IainB Posted May 18 Report Share Posted May 18 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Daniel Smith said: They received a suspended sentence over the 'Pit Gate' incident They could have worded it like that, makes it sound like there's still an investigation ongoing Edited May 18 by iainb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted May 18 Report Share Posted May 18 On 5/12/2024 at 6:55 PM, Racin Jason 72 said: I think you need to look deeper into why kings lynn are struggling to attract enough fans. do you remember Brian Havelock running Redcar ? He had poor teams year on year with the same riders and apathy towards the fans. Crowds dropped further and further each year. Interesting enough though the club always made a profit. then a new promotion with enthusiasm invested into the team and engaged with the fans. crowds returned to see good entertaining racing on a well prepared track. look how the Courtney’s run Berwick and Oxford. They too engage with the fans. Buster is tired and fed up and it shows. It’s minimal effort and open the turnstiles and it’s a take it or leave it attitude and a complete contempt of his customers. all lynns troubles are from the top and the owner. This has been the way at King's Lynn ever since Jonathan Chapman left. There needs to be someone new, with very deep pockets to make King's Lynn a success. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Jacobs Posted May 19 Report Share Posted May 19 On 5/18/2024 at 1:23 PM, iainb said: They could have worded it like that, makes it sound like there's still an investigation ongoing The SCB Statements are often worded poorly - they need someone to proofread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Jacobs Posted May 19 Report Share Posted May 19 On 5/18/2024 at 10:40 AM, Lefty said: Is Buster's 'train set' up for sale yet? Or will he be "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater!" Surely he will be "Throwing the track out with the rain water" ... I'll get me rain coat and pit gate repair set. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 valve Posted May 21 Report Share Posted May 21 (edited) On 5/18/2024 at 1:21 PM, Daniel Smith said: They received a suspended sentence over the 'Pit Gate' incident When a suspended sentence is passed down then the "sentence" associated with the charge/verdict is known. Given that the penalty this time around has been announced as a two point deduction, then the previous penalty must have been a "warning on future conduct (or similar) if not then the penalty now being applied would equal one point for each offense - somewhat lenient to say the least and something that will not affect Chapman one bit. Edited May 21 by 1 valve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted May 21 Report Share Posted May 21 On 5/19/2024 at 7:58 PM, Roger Jacobs said: The SCB Statements are often worded poorly - they need someone to proofread. More likely they need someone with the intelligence to string a sentence together writing the statements in the first place. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted May 21 Report Share Posted May 21 1 hour ago, 1 valve said: When a suspended sentence is passed down then the "sentence" associated with the charge/verdict is known. Given that the penalty this time around has been announced as a two point deduction, then the previous penalty must have been a "warning on future conduct (or similar) if not then the penalty now being applied would equal one point for each offense - somewhat lenient to say the least and something that will not affect Chapman one bit. The BSPL are a pathetic organisation, as their public statement concerning May 4th 2023 vs Ipswich said, the promotion were totally exonerated of wrong doing in 2023. Then state they'd been punished because of the above. Never believe "public" statements, 100% they received a suspended sentence. What I've also been told is King's Lynn cannot call off meetings without an SCB officials approval for 18 months. So, we'll see how that pans out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 Apparently, according to Eurosport at least (not the greatest source of information about our sport), Buster is appealing the decision to deduct 2 points... and he may very well get them back! Why on earth the SCB charged him with breach of: 017.2 Breach of Rules f) Any proceedings or acts prejudicial to the interests of any part or body of the ACU, SCB, BSP Ltd or of the sport of motorcycling generally. a nothing wishy washy rule that could be easily appeal against When he should clearly have been charged with the much more water tight: 02.2.8 Promoter / Associate c) says meetings can be postponed due to exceptional conditions as would make racing impossible, except where: i) the SCB specifically forbids a Promotion from so doing ii) if a Meeting Steward is appointed to the meeting and must advise the Referee at the earliest opportunity Unless of course the SCB didn't specifically forbid the postponement. A conspiracy theorist may well think that the 017.2 charge was agreed with Buster so he could appeal and get them back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 (edited) 6 hours ago, iainb said: Apparently, according to Eurosport at least (not the greatest source of information about our sport), Buster is appealing the decision to deduct 2 points... and he may very well get them back! Why on earth the SCB charged him with breach of: 017.2 Breach of Rules f) Any proceedings or acts prejudicial to the interests of any part or body of the ACU, SCB, BSP Ltd or of the sport of motorcycling generally. a nothing wishy washy rule that could be easily appeal against When he should clearly have been charged with the much more water tight: 02.2.8 Promoter / Associate c) says meetings can be postponed due to exceptional conditions as would make racing impossible, except where: i) the SCB specifically forbids a Promotion from so doing ii) if a Meeting Steward is appointed to the meeting and must advise the Referee at the earliest opportunity Unless of course the SCB didn't specifically forbid the postponement. A conspiracy theorist may well think that the 017.2 charge was agreed with Buster so he could appeal and get them back! I'm not sure on what basis King's Lynn are going to appeal, given that they postponed on the grounds of rider availability http://www.kingslynn-speedway.com/news.php?extend.31505.1 Unless someone at BSPL told them they were fine to postpone I can't see what grounds they have. If they succeed then any team with two riders missing will feel able to pull out of meetings, siting that as precedent. The season will never get completed Edited May 28 by Sir Sidney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 36 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said: I'm not sure on what basis King's Lynn are going to appeal, given that they postponed on the grounds of rider availability http://www.kingslynn-speedway.com/news.php?extend.31505.1 Unless someone at BSPL told them they were fine to postpone I can't see what grounds they have. If they succeed then any team with two riders missing will feel able to pull out of meetings, siting that as precedent. The season will never get completed If I had my Columbo hat on I'd be asking why the SCB didn't charge them with breaching the specific rule made to deter such a cancellation happening unless the SCB had given them permission to postpone. BSPL got in touch with SCB to say this postponement isn't on so SCB have gone with a breach of a cover all rule. I think Buster may very well get his points back. ... just one more thing, Mrs Columbo is a huge fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 31 minutes ago, iainb said: If I had my Columbo hat on I'd be asking why the SCB didn't charge them with breaching the specific rule made to deter such a cancellation happening unless the SCB had given them permission to postpone. BSPL got in touch with SCB to say this postponement isn't on so SCB have gone with a breach of a cover all rule. I think Buster may very well get his points back. ... just one more thing, Mrs Columbo is a huge fan I think if I was Buster I'd just keep quiet because I think they have dodged a bullet. If he wins his appeal then any team missing a couple of riders will have carte blanche to say they are not turning up to a fixture - possibly at King's Lynn - and that'll damage his business far more. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 31 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said: I think if I was Buster I'd just keep quiet because I think they have dodged a bullet. If he wins his appeal then any team missing a couple of riders will have carte blanche to say they are not turning up to a fixture - possibly at King's Lynn - and that'll damage his business far more. That depends if the SCB have ballsed up, because the rule is there to stop this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINYS Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 I think everything will turn out just fine in Busters favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 13 minutes ago, iainb said: That depends if the SCB have ballsed up, because the rule is there to stop this It's a bit of a circular argument really. In my view King's Lynn don't have a leg to stand on, given their press release said the postponement was related to rider availability not weather related, unless they were given permission by BSPL to postpone. SCB should have quoted the correct rules in it's judgement, but that's not to say their ruling is incorrect. However, if the judgement is turned over on appeal others will use that as a precedent (and probably consult lawyers if taken to task). We all know the rule book is littered with inconsistency and interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 3 minutes ago, TINYS said: I think everything will turn out just fine in Busters favour. I think it already has. No fine. Able to re stage the meeting when his full team are likely to be available. Unlikely to make play offs so the league point deduction is of no consequence. Quite likely to finish up bottom in any event, especially now Birmingham have signed Freddie Lindgren 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 11 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said: It's a bit of a circular argument really. In my view King's Lynn don't have a leg to stand on, given their press release said the postponement was related to rider availability not weather related, unless they were given permission by BSPL to postpone. SCB should have quoted the correct rules in it's judgement, but that's not to say their ruling is incorrect. However, if the judgement is turned over on appeal others will use that as a precedent (and probably consult lawyers if taken to task). We all know the rule book is littered with inconsistency and interpretation. I don't think it's in the BSPL's power to give permission to postpone, that's the SCB's jurisdiction and if they did, which I don't think they say they haven't then they've gone for this wishy washy rule instead and if a lawyer gets hold of it and says why haven't they been charged with the correct breach of the rules I can see the whole case falling apart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, iainb said: I don't think it's in the BSPL's power to give permission to postpone, that's the SCB's jurisdiction and if they did, which I don't think they say they haven't then they've gone for this wishy washy rule instead and if a lawyer gets hold of it and says why haven't they been charged with the correct breach of the rules I can see the whole case falling apart My point is that if someone at BSPL gave them permission, even if they were not entitled to, and KL say they relied on that then they might try to use that in mitigation. SCB don't publish any evidence from the investigation so we can't see that. KL did breach the rules, so whilst the one quoted may not be the strongest then it still applies. Will Buster engage lawyers to represent him when that incurs extra costs with no certainty of success, and the potential for a bigger sanction ( when I reality KL have got away with no real sanction), and bearing in mind SCB tribunals work on the basis of probability not strict rules of evidence? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hasta la vista Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 If the meetings were never added to the international calendar by the PZM (they weren't), Buster has no case to answer....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 41 minutes ago, hasta la vista said: If the meetings were never added to the international calendar by the PZM (they weren't), Buster has no case to answer....... Can you provide the rule you would rely on to back that up? I can't see one. Contrast that with 010.5 d - facility available when a rider is competing in his own national championship. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromBendThree Posted May 28 Report Share Posted May 28 SCB in charge of international calendar? 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.