In the
last issue of The Voice Christopher Seaward brought up the vexed subject of
transfers within British Speedway especially after
So what
does that famous work of fiction, The Speedway Regulations, have to say on the
subject?
The
basic rules are :
7.3.1
The BSPA to keep a register of all riders contracted to a team/promotion.
7.4.3
A rider wanting
a transfer must put their request in writing to both the BSPA and their
promoter and it remains valid until they withdraw it in writing.
7.4.3.1
Once the request has been submitted the rider’s promoter has a minimum of a
month or the 1st March if the request is out of season to negotiate.
7.4.3.2
If after a month/1st March no arrangement can be reached the rider can apply to
SCB for arbitration.
7.4.3.3
The Court of Arbitration to decide if it is the best interests of the sport
that the rider be transferred and will consider the wishes of the rider and the
fee.
7.4.4
If the rider/promotion are unhappy by the decision of
the BSPA to allow or refuse a transfer or the transfer fee then they can apply
to the SCB for settlement by an SCB Court of Arbitration once a non-refundable
fee of £250 has been paid.
7.4.7
It is not permissible to transfer a team of riders from one promotion to
another or from one track to another without the prior consent of the SCB and
the BSPA, which will only be given in exceptional circumstances.
I am
sure that the majority of fans would agree that 7.3.1, 7.4.3, 7.4.3.1,and 7.4.3.2 all appear sensible but the 7.4.3.3 and 7.4.4
are not as simple.
From the
wording of 7.4.4 it appears that the Court of Arbitration mentioned in 7.4.3.3
is in fact the BSPA; one assumes the Management Committee. Can you think of
another professional sport where the people in charge of the sport decide if a
transfer is allowable and set the fee where there is a dispute. The question of
a conflict of interests must spring to mind. Also it would appear that a rider
could go to the SCB for arbitration under 7.4.3.2 and the BSPA could under
7.4.4 judge the transfer as being not in the interest of the sport and refuse
to allow it and then the rider could pay the SCB £250 for them to judge if the
BSPA were correct in stopping the transfer.
7.4.7
One assumes that this rule was introduced following actions of the Berwick
promotion in the mid 1970’s. At the time they also ran the Sunderland track and
the
The
dictionary definition of a contract is “ an agreement between employee to
retain or supply certain services over a stipulated period of time for mutually
agreed remuneration” so if the rules in the regulations are kept to then a
speedway transfer should be very simple. A rider signs a contract with a
promoter for a set period of time and when this period ends either negotiates a
new contract with their existing promoter or with a new team. If a rider wants
to move teams before the contract period ends they put in a transfer request
and the if the buying promoter can’t agree a transfer
fee with the selling promoter the case goes to arbitration. So how did the
The
important question that needs an answer is does the standard speedway contract
approved by the BSPA contain a clause that stipulates how long each contract
between rider and promoter will last for and if not have the BSPA received
legal advise that a contract without such a clause is legal and enforceable
under both British and European employment law.
I raise
this point because in his book British Speedway Who’s Who Peter Oakes lists the
parent club for riders, he defines a parent club at one that has a rider’s
registration, and this states that
Kaj Laukkanen
belongs to Workington, a team he has never ridden for, no doubt due to the fact
that he signed for Long Eaton in 1996 and the track license was transferred to
Workington in 1999
Mark Loram belongs to
Alan Mogridge belongs to
How do
riders remain “assets” of clubs who they last rode for years ago or indeed
never ridden for?
Do
riders sign for teams for a long contract period knowing that due to the points
limits which govern how teams are formed each year that it is more than likely
that they will not ride for their “parent” club for a number of years if ever
and of course the “parent” club have a source of income for years to come for
doing little or any work by charging a loan fee to other clubs who wish to use
their “asset” and if the track licence is sold that they will be treated as an
“asset” along with the office furniture or the air fence.
Do
riders agree to sign for the same promoter year after year realising that they
may not be able to ride for their “parent” club or indeed any club due to the
point’s limit or lack of team places hoping that they will be awarded a
testimonial after 10 years continuous service with the promotion although the
testimonial meeting may be held at a track who they have ridden for of all of
two years.
Or are
there other rules and regulations governing speedway transfers, which for some
reason known only to the BSPA/SCB, do not appear in the Speedway Regulations
maybe in the Promoters Handbook or the famous unwritten rulebook. I believe
that this may well be the case because prior to 2003 the regulations contained
two sections dealing with transfers, section 7 (legal financial and insurance)
and section 20 (rider contracts, transfers and loans). Section 7 contained the
same rules as the current regulations but section 20 had rules which seemed to
say that once a signed a contract with a promoter they remained an asset of the
promoter/company until they were transferred, officially retired and stayed
retired or died. One possible reason why section 20 may not be any longer in
the public domain is the fact that the Welsh junior Darren Hatton had a letter
published in the Speedway Star dated11th January 2003, explaining how he had
signed speedway contracts, the last one in 2001,which
stated that it ended at the end of the speedway season yet but his promoter
Newport’s Tim Stone and the BSPA said he remained an asset of Newport and as
such he had illegally ridden for Carmarthen in 2002. Darren had written his
letter against the advise of very serious members of
the BSPA but it was only after it appeared that the powers that be agreed that
he was in fact a free agent and was not an asset of
Being
speedway Darren was not the first rider to find out that he appeared to have
signed a contract for life, in the Speedway Echo of 9th July 1949 Peter Orpwood said he had wanted to sign for Belle Vue but was stopped because it was claimed he was a
Tamworth asset although he had not resigned his contract and in the Speedway
Star dated 17th March 1981 the then secretary of the Speedway Riders
Association, Colin Gear, said that he was considering contacting the Government
Arbitration Service “to uphold the rights of individuals to work openly and
freely without being battered about like sheep”
Clearly
there is something very wrong with the present rules governing speedway
transfers, as they appear to go against current British and European employment
laws, which apply, to “normal” jobs never mind those in other “professional”
sports following the George Eastham case in 1963 and the Jean Marc Bosman case in 1995.
One
would hope that common sense will prevail and that the BSPA/SCB would see that
the writing is on the wall for the current rules and rather than waiting for a
brave and very disgruntled rider to challenge the status quo in the courts they
introduce contracts more in line with the 21st century rather than the Southern
States of America pre 1865.
Contracts
that
had a fixed term
once the fixed term ends the rider
become a free agent
all tracks in British speedway,
including “stand alone” tracks in the Conference League, were allowed to offer
to their riders. At present teams such as Buxton, who survive on very small
crowds, are not allowed to own riders and therefore do not gain financially
when riders they have trained such as James Wright, Lee Smethills,
Aidan Collins, Adam Allott, Lee Derbyshire etc
progress to a higher league.
Also
the powers that be may wish to consider what would follow if a rider went to
court and won. If speedway contracts were judged to be illegal could all
transfer and loan fees also be judged illegal after all it must be against the
law to sell or hire out something you do not own the words obtaining money by
deception spring to mind and could some tracks who rarely sell their surplus
riders but loan out them out afford to repay the loan fee they have received?
Mr S Bear