Cost Cutting

The past season has seen an increase in the tendency of promoters to try various ways of reducing their costs. One method adopted by some promoters, no names no law suits but you know who I mean, is either not pay the riders or delay payment until you have run out of excuses or in promoter speak “the riders have been very understanding”.

I wondered what the rulebook had to say on the matter and I found that in the words of Paul Daniels “not a lot”. The only rule, which mentions payment, is 5.6, which states, “ staging promotion is responsible for the payment of all SCB officials, insurance premiums, meeting fees and prize (points) money.

No mention of any time scale of when riders are paid, on the night, within the week, month, year or decade? No mention of what happens if a promoter fails to pay the riders or delays payment for an unreasonable amount of time.

So what possible additions to the rules would be fair to both parties and end the damage caused to the sport as a whole by stories of promoters who quit owing riders, who have risked their lives week in week out, thousands of pounds or the rumours that spread that a rider hasn’t left a club due to loss of form, illness or family/business commitments but due to the fact that he hasn’t be paid in weeks. While I know that some of my suggested additions may not be popular in the corridors of power, after all a former chairman of the BSPA described me a “unacceptable as he is a speedway fan” as we shall see they are not new and they may put the relationship between riders and promoters on a more equal footing.

A) Introduce or to be exact reintroduce a timescale of when a rider should be paid for home and away meetings into the rules. In the past, 1951 to 1994, the rules said that riders such be paid within 7 days for home meetings and 14 days for away meetings (1951 to 1964 regulation 243, 1965 to 1994 regulation 127). People in the know tell me that the regulations still contain such a rule but having read both the published and internet versions of the regulations from front to back I have failed to find the rule and I believe that rather than being in the regulations the rule is now in the promoters guide a publication that only members of the BSPA have access to. If I correct isn’t it about time the rule was put back into the regulations?

B) Introduce or to be exact reintroduce a method of letting the SCB know that there is a problem with non/late payment of riders rather than relying on the speedway grapevine. Before each meeting make the home team captain complete a form stating that all payments to all team riders are up to date and hand the form to the referee for forwarding to the SCB along with the other official meeting forms. Such a rule existed from 1963 to 1994 when it was known as the payment certificate (1994 regulation 58) Once again I am informed this rule still exists but like the rule regarding rider payment details I can’t find it in the regulations so once again assume that it has been moved into the promoters guide. Surely it should be in the regulations? Although this will not solve the problem of the team captain who for what ever reasons completes the form and says that there are no problems who he knows that there are or fails to ask his team mates if they are up to date with payments.

C) If there is a problem with non/late payment of riders shouldn’t the SCB/BSPA take action as soon as they are aware of the situation. Therefore if it is found that a promoter is breaking the rules on when riders are paid that they

i) Fine the promoter, a figure of £3,000 to £4,000, pounds seems reasonable

ii) Take on the role as agent regarding payment for the visiting riders, rather than their own promoter.

iii) Allow a rider to terminate his contact with the promoter and become a free agent.

No doubt promoters will jumping up and down and using “strong” language at these suggestions but once again I would they dig out old copies of the speedway regulations they will find that.

i) In 1963 the regulations (regulation 243) allowed a promoter to be fined £50 if they broke the rules regarding when riders were paid. In 1963 assuming that the cheapest adult admission to speedway was 2s 6d the fine was equal to the admission money of 400 adults based on current admission prices a fine of £3,000 to £4,000 does not appear extreme. Promoters may argue that if the Retail Prices Index for the period 1963 to 2004 was used instead that the £50 fine would have only increased to £700 but on the other hand the 2s 6d admission would have only raised to £1.70.

ii) The rules from 1951 to 1964 (regulation 243) allowed the SCB to become the agent for away meeting payments when they were aware that there were any delay or irregularity in the payment of riders

iii) In 1951 and 1952 the regulations (regulation 243) allowed a rider to terminate his agreement with his promoter when the rules about payment were broken as long as this was done in writing and the SCB had been informed and had consented. Of course now if a rider refuses to ride because he hasn’t been paid he is judged to be withholding his services and the team can use a guest. Is being a speedway rider the only job where you have less rights in 2007 than in the early fifties.

MCM