|
|
Post by Genghis on Nov 27, 2010 13:31:55 GMT
This morning's statement from the BSPA has huge ramifications for the whole of British Speedway, not just the ailing Elite League.
Have we got to the point that we need another Shawcross-type enquiry and a brand new blueprint for British Speedway? Have points limit served their purpose and do we need to go back to the Rider Control system we had when British Speedway was flourishing in the late sixties / early seventies?
Has the BSPA got too powerful for its own good? Should a better balance between the SCB and the BSPA be re-introduced, or should there be another separate governing body?
It's all too late for 2011, but British Speedway needs a good, long, hard look at itself and from 2012, we need something different.
|
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Nov 27, 2010 14:32:56 GMT
This morning's statement from the BSPA has huge ramifications for the whole of British Speedway, not just the ailing Elite League. Have we got to the point that we need another Shawcross-type enquiry and a brand new blueprint for British Speedway? Have points limit served their purpose and do we need to go back to the Rider Control system we had when British Speedway was flourishing in the late sixties / early seventies? Has the BSPA got too powerful for its own good? Should a better balance between the SCB and the BSPA be re-introduced, or should there be another separate governing body? It's all too late for 2011, but British Speedway needs a good, long, hard look at itself and from 2012, we need something different. I believe there should be another seperate governing body, and find it completely farcical that the rules are put forward and determined by the promoters themselves....  Can you explain to me what the rider control system of the sixities and seventies was please??  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 14:49:04 GMT
Problem isnt neccesarily with the BSPA just a few of the individuals on it who run Speedway under there strict control and to there own agenda.
I think this whole affair has been a shambles and no one comes out of this with any credit in the way things have been done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 17:01:27 GMT
Can you explain to me what the rider control system of the sixities and seventies was please?? It was a system where a 'rider control committee' looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the teams at the end of every season and allocated various riders to different teams. It caused many controversies and the riders didn't like having their team dictated to them. One famous case was Ole Olsen who was told he had to move from Wolverhampton to Hull. He refused, and said he wanted to go to Coventry.....and that Coventry was the only place he would ride at. He got his way, and spent the rest of his career riding for The Bees. That was the straw which broke the camels back really, and the 'rider control' system was soon dropped in favour of the 'points limit' which we still have. Clearly, in todays British leagues this system would be laughable and would never stand any legal challenge. On the subject of legal challenges, I recall Tony Rickardsson threatening to go to the courts when he wanted to ride for Poole (in 2001, I believe) and his parent club (Ipswich) tried to veto it.....Rickardsson got his wish and the threat of legal action was dropped. I don't ever remember an instance when the BSPA have stood their ground and allowed anything to be challenged in court, and I believe, assuming it does happen, that the Coventry/Peterborough case will be the first time a British court has seen a speedway related matter. Interesting times ahead, which could equally be the saviour/end of league speedway as we know it in this country !! |
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Nov 29, 2010 14:18:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2010 14:51:11 GMT
Unfortunately, I suspect the cracks have been papered over and an opportunity to change for the better has been missed. Sod this, I've had enough  Pip |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2010 18:03:51 GMT
Clearly, in todays British leagues this system would be laughable and would never stand any legal challenge. In general, I think it was only foreign riders that got moved around, as they were not considered 'assets' of their promotions. British riders, particularly ones developed by their parent promotions, tended to be exempt. An interesting revelation of the recent discussions about Coventry and Peterborough is that assets are apparently still listed as 'British' and 'Foreign', with the latter listed under 'BSPA'. That was the straw which broke the camels back really, and the 'rider control' system was soon dropped in favour of the 'points limit' which we still have. I heard that it was actually an enforced move of an Ipswich rider (forget whom) to Wimbledon that brought the end of rider control. Ipswich had a 'home grown' policy that developed a very strong squad of British riders, so didn't have (m)any foreign riders to reallocate. As a result, they were forced into losing one of their assets which they weren't very happy about. This led to the introduction of the points limit. I don't ever remember an instance when the BSPA have stood their ground and allowed anything to be challenged in court, and I believe, assuming it does happen, that the Coventry/Peterborough case will be the first time a British court has seen a speedway related matter. It really depends what they're challenging. I suspect it's in the interest of both Coventry and BSPA to keep the asset system, but at the end of the day, it's not tangible property and only has value whilst everyone agrees to the rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2010 19:15:47 GMT
Clearly, in todays British leagues this system would be laughable and would never stand any legal challenge. In general, I think it was only foreign riders that got moved around, as they were not considered 'assets' of their promotions. British riders, particularly ones developed by their parent promotions, tended to be exempt. I believe Bob Kilby and Martin Ashby's moves from Swindon to Exeter were both the result of the 'rider control rule' and there aren't many riders who are considered more British or more Swindon than those two.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2010 19:22:43 GMT
I heard that it was actually an enforced move of an Ipswich rider (forget whom) to Wimbledon that brought the end of rider control. Ipswich had a 'home grown' policy that developed a very strong squad of British riders, so didn't have (m)any foreign riders to reallocate. As a result, they were forced into losing one of their assets which they weren't very happy about. This led to the introduction of the points limit. The rider you are talking about was Mick Hines who was moved from the Ipswich team which included Australian, Billy Sanders. I'm sure, on reflection, there probably wasn't a definative case which brought about the end of rider control. It was a very unpopular rule and I guess something had to be done about it. Personally, if managed correctly, I believe a maximum points limit is the fairest way to control team strengths |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2010 22:42:32 GMT
Personally, if managed correctly, I believe a maximum points limit is the fairest way to control team strengths The points limit isn't a bad idea in principle, but it has been misused and has become punitive and encouraging of short-termism. When people (and promoters) are arguably over fractions of a point with respect to rider averages and team strengths, clearly the plot has been lost. The object of the points limit should be firstly to prevent cheque book speedway, and more generally to prevent teams becoming ridiculously strong. However, it should encourage and promote the use of up-and-coming riders, and allow scope for team development for 2 or 3 years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 8:33:52 GMT
Personally, if managed correctly, I believe a maximum points limit is the fairest way to control team strengths The points limit isn't a bad idea in principle, but it has been misused and has become punitive and encouraging of short-termism. When people (and promoters) are arguably over fractions of a point with respect to rider averages and team strengths, clearly the plot has been lost. The object of the points limit should be firstly to prevent cheque book speedway, and more generally to prevent teams becoming ridiculously strong. However, it should encourage and promote the use of up-and-coming riders, and allow scope for team development for 2 or 3 years. Agree, but this years moves were to block the cheque book speedway clubs Peterborough and Coventry who between them had the best 2 PL riders for 2010. I am sure Ford in his infinite wisdom and CVS had both seen where this was going to end as niether could compete so did the obvious thing and changed the goal posts, the other clubs went along with it because it was in there interests as well. So you end up with the mess we currently have. Points limits everyone can live with and with fair rules let every club build there team the way they want to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 10:31:47 GMT
Ok I'm bored so I'll play devils advocate BCD  . Based on what you posted IF the rules had not changed Coventry and Peterboro would have signed any rider they could have afforded within the points limit with the likely result that those 2 teams would have run away at the top of the league (simplistic I know but possible). How exactly would that have benefited the sport as a whole when no other club could have afforded to buy riders in to compete? I get slightly confused by people complaining the Elite League is not elite because it doesn't have the majority of GP riders. What makes an elite (small E) match for me is close racing and the majority of races that doesn't happen. You have the GP rider way out in front and the rest some way behind. If you have riders of similar ability and equipment i.e. not GP "superstars" but the likes of Watt, Richardson, KIng Shields etc the racing will be closer. |
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Dec 1, 2010 11:06:40 GMT
Based on what you posted IF the rules had not changed Coventry and Peterboro would have signed any rider they could have afforded within the points limit with the likely result that those 2 teams would have run away at the top of the league (simplistic I know but possible). . What....?? Like Poole did this year, do you mean? And like they probably will next year too now...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 14:33:21 GMT
Still in devils advocate mode...please don't take it personally  So what should they do? Nothing.....or attempt too stop the likes of Coventry, Peterboro and Poole (you brought their name into it ) buying up all the good riders and leaving the likes of BV, Eastie etc to make the numbers up. I agree about Poole in 2010, they ran away with the league.... as a league contest it was over before mid summer. Is that good for the sport? Maybe what happened then precipitated the rest of the league to back the proposal. I have no idea, but I honestly beleive the EL could not carry on the way it was. I'm not saying it will be solved by the decisions taken at this AGM but something had to be done and it had to be agreed to by the majority. Don't think me unsympathetic. I lost my home team for a year and it was hell....and not because I got my fix watching Scumboro most weeks ;D. I wouldn't wish it on anyone but there are times that the bigger picture needs to be looked at. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 14:52:24 GMT
Ok I'm bored so I'll play devils advocate BCD . Based on what you posted IF the rules had not changed Coventry and Peterboro would have signed any rider they could have afforded within the points limit with the likely result that those 2 teams would have run away at the top of the league (simplistic I know but possible). How exactly would that have benefited the sport as a whole when no other club could have afforded to buy riders in to compete? I get slightly confused by people complaining the Elite League is not elite because it doesn't have the majority of GP riders. What makes an elite (small E) match for me is close racing and the majority of races that doesn't happen. You have the GP rider way out in front and the rest some way behind. If you have riders of similar ability and equipment i.e. not GP "superstars" but the likes of Watt, Richardson, KIng Shields etc the racing will be closer. In answer to your questions 1. The points limit is one to ensure that teams cannot build to powerful a team although obviously that didnt stop Poole building a team that was in all honesty head and shoulders above everything else. 2. With respect to conversions and assessed averages these should have been sorted years ago with a practical and worked out formula that everyone could work to and fairly implemented so that no one is unfairly affected. 3. Racing as such is always better when the standard of all racers is about the same, it hasnt been like in the EL for as long as I can remember, its generally always been two races in one although there are exceptions. 4. I cannot think of any circumstances where two of the best teams and tracks in the country not running are in the best interests of the sport, I would say exactly the same if this was Poole or Wolverhampton being forced onto the sidelines. 5. The BSPA have proved time and time again that they are unable to govern the sport in this country fairly and without favour and seem unable to grasp the simple basic problem of more going out than comes in, leaving all the EL Promoters out of pocket. |
|
.