Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2011 11:16:15 GMT
This might be a silly question but what role do the SCB have to play in this? I'm not up with the correct management structure but could they not have stepped in and smoothed this over? From Page 2 of the Speedway Regulations & Rule Book 2010 I quote The Speedway Control Bureau is the sole national body appointed to encourage and control the sport of motorcycle speedway racing through England, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Island and the Isle of Man. If I add that Alex Harkess and Chris Van Straaten are 2 of the 5 board members does that give you a clue. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 8:51:12 GMT
This might be a silly question but what role do the SCB have to play in this? I'm not up with the correct management structure but could they not have stepped in and smoothed this over? From Page 2 of the Speedway Regulations & Rule Book 2010 I quote The Speedway Control Bureau is the sole national body appointed to encourage and control the sport of motorcycle speedway racing through England, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Island and the Isle of Man. If I add that Alex Harkess and Chris Van Straaten are 2 of the 5 board members does that give you a clue. Thank You, that does say a lot about the whole set up |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2011 15:35:39 GMT
And still no news  .......surely enough is enough.....IN or OUT, it's simple  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2011 9:04:45 GMT
Sword of damocles time I suspect as the fixtures are due out in the next couple of days
Pip
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 13:13:47 GMT
So, finally, a decision www.speedwaygb.co/home.php Whilst I am absolutely gutted for the fans and personally sorry not to be visiting two of my favourite tracks this season, quite frankly, from the way this statement is worded, I'm glad that these two promotions are no longer part of the BSPA. They clearly have absolutely no consideration for their fans, or the sport as a whole. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how we got here, it sounds very much as though they were offered a deal which could have resulted in them getting everything they wanted via the courts, yet still participated in the league, and they have chosen to reject that. If I was a fan of either of these clubs, I would find that unforgiveable. It's a very very sad day for British Speedway and I am angry and upset in equal measure  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 13:34:27 GMT
No word from Cov or PBoro thus far, will be interesting to see how they tell the story - though with the impending legal action it is unlikely to be a detailed press release if any at all.
If the story is as reported on the BSPA site then I would agree it is disappointing that things could not have been sorted out. You get the feeling that this is going to rumble on for quite some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Feb 17, 2011 14:22:44 GMT
So, finally, a decision www.speedwaygb.co/home.php Whilst I am absolutely gutted for the fans and personally sorry not to be visiting two of my favourite tracks this season, quite frankly, from the way this statement is worded, I'm glad that these two promotions are no longer part of the BSPA. They clearly have absolutely no consideration for their fans, or the sport as a whole. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how we got here, it sounds very much as though they were offered a deal which could have resulted in them getting everything they wanted via the courts, yet still participated in the league, and they have chosen to reject that. If I was a fan of either of these clubs, I would find that unforgiveable. It's a very very sad day for British Speedway and I am angry and upset in equal measure I think you may find that the BSPA have deliberately worded their statement to make them look better and for us to be the villains here. I hope both our bosses release their own statements ASAP, and I hope legalities do not prevent them from being blunt, honest, and open, and telling us all the truth of what really happened.... GUTTED |
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Feb 17, 2011 14:25:08 GMT
From PHILLIPRISING on the BSF.....
WHAT follows is a piece we have included in Speedway Star this week. It is an attempt to piece together what we know rather than what we don't know. We have tried to be totally impartial ...
WHEN and why did this dispute kick off?
AT the BSPA AGM last November when Coventry maintain they were “ambushed” by a number of proposed rule changes, some of which were included in a document produced by Wolverhampton team manager Pete Adams.
Coventry, who despite being Elite League champions ended the campaign with a low overall average of just over 42 as a result of their poor start to the season, believe others anticipated the team that they were planning to put together for this year and sabotaged it.
Coventry could have swapped Ben Barker with Kenni Larsen and began 2011 with a team potentially even stronger than the one that finished as league winners.
Coventry were, in fact, the only team at that time with two riders with an average in excess of 8.01 (Bjarne Pedersen at Poole was on exactly 8.00).
HOW did this affect Coventry?
WITH the introduction of the stipulation that each EL team could have only one rider with an average in excess of 8.01, that the conversion rate for riders moving from the Premier to the Elite League (Coventry had lined up Kenni Larsen from Newcastle) be raised from 50% to 70% and an average of 6.18 for Przeslaw Pawlicki, who had ended the previous campaign at reserve, based on the 11 matches he rode in, having controversially missed one and therefore avoided the normal 12 match requirement.
Coventry say that they broke no rules when Pawlicki missed a meeting at Swindon which kept him below the 12 point mark and that his actual green sheet average is 4.00.
Others will argue that if not broken the rule was extremely bent.
SO, how many other tracks agreed?
WE have no voting records but it would appear only Peterborough, who had purchased Lunus Sundstrom from Rye House for £22,000 and were therefore also affected by the raised conversion rate, supported Coventry. But Rick Frost and Julie Mahoney, their promoters, had not completed their three years initiation period and did not have a vote anyway.
Other tracks, and especially those in the Elite League, were in favour of the various proposals that were subsequently voted through and refused to buckle in the face of threats of legal action by Coventry and Peterborough.
The BSPA claim that a democratic process passed the rule changes and the Coventry and Peterborough should have accepted the will of the majority.
WHAT happened next?
COVENTRY and Peterborough walked out of the AGM and as a result did not immediately declare, as requested to do so by the BSPA, their intent to run in 2011.
BUT, didn’t Rick Frost say Peterborough wouldn’t run because they had lost £140,000 in 2010?
HIS statement was somewhat ambiguous. Some read it to mean that he wanted an improved Peterborough team (hence his purchase of Sundstrom) and an enhanced Elite League product to at least help stem his losses rather than he was ready to quit and walk away.
SO, Coventry and Peterborough were out?
WELL, this is where the waters get muddy. The BSPA constitution demands that any track wishing to withdraw must give 30 days written notice of their intent to do so. Neither Coventry nor Peterborough has done this. And both have continued to affirm their intent to run in 2011 if and when a satisfactory conclusion is reached.
WHAT happened next?
WITH Birmingham swapping league places with Ipswich, the BSPA persuaded King’s Lynn to move up into the Elite League to ensure it had the requisite number of tracks demanded by Sky TV. Not surprisingly, King’s Lynn moved quickly to sign Peterborough riders including Kenneth Bjerre.
AND then?
THE BSPA and the Coventry/Peterborough camps appointed legal teams to argue their respective case and for the past few weeks efforts to find a deal agreeable to both sides has continued, bouncing back and forth between each side.
WITH no success?
SADLY, no. At various times the stumbling block has either been Pawlick’s starting average for 2011, how the Sky money for this year is distributed or the conversion rate. The one 8.01 plus rider per team has resolved itself but could still be an issue in the future. And, more recently, the establishment of an independent appeals panel to adjudicate on perceived contentious BSPA decisions and a 12-month moratorium on proposed rule changes has become the crux of the argument.
From the start of negotiations Peterborough were determined to have an independent adjudicator/panel to give speedway what Frost described as a “level playing field for all clubs.”
Peterborough owners Frost and Mahoney believe past Management Committee decisions have been taken for the benefit of certain clubs and to the detriment of others.
They also claim that the proposal to increase the conversion rate from PL to EL from 50% to 70% (later lowered to 60% after C&P left the AGM) was not backed up by sufficient research and called for a panel to investigate assessed averages (encompassing both the conversion factor and the assessed average that applies to new foreign riders which wasn’t altered.
They also point out that Dennis Andersson has apparently been allowed to sign for Poole on a 4.00 assessed average even though his average in the Swedish ElitSerien is over six points a meeting and he should under the current regulations have come into the EL on 5.00.
WHO makes the decision for the BSPA?
THE Management Committee is mandated to respond to the various proposals and to make ones of their own but whether any final deal would have to be formally ratified by all the full members of the association is unclear.
WHERE are we now?
WE understand that there was at one stage broad agreement on Pawlick’s starting average (5.00), the Sky money and the dropping of the legal cases being brought by both sides. Coventry and Peterborough also agreed to abide by all other decisions taken at the AGM last November once afforded an unequivocal commitment to the appeals panel and a 12 months gap between rule changes being proposed and introduced without a unanimous vote to do so.
SO, why hasn’t it been resolved?
BECAUSE Coventry and Peterborough are insisting on a legally binding commitment for the introduction of an independent body and the 12-months moratorium. And, to date, the BSPA hasn’t agreed.
WHAT sort of panel?
IT is generally recognised that a full-time Chief Executive to administer the BSPA isn’t a viable proposition at this juncture, not least because of the financial implications.
One idea being suggested is pool of independent (not BSPA promoters, possibly current or former referees) adjudicators, three of whom could be called upon at any one time to form a panel to arbitrate on BSPA decisions that are contested by one or more members of the association.
Members of the panel could be paid a modest daily fee and travel expenses and their verdict would be binding. The costs would be funded by fees charged against any clubs making appeals that would also, hopefully, deter frivolous ones.
ARE the current BSPA promoters in favour?
WE don’t know for sure, some probably are, some not. Many do not feel there is need for such a panel and that the Management Committee, working at the behest of its members who bankroll speedway in the UK, should have the final say.
WHERE do we go from here?
THE lawyers are still making proposals and counter-proposals while the legal costs are spiralling and the 2011 season looms ever closer with no fixtures and no idea whether the Elite League will consist of eight tracks or 10.
Of course, subsequent events have taken place since Tuesday when we went to press.
|
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Feb 17, 2011 17:17:33 GMT
From Bees website
OFFICIAL CLUB STATEMENT
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY 2011
The managements of both Coventry Bees and Peterborough Panthers regret to announce that neither club will be participating in the 2011 Elite League having learned from the BSPA website that the BSPA has been unable to resolve the ongoing dispute with both clubs on an amicable basis.
It is typical of the manner in which the BSPA have conducted negotiations that neither club have been informed of these latest developments directly by the BSPA as normal standards of courtesy requires. The BSPA position during talks has been characterised by delay, duplicity and narrow self interest.
Both clubs believe that at no time during the last eleven weeks have the BSPA made a serious attempt to resolve matters, in fact just the opposite. A small number of protagonists have sought to influence negotiations to the advantage of their own clubs and detriment of other association members.
The reference by the BSPA to an offer on the 31st January conveniently ignores the terms of that offer which were clearly designed to further disadvantage the two clubs both financially and competitively. In fact a further agreement was reached on Thursday 10th February and both clubs were prepared to announce an end to the dispute on their websites on Friday 18th February. In typical fashion the BSPA negotiators prevaricated on the details the following day and the announcement had to be cancelled.
It is clear that in rejecting an independent appeals body and a 12 month rule changing moratorium the BSPA and certain members are only interested in maintaining and furthering their own narrow interests to the exclusion of all else including the desire of the vast majority of the speedway public in having a level playing field for all clubs not just the favoured few. It is a sad fact that the BSPA appears to have little regard for the good of British speedway, its fairness and more importantly the people who keep the sport going, its fans.
It is a fact that throughout this dispute neither the the BSPA nor its Chairman has acted in the manner reasonably expected of them. From the very first day both the Chairman and the BSPA took the side of those clubs that attempted to "ambush" Coventry and Peterborough at the 2010 AGM and the behaviour of Alex Harkess as Chairman has been lamentable.
Coventry owner Avtar Sandhu has made his position clear and has stated that "I will return to speedway any time on any day for the sake of speedway and our fans but not as long as Alex Harkess is Chairman and Matt Ford is Vice Chairman of the BSPA. Their behaviour has been almost criminal in their attempts to keep both clubs out of the sport. Whilst we have been fighting to get into the sport they have been fighting to keep us out. For the good of speedway we have given way on the 60% PL to EL conversion rate, one over 8 point rider, Pawlicki on 5 instead of his greensheet 4 average and even a reduction in the Sky money due to us. However we will never give way on the principle of fairness and the same standards for all clubs."
The desire by the BSPA and certain members to prevent Coventry and Peterborough from participating in 2011 is now apparent even down to the allocation of Sky money to the two clubs which was set at less than one third of what all other clubs would receive, even though they expected both clubs to participate fully in live TV coverage as often as required.
In the circumstances and having learned from the BSPA website that negotiations are now ended both clubs will continue with legal action.
|
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Feb 17, 2011 17:19:58 GMT
A STATEMENT: PETERBOROUGH SPEEDWAY
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY 2011
PETERBOROUGH and Coventry owners have expressed their regret that neither club will be racing in the Elite League this year.
The British Speedway Promoters' Association brought reconciliation talks to an end with an announcement on their official website that the 2011 Elite League would go ahead without two of the country's most famous clubs.
The Panthers, who were third in the Elite League last season before going out to Coventry in the play-off semi final, have been running every year since 1970.
Between them the clubs have won more than 40 major honours, including 15 major trophies since the turn of the century.
It means that champions Coventry won't be able to defend their title and for the first time since the club was re-formed after the Second World War in 1948 there will be no speedway at the Brandon Stadium.
In a joint statement the two clubs said: “It is an incredibly sad day for our fans – and for us.
“We have done absolutely everything we could to find a satisfactory solution to the rift but on almost every occasion the BSPA have reneged on proposals proposed or supported by their legal advisors.
“As long ago as December 20th a formula that would have allowed both clubs to continue in the Elite League was agreed at a meeting at our legal representatives offices in Birmingham.
“At that meeting were BSPA representatives Alex Harkess (chairman) and Angela Price as well as their legal advisors.
“Since that date the BSPA have prevaricated, failed to meet deadlines and changed the terms of a possible agreement.
“It is our view that there were certain members of the BSPA who simply did not want either Coventry or Peterborough in the Elite League and did everything in their power to ensure an outcome which is to the detriment of the sport as a whole.
“The biggest stumbling block all along has been the refusal of the BSPA to agree to an independent person or panel who would adjudicate when individual tracks disagreed with decisions based on democratically voted rules and a 12-month moratorium on introducing new rules and regulations that had not been voted in unanimously.
“There is, to our knowledge, no other professional sport that passes new rules in the closed season that come into force the following season.
“All other sports give at least a season's notice of a new rule which can affect and, on some occasions, be seriously detrimental to a club on both a sporting and a financial basis.
“That is what happened this winter but even so both clubs were willing to accept the change of regulations provided there was a firm guarantee of the independent arbiters (who should have no direct involvement in a club) in cases of dispute as to the interpretation of those rules.
“As recently as last Thursday 10th February, our solicitors had an agreement. This was agreed and confirmed by the lawyers acting for the BSPA.
“We planned to announce that we were in the Elite League and had actually formulated teams that would represent us in 2011 but the BSPA came back with a counter proposal.
“It is clear that in rejecting an independent appeals body and a 12 month rule changing moratorium the BSPA and certain members are only interested in maintaining and furthering their own narrow interests to the exclusion of all else including the desire of the vast majority of the speedway public in having a level playing field for all clubs not just the favoured few.
“It is a sad fact that the BSPA appears to have little regard for the good of British speedway, its fairness and more importantly the people who keep the sport going, its fans.
“It is a fact that throughout this dispute neither the BSPA nor its Chairman has acted in the manner reasonably expected of them. From the very first day both the Chairman and the BSPA took the side of those clubs that attempted to "ambush" Coventry and Peterborough at the AGM.
“The desire by the BSPA and certain members to prevent Coventry and Peterborough from participating in 2011 is now apparent. Financially their offers ranged from no Sky money at all to approximately one third of the amount that would be paid to the existing EL clubs even though they expected both clubs to participate fully in live TV coverage as often as required.
“Both clubs believe that at no time during the last 11 weeks have the BSPA made a serious attempt to resolve matters, in fact just the opposite. A small number of protagonists have sought to influence negotiations to the advantage of their own clubs and detriment of other association members.
“The reference by the BSPA to an offer on the 31st January conveniently ignores the terms of that offer which were clearly designed to further disadvantage the two clubs both financially and competitively.
“It is typical of the manner in which the BSPA have conducted negotiations that neither club have been informed of these latest developments directly by the BSPA as normal standards of courtesy requires. The BSPA position was disingenuous and during talks has been characterised by delay and narrow self-interest.
“In the circumstances and having learned from the BSPA website that negotiations are now ended both clubs will continue with legal action.”
RICK FROST and JULIE MAHONEY
|
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Feb 17, 2011 17:40:59 GMT
So, finally, a decision www.speedwaygb.co/home.php Whilst I am absolutely gutted for the fans and personally sorry not to be visiting two of my favourite tracks this season, quite frankly, from the way this statement is worded, I'm glad that these two promotions are no longer part of the BSPA. They clearly have absolutely no consideration for their fans, or the sport as a whole. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how we got here, it sounds very much as though they were offered a deal which could have resulted in them getting everything they wanted via the courts, yet still participated in the league, and they have chosen to reject that. If I was a fan of either of these clubs, I would find that unforgiveable. It's a very very sad day for British Speedway and I am angry and upset in equal measure I think you may find that the BSPA have deliberately worded their statement to make them look better and for us to be the villains here. I hope both our bosses release their own statements ASAP, and I hope legalities do not prevent them from being blunt, honest, and open, and telling us all the truth of what really happened.... GUTTED My wish was their command. 2 great statements.....I prefer the frankness of Sandu's tbh....and it confirms just how pathetic and idiotic and totally stark-raving mad the BSPA are.......grrrrrrrrrrr...... Anger right now......sadness will come later I guess...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 17:42:28 GMT
So, finally, a decision www.speedwaygb.co/home.php Whilst I am absolutely gutted for the fans and personally sorry not to be visiting two of my favourite tracks this season, quite frankly, from the way this statement is worded, I'm glad that these two promotions are no longer part of the BSPA. They clearly have absolutely no consideration for their fans, or the sport as a whole. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how we got here, it sounds very much as though they were offered a deal which could have resulted in them getting everything they wanted via the courts, yet still participated in the league, and they have chosen to reject that. If I was a fan of either of these clubs, I would find that unforgiveable. It's a very very sad day for British Speedway and I am angry and upset in equal measure I think you may find that the BSPA have deliberately worded their statement to make them look better and for us to be the villains here. I hope both our bosses release their own statements ASAP, and I hope legalities do not prevent them from being blunt, honest, and open, and telling us all the truth of what really happened.... GUTTED Sadly Zonks, having read the statements from the two clubs now, I doubt anyone outside of Rugby will ever know what has truly gone on here. Both sides will put their own spin on it, and nothing in the clubs' statements surprises me at all, and I daresay there are elements of truth to both statements. What I find unforgiveable, still, is the fact that they could have rejoined the EL and then carried on the argument. As I said before, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, or the 'he said' 'she said', surely for the sake of the fans and the sport, they should have accepted the offer to rejoin and then carried on the fight. I happen to think that an independent arbitration panel is exactly what we need, so I agree with at least one of the points they are arguing over, but why not just fight about that after rejoining? I would be absolutely beside myself if my club had taken that decision, and I am absolutely gutted for you and all the other fans who will have no speedway this season because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Feb 17, 2011 17:46:27 GMT
I think you may find that the BSPA have deliberately worded their statement to make them look better and for us to be the villains here. I hope both our bosses release their own statements ASAP, and I hope legalities do not prevent them from being blunt, honest, and open, and telling us all the truth of what really happened.... GUTTED What I find unforgiveable, still, is the fact that they could have rejoined the EL and then carried on the argument. Which they would have done ..... they were about to, as the statement says, when the BSPA changed their minds at the 11th hour. Why wouldn't the BSPA agree to the 12 month moratorium? Because they thought they could change the rules once the EL had started ??!!! Grrrr....... Sandhu and Frost would have been extremely stupid to have agreed to that, and stupid is what they are not IMO....... grrrrrrr......grrrrrrrrrr....ggrrrrrrrr |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 17:47:50 GMT
I prefer the frankness of Sandu's tbh....and it confirms just how pathetic and idiotic and totally stark-raving mad the BSPA are.......grrrrrrrrrrr...... A statement which may well have been made against legal advice and may find him defending an entirely separate defamation claim from Messrs Ford and Harkess.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2011 17:59:42 GMT
Which they would have done ..... they were about to, as the statement says, when the BSPA changed their minds at the 11th hour. I'm not reading it that way. The BSPA statement says this: "The BSPA made an offer to both Coventry and Peterborough on 31 January 2011 which would have seen them both resume their membership of the Elite League with immediate effect. The offer would also have permitted both Coventry and Peterborough to continue with their proposed legal action, including claims for compensation if they suffer any losses. That offer was rejected." And Sandhu's statement says this "The reference by the BSPA to an offer on the 31st January conveniently ignores the terms of that offer which were clearly designed to further disadvantage the two clubs both financially and competitively. In fact a further agreement was reached on Thursday 10th February and both clubs were prepared to announce an end to the dispute on their websites on Friday 18th February. In typical fashion the BSPA negotiators prevaricated on the details the following day and the announcement had to be cancelled." To me, what that says is that the clubs rejected the offer of 31 January because it financially disadvantaged them, so they continued arguing, and felt they'd reached a subsequent agreement on 10th Feb, when clearly they hadn't because it was never announced. I don't see anywhere there that the BSPA changed their minds on the offer of 31 January. What I see is that they made them an offer to come back into the league and carry on the fight which the clubs rejected on financial grounds, and further discussions followed. If I've missed something else, then I apologise, I'm not attempting to put any spin on it, I'm just putting it across as I see it. |
|
.......surely enough is enough.....IN or OUT, it's simple 
