Confrence 2007

18 clubs attended the 2007 cycle speedway conference at Tividale sports centre in Birmingham yesterday - and what was expected to be a frosty meeting certainly lived up to its billing.

All year the sport has been overshadowed by the Premier League cheating incident at Easter involving Bury and Coventry and the Commission's handling of the subsequent disciplinary procedure.

The tension that had been bubbling up for months didn't take it long to surface. Within seconds of chairman Bob Prince's opening speech, Bury's representative, Tony Mann, demanded to know why former competitions manager Pete Ward had not taken his "rightful" place on the top table. Following the Commisson's explanation, northern regional officer John Whiting alledged that regional officers had been excluded from the disciplinary process and angrily accused his fellow Commissioners of holding a "kangaroo court".

Tempers flared and voices raised as Bury demanded answers from a clearly stunned top table. Only the timely intervention of South-West regional officer Graham Sutton calmed the tense atmosphere as some sense of decorum returned.

The thorny question of representation on the Commission attracted a lively debate. Several clubs wanted to see free elections to the national committee but the Commission was clearly set against the idea, deflecting much of the argument by saying clubs could raise matters via their regional representatives who were elected.

Several clubs bemoaned the lack of a chairman and urged the national administrators to revisit this. In its annual report the Commission had indicated that British Cycling are considering making an additional place available on the Commission so taking the total number of Commissioners to eleven. The reason for extending the committee was not fully explained, increasing speculation that the Commission may indeed be thinking of appointing a chairman.

The meeting moved on to consider the grandiously named Regional Committee Definition Document. There were one or two minor questions of detail but the membership appeared more than content and even afforded author Tim Metcalfe the rare luxury of a round of applause as the mood lightened.

The debate on the Premier League had more brevity than usual. Competitions manager, Dave Flemming outlined his reasons for setting up an "independent" sub-committee who had no Premier club allegences - an explanation that did not totally convince some of the Premier League clubs present.

The highly successful Youth and Junior League came in for deserved praise. Some delegates thought the under-18 category should be jettison to allow the very long day's competition to be condensed. Others thought the regional grand prix points should not be carried forward to the national rounds. Wednesfield said they would like to use two venues, Ashmore Park and East Park for their qualifying round. The Commission agreed to reconsider these points after consultation with organiser Mel Perkins.

The announcement that principal sponsors Wosskow Brown are to extend their commercial backing in 2008 was greeted with whole-hearted support and a round of spontanious applause.

Other topics such as foreign riders and combination points had their traditional airing,the conclusion being that that major changes are not necessary. As predicted in spokesman-online's conference preview, the sport appeared generally supportive of the Commission and the excellent work it has done on a variety of subjects from Project 2010 to the club championship, from club management initiatives to the outstanding work on referees. This view was endorsed by the membership.

An eclectic mix of topics was discussed briefly including championship start times (racing starts at 3pm not parade), track inspections (including concerns over Ipswich's safety fence),encouraging clubs to support international development (especially in the United States), loss of the much treasured Speedway Star column, future of Spokesman Newsletter (including the suggestion that only one edition be published at the end of the season), rider inducements (including job offers and international travel costs), concerns over the future of Australia versus Great Britain international matches (Australia may not be able to field a competitive side), the suggestion that England versus Poland internationals be broadened to include Great Britain and so on.

As the clock ticked towards the scheduled closing time of 5.15pm and the agenda raced on to "Other Business", chairman Bob Prince, once again pressed by the Bury representative, conceeded that "somethings had not been handled well" and that "we have learned our lessons".

He offered a full apology to the Bury club for the way the Commission had handled the disciplinary procedure and stated that the various penaties imposed on individuals and the two clubs would be considered "spent" on 1 January 2008. Bury duly accepted the Commission's apology and withdrew their threatened "vote of no confidence".

The case for clubs to have a greater say in cycle speedway affairs seems to be hardening ahead of this weekend's national conference.

It would appear that clubs want a full and open debate on a variety of topics and are calling for decisions to made on the day rather than deferring business to the Commission to deliberate on and decide at a later date.

Leicester secretary Tim Jarvis summed up the feeling of many clubs when he told spokesman-online

"I think the main problem to be honest is that people like myself feel our views are being ignored, worse still not being properly discussed. Certainly there is no democratic way of getting them implemented if a select few disagree. This is what's making people with vastly differing views unite against what they see as a dictatorship. In a way it's good to have so much agreement about something!"

Another talking point around the tracks is the fact that clubs have no say in who represents their sport on the national governing body.

Instead of club's nominating and voting in officers, the Commission is appointed "from within" and subsequently sanctioned by the Board of British Cycling.

Ironically many in the sport feel that, generally speaking, the present Commission is doing a very good job. Given an election, they would probably be voted in again en-bloc. It's that clubs have no say in the process which irks many local officials.

It would a huge pity if all the good work the Commission has undertaken in recent years, including the successful Project 2010, is unravelled by intransigence in letting clubs have their say - and then acting on it.

On the eve of the annual cycle speedway conference, the national committee is coming under increasing pressure to relax what some see as an autocratic approach to running the sport.

It appears that a growing band of clubs are becoming increasingly dissatisfied that the Cycle Speedway Commission is making major decisions about the sport's future without seeking the views of the cycle speedway membership. They argue that the sport's development programme, Project 2010, prevents clubs from making formal proposals at the annual conference and has removed their voting rights, including electing the national committee.

So serious is the situation that it is rumoured some clubs are even planning a breakaway from British Cycling.

For their part British Cycling have gone to extraordinary lengths to outline their governance policy. In a special frontispiece to the annual report, the Commission outlines the history behind cycle speedway's integration with British Cycling and explains how cycle sport in managed in this country.

The report explains that there is a Commission for every cycle sport as well as cross-disciplinary Commissions such as the one for Commissaries and Referees.

The terms of reference for the discipline-specific Commissions are to manage, develop and expand competition programmes on behalf of the Board, while the Board retains overall executive power.

"In practice, some Commissions, particularly those covering separate governing bodies, have been given some flexibility to move towards this model. This has been the case with cycle speedway and it has served to smooth over the transitional processes and allow some of the unique features of the sport, not replicated in other disciplines, to be sensitively addressed.

"Notwithstanding this more flexible approach, delegates are reminded that the Annual Conference is not a forum of governance in its own right but an opportunity for members and clubs to discuss issues, put forward proposals for the Commission to consider and report back to the Board."

The aide-memoire goes on the explain that some of the "proposals" submitted ahead of the conference were outside the jurisdiction of either the Conference or the Commission (ie ultra vires) or concerned operational matters which it is the Commission's role to take a view on and make recommendations to the Board.

If deemed appropriate, the Commission may seek a vote from the floor to affirm the direction of the Conference. However in a warning final sentence, the report concludes that

"Delegates should be aware that rejection of the British Cycling structure would signal an end to its involvement in, and support of cycle speedway."

That is the view of leading officials who point out that voting rights would still be an issue, irrespective of Project 2010.

"Had there been no development programme, the issue of proposals and voting would still be there" explained a spokesman.

In many quarters, Project 2010 has been acclaimed as an outstanding success. The sport's blue-print for the future has delivered a structured race calendar dovetailing national and regional fixtures with minimum over-lap, introduced the club championship across seven disciplines, heightened referee training and set good practice through the Go-Ride and Clubmark accreditation schemes.

The new-style national cycle speedway conference takes place at Tividale Sports Centre on Sunday 25 November starting at 12.30pm.

The main business is expected to centre of Project 2010, foreign riders, regional structures and combination racing.

Unlike previous annual meetings, no formal proposals will be considered. Instead, any matters that have been raised by clubs in advance of the meeting maybe given an airing unless they have been ruled as ultra-vires or operational. The new approach is bound to antagonise those clubs who feel their views are being ignored by the Commission.