Speedways Future

[Trackman 3]

Future. 3 topics on the Future? .. is that a new rule then?

Regards.

[Engine man 0]

An interesting thread - I 'll add a few comments and historical views.

 

 

Originally speedway started with one-off tracks where large numbers of spectators could be accommodated. (a successful format)

 

The continental longtrack/grasstrack meetings still operate on a similar basis with large crowds of paying spectators. UK grasstrack struggles with attendances (much less than the 1970's).

 

UK and especially Swedish Speedway started (like all motorbike sports) as an individual sport, but then prospered for many decades through the innovation of teams and leagues. Teams were a combination of a few top stars and mostly local lads (travel was much more difficult than it is now)

 

Tracks sprung up then (30's and 40's) with little problem of health and safety or town planning - (much more difficult now.)

 

The whole motorcycle sport paying audience has shrunk as new sports have been established in the UK and bike ownership has dropped. (although speedway doesn't have the usual bikesport audience - this is a finding of one consultant's report)

 

Having talked at length with one fairly successful elite league promoter, speedway makes less money for him than stockcars, because "the riders have to be paid" (and audience is smaller).

 

NOt exactly a SWOT analysis I know - but I suspect BSI did that when setting up the SGP series - incidentally I also spoke at length to a rival bidder for that event. He might have some ideas.

 

The involvement of another organisation taking over the SGP series is adding more confusion. But the fact is BSI drew riders and spectators in through two things - a credible World Championship event, and creating publicity opportunities leading to sponsorship. True- they relied on having the leagues developing riders and providing bread-and-butter income for them - and that was smart thinking. Can some canny league promoters perform a similar business success? I can think only one or two I'd put my money on.

[MACK1 0]

Whilst we know how short-term thinking has damaged the sport, the reality is that most tracks undoubtedly struggle from season-to-season. They cannot afford to think about what will happen in 5 or 10 years because they might not even last through the following season.

 

I have to say that I'm not a great fan of long-term strategic approaches, as I'm more a here-and-now person. I'd start with making incremental changes that are unlikely to have an adverse effect in the short-term, but which have the chance of improving things over a longer period.

Speedway is a business and like all businesses has to consolidate,improve and move forward.Unfortunately it is not doing this.The way forward is to appoint a small independent controlling body.3 people max.Obviously these people have to be of the right calibre to do the job.Will it happen? I doubt it.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,953]

But the fact is BSI drew riders and spectators in through two things - a credible World Championship event, and creating publicity opportunities leading to sponsorship.

 

Running a handful of events at the highest level of any sport is totally uncomparable with running sport on a week-to-week basis, particularly if you don't have to pay a living wage to the competitors. I still think BSI don't do such a great job given their privileged position, and only look good because the rest of the sport is so shambolic. Their big success was to secure television coverage, but beyond that I don't think the sport has advanced greatly under their stewardship.

 

[Jeff. 2]

Running a handful of events at the highest level of any sport is totally uncomparable with running sport on a week-to-week basis, particularly if you don't have to pay a living wage to the competitors. I still think BSI don't do such a great job given their privileged position, and only look good because the rest of the sport is so shambolic. Their big success was to secure television coverage, but beyond that I don't think the sport has advanced greatly under their stewardship.

 

Pre BSI, (pre GP system) world finals were held in fields (Norden, Pocking) with a few edited highlights shown a week later.

 

The GP system was the catalyst to SKY TVs coverage of the Elite League, and the 3 hour Saturday Night GP programme gave each club prime time advertising FOC.

 

It is not the fault of BSI that the british promoters chose to fight the GP system, King Canute style, rather than grow their product on the back of it.

 

[Humphrey Appleby 13,953]

Pre BSI, (pre GP system) world finals were held in fields (Norden, Pocking) with a few edited highlights shown a week later.

 

That's the world according to BSI. I certainly remember World Finals being held in the Munich Olympic Stadium, the Ullevi, and the Wroclaw Olympic Stadium during the last years of the one-off final. They went to Pocking and Vojens when the format was run into the ground to justify the introduction of the GP system.

 

It is not the fault of BSI that the british promoters chose to fight the GP system

 

The problem is they (and the Poles and Swedes) didn't fight it enough.

 

[Jeff. 2]

That's the world according to BSI. I certainly remember World Finals being held in the Munich Olympic Stadium, the Ullevi, and the Wroclaw Olympic Stadium during the last years of the one-off final. They went to Pocking and Vojens when the format was run into the ground to justify the introduction of the GP system.

 

 

 

The problem is they (and the Poles and Swedes) didn't fight it enough.

 

6 of the last 12 finals were in inadequate venues, Norden, Pocking, Bradford & Vojens, are you suggesting this running into the ground took 12 years

 

[Humphrey Appleby 13,953]

6 of the last 12 finals were in inadequate venues, Norden, Pocking, Bradford & Vojens, are you suggesting this running into the ground took 12 years

 

Yes - the rot arguably set in with Norden because the Germans thought they were entitled to a World Final, and then we went to Amsterdam because the Dutch wanted one, and finally Vojens because it was run by Ole Olsen. Instead of putting the premier speedway event in worthy venues that were known to draw the crowds, a succession of speedway backwaters basically sucked the life out of it. This was still around the time that some World Finals were drawing up to 50,000 people (at Ullevi, Katowice and Munich), which is still better than Cardiff, and even as late as 1992 there was an capacity attendance of 30,000 at Wroclaw.

 

I'd argue about Bradford being an inadequate venue. It held nearly 30,000 at the time of its World Finals, was in a major albeit unfashionable city (and close to another), and was a better stadium than all but four of the current GPs.

 

And on that note, how many of the current GP venues are better than the World Final venues you mention? Krsko, Daugavpils, Lonigo and Malilla with all due respect are hardly 'adequate' by the standards you set, whilst Prague, Leszno and Bydgoszcz although adequate for the task, are hardly blue riband venues either.

 

In any case, I'm not actually arguing for a return to the old World Final system. I don't have anything against a GP system in principle, but I do have a problem with the ownership (although I've nothing against the owners themselves), and manner in which it's run. I also don't actually think it's promoted as well as people popularly imagine either, but that's another story.

 

[Jeff. 2]

Yes - the rot arguably set in with Norden because the Germans thought they were entitled to a World Final, and then we went to Amsterdam because the Dutch wanted one, and finally Vojens because it was run by Ole Olsen. Instead of putting the premier speedway event in worthy venues that were known to draw the crowds, a succession of speedway backwaters basically sucked the life out of it. This was still around the time that some World Finals were drawing up to 50,000 people (at Ullevi, Katowice and Munich), which is still better than Cardiff, and even as late as 1992 there was an capacity attendance of 30,000 at Wroclaw.

 

I'd argue about Bradford being an inadequate venue. It held nearly 30,000 at the time of its World Finals, was in a major albeit unfashionable city (and close to another), and was a better stadium than all but four of the current GPs.

 

And on that note, how many of the current GP venues are better than the World Final venues you mention? Krsko, Daugavpils, Lonigo and Malilla with all due respect are hardly 'adequate' by the standards you set, whilst Prague, Leszno and Bydgoszcz although adequate for the task, are hardly blue riband venues either.

 

In any case, I'm not actually arguing for a return to the old World Final system. I don't have anything against a GP system in principle, but I do have a problem with the ownership (although I've nothing against the owners themselves), and manner in which it's run. I also don't actually think it's promoted as well as people popularly imagine either, but that's another story.

 

Ullevi very rarely drew crowds into the 30,000s never mind 50,000, one world final there in the sixties attracted only 22,000.

 

Even Wembley, aside from the first few post war finals and the golden jubilee final in 1978 never drew capacity crowds, the much talked about 92,000 in 1981 was a fallacy, the real crowd was in fact only in the 70,000s. Wembley even had a world final crowd of only 55,000 one year.

 

Of course Polish world finals did attract massive crowds, I believe 133,000 watched the 1973 final in Katowice, and well over 100,00 in 1976 & 1979.

 

Ownership of the rights to the GPs was available to anyone, why didn't the british authorities grasp the opportunity and buy them, instead of sitting, nero fashion, doing nothing while the flagship individual competion fell into disrepair

 

 

 

[olethefod 0]

Ullevi very rarely drew crowds into the 30,000s never mind 50,000, one world final there in the sixties attracted only 22,000.

 

Even Wembley, aside from the first few post war finals and the golden jubilee final in 1978 never drew capacity crowds, the much talked about 92,000 in 1981 was a fallacy, the real crowd was in fact only in the 70,000s. Wembley even had a world final crowd of only 55,000 one year.

 

Of course Polish world finals did attract massive crowds, I believe 133,000 watched the 1973 final in Katowice, and well over 100,00 in 1976 & 1979.

 

Ownership of the rights to the GPs was available to anyone, why didn't the british authorities grasp the opportunity and buy them, instead of sitting, nero fashion, doing nothing while the flagship individual competion fell into disrepair

 

 

I have to agree with Jeff on crowd numbers, I was at Wembley in the early 80's for european final and around 45 - 50,000 were there, he run off was between Olsen , Mauger, Michenek and Collins to give some idea of the talent on display, so this proves big names only known inside the sport have little impact.

 

To move forward we have to look at the fundementals not start anylising the last ten years, theyre gone and should remain so, when I came back two years ago after a twenty year gap, I couldnt get head around the bike covers, the bikes used to gleam under the lights, they now resemble racing billboards!

 

1. The state of the stadia and entertainment value: When Wolves FC had there stadium go to rack and ruin, the fans left in droves and team fell appart due to lack of funds. Attendances were down to 5,000, inject some cash, build a new stadium, 28,000 watch weekly, teams still rubbish but hey ho!

 

2. Indoor meetings should be at the start and rear of the season therefore protecting the GP from being rained off, not in the warmest time of the year (Denmark and Cardiff)

 

3. Tracks should be covered until two hours before the meeting starts (Who wants to travel 100 miles to be sent home due to drizzle)

 

4. Main one, we have to promote a rider to such a height that everyione wants to know what all the fuss is about and comes to see.

 

5. Races should consist of six laps to try and kill off the first out odf the gate crap that haunts the sport.

 

And finally, stop driving out the top talent with stupid points reductions.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,953]

Ownership of the rights to the GPs was available to anyone, why didn't the british authorities grasp the opportunity and buy them, instead of sitting, nero fashion, doing nothing while the flagship individual competion fell into disrepair

 

The British authorities have obviously been losing the plot for years, otherwise the BSI would never have been allowed into the sport in the first place. In any case, I suspect they simply didn't have the money to pay the asking price, which was not especially high, but certainly too high for an organisation whose cupboard was bare.

 

This notwithstanding, I'd still argue the SGP rights were never the FIM's to sell in the first place. The FIM had about 70 members at the time of the sell-off, yet in only about 5 of those countries (Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Poland and Germany) was any significant amount of professional speedway staged. Basically, every professional rider in the sport would have been making their living in those 5 countries, so why on earth should they have to buy back something that they ran and provided the riders for in the first place?

 

I'm sure the FIM would argue it was all very democratic, with the 8 minor speedway nations who stage one meeting a year (plus Poland), outvoting 3 major speedway nations in favour of the SGP, and then having the decision ratified by 50+ nations that have never even staged a single speedway meeting. However, sometimes the democratic process (particularly in international sports bodies) can be a complete ass, and the professional speedway nations should never have stood for it.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Humphrey Appleby

[Humphrey Appleby 13,953]

I was at Wembley in the early 80's for european final and around 45 - 50,000 were there

 

Ermm.. but 45-50K is still more than any round of the GP achieves now. Whilst I agree there's no point looking back to the past, I still argue that the nail in the coffin of the World Final was going to tiny venues in smaller speedway nations, when crowds still justified medium-sized venues. Given the enthusiasm of the Ole Olsens and some in the FIM for a GP system, one can only think this was done deliberately.

 

5. Races should consist of six laps to try and kill off the first out odf the gate crap that haunts the sport.

 

Six laps would just make races even more of procession. The fundamental problem is that the tracks are not condusive for overtaking these days; no more so than abominable Olsen-prepared GP surfaces. I have certain sympathy with respect to the difficulties of preparing a decent track in the one-off venues, but there's no excuse for it in the permanent speedway venues that otherwise normally have decent racing.

[olethefod 0]

Ermm.. but 45-50K is still more than any round of the GP achieves now. Whilst I agree there's no point looking back to the past, I still argue that the nail in the coffin of the World Final was going to tiny venues in smaller speedway nations, when crowds still justified medium-sized venues. Given the enthusiasm of the Ole Olsens and some in the FIM for a GP system, one can only think this was done deliberately.

 

Speedway was live on Terestrial TV then, not hidden away on pay to view, this led to greater advertisement of the fact and larger sponsors, the Mirror used to sponsor a few events, Gulf Oil, where did they all go?

 

 

 

Six laps would just make races even more of procession. The fundamental problem is that the tracks are not condusive for overtaking these days; no more so than abominable Olsen-prepared GP surfaces. I have certain sympathy with respect to the difficulties of preparing a decent track in the one-off venues, but there's no excuse for it in the permanent speedway venues that otherwise normally have decent racing.

 

How many time have we witnessed riders almost tying for first place this year, one more lap?

 

[pudding 0]

what get me as a supporter of speedway is " a few race's & the track will be good for racing " why the idiot dont they put second half racing on first then , and bed the track in before the main event ????????????????????, is it me ??????

 

the future of british speedway / the way ahead is .................. amatuer speedway

its the only place future riders are going to come from ,,,,,,,,,,

get yourselves to a amateur speedway meeting & support british talent

its free to support & a good day out ( well it is at scunny )

[Mike9 0]

I would like to see an amalgamation of the Elite and Premier Leagues or at least an equal number of teams in each divison. This season sees 8 teams in the EL which is just not enough variety, plus with the league being "watered" down this year I cannot say that the racing has been any better, infact it has been worse!

 

I'm not sure whether the Promotion & Relegation thing will really work as from what I read most PL promoters don't seem to have the desire to take their team in to the EL even if promotion is achieved. Are some of the GP boys really goner be happy riding PL speedway if their team in relegated? I think not!

 

The introduction of 3 points for an away win this year has it merits and the EL table is currently fairly close, but the aggregate bonus point should have also been retained.

 

On the front of the lack of British talent, it seems to me that it is so increadibly difficult for an anspiring youngster to get in to speedway. Very few clubs these days run open practice or even proper organised second-halfs. The Danes and Swedes are all riding cut down bikes at very young ages so by the time they are 16 or 17 they are way ahead of the British boys (with the exception of young Tai Woffinden who has a huge future ahead of him). I know it is difficult with curfews and noise restrictions etc, but clubs could do more to encourage more home grown talent in to the sport and nurture them through rather than flying in some unknown pole because his average fits.