Plymouth last signing

[foreverblue]

1 hour ago, Skidder1 said:

He's not a Plymouth asset with a signed contract so as a free agent he can go where he likes!

Wonder why he chose us over Plymouth.

[Bagpuss]

1 hour ago, Skidder1 said:

He's not a Plymouth asset with a signed contract so as a free agent he can go where he likes!

'Assets' go where they like anyway, means very little in that context.

[Aries]

Plymouth track would suit Manzares down to the ground. Very similar size to the tracks he’d have grown up on in the States. 

[SteveLyric2]

20 minutes ago, Bagpuss said:

'Assets' go where they like anyway, means very little in that context.

Exactly why he liked to go to Poole!

[HGould]

Some Brummies PR suggested announcement might be this week, wonder if in The Speedway Star tomorrow? 

Manzaries to Brummies I believe. 

Heard rumour Plymouth after an Antipodeon. 

Would imagine both Clubs waiting on Home Office only logical reason for delay. 

[Halifaxtiger]

On 2/21/2023 at 2:24 PM, Bagpuss said:

The SCB/BSPL are ultimately petrified of this Nora thing developing into a full blown breakaway IMO. Which might end up being the best thing that's ever happened to British Speedway, we might even end up with some competent governance.

First of all, apologies for the thread nap and the fact that I might repeat myself from earlier posts. 

I have now had the opportunity to read Jim Lawrence's statement in Speedy Star. It appears to me that he talks a lot but says little - indeed, its a bit of a case of 'the lady doth protest too much, methinks'. 

Regarding the four points about riders, it is perfectly reasonable that SCB insurance is not valid at NORA meetings; riders should indeed take alternative cover (NORA offer such cover); it is debatable whether SRBF funds would not be made available although if that is the case riders only need to be aware of it; and maybe a rider should indeed ask the BSPL for permission to ride in NORA meetings. On the latter point, though, the question that Lawrence won't want to answer is whether a promoter has the right to refuse permission, because he doesn't under restraint of trade case law. As Lawrence himself says ' we can't (ban a rider) even if we wanted to'. To my mind, that makes the need to request permission pretty superfluous.

The particular case Wattleworth v Goodwood (2004) quoted by Lawrence is of relevance here but I do not believe that the SCB would be called to account in the event of an accident even if they had licensed the track. That's simply because they licensed it for SCB events, nothing else.  What the case law states is :

'The court held that the duty of the governing body was to ensure that the track licensed for racing was reasonably safe and that appropriate protocols for ensuring this safety had been followed by a reasonable and competent inspection'.

The critical words here are 'governing body'. In a NORA meeting the governing body would be NORA. I fail to appreciate how the SCB might be liable in such circumstances or even that they would be part of any litigation. Clearly, they cannot in anyway held be responsible for a meeting that takes place outside their control, and to suggest that they would seems, to me, daft. The critical difference between the established case law and the NORA league is that alternative governing body exists (ie NORA); that wasn't the case in the circumstances of Wattleworth v Goodwood.

What is absolutely clear - and Lawrence admits this - is that NORA meetings have been held at Scunthorpe and Redcar in the past. As an explanation for the apparent inconsistency between those meetings and the proposed NORA league, he states: 'we unknowingly ran the gauntlet ....and we got away with it and nothing happened'. I'll let you decide whether that is untrue because if it isn't he is grossly incompetent and certainly not fit to be the chairman of the SCB given the potential consequences he has himself stated. 

As to officials, track staff etc Isle of Wight don't seem to have had any difficulty with that issue. Why would anyone else ?

Lawrence is apparently at pains ('racking his brains') to find a solution. In effect, he is desperately trying to find a way that an alternative league can use his (SCB's) tracks.To me, that's a bit like Sainsbury doing everything they can to allow Morrisons to sell their goods in Sainsbury's shops and, as such, I believe it to be entirely untrue. What is far more likely to be the case is that in actual fact he is doing precisely the opposite : doing everything he can to prevent that happening. 

One of the difficulties he faces is that he represents the BSPL here, because the SCB are anything but an independent body (how can they be when two members are BSPL promoters ?) and we are all aware of the standards of integrity that apply to them. Lawrence's comment that we would leave 'as friends' is utterly false; ask Isle of Wight whether they regard the BSPL as such.   

I suspect that it is possible that this matter will go to litigation, but I further suspect that the SCB will back out before it does because I really don't see that they have a case. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Halifaxtiger

[heathen52]

I could'nt have put it better myself HT and this paragraph "Lawrence is apparently at pains ('racking his brains') to find a solution. In effect, he is desperately trying to find a way that an alternative league can use his (SCB's) tracks.To me, that's a bit like Sainsbury doing everything they can to allow Morrisons to sell their goods in Sainsbury's shops and, as such, I believe it to be entirely untrue. What is far more likely to be the case is that in actual fact he is doing precisely the opposite : doing everything he can to prevent that happening. "  sums up what I feel the SCB are indeed trying to do, which is to stop Nora in it's infancy.

[mikebv]

And it also made one million percent clear in the article that "all riders are self employed" so cannot be stopped riding where they like...

Which opens a can of worms re the asset system I would suggest...

Can you be "self employed" but "owned by somebody?"..

 

[Speedway fan]

6 hours ago, HGould said:

Some Brummies PR suggested announcement might be this week, wonder if in The Speedway Star tomorrow? 

Manzaries to Brummies I believe. 

Heard rumour Plymouth after an Antipodeon. 

Would imagine both Clubs waiting on Home Office only logical reason for delay. 

Have you got your season ticket for Birmingham yet?  ....  remember you said you were going to as you thought they were good value 

[SteveLyric2]

11 hours ago, mikebv said:

And it also made one million percent clear in the article that "all riders are self employed" so cannot be stopped riding where they like...

Which opens a can of worms re the asset system I would suggest...

Can you be "self employed" but "owned by somebody?"..

 

I guess it might depend on the wording of any ACU/SCB/BSPL Contract they sign beforehand?

[HGould]

10 hours ago, Speedway fan said:

Have you got your season ticket for Birmingham yet?  ....  remember you said you were going to as you thought they were good value 

Yes...my daughter has already purchased for family.

Can't wait for the season to start now.

[HGould]

35 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

I guess it might depend on the wording of any ACU/SCB/BSPL Contract they sign beforehand?

Like the Tory backbencher who stands up and reads the script he's been given.

Skidder Dannys Boy 

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, Skidder1 said:

I guess it might depend on the wording of any ACU/SCB/BSPL Contract they sign beforehand?

It seemed quite clear in the SS article.. 

"All riders are self employed so can ride wherever they want" was the gist...

Cannot see how anyone can prevent a "self employed" person from working elsewhere alongside any other current jobs they have, unless of course, an "exclusivity deal" is built (and paid for), into the contract...

I have 230 people who work for me, all with a contract, but all free to work elsewhere too..

I can suggest that "company x" "might" not have the same legal coverage as I have, but I cannot stop them going to work for them..

I also have plenty of companies come in and use my property to advertise their products, but they sign legal waivers to do so, meaning my business has legal indemnity if anything untoward happens on my property towards staff, customers or premises, resulting from their presence in my store...

Edited February 23, 2023 by mikebv

[Fromafar]

13 hours ago, Halifaxtiger said:

First of all, apologies for the thread nap and the fact that I might repeat myself from earlier posts. 

I have now had the opportunity to read Jim Lawrence's statement in Speedy Star. It appears to me that he talks a lot but says little - indeed, its a bit of a case of 'the lady doth protest too much, methinks'. 

Regarding the four points about riders, it is perfectly reasonable that SCB insurance is not valid at NORA meetings; riders should indeed take alternative cover (NORA offer such cover); it is debatable whether SRBF funds would not be made available although if that is the case riders only need to be aware of it; and maybe a rider should indeed ask the BSPL for permission to ride in NORA meetings. On the latter point, though, the question that Lawrence won't want to answer is whether a promoter has the right to refuse permission, because he doesn't under restraint of trade case law. As Lawrence himself says ' we can't (ban a rider) even if we wanted to'. To my mind, that makes the need to request permission pretty superfluous.

The particular case Wattleworth v Goodwood (2004) quoted by Lawrence is of relevance here but I do not believe that the SCB would be called to account in the event of an accident even if they had licensed the track. That's simply because they licensed it for SCB events, nothing else.  What the case law states is :

'The court held that the duty of the governing body was to ensure that the track licensed for racing was reasonably safe and that appropriate protocols for ensuring this safety had been followed by a reasonable and competent inspection'.

The critical words here are 'governing body'. In a NORA meeting the governing body would be NORA. I fail to appreciate how the SCB might be liable in such circumstances or even that they would be part of any litigation. Clearly, they cannot in anyway held be responsible for a meeting that takes place outside their control, and to suggest that they would seems, to me, daft. The critical difference between the established case law and the NORA league is that alternative governing body exists (ie NORA); that wasn't the case in the circumstances of Wattleworth v Goodwood.

What is absolutely clear - and Lawrence admits this - is that NORA meetings have been held at Scunthorpe and Redcar in the past. As an explanation for the apparent inconsistency between those meetings and the proposed NORA league, he states: 'we unknowingly ran the gauntlet ....and we got away with it and nothing happened'. I'll let you decide whether that is untrue because if it isn't he is grossly incompetent and certainly not fit to be the chairman of the SCB given the potential consequences he has himself stated. 

As to officials, track staff etc Isle of Wight don't seem to have had any difficulty with that issue. Why would anyone else ?

Lawrence is apparently at pains ('racking his brains') to find a solution. In effect, he is desperately trying to find a way that an alternative league can use his (SCB's) tracks.To me, that's a bit like Sainsbury doing everything they can to allow Morrisons to sell their goods in Sainsbury's shops and, as such, I believe it to be entirely untrue. What is far more likely to be the case is that in actual fact he is doing precisely the opposite : doing everything he can to prevent that happening. 

One of the difficulties he faces is that he represents the BSPL here, because the SCB are anything but an independent body (how can they be when two members are BSPL promoters ?) and we are all aware of the standards of integrity that apply to them. Lawrence's comment that we would leave 'as friends' is utterly false; ask Isle of Wight whether they regard the BSPL as such.   

I suspect that it is possible that this matter will go to litigation, but I further suspect that the SCB will back out before it does because I really don't see that they have a case. 

Excellent summery.

[proud panther]

Apologies for going off topic, but does anyone have any ideas who the last rider will be ?

[Fromafar]

29 minutes ago, proud panther said:

Apologies for going off topic, but does anyone have any ideas who the last rider will be ?

Doesn’t appear so.!

[LisaColette]

48 minutes ago, Fromafar said:

Doesn’t appear so.!

Lewy will know 

[torpointfanatic22]

23 hours ago, StevePark said:

Was the Premier Trophy a "Mickey Mouse Cup" as well then, as this is the same thing, only under a different name? 

In a nutshell, yes. Those meetings were never as well supported and everyone knows they are a filler to give an additional handful of meetings. In my view if they want to give promoters an additional three meetings, just extend the league programme to give each team three extra fixtures on a rotational basis. One year you get Plymouth, Redcar and Edinburgh the next Poole, Oxford and Glasgow etc. The idea of keeping things local to minimise travel is pretty flawed given a lot of riders aren't based near their Championship track anyway. These 'trophy' meetings never get the crowds like league meetings do.

[Speedway fan]

4 hours ago, HGould said:

Yes...my daughter has already purchased for family.

Can't wait for the season to start now.

wow !! Brill ...how many season tickets has she bought!!

[gmarsbar2]

38 minutes ago, torpointfanatic22 said:

In a nutshell, yes. Those meetings were never as well supported and everyone knows they are a filler to give an additional handful of meetings. In my view if they want to give promoters an additional three meetings, just extend the league programme to give each team three extra fixtures on a rotational basis. One year you get Plymouth, Redcar and Edinburgh the next Poole, Oxford and Glasgow etc. The idea of keeping things local to minimise travel is pretty flawed given a lot of riders aren't based near their Championship track anyway. These 'trophy' meetings never get the crowds like league meetings do.

I believe the regionalisation is to attract away supporters. Plymouth might be a long way from everywhere else but up north meetings between Berwick, Edinburgh and Glasgow attract away supporters. Agreed it would have been better to just include as league fixtures but then you get people complaining about unbalanced fixtures but league is ultimately decided by the playoffs.

Having 3 random addition fixtures is definitely a none starter.