Scuntffield 2024

[IronScorpion]

1 hour ago, TMW said:

I imagine any Scunny riders will have to pay to attend amateur meetings as a basic requirement !   

As would any rider attending any track.

[szkocjasid]

I'll go for

Scunfield
Nathan Ablitt	8.49
Ryan Kinsley	7.67
Jamie Halder	4.58
Elliot Kelly	4.41
Joe Alcock	4.36
Josh Embleton	3.47
Senna Summers	3.00
Total	35.98

[Fromafar]

On 12/2/2023 at 11:43 AM, ScunnyDan said:

Surely he’s leading the way… practice sessions ran virtually 3 weekends a month, amateur meetings regularly, track private hires with many youth/pre ndl riders using the track… this ventures a good move imo and hopefully it works out for both clubs 

Not really, he will have pay money out in NDL.All he does is take money in all the ventures you mention.

[phillwhitewasmad]

1 hour ago, Fromafar said:

Not really, he will have pay money out in NDL.All he does is take money in all the ventures you mention.

which will cover the loss from the Ndl meetings

[Fromafar]

1 hour ago, phillwhitewasmad said:

which will cover the loss from the Ndl meetings

Agree,but he is hardly “leading the way” most other NDL Clubs will lose money with no way of recouping it.

[phillwhitewasmad]

Just now, Fromafar said:

Agree,but he is hardly “leading the way” most other NDL Clubs will lose money with no way of recouping it.

Don't agree the teams running NDL all have the opportunity to run practices and or amateur meetings to cover costs

[Fromafar]

1 hour ago, phillwhitewasmad said:

Don't agree the teams running NDL all have the opportunity to run practices and or amateur meetings to cover costs

Didn’t realise that.

[False dawn]

2 hours ago, phillwhitewasmad said:

Don't agree the teams running NDL all have the opportunity to run practices and or amateur meetings to cover costs

Hardly true of all teams. Some have very limited availability of track time.

[phillwhitewasmad]

12 minutes ago, False dawn said:

Hardly true of all teams. Some have very limited availability of track time.

Leicester run practices which I'm sure will increase under new owners

oxford run 3 teams so no lack of availability 

redcar run amateurs and practice and private hire

bellevue run a practice 

scunthorpe run amateurs and practice and private hire

edinburgh run there acadamey 

don't see much lack of availability 

[RogerM22]

I remember it being said on here a few years ago that riders only get free practice/amateur meetings when they show a bit of promise along with a commitment to Scunthorpe. If I remember right it was when Howarth and Ashley Morris were starting out there. I suppose it does tie in with the above postings though.

[Sings4Speedway]

4 hours ago, phillwhitewasmad said:

Don't agree the teams running NDL all have the opportunity to run practices and or amateur meetings to cover costs

Kent had a great opportunity to run extra meetings and make extra cash....look how that turned out.

[phillwhitewasmad]

1 hour ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Kent had a great opportunity to run extra meetings and make extra cash....look how that turned out.

Kent run loads of practice sessions so works well for them what they couldn't do was run another speedway meeting were payment was being made to riders. Different discussion altogether do feel it was wrong to prevent it though

[Sir Sidney]

15 hours ago, phillwhitewasmad said:

Kent run loads of practice sessions so works well for them what they couldn't do was run another speedway meeting were payment was being made to riders. Different discussion altogether do feel it was wrong to prevent it though

Actually, that's not correct. It's got nothing to do with whether riders are being paid or not. The SCB are using motor racing case law (Goodwood case) to say that no other motor bike activity should take place on an SCB licenced track outside of SCB events. Therefore, in it's view, no NORA licenced events (or any other non SCB event), training or otherwise, should be taking place on SCB licenced tracks. However, SCB only chose to enforce that to stop the NORA league meeting taking place at Iwade. 

[szkocjasid]

7 hours ago, Sir Sidney said:

Actually, that's not correct. It's got nothing to do with whether riders are being paid or not. The SCB are using motor racing case law (Goodwood case) to say that no other motor bike activity should take place on an SCB licenced track outside of SCB events. Therefore, in it's view, no NORA licenced events (or any other non SCB event), training or otherwise, should be taking place on SCB licenced tracks. However, SCB only chose to enforce that to stop the NORA league meeting taking place at Iwade. 

Does the Motocross events held at Kings Lynn count as motor racing on an SCB licenced track? Maybe they'll say because they've added jumps etc it's ok?

[Come on the Skipper]

8 hours ago, Sir Sidney said:

Actually, that's not correct. It's got nothing to do with whether riders are being paid or not. The SCB are using motor racing case law (Goodwood case) to say that no other motor bike activity should take place on an SCB licenced track outside of SCB events. Therefore, in it's view, no NORA licenced events (or any other non SCB event), training or otherwise, should be taking place on SCB licenced tracks. However, SCB only chose to enforce that to stop the NORA league meeting taking place at Iwade. 

Have you got a link at all for this Goodwood case please?

[secsy1]

15 minutes ago, Come on the Skipper said:

Have you got a link at all for this Goodwood case please?

Well after a 2 minute search looks like it could be related to Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company and conclusions therein.

[Sir Sidney]

1 hour ago, Come on the Skipper said:

Have you got a link at all for this Goodwood case please?

Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

[Sir Sidney]

1 hour ago, secsy1 said:

Well after a 2 minute search looks like it could be related to Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company and conclusions therein.

Correct Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

[Sir Sidney]

2 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

Does the Motocross events held at Kings Lynn count as motor racing on an SCB licenced track? Maybe they'll say because they've added jumps etc it's ok?

This is the case Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Look at the duty of care issues. In simple terms, The MSA was held to have a duty of care to Mr Wattleworth, even though the event at which he lost his life was not an MSA event. Indeed MSA were found to have a duty of care for any motor activity on the circuit. Therefore, using that logic, the SCB concludes it has a duty of care for any NORA events on an SCB licenced track and could be exposed to a legal liability - however, they chose only to take issue with Iwade staging a NORA league meeting, not any other NORA events  (including one shortly after where an SCB board member took part).  

If you accept the SCB interpretation of the case then any motorcycling event on an SCB licenced track creates a potential liability for them - and so whether that is motorcross, Dirt Track Events meetings, Flat Track meetings, track days, practice sessions, private hire etc not held under SCB then it should have applied the same sanctions to the promoters of those tracks as it applied to Kent. 

As it happens, I believe the SCB interpretation is incorrect, but if I was an affected party then I would get a legal opinion.

As a postscript then it is worth noting a quote from Si Kellow in Speedway Star where he is quoted as saying

' Secondly, after being used as a tool to get at a club which isn't part of the SCB and BSPL anymore, I can't condone being part of a group which uses those practices'. (page 7 Speedway Star December 2 ) 

[Come on the Skipper]

6 hours ago, Sir Sidney said:

Wattleworth v Goodwood Road Racing Company Ltd & Ors | [2004] EWHC 140 (QB) | England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

Thanks very much, I will take a look.