert  farce of 22. That said some promoters will be looking at self interest at the business end of the season when they can potentially open a loophole to gain an advantage.

sorry, that’s a total farce. A hollow victory in 22.

What has happened in previous seasons is irrelevant, because as we know the Regs are fiddled with every winter.  Even so, I think the version of Reg 12.02 in the 2022 set was rehashed from before, because of the previous problems and other changes, e.g. the Transfer Window, etc.  Every time the BSPA & SCB make a cock-up with the Regs, they patch them up, but don't seem to conduct a thorough review. Any idiot can see that "proven long term injury" is a hopelessly vague statement (any idiot except the BSPA and the SCB).  The point is that Belle Vue didn't make a tactical change, it was made because their #1 rider was absent with a proven long term injury - what ever period was set as a precedent (possibly based on Jake Allen's and Erik Riss's absences), and was completely within the 2022 Regs.

[wtf]

Rules and laws in every walk of life are "interpreted" by someone at the point of use. The fundamental difference in speedway is that those interpreting the laws/rules happen to also be the same people the rules/laws are being applied to. However you change the wording or try to tighten up the rules, you will always have these issues if the "judge" is making a judgment on themselves.

The only way forward should be the SCB makes and applies the regulations, and that no one on the SCB board has any interest financial or otherwise in any operating speedway club. Until then, you'll do this same dance every year. I fear before the BSPL realise this they will have taken the sport beyond the brink.

[steve roberts]

12 minutes ago, wtf said:

Rules and laws in every walk of life are "interpreted" by someone at the point of use. The fundamental difference in speedway is that those interpreting the laws/rules happen to also be the same people the rules/laws are being applied to. However you change the wording or try to tighten up the rules, you will always have these issues if the "judge" is making a judgment on themselves.

The only way forward should be the SCB makes and applies the regulations, and that no one on the SCB board has any interest financial or otherwise in any operating speedway club. Until then, you'll do this same dance every year. I fear before the BSPL realise this they will have taken the sport beyond the brink.

...Ian Thomas was a past master in manipulating the rules to his advantage. Been saying for years that speedway should be run by an independant organisation but of course that will never happen. The main criticism levelled at this argument is that an independant body wouldn't have any financial input within the sport whereas those running the clubs (promoters) do. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but other sports are run independantly with success?

Edited February 2, 2023 by steve roberts

[False dawn]

54 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

.....The main criticism levelled at this argument is that an independent body wouldn't have any financial input within the sport.....

I think that is the point.

[Daniel Smith]

56 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

...Ian Thomas was a past master in manipulating the rules to his advantage. Been saying for years that speedway should be run by an independant organisation but of course that will never happen. The main criticism levelled at this argument is that an independant body wouldn't have any financial input within the sport whereas those running the clubs (promoters) do. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but other sports are run independantly with success?

Ian Thomas was the original grandmaster of manipulation.

Then it went to far in the Elite League with Mick Frost, Matt Ford & Avtar Sandhu, there wasn't a rule book at all when these all clashed. They were literally making s#!t up as they went along to get 1 up on each other. Matt Ford 9/10 times won the battles. 

Belle Vue's title will have questions but at the end of the day Mark Lemon isn't as clever or dirty like years gone by. 

For the first time in many of years, (since Poole dropped down at least) I believe the top league has the most genuine Promoters & Team Managers trying to do their best, interpretating the rules 'as they were intended'. 

Only let down slightly by Belle Vue, but they were in a desperate position. 

____________________

In terms of long-term injury come the Play-Offs, it's a quite simple fix. 

Pick a rider from the 3 teams that didn't qualify & that's ya guy for the whole Play-Offs but said rider can't claim a medal. 

It has to be a better process than having a (genuinely) injured rider then bringing in, for example, Zmarzlik, just for Play-Offs. This sort of thing does stink out the place. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Daniel Smith

[foreverblue]

49 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

...Ian Thomas was a past master in manipulating the rules to his advantage. Been saying for years that speedway should be run by an independant organisation but of course that will never happen. The main criticism levelled at this argument is that an independant body wouldn't have any financial input within the sport whereas those running the clubs (promoters) do. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but other sports are run independantly with success?

The eternal issue is money, the clubs and their promotors do not want or see the need to pay for an independent panel who have no financial interest in any club or promotion, the money it would cost is their get out clause but in reality it would  not cost that much to get some ex referees to sit on a panel. 

[Tinker]

I can see both sides of the argument but what happened is now in the past and BV are Premier League Champions. 

What is much more important to me is the fact that we had one of the best and most keenly contested final in years. It had drama, crashes, great racing, controversy etc. My overriding memory of the final will always be the above and not any potential dispute concerning Robert Lambert.