Vatcher Strikes Again

[Humphrey Appleby]

On 7/27/2024 at 1:55 AM, Hawk127 said:

What I do not understand is that most clubs do not own the stadia and rent them from independent landlords. For example, if I approached Spedeworth to run a Nora meeting at Foxhall Heath on a date when the stadium was not being used by anyone else, Spedeworth say OK, how can the BSPL then stop the witches racing claiming it is an exclusive venue for  SCB meetings only  (unless the SCB have entered into an exclusive covenant with  every stadium regarding speedway which is highly unlikely as the landlords would undoubtedly no want to tied in to something like that unless they are receiving from the SCB a financial incentive). 

They can't unless there was some sort of exclusivity contract. Of course, the problem is if the SCB (or whoever) wanted to get heavy over it, it would end up in court where only the lawyers would win. 

[1 valve]

On 7/26/2024 at 4:55 PM, Hawk127 said:

What I do not understand is that most clubs do not own the stadia and rent them from independent landlords. For example, if I approached Spedeworth to run a Nora meeting at Foxhall Heath on a date when the stadium was not being used by anyone else, Spedeworth say OK, how can the BSPL then stop the witches racing claiming it is an exclusive venue for  SCB meetings only  (unless the SCB have entered into an exclusive covenant with  every stadium regarding speedway which is highly unlikely as the landlords would undoubtedly no want to tied in to something like that unless they are receiving from the SCB a financial incentive). Or another scenario, what if the stadium owners at Mildenhall were to  host Nora meetings in 2024 and agree a deal for 2025 and then the Fen Tigers applied to enter a team under the SCB/ BSPL arrangement in 2025, would they refuse the application? All seems crazy to me when the sport is on its knees and needs as much publicity and rider participation as is possible, the last thing it needs is a cartel.

The starting point is not who owns stadiums but who is recognised on a global scale as being responsible for running speedway in the Uk and ensuring compliance with appropriate rules and regulations.
From the top down. Speedway uk is subject to the jurisdiction of:
1. The Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM). Global organisation for motorcycle sporting events - 
2. Auto-Cycle Union. The Governing Body for all motorcycle sport in the British Isles (less Northern Ireland).
3.  British Speedway Promoters Limited (BSPL) responsible for UK domestic motorcycle speedway including designated FIM meetings staged in Britain.

If a BSPA club wishes to run an event it needs to ensure the event is held compliant with the rules & regulations of the governing bodies. This includes amateur events held on property (stadiums) where the club has direct control on speedway usage but is not actually organising the event. Leicester would be an example of this scenario. 

Where clubs do not have exclusive management of the stadium, then all promoters have within their agreement with the landlord that they (the promoter) have exclusive use of the facility for speedway events. This would be as per the agreement Ipswich have with Spedworth. Note the agreement is between the promoting company and Spedworth not the SCB and Spedworth.  
 

[1 valve]

On 7/26/2024 at 6:10 PM, iainb said:

And now Vatcher is going to war with Peter Oakes!

https://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.193

Having read both the Speedway Star article and the SCB release, it seems that the latter merely provides clarification on the matter raised by Peter Oakes, and rather "going to war" the SCB are merely making things clear and unambiguous. - "Just saying" 

[Hawk127]

1 hour ago, 1 valve said:

The starting point is not who owns stadiums but who is recognised on a global scale as being responsible for running speedway in the Uk and ensuring compliance with appropriate rules and regulations.
From the top down. Speedway uk is subject to the jurisdiction of:
1. The Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM). Global organisation for motorcycle sporting events - 
2. Auto-Cycle Union. The Governing Body for all motorcycle sport in the British Isles (less Northern Ireland).
3.  British Speedway Promoters Limited (BSPL) responsible for UK domestic motorcycle speedway including designated FIM meetings staged in Britain.

If a BSPA club wishes to run an event it needs to ensure the event is held compliant with the rules & regulations of the governing bodies. This includes amateur events held on property (stadiums) where the club has direct control on speedway usage but is not actually organising the event. Leicester would be an example of this scenario. 

Where clubs do not have exclusive management of the stadium, then all promoters have within their agreement with the landlord that they (the promoter) have exclusive use of the facility for speedway events. This would be as per the agreement Ipswich have with Spedworth. Note the agreement is between the promoting company and Spedworth not the SCB and Spedworth.  
 

Thanks for the feedback which does clarify the position re the BSPL

Out of interest in the scheme of things where does Nora fit in to the above or is in not covered by the FIM.

Track time for riders is important as is competitive racing for them but given the limited opportunities if trading via the BSPL route where few clubs are making a determined effort, is it any wonder the sport is in decline. I still think that part of the issue is the blinkered approach of the BSPL where it is a case of our way or no way with no compromise whatsoever and the unwillingness to listen to other views and take on board what the punters and some riders are thinking/saying. Some people are willing to put the money into the sport but not to have it lost by a governing body of third parties many of whom lack business acumen but are still allowed to make the rules even to the detriment of the investor. It will never change because they have no desire for change. We all know everything in the British speedway garden is rosey.

 

 

[1 valve]

7 minutes ago, Hawk127 said:

Thanks for the feedback which does clarify the position re the BSPL

Out of interest in the scheme of things where does Nora fit in to the above or is in not covered by the FIM.

Track time for riders is important as is competitive racing for them but given the limited opportunities if trading via the BSPL route where few clubs are making a determined effort, is it any wonder the sport is in decline. I still think that part of the issue is the blinkered approach of the BSPL where it is a case of our way or no way with no compromise whatsoever and the unwillingness to listen to other views and take on board what the punters and some riders are thinking/saying. Some people are willing to put the money into the sport but not to have it lost by a governing body of third parties many of whom lack business acumen but are still allowed to make the rules even to the detriment of the investor. It will never change because they have no desire for change. We all know everything in the British speedway garden is rosey.

 

 

Nora is independent of the "international" structure as previously outlined.
Regarding track time for riders, within the current structure of speedway in the UK there are training/practice facilities available which are well used by both amateur and professional riders. 
Unfortunately with any governed sport comes the rules and regulations which form the structure by which the sport operates domestically, nationally and internationally. . On the domestic front, nobody, especially British speedway promoters want to see the sport suffer unnecessarily and similarly, welcome new potential investors. some clubs such as Leicester are fortunate to have an owner with a structured vision, and sponsors onboard in JCB who support the club without the need to  to do anything other than be "sponsors" . They are not alone in this regard. 
Unfortunately, other clubs/promotions have found that the promise of sponsorship comes with caveats where the sponsor thinks they have a right to demand change and frankly have more self interest at heart than the good of the club or the sport in general. 
Not everything in the UK speedway garden is rosy, but that does not mean, a new broom would sweep away the bad and replace it with anything better. The sport in the UK is not in terminal decline as some naysayers would have us believe, but it is far from being as healthy as we would want. The evolution rather than a revolution, will continue towards a brighter and healthier future albeit without a revolution and still within the global structure. 
 

[Hawk127]

2 hours ago, 1 valve said:

Nora is independent of the "international" structure as previously outlined.
Regarding track time for riders, within the current structure of speedway in the UK there are training/practice facilities available which are well used by both amateur and professional riders. 
Unfortunately with any governed sport comes the rules and regulations which form the structure by which the sport operates domestically, nationally and internationally. . On the domestic front, nobody, especially British speedway promoters want to see the sport suffer unnecessarily and similarly, welcome new potential investors. some clubs such as Leicester are fortunate to have an owner with a structured vision, and sponsors onboard in JCB who support the club without the need to  to do anything other than be "sponsors" . They are not alone in this regard. 
Unfortunately, other clubs/promotions have found that the promise of sponsorship comes with caveats where the sponsor thinks they have a right to demand change and frankly have more self interest at heart than the good of the club or the sport in general. 
Not everything in the UK speedway garden is rosy, but that does not mean, a new broom would sweep away the bad and replace it with anything better. The sport in the UK is not in terminal decline as some naysayers would have us believe, but it is far from being as healthy as we would want. The evolution rather than a revolution, will continue towards a brighter and healthier future albeit without a revolution and still within the global structure. 
 

So Nora operates outside the FIM and if Joe Bloggs comes along and wants to offer racing involving riders, a bit like the open licence that Rye House use to operate under, it would be free to do so assuming the track owner had not signed the deal with the current promoter running under BSPL.  Not a good example in the current circumstances but if someone wanted to run meetings under the Nora banner at Mildenhall and Spedeworth were OK with the arrangement given the lack of activity from a BSPL scenario that would be OK. I understand the point regarding tract time but that means everything has to have the blessing of the BSPL whatever the level of rider and many do not want that hierarchy telling them how to run and promote the sport when many in the current set up are so inept at actively promoting in their local area let alone further afield. I cannot share your optimism but we are both entitled to our opinion. Thanks for your feedback.

[1 valve]

9 hours ago, Hawk127 said:

So Nora operates outside the FIM and if Joe Bloggs comes along and wants to offer racing involving riders, a bit like the open licence that Rye House use to operate under, it would be free to do so assuming the track owner had not signed the deal with the current promoter running under BSPL.  Not a good example in the current circumstances but if someone wanted to run meetings under the Nora banner at Mildenhall and Spedeworth were OK with the arrangement given the lack of activity from a BSPL scenario that would be OK. I understand the point regarding tract time but that means everything has to have the blessing of the BSPL whatever the level of rider and many do not want that hierarchy telling them how to run and promote the sport when many in the current set up are so inept at actively promoting in their local area let alone further afield. I cannot share your optimism but we are both entitled to our opinion. Thanks for your feedback.

In the case of a facility being available suitable for speedway in the UK unencumbered by agreements with BSPL then it would be possible for it to be used as a venue to stage speedway .
No riders contracted to any association affiliated to the FIM would be eligible to ride/race in an event where an admission fee was paid and or prizes awarded, but they could use it as a practice facility as long as they did not receive preferential treatment i.e. free practice time whilst others paid. 
Another aspect to consider is rider & spectator welfare. Under the FIM structure, speedway meetings of any kind, competitive or practice, must comply with a comprehensive agenda of regulations such as (to highlight a few) i) track preparation/condition ii) Qualified officials for machine/equipment examination/ pit supervision & race administration, iii) Medical and emergency services and iv) Insurance covering public liability and for each individual rider. 
On a slightly different matter. I do agree with you that at the professional end of the sport in the UK, some promotions appear to lack pro-active promotional ability (being polite) resulting in a poor fan base a lack of long terms support from sponsorship resulting in doubts about the long term future for the clubs concerned.. However, the way forward is not through rival organisations being set up to compete against the FIM structure but to work actively with the current bodies to develop the sport whether it be by providing sponsorship, professional services or promotional investment.  

[IainB]

16 hours ago, 1 valve said:

Having read both the Speedway Star article and the SCB release, it seems that the latter merely provides clarification on the matter raised by Peter Oakes, and rather "going to war" the SCB are merely making things clear and unambiguous. - "Just saying" 

Fair enough, maybe "going to war" was a bit OTT but... did the SCB really need to add the last paragraph to the statements?

"The SCB are very disappointed that Mr Oakes went to print with this article without contacting either Workington or the SCB for any comments." seems very passive aggressive, it didn't need to be added imo. Peter Oakes has done more to promote the Sport in this country than any of the current crop and certainly any member of the SCB.

[1 valve]

28 minutes ago, iainb said:

Fair enough, maybe "going to war" was a bit OTT but... did the SCB really need to add the last paragraph to the statements?

"The SCB are very disappointed that Mr Oakes went to print with this article without contacting either Workington or the SCB for any comments." seems very passive aggressive, it didn't need to be added imo. Peter Oakes has done more to promote the Sport in this country than any of the current crop and certainly any member of the SCB.

Agree, Peter has indeed contributed loads of good stuff, and the article in question was merely stating a view that was not, for many particularly contentious but a tad short of being balanced considering the facts which the SCB provided in their comment. One of the beauties' of this country is our freedom of speech and the press so long Peter and other journo's continue to do their bit as  does the right of reply to any point raised. 

[W9 Lion]

1 hour ago, iainb said:

Fair enough, maybe "going to war" was a bit OTT but... did the SCB really need to add the last paragraph to the statements?

"The SCB are very disappointed that Mr Oakes went to print with this article without contacting either Workington or the SCB for any comments." seems very passive aggressive, it didn't need to be added imo. Peter Oakes has done more to promote the Sport in this country than any of the current crop and certainly any member of the SCB.

Or someone who is regarded as a proper Journalist (rather than a snowflake content creator) has been called out for cutting corners and not getting quotes to support an opinion peice.

[IainB]

30 minutes ago, W9 Lion said:

Or someone who is regarded as a proper Journalist (rather than a snowflake content creator) has been called out for cutting corners and not getting quotes to support an opinion peice.

Probably fair enough if it had been Johnny come lately... But Peter Oakes is probably the sport's best ever journalist. No need for that last paragraph imo, nothing that couldn't have been settled with a personal email or word. It was exactly that, an opinion piece

[Byker Biker]

I agree with most of 1 Valves replies it is the nearest the truth that can be conveyed and easily understood.

This all goes back to the Shawcross report and the implementation of its recommendations. Track racing in the UK became the responsibility of the RAC/ACU under FIM Rules, The ACU contractually devolved the responsibility for managing Speedway to the SCB who in turn authorise the staging of the sport to the BSPA/L under licence. This pyramid provides the security to manage risk and/or litigation from anywhere in the pyramid to the top.

To complicate matters further all organisers and competitors in any motor sport require the protection of the "Off Road Motor Sport" regulations which can only be through a recognised association properly constituted, adequately insured with established racing and racing circuit criteria. There's a bit more to it but basicly racing machines do not have to comply with the road traffic acts and construction and use regulations. Similarly a competitor cannot be prosecuted under those acts for say dangerous driving or overtaking on the inside as examples. 

The pyramid has remained intact for decades until Nora came along and set up a compliant model that mirrored the ACU on a smaller scale consequently there was not a strong enough reason to prevent Nora licencing/staging track racing or any other motor sport, they put everything in place.

Now we've all seen the kicking and screaming coming from the bottom of the Pyramid but as long as Nora remain compliant I don't see a way of stopping them as long as they do not call it Speedway racing as that type of racing is legally the responsibility of the ACU in the UK.

NB. The Off Road Motor Sport Regulations work slightly different in Scotland, very often the Police have to attend to verify that it is an off road event.

[Hawk127]

Byker Biker and 1 Valve have filled in a few gaps of my knowledge so thanks to both of you, much appreciated.

[bigcatdiary]

It’s also worth mentioning that in this weeks star dated August 3rd, Peter Oakes said he was contacted by Neil Vatcher after the article and apologised to the SCB Manager after accepting that the SCB had in fact provided facility’s to Workington for the missing riders and it was Workington who were unable to find riders to accept the bookings at short notice.

 

[old bob at herne bay]

Doesn't need  Neil Vatcher's help  to continue  British Speedway's demise ... it's doing that already season by season. Not sure Neil is capable of doing that much tbh ...he was a pretty ineffectual TM at Lakeside (aka Arena Essex) for a while and now seems to have been promoted to be a messenger boy for the SCB.

They have extinguished all  "SCB" speedway in the South East of England, assisting the closure of Kent and the well publiiised saga of Isle of Wight. Their insistence that "SCB" tracks cannot run separate Amateur  "NORA" meetings really is not helping the sports survival in the UK.  Seems purely a decision based on self interest of the SCB running scared that the "NORA" meetings may attract bigger crowds that the usual dross of 15 heats FTG with a selection of gusts and R/R in every team. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Skid]

Vatcher has to do as he's told by his paymasters, same as Morris, they can play at having their own ideas, but they have to get their hands dirty when told too.

[1 valve]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:42 PM, old bob at herne bay said:

 

They have extinguished all  "SCB" speedway in the South East of England, assisting the closure of Kent and the well publiiised saga of Isle of Wight. Their insistence that "SCB" tracks cannot run separate Amateur  "NORA" meetings really is not helping the sports survival in the UK.  Seems purely a decision based on self interest of the SCB running scared that the "NORA" meetings may attract bigger crowds that the usual dross of 15 heats FTG with a selection of gusts and R/R in every team. 

Would help, if you understood that SCB are prohibited from sanctioning any events outside of the FIM,/ACU pyramid. 

Edited August 5 by 1 valve

[old bob at herne bay]

1 valve, don't want the SCB "sanctioning meetings"  just letting other businesses under the NORA framework run meetings under  their own  rules and regulations.  Surely the SCB don't "own" the tracks ? Most are rented by the owners to run SCB approved meetings. Why cannot the owners of the tracks  rent out their stadia to whosoever they like? The rent them out to dog racing, stock car racing, why not NORA racing. How many more tracks will be lost to the sport if the SCB continue on this self centred approach. Arguments about insurance are just a smokescreen to deflect the issue.

No sorry 1 valve the  "ban" is IMO wholly non enforceable and restraint of trade by the SCB who are running scared that some competition will upset their cosy little kwango.

Being old enough to remember the days of the  beginnings of the "provincial league" I have seen this selfish behaviour previosulsy , with the National League "black listing" riders who rode in the Provincial League.  

[Byker Biker]

14 minutes ago, old bob at herne bay said:

1 valve, don't want the SCB "sanctioning meetings"  just letting other businesses under the NORA framework run meetings under  their own  rules and regulations.  Surely the SCB don't "own" the tracks ? Most are rented by the owners to run SCB approved meetings. Why cannot the owners of the tracks  rent out their stadia to whosoever they like? The rent them out to dog racing, stock car racing, why not NORA racing. How many more tracks will be lost to the sport if the SCB continue on this self centred approach. Arguments about insurance are just a smokescreen to deflect the issue.

No sorry 1 valve the  "ban" is IMO wholly non enforceable and restraint of trade by the SCB who are running scared that some competition will upset their cosy little kwango.

Being old enough to remember the days of the  beginnings of the "provincial league" I have seen this selfish behaviour previosulsy , with the National League "black listing" riders who rode in the Provincial League.  

Please see my post above, the outcome of Lord Shawcross's inquiry following the Provincial League is what we have today and it is legally enforceable albeit expensive. I don't necessarily agree with it but it is what it is. The ACU hold all the cards and if they contractually delegate "Speedway" to the SCB then that is what we've got.

[Humphrey Appleby]

3 hours ago, 1 valve said:

Would help, if you understood that SCB are prohibited from sanctioning any events outside of the FIM,/ACU pyramid. 

Having restrictive agreements to prevent track owners from renting out their circuits for non-sanctioned events would, I suspect, be ruled a restraint-of-trade if it were ever legally challenged.

Motorsport UK, which deals with 4-wheeled racing, has long since given up trying to prevent unsanctioned events from using MSUK-licensed circuits, or MSUK officials and competitors from taking part in unsanctioned events. As both a competitor and official I'd choose not to compete in unsanctioned events because there are legal ambiguities around the RTA and potential insurance liabilities, but neither do I think sanctioning bodies should have an effective monopoly or be allowed to shut out other sanctioning bodies from circuits.