Jump to content
British Speedway Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/01/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Sounds remarkably similar to BSI's proud boasts about 20 years ago.
  2. 3 points
    What's the difference between Iron Man and Iron Woman? One is a Super Hero , the other is an instruction........
  3. 2 points
    Yes it's a big risk, I understand they've repainted the TV Licence detector vans to catch people not obeying quarantine
  4. 2 points
    What I saw of the 'debate' between the two contenders for the presidency the word pathetic doesn't even begin to describe it. Political debate hit a new low...if that's possible!
  5. 2 points
    Very impressed with the effort put in by everyone, the youngsters were right in the thick of the action.Praise for Chris Louis, really impressive with his race comments and thoughts on conditions and explaining himself. Very refreshing from the usual screaming we’re used too.Eurosport need to get him on board.!!
  6. 1 point
    What an innovative idea! I'll throw a fiver at it
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    Got to give Rory the moan big praise no moaning just got on with it, and was best on the night, though I'm unsure if he should have been riding as is an Aussie, but on a British licence. I have seen Rory just riding round on tracks a lot dryer than belle Vue was on Monday
  9. 1 point
    Agree with comments, and full credit to Belle Vue for getting on, but the thing consistent about rider attitude regarding whether to ride or not is the context of the meeting.IMO. If it were a league meeting they would have wanted it off,knowing that it will be rerun so they will not lose out financially ,but if it is an Open Meeting they will ride round (not race) just to earn some money on the night just in case it’s not re-run and they lose out. Ps. They all gave it 100% at Belle Vue. I
  10. 1 point
    It really doesn't matter; the thong remainth the thame...
  11. 1 point
    For some time now BSF members have been saying British speedway is in the doldrums, dying on its feet, and what’s needed is some different thinking, something creative. The thinking a family of four staying at home, spend £12 instead of £50, thus the track loses £38 plus drinks, food etc, is stifling the creative thinking. When this pandemic is managed and we can have a bit of normality, many workers will have lost their jobs (how many millions we don’t know), their won’t be many families who can afford £50 plus, and I just wonder what percentage of fans currently are mum, dad plus 2 kids anyway. Creative thinking, here is a good example I just seen on a shopping channel on TV. ...... they selling a pair of ladies thigh length boots (I don’t normally watch ladies fashion, honest, but I just woke up from mid afternoon nap) and this was the offer. You order your size and they send two pairs, one the size you order, other pair half size bigger, whichever fits you keep and send the other pair back post free. Immediately I said to the wife “what a brilliant idea”, she looks at me with a blank look on her face. Creative thinking....... they almost certain of a sale by sending two pairs, different sizes. If they sent the size ordered, say ladies size 5, and it was a bit tight, it would be sent back and unlikely a size bigger ordered (lots of purchases are impulse buys). Result.... no sale. So, two pairs sent, different sizes, one pair is likely to be fit and kept by customer..... kerching - money in the till that might not have been there. Brilliant idea. The model doesn’t fit speedway sales, but it’s the creative thinking needed to INCREASE sales that is needed.
  12. 1 point
    Here's a novel idea, more info and details etc on the Berwick Website. I'll be watching it and donating, wonder how many others will? the event is now scheduled for Wednesday the 21st of October at 7pm. * Pay what you like pay per view: Watch the British Under 21 Final from the comfort of your living room on your SmartTV or your household devices. Before, during or after the event head on over to www.berwickspeedway.com and pay what you feel the event is worth
  13. 1 point
    Trouble is, I don't see any price point that works for streaming. I'd say £12 is way too cheap to make streaming viable. If we go to Wolverhampton, it's £18 each and £7 each for the kids, so a total of £50 (plus programme, travel etc). If the weather was a bit dodgy in the morning, it would be a no brainer to buy the £12 stream rather than risk wasting a lot of money. So the club would lose £38.... It wouldn't take many families to make the same decision to bankrupt the club.
  14. 1 point
    PAY WHAT YOU LIKE...PAY PER VIEW! Berwick Bandits Speedway Club is proud to announce that the British Under 21 Final will be broadcast Live around the world via the club’s YouTube channel Bandits TV! With the constant changing situation due to Covid 19, at this stage it is unclear whether we will be able to accommodate a limited number of spectators at the event or if we will have to run behind closed doors but your constantly forward thinking promotion have put plans in place for all eventualities. We have lots to get through so check out the ‘all you need to know’ below Date change: the event is now scheduled for Wednesday the 21st of October at 7pm. Pay what you like pay per view: Watch the British Under 21 Final from the comfort of your living room on your SmartTV or your household devices. Before, during or after the event head on over to www.berwickspeedway.com and pay what you feel the event is worth? A link will be available for you to make a swift and secure payment and that will go live on the day of the event. Is it possible that people will just watch for free? Yes....but we have every confidence that Speedway fans in the UK and around the world will appreciate the effort and pay what they feel is a fair price. Tickets & Attendance: At this stage it is very unclear as to whether spectators will be able to attend. If and when we can release tickets, we will contact our sponsors and 2020 season pass holders and the remaining quantities will be available for purchase via our website. To avoid disappointment and if we are able to issue tickets they will go live approximately 7 days before the event. Sponsorship: The 2020 British Under 21 Final will rely heavily on sponsorship and a big reason for our innovative ‘pay what you like pay per view’ idea is to maximise the eyeballs tuning into the livestream thus providing substantial exposure for the sponsors who will be graphically represented and announced throughout the event, on the website and of course via our social media platforms. Please check out the list below and don’t hesitate to contact us if you would like to back this innovative and prestigious event. Title sponsorship: Please contact us @ club@berwickspeedway.com Powered By/Sub title sponsor: £500. Souvenir Race Jacket Sponsorship: £130, appear on and get to keep your own souvenir race jacket from the event. 18 available. Heat Sponsorship: £100, 13 available. #Under21Final #BanditsTV
  15. 1 point
    The best geordie foreiner has got to be our Dickie juul tho
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    Bomber's had a year to get his bike ready but misses the two minute warning in race one.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    what they will get out of the stadium ray is their "cut" out of the development of the stadium car park,probably as r&rsays they will then be gone,hopefully the stadium itself(not available for development) will by then be viable and someone will jump in
  20. 1 point
    18 new Covid related deaths in the last twenty four hours with 3899 new cases Concerned ?
  21. 1 point
    Err, no. I don’t have to produce any actual example. I am merely stating the government’s actual policy for recording Covid deaths. A fatality within twenty-eight days of a positive test is automatically recorded as a Covid death regardless of the actual cause of death. It would not be necessary to point this out if the government excluded those deaths which were reasonably clearly not due to Covid. And on the second point, I was not taking part in a wider discussion, I was making the point that, just like a car accident, a critical or terminal illness could well be the cause of death rather than Covid, but it would nevertheless be recorded as a Covid death. Dying “from Covid” or “with Covid” is plainly a distinction worth drawing when it comes to numbers and measuring the impact of the disease. Whatever next: should we declare the common cold or hay fever as a pandemic because of every cancer or heart attack victim who sneezed within 28 days of death?
  22. 1 point
    Andrew Marr quoting the ONS this morning: “the first week of September saw the lowest number of Covid deaths in England and Wales for 25 weeks”.
  23. 1 point
    How about someone who dies in a car accident 27 days after a positive test. Have they died from Covid or with it? The same applies for many people with critical or terminal illnesses.
  24. 1 point
    ANOTHER excellent article from Daniel Hannan... Lockdowns arguably make sense as an emergency measure, a way to buy time and build capacity. But they are no answer to an endemic virus. They are the bluntest and most destructive of instruments. They offer no exit strategy. And, surveying the data from around the world, there is precious little evidence that they work. I defy anyone, presented with a set of unheaded graphs showing the infection and fatality rates in different nations, to guess which ones had closed their economies and which ones had not. Back in March, people were predicting almost an extinction-level event in Sweden, which had defied international pressure and kept its shops, schools and restaurants open. In fact, the disease there followed pretty much the same trajectory as here – with the difference that Sweden is now not worried about a second wave, and suffered less than half the economic hit that we did. Lockdown supporters have come forward with all sorts of explanations. Swedes are, apparently, a solitary and morose people who practice social distancing even in normal times. Their population density is low. They are more likely to live alone. Well, maybe, but no one was saying those things in March. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force: when a new fact challenges our prejudice, we question the fact more readily than the prejudice. Yet the facts keep piling up. Even countries that practised no social distancing at all have avoided disaster. Alexander Lukashenko, the cartoonish dictator of Belarus, decided early on that his citizens were immune. Let weedy Westerners worry about the disease, he said: the hardy people of White Russia would get through it with saunas and vodka. It is hard to get an accurate sense of what is happening in that malign autocracy, but we have all seen the television images of Belarusian protesters thronging the streets. Did they look to you like a population ravaged by pestilence? It’s a similar story on every continent. Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, was condemned for his laissez-faire approach. Yet his country has fared far better than my native Peru, which won plaudits for its prompt and harsh crackdown. Indeed, the way the coronavirus peaked and dropped off in developing countries, even in slum populations where self-isolation was impossible, confounded every early prediction. Giving evidence to MPs, Professor Francesco Checchi, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, observed that even in war-torn Yemen, which was in no position to apply social distancing measures, hospitalisations appear to have been falling since June. So why in heaven’s name are we thinking about another clampdown here? Why have we continued to mandate local closures without any evidence that they make a difference? It won’t do to say “better safe than sorry”, or “I’d rather err on the side of caution”. When you are proposing measures that destroy lives and livelihoods, throw people out of work, wreck children’s education, drive up deaths from cancer and suicide and remove our basic freedoms, the onus is on you to prove your case. Indeed, with such high stakes, the burden of proof should be commensurately heavy. It isn’t enough to show that, on balance, lockdowns might have had some impact; you need to demonstrate incontestable and significant benefits. No one, looking at the numbers, can do that. The only clear argument for lockdowns was the initial one, namely that they would slow transmission while we increased our hospital capacity and found out which treatments worked best. That was the basis on which the closures were originally proposed – supposedly for three weeks. No one has since come up with a better justification. Why, then, are we locked into lockdowns? In part, because of the way the virus initially spread. Had the outbreak started in, say, Norway or Canada – a country, in other words, where immobilising the entire population was unthinkable – things would have worked out very differently. But because China thinks nothing of detaining people, and because Italy, which had planned a local quarantine, was panicked into extending it nationwide when the news leaked, lockdowns suddenly became the Thing To Do – and the policy which the Something Must Be Done crowd demanded. Once the prohibitions had been imposed, they took on a momentum of their own. Every local cluster, every rise in fatality rates, was turned into an argument for even stricter rules. The revelation that infection rates had peaked on March 18, five days before the lockdown had been declared, should have invalidated that logic. But we were beyond logic by then. The thought that the disruption might have been unnecessary was too painful to contemplate so, by and large, we didn’t contemplate it. Just as politicians are susceptible to public opinion, so are their advisers. They know that they won’t get into trouble for excessive caution. As long as the public continues to clamour for curfews and bans – and it is a sad but well-documented fact that perceived threats make people more authoritarian – the various medical committees that advise the world’s governments will be reluctant to recommend liberalisation. Yet, with every day that passes, it becomes clearer that the disease has not grown exponentially anywhere. Something checks it, pretty much regardless of the policies being pursued locally. An increasing number of epidemiologists believe that that something is a partial immunity bestowed by exposure to past coronaviruses, which would explain why East Asia, with its recent experience of Sars, has fared so well. A survey in The BMJ notes that at least six studies suggest a high degree of pre-existing immunity. If that is the case – and it would fit the observed facts much better than the earlier catastrophist models – then most of what is being done by most governments is pointless. Yet we seem almost affronted by that suggestion. After six months, our sense of perspective is still, tragically, in lockdown.
  25. 1 point

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy