Vatcher Strikes Again

[bigred]

On 7/24/2024 at 9:26 AM, Sings4Speedway said:

After the spineless actions against Kent last season the weasel is back. This time shutting down the Mercians Amateur Speedway club. They had opted to run under a different governing body (who can blame them) but the Leicester venue have been told its SCB events or non so the club has been forced out. We are talking about good honest people who have done far more for the sport without ever seeking the praise that Vatcher clamours for. The sooner he steps aside and allows someone to act in the overall interests of the sport rather than a select few the sooner the slim chances of a recovery will be. As it stands its another big nail in the coffin of British speedway. 

If there’s no praise in it for vvvatcher he don’t want to know.maybe a few £ on quiet may have done the trick ..

[bigred]

On 7/24/2024 at 2:55 PM, Chris116 said:

I find it interesting that Scunthorpe Eddie Wright Raceway are affiliated to NORA for Flat Track, Speedway and Oval racing, practice and training. I wonder what the difference is between Leicester and Scunthorpe other than where they are situated in the country.

The difference is Rob Godfrey..he’s the top man in British speedway oh and he owns Scunthorpe.read into that as you will .

[1 valve]

4 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

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. 

 

There is no basis of any claim for a restraint of trade where a person or organisation has previously signed an agreement which includes specific clauses on limiting (sole use) usage by others for similarly defined purposes. The determination being having  "signed an agreement". In simple terms. No one is forced to sign such an agreement, but if you do, then you need to abide by the terms and conditions which you agreed to. 

Edited August 5 by 1 valve

[Humphrey Appleby]

8 hours ago, 1 valve said:

There is no basis of any claim for a restraint of trade where a person or organisation has previously signed an agreement which includes specific clauses on limiting (sole use) usage by others for similarly defined purposes. The determination being having  "signed an agreement". In simple terms. No one is forced to sign such an agreement, but if you do, then you need to abide by the terms and conditions which you agreed to. 

I'd actually disagree somewhat. The ACU/SCB hold a privileged position enshrined in legislation and anyone wishing to run a speedway meeting at any significant level is substantively required to run under their auspices. I appreciate Motorsport UK (formerly the MSA) isn't responsible for motorcycling, but I remember that some years ago they decided to drop the restrictions on non-MSA competition because they were considered liable to legal challenge. And I'd imagine they have a much bigger budget for legal advice than the ACU. 

However, it's a moot point unless someone actually takes issue with it. 

Having said this, I'm not sure how anyone can afford to run outside a well established sanctioning body because insurance coverage is prohibitive in my experience. I do wonder whether some of these events are adequately insured. 

Edited August 6 by Humphrey Appleby

[Sings4Speedway]

16 hours ago, bigred said:

If there’s no praise in it for vvvatcher he don’t want to know.maybe a few £ on quiet may have done the trick ..

Its always financially driven. Outside federations don't require SCB licences at the extortionate costs they currently are even for non pro level. No licences equals less coming in for the Weasel and co to spend on "expenses". 

The mafia know that if someone had enough financial power it wouldn't hold up in court but they also know that they could make things mightily difficult for any promotor who opts to operate outside of their desired route.

[Byker Biker]

37 minutes ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Its always financially driven. Outside federations don't require SCB licences at the extortionate costs they currently are even for non pro level. No licences equals less coming in for the Weasel and co to spend on "expenses". 

The mafia know that if someone had enough financial power it wouldn't hold up in court but they also know that they could make things mightily difficult for any promotor who opts to operate outside of their desired route.

If you look at all the risks involved in racing in front of the public then the BSPA/L, SCB, ACU, FIM Global model has almost an unlimited value as far as liability is concerned. Heaven forbid that there is ever a multiple casualty claim but £10m (which is the usual business sum assured) of public liability wouldn't go very far in this day and age.