2023 Playoffs

[Call me wolfie]

22 minutes ago, SUPERACE said:

This is you all over, you start to aggressive in any discussion you have. 

I try to deal in facts, Robert rode because it wasn't in the rules to stop him. If those rules have been written incorrectly that is not the fault of Belle Vue Speedway.   Simply you don't like Belle Vue so it annoys you that the management were smart, they found a way it's what the best do.

How's that aggressive?

[Roger Jacobs]

1 hour ago, orion said:

Cant remember a limit....you also had unlimited  ts if 6 points behind lol..and the crowds were packed..The sport in terms of Mickey Mouse is the same as it ever was when the sport was massive..People over state the importance.. Its pretty simple with speedway..As the teams have weaken so have the crowds. .

I think the fact that there is so much else to do has had the biggest influence on the crowds.

[Roger Jacobs]

1 hour ago, SUPERACE said:

Correct.  In fact I believe the rule is that a rider can only guest for 1 team in the play offs, so Chris Harris (if he rides tomorrow) can't guest for anyone in the final other than Ipswich (if the get through), but Ipswich could get 4 different guests (if required) as long as those guests haven't ridden for another team in the play offs. 

It doesn’t matter what you believe - there’s  nothing in the Regs to say that a rider can guest for only one team in the play-offs.

Maybe there’s a gentleman’s agreement that it would lend *some* credibility to allow play-off guests to ride for only one team.

[Roger Jacobs]

2 hours ago, Call me wolfie said:

If you think they were the rules then carry on, shows your mentality really.

Except, they were the Regulations - no thought required.

[Arch Stanton]

34 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

I think the fact that there is so much else to do has had the biggest influence on the crowds.

Very true. Things were pretty basic back in the day and there wasn’t much choice in anything really. 

[Bagpuss]

1 hour ago, orion said:

Cant remember a limit....you also had unlimited  ts if 6 points behind lol..and the crowds were packed..The sport in terms of Mickey Mouse is the same as it ever was when the sport was massive..People over state the importance.. Its pretty simple with speedway..As the teams have weaken so have the crowds. .

That's the bottom line.

I think guests, R/R and doubling help don't help though. My wife's grandad no longer goes to Belle Vue regularly for a number of reasons but if you ask him why the first reason he will come out with is the lack of a team identity. I know on the odd occasions I go that if Lynn don't have a full team my enthusiasm drops. 

Overstated maybe but definitely a factor. I would suggest that apart from replacing number ones there should be a pool of riders to choose guests from who don't ride in the same division abs aren't going to ride for you one week and against you the next.it needs reigning in. 

[Call me wolfie]

8 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

Except, they were the Regulations - no thought required.

It wasn’t within the rules that were intended, there is a difference.

[mikebv]

4 hours ago, orion said:

The sport was massive with guests years ago..the sport was taken seriously. then. People caring about guests is completely over stated.

The sport was massive due to the individual comps going out on one of just three channels throughout the summer on TV..

Tens of millions literally watched it...

Then turned up at the tracks to watch those riders..

And in those days when PC was "somewhere else" (with Larry Ross, Pete Smith, John Titman, or Martin Ashby), replacing him, you found out when you were there, not on the internet a couple of days before...

A completely different time...

Time, which has moved on...

Speedway (n the UK) hasn't..

"But guests are a necessary evil"...

"Dribble, Dribble"....

.

[SUPERACE]

2 hours ago, Call me wolfie said:

How's that aggressive?

Ok, but your post goes personal. Rather than discuss the point you attack the poster. 

[SUPERACE]

1 hour ago, Roger Jacobs said:

It doesn’t matter what you believe - there’s  nothing in the Regs to say that a rider can guest for only one team in the play-offs.

Maybe there’s a gentleman’s agreement that it would lend *some* credibility to allow play-off guests to ride for only one team.

In the rules or not I can guarantee you Harris won't be able to ride for more than 1 team in the playoffs, so either way the point stands. 

[SUPERACE]

1 hour ago, Call me wolfie said:

It wasn’t within the rules that were intended, there is a difference.

Try that argument with a lawyer.  I deal in commercial services contracts, I'd be laughed out the room if I used that as an excuse,  Belle Vue were perfectly within thier rights to use Lambert, nothing else to discuss. 

[dontforgetthefueltapsbruv]

1 hour ago, Roger Jacobs said:

It doesn’t matter what you believe - there’s  nothing in the Regs to say that a rider can guest for only one team in the play-offs.

Maybe there’s a gentleman’s agreement that it would lend *some* credibility to allow play-off guests to ride for only one team.

 

6 minutes ago, SUPERACE said:

In the rules or not I can guarantee you Harris won't be able to ride for more than 1 team in the playoffs, so either way the point stands. 

 

1 hour ago, Call me wolfie said:

It wasn’t within the rules that were intended, there is a difference.

 

2 minutes ago, SUPERACE said:

Try that argument with a lawyer.  I deal in commercial services contracts, I'd be laughed out the room if I used that as an excuse,  Belle Vue were perfectly within thier rights to use Lambert, nothing else to discuss. 

So you admit if a 2nd team wanted to use Harris they could. It takes an non-binding gentleman's agreement to prevent it

A legal challenge would allow it.....

[Roger Jacobs]

1 hour ago, Call me wolfie said:

It wasn’t within the rules that were intended, there is a difference.

There is a difference???   

The wording was: "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."  There is no ambiguity.

As I have stated several times before, both Sheffield and Ipswich used this Regulation to their advantage, and in both cases the proven long term injury was just 6 weeks!  In Sheffield's case the injured rider never returned to their 1-7, even though he was fit enough to ride in the Championship, because they realised they were stronger with the change they made.

If the intention was for something different, the BSPA/SCB should have written the Regulation to reflect that. You can't say: "that's not what we meant", it wouldn't stand up in Primary School, let alone a court.

[arnieg]

44 minutes ago, SUPERACE said:

Try that argument with a lawyer.  I deal in commercial services contracts, I'd be laughed out the room if I used that as an excuse,  Belle Vue were perfectly within thier rights to use Lambert, nothing else to discuss. 

If you are a lawyer then presumably you are familiar with Hart v Pepper.

[arnieg]

36 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

There is a difference???   

The wording was: "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."  There is no ambiguity.

 

Not ambiguous?

What's long term? 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years?

And what is proof? What if you get two conflicting doctors opinions? After all we know that all the existence of a sick note proves,  is that someone was able to find a tame doctor to issue one?

[Roger Jacobs]

2 minutes ago, arnieg said:

Not ambiguous?

What's long term? 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years?

And what is proof? What if you get two conflicting doctors opinions? After all we know that all the existence of a sick note proves,  is that someone was able to find a tame doctor to issue one?

They set their own precedent with 6 weeks.  What is said behind closed doors we will never know, but I'm sure BV would have been able to show that Fricke was injured sufficiently to prevent him riding for 6 weeks - even if it was the end of the season, there's nothing in the Regs about timing.  As it was, none of the moaners had any grounds on which to prevent BV from using Lambert. They succeeded in having the wording removed (rather than properly worded, and tested) - as a result, we've got debates about who can guest, and when, and how many times. 

11 minutes ago, arnieg said:

If you are a lawyer then presumably you are familiar with Hart v Pepper.

Clearly, Sheffield should have read every page of Hansard to find something about long term injuries, or even speedway, and then taken that to the High Court 

[foreverblue]

11 minutes ago, arnieg said:

Not ambiguous?

What's long term? 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years?

And what is proof? What if you get two conflicting doctors opinions? After all we know that all the existence of a sick note proves,  is that someone was able to find a tame doctor to issue one?

3  Meetings?

[arnieg]

28 minutes ago, Roger Jacobs said:

They set their own precedent with 6 weeks.  What is said behind closed doors we will never know, but I'm sure BV would have been able to show that Fricke was injured sufficiently to prevent him riding for 6 weeks - even if it was the end of the season, there's nothing in the Regs about timing.  As it was, none of the moaners had any grounds on which to prevent BV from using Lambert. They succeeded in having the wording removed (rather than properly worded, and tested) - as a result, we've got debates about who can guest, and when, and how many times. 

Clearly, Sheffield should have read every page of Hansard to find something about long term injuries, or even speedway, and then taken that to the High Court 

For Hansard substitute BSPL media releases, principally those issued following the AGM.

[Call me wolfie]

2 hours ago, Roger Jacobs said:

There is a difference???   

The wording was: "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury."  There is no ambiguity.

As I have stated several times before, both Sheffield and Ipswich used this Regulation to their advantage, and in both cases the proven long term injury was just 6 weeks!  In Sheffield's case the injured rider never returned to their 1-7, even though he was fit enough to ride in the Championship, because they realised they were stronger with the change they made.

If the intention was for something different, the BSPA/SCB should have written the Regulation to reflect that. You can't say: "that's not what we meant", it wouldn't stand up in Primary School, let alone a court.

There was a separate regulation which you’ve failed to mention.

 

No team changes to be permitted after August ## (can’t remember exact date) except for a rider returning from long term injury.

 

you would have thought if it was intended that you could change a rider who got injured after said date it would be included in this regulation. The regulation you quote is merely trying to say you could make changes on a 3rd occasion if one was for a long term injury. so actually yes, there is ambiguity, massive ambiguity in fact, hence their 1st attempt to sign him was rejected. Actually it’s not even ambiguous, it’s pretty clear, I’m amazed the BSPA backed down on it to be honest.

 

Please check your facts before quoting selective parts to support your argument. You will be pulled up on it.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Call me wolfie

[szkocjasid]

8 hours ago, Bagpuss said:

Out of interest how many guests were permitted back in the day? I started going in the the early eighties and I can remember guests for number ones while everything else was covered by R/R and juniors.

I could stomach that, it's when teams have been running with three, four and sometimes five riders borrowed from other teams that it gets silly. 

My memory from the NL in the late 80s & 90s, was when a heat leader was out r/r used, when a second string was missing, a reserve stepped up into the team & a junior stepped up to reserve. Can't remember situations when 2 heat leaders were out though?