Tosh1218 Posted February 19, 2023 Report Share Posted February 19, 2023 How many pts have Plymouth got to play with for there final signing thanks in advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewy Posted February 19, 2023 Report Share Posted February 19, 2023 26 minutes ago, Tosh1218 said: How many pts have Plymouth got to play with for there final signing thanks in advance 4.21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghosty Posted February 19, 2023 Report Share Posted February 19, 2023 23 hours ago, Skidder1 said: Surely the SCB/ACU DO have the monopoly on speedway at SCB-Licensed tracks. Do Scunthorpe run NORA Speedway meetings or is it other non-speedway Motorsports events under The NORA banner and licence? Can't remember the SCB doing anything to stop Rockingham Speedway in Corby U.K. from running "Speedway"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tosh1218 Posted February 19, 2023 Report Share Posted February 19, 2023 Gino Manzores fit. that anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundTheBoards Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 11 hours ago, Ghosty said: Can't remember the SCB doing anything to stop Rockingham Speedway in Corby U.K. from running "Speedway"? Don't think they ever staged Speedway racing at Rockingham. Wasn't it just cars, karts and road bikes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proud panther Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 28 minutes ago, RoundTheBoards said: Don't think they ever staged Speedway racing at Rockingham. Wasn't it just cars, karts and road bikes? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Eck Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 On 2/18/2023 at 10:25 PM, Skidder1 said: Surely the SCB/ACU DO have the monopoly on speedway at SCB-Licensed tracks. Do Scunthorpe run NORA Speedway meetings or is it other non-speedway Motorsports events under The NORA banner and licence? As far as I can ascertain, there is no legal restriction on the use of the word “speedway” so anyone can run a “speedway” event wherever they wish, including tracks that the SCB have licensed for certain events. The fact that the track is licensed by the SCB does not mean that every event run there also has to be licensed by them. Many tracks run “speedway” events without SCB licensing and, depending on the event, some tracks use Nora. Scunthorpe is one example as is Isle of Wight although the latter calls it “shale track” in an attempt to minimise the risk of upsetting BSPL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 30 minutes ago, Wee Eck said: As far as I can ascertain, there is no legal restriction on the use of the word “speedway” so anyone can run a “speedway” event wherever they wish, including tracks that the SCB have licensed for certain events. The fact that the track is licensed by the SCB does not mean that every event run there also has to be licensed by them. Many tracks run “speedway” events without SCB licensing and, depending on the event, some tracks use Nora. Scunthorpe is one example as is Isle of Wight although the latter calls it “shale track” in an attempt to minimise the risk of upsetting BSPL Surely every track licensed by SCB for Speedway events has to have SCB-licensed officials in charge of speedway meetings, especially as its highly likely to be using ACU/SCB-licensed riders!! Surely riders taking part in any non-SCB track racing event at an SCB-licensed track need the written permission of their SCB Club, with the understanding that for any incident/accident to riders/officials/public, there is no comeback on the SCB. Any claim for insurance would not be entertained by any SCB insurance policy. I am sure there will be other anomalies which the 3-page article by the SCB's Jim Lawrence in the SS attempts to highlight - and will surely need to be sorted out for the NORA League to take place as planned to include SCB-licensed tracks. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Skidder1 said: Surely every track licensed by SCB for Speedway events has to have SCB-licensed officials in charge of speedway meetings, especially as its highly likely to be using ACU/SCB-licensed riders!! Surely riders taking part in any non-SCB track racing event at an SCB-licensed track need the written permission of their SCB Club, with the understanding that for any incident/accident to riders/officials/public, there is no comeback on the SCB. Any claim for insurance would not be entertained by any SCB insurance policy. I am sure there will be other anomalies which the 3-page article by the SCB's Jim Lawrence in the SS attempts to highlight - and will surely need to be sorted out for the NORA League to take place as planned to include SCB-licensed tracks. I have to disagree or at least question what you are saying. True, there might be some question over whether an authority other than the SCB can run 'speedway' events. But even if a track is licenced by the SCB, that should not prevent it running meetings that are not SCB. Secondly, if a meeting at an SCB licenced track is run by NORA, then the rider should not need permission from anyone to compete because he has a right - enshrined in case law - to ride where he chooses without interference. I fail to see how the SCB can be held liable for a meeting that is completely outside their control simply because that meeting is held at a track they have licenced for their events but - crucially - not others. Riders would not be insured by the SCB for such a meeting but NORA has its own insurances that they can purchase. At this stage - I must admit I haven't read the Speedy Star article - I fail to see any ground why a track cannot run both SCB and non SCB meetings and the SCB's actions look to me like nothing more than doing their best to stop an alternative league from developing. I'm certainly not convinced that anything they have come up with is for any other reason, despite the attempts to dress it up as such. As I have said before, attempting to prevent a track using its own facilities or a rider from competing looks very much like a restraint of trade (definition :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 void unless it is designed to protect legitimate business interests and no wider than reasonably necessary) to me, because it has the effect of stopping the track or rider accessing a further revenue stream. Within the terms of English case law, that's illegal and other sporting authorities who have tried to do so - darts, cricket, ice skating come to mind - have all been very much put in their place by court rulings. Edited February 20, 2023 by Halifaxtiger 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathen52 Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 I read the article in the SS, and Jim Lawrence said they had investigated every way to make it possible for Nora 92 meetings to take place on SCB licensed tracks, one could also turn it around and say they had investigated all ways to stop Nora 92 meetings taking place on SCB licensed tracks, imo the only way that they could find to hinder Nora 92 meetings taking place on SCB tracks was by inventing the red herring of insurance being invalid and under that guise have basically told Kent and Plymouth make your choice SCB or Nora 92 but not both, why choose when their is insurance in place for both organisations?, oh I forgot it's the BSPL dressed up as the SCB trying to dictate again what riders/clubs can and cannot do. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 Will NORA allowing ex-referees free admission to the meeting be a good enough sweetener to get this sorted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGould Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 3 hours ago, Skidder1 said: Surely every track licensed by SCB for Speedway events has to have SCB-licensed officials in charge of speedway meetings, especially as its highly likely to be using ACU/SCB-licensed riders!! Surely riders taking part in any non-SCB track racing event at an SCB-licensed track need the written permission of their SCB Club, with the understanding that for any incident/accident to riders/officials/public, there is no comeback on the SCB. Any claim for insurance would not be entertained by any SCB insurance policy. I am sure there will be other anomalies which the 3-page article by the SCB's Jim Lawrence in the SS attempts to highlight - and will surely need to be sorted out for the NORA League to take place as planned to include SCB-licensed tracks. This is clearly written by someone who has either not read the Speedway Star article, or who wishes to muddy the waters, is intellectually challenged or by a Management Committee Member or by all 4 Hello Danny. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 22 minutes ago, heathen52 said: I read the article in the SS, and Jim Lawrence said they had investigated every way to make it possible for Nora 92 meetings to take place on SCB licensed tracks, one could also turn it around and say they had investigated all ways to stop Nora 92 meetings taking place on SCB licensed tracks, imo the only way that they could find to hinder Nora 92 meetings taking place on SCB tracks was by inventing the red herring of insurance being invalid and under that guise have basically told Kent and Plymouth make your choice SCB or Nora 92 but not both, why choose when their is insurance in place for both organisations?, oh I forgot it's the BSPL dressed up as the SCB trying to dictate again what riders/clubs can and cannot do. Jim Lawrence must take us for a pack of fools. The SCB doing everything they can to ensure that an alternative league can run meetings ? That is about as sincere and truthful as saying that if Plymouth and Kent do choose NORA they will part 'as friends'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGould Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 It's entirely feasible that IOW, Kent and Plymouth could run NORA92 without a single contracted SCB ACU 2023 licensed rider or SCB accredited Official or SCB accredited Track staff present Enough non contracted riders about, Martin and Barry are Renting Stadia so no need for Kent or Plymouth Promoters to be there, and NORA92 could provide accredited local Marshalls or accredited staff at Kent and Plymouth currently in non authorised SCB roles could at step up. How daft would SCB and BSPL look then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 On 2/18/2023 at 10:38 PM, lewy said: Wrong thread, this is Plymouths last signing nothing else. Thanks Maybe should have just asked this question on the Plymouth 2023 thread. There's was no need for this question to have its own thread tbh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 On 2/18/2023 at 12:19 PM, Skidder1 said: Big article in this week's SS by the SCB's Jim Lawrence about the issues of track licences/insurances etc if an SCB licensed track hosts a NORA league meeting with NORA league officials. Questions of insurance and compensation for any injured riders and/or seriously damaged machines have not yet been resolved/clarified. Not sure how that could be an issue, when riders also race grasstrack, long track & foreign leagues too. It's not like they are racing Championship/NDL matches & nothing else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted February 20, 2023 Report Share Posted February 20, 2023 On 2/19/2023 at 6:31 AM, HGould said: The answer is NO they don't, the Stadium Owner decides what they run. The crux of the situation though is that is the situation NOW! ------------ A close read and interpretation of what SCB have said, is that the rules WILL be changed, quite explicitly they have suggested, that if Kent / Plymouth want to run NORA league, they won't be able to run SCB. To quote-: "An email has now been sent to all Promoters basically saying that if you are running as an SCB licensed track and you have an SCB Track License, you can't run NORA 92. You can leave us and go with them from now on if you like, which we would be very sad about and we wouldn't want to happen, but we'd part as friends" (Speedway Star Page 7 - top middle paragraph attributed to Jim Lawrence) So the SCB Ruling Committee (which includes Rob Godfrey and Damian Bates does ot not?), have effectively moved the goalposts, cut off thier noses to spite their face, run off like spoilt brats taking the balls, nets, goalposts with them. Does seen incredibly childish & unprofessional of the SCB to try & stop the Nora 92 league imo. Kinda wanna see what would happen if Plymouth & Kent called their bluff, would the SCB really want to let to clubs leave? Another point of view, what if the Kent & Plymouth stadium owners find out they are losing 4 matches (4 x rent) because of the SCB & asked the Speedway promotions to make up the loss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 21, 2023 Report Share Posted February 21, 2023 Just for clarification - The SCB is managed on a day to day basis by the SCB Co-ordinator (Neil Vatcher: neil@scbgb.co.uk) and an Administrator (info@scbgb.co.uk). They are augmented in specialist areas by Track Inspectors (Alan Bridgett: alan@scbgb.co.uk & Mick Bates: mick@scbgb.co.uk), Track Curator Advisors (Terry Chrabaszcz : terrytrack@hotmail.co.uk & Andy Meredith : andym.amsa@gmail.com) and Technical Advisors (Ron Jones: jap4b@tiscali.co.uk & Jim McGregor: james.mcgregor10@outlook.com)The Bureau consists of 4 nominated Members, two representing the ACU are Tony Steele and Paul Hurry (ACU Members) whilst Rob Godfrey (BSPA Chairman) and Chris van Straaten (BSPA Promoter) represent the British Speedway Promoters Association under the independent Chairmanship of Jim Lawrence (a former speedway Referee). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HGould Posted February 21, 2023 Report Share Posted February 21, 2023 19 hours ago, HGould said: This is clearly written by someone who has either not read the Speedway Star article, or who wishes to muddy the waters, is intellectually challenged or by a Management Committee Member or by all 4 Hello Danny. Skidder confused It must be so murky up there... A very appropriate name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 21, 2023 Report Share Posted February 21, 2023 21 minutes ago, HGould said: Skidder confused It must be so murky up there... A very appropriate name. replying to your own posts?! So confused you're talking to yourself again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.