Should the points limit be set to the highest team average from the previous season?

[DC2 11,150]

2 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

Costs - or more importantly operating to an acceptable budget - are the most important. No money = no club so loyalty and points limits won't mean diddly squat!!

 

OK, costs.

Which is the optimum points limit to save costs?

At what point do you go too low and damage the product, thereby causing crowds to reduce?

Something has obviously been done wrongly over the last ten years as crowds have gone down.

[lisa-colette 6,018]

10 minutes ago, DC2 said:

 

OK, costs.

Which is the optimum points limit to save costs?

At what point do you go too low and damage the product, thereby causing crowds to reduce?

Something has obviously been done wrongly over the last ten years as crowds have gone down.

Recession

Credit Crunch

Brexit

Not just speedway that decides it! 

[DC2 11,150]

8 minutes ago, lisa-colette said:

Recession

Credit Crunch

Brexit

Not just speedway that decides it! 

 

Credit Crunch and recession 2008 to 2012.

Poole won the league in 2008 with one of their best ever teams, had their worst ever team in 2009, got turned over by Coventry in 2010, won again in 2011 and were trounced by Swindon in 2012.

Mmmmm ... 2012.  Forgotten my point.  

 

[Steve0 5,517]

55 minutes ago, brianbuck said:

I can understand the logic of this suggestion up to a point - but saying that clubs should be allowed to strengthen to the limit of the previous season's highest averaged team would totally defeat the objective of having a points limit in my opinion - this objective being to both keep even team strengths and keep costs down. Every club building up to Swindon's 46.something would huges increase costs, so despite what clubs might flannel on their websites to try and keep their supporters happy, when it comes to the crunch, I doubt that many would vote in favour of a change that would do this.

I can't say that I am in favour of a points limit (or rather the way it is continually chopped and changed) but until someone comes up with a better alternative, it has to stay.

Why would it result in huge increase in costs?  Remember that Swindon was built to a 42.5 point limit and they outperformed that - so you can build attractive teams as long as you don't go mad in wage demands.

[Aces51 2,778]

1 hour ago, DC2 said:

 

That’s the point though.

Should a points limit be imposed with the aim of equalisation, or the aim of saving costs, or should it be 46.34 to allow Swindon and every other team to keep as many of their current riders as they like with the aim of encouraging rider and fan loyalty?

Which is the most important aim? Equalisation, costs or loyalty?

If costs were an issue for a club there would be nothing to force it to change its current team. It wouldn’t have to build to 46.34.

After all, the only club that wasn’t competitive this year was Peterborough. With a little bit of luck, better form from one or two riders or an injury or two for Swindon and any one of six clubs could have won it.

Does imposing a 42.5 limit every year and forcing most clubs to lose one or two riders actually reduce costs or does it reduce revenue by causing disillusioned fans to leave the sport or go less often?

 

If Swindon had had the team they finished with from the beginning of the season they would have finished top by a considerable margin.

Most teams already retain the nucleus of their team from year to year. How many seasons have Fricke, Steve Worrall and now Bewley spent at Belle Vue and Cook was there for many years before leaving this year.

No team will want to start the season 4 points or more behind other teams, their fans will write them off, suitable and affordable riders will not be available for them to sign, crowds will be down and that will put their future in jeopardy. Fans often accused Poole of looking only after their own interests not those of the sport as a whole when they made these sort of proposals. 

Even if we had a 46 point limit the average achieved at the end of next season would be 42.5. It always will be unless the race format changes.  A workable and more affordable compromise would be to increase the team total points limit to 43 and retain that  43 point figure for say 5 years. At the end of each the year the average will be 42.5 so by increasing it to 43 every year you would effectively increase the standard to equate to a 45 point limit, as compared to this season, at the end of the 5 years.

 

[SUPERACE 440]

36 minutes ago, Steve0 said:

Why would it result in huge increase in costs?  Remember that Swindon was built to a 42.5 point limit and they outperformed that - so you can build attractive teams as long as you don't go mad in wage demands.

There isn't enough decent riders to build 8 teams up to Swindon's final average this season.  If we have no limit then costs would definitely increase.

[Grachan 7,314]

6 minutes ago, SUPERACE said:

There isn't enough decent riders to build 8 teams up to Swindon's final average this season.  If we have no limit then costs would definitely increase.

I think the thing is, do all teams need to be built equally? They never were before, and it was only when low points limits started coming in that this obsession with equality came in.

The sport has become obsessed with equal averages.

As I said, one team switch (Batchelor to Peterborough) would make a league with all teams competitive, even if they averages at the start of the year weren't all within 0.01 of each other.

 

[A ORLOV 8,628]

4 minutes ago, Grachan said:

I think the thing is, do all teams need to be built equally? They never were before, and it was only when low points limits started coming in that this obsession with equality came in.

The sport has become obsessed with equal averages.

As I said, one team switch (Batchelor to Peterborough) would make a league with all teams competitive, even if they averages at the start of the year weren't all within 0.01 of each other.

 

Do you think Batch would ride for Chapman ?

[theblueboy 960]

8 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

If Swindon had had the team they finished with from the beginning of the season they would have finished top by a considerable margin.

Most teams already retain the nucleus of their team from year to year. How many seasons have Fricke, Steve Worrall and now Bewley spent at Belle Vue and Cook was there for many years before leaving this year.

No team will want to start the season 4 points or more behind other teams, their fans will write them off, suitable and affordable riders will not be available for them to sign, crowds will be down and that will put their future in jeopardy. Fans often accused Poole of looking only after their own interests not those of the sport as a whole when they made these sort of proposals. 

Even if we had a 46 point limit the average achieved at the end of next season would be 42.5. It always will be unless the race format changes.  A workable and more affordable compromise would be to increase the team total points limit to 43 and retain that  43 point figure for say 5 years. At the end of each the year the average will be 42.5 so by increasing it to 43 every year you would effectively increase the standard to equate to a 45 point limit, as compared to this season, at the end of the 5 years.

 

I see the weakest clubs in speedway continuing to dictate terms to the BSPA. 

I suspect there isn’t many, if any, clubs that hasn’t had their fan base seriously eroded over the last 10 years.

Speedway in the UK continues to erode the quality every year, yet, apparently using lower averages each year, which in theory makes the costs more sustainable. Can anyone tell me how many clubs have made a profit in the last 10 years, and evidence to support this?

Surely, if you are cutting your cloth every year because you are addressing cost issues but you are not breaking even or making a profit then the business model you are using does not work! 

Speedway clubs are like lemmings. They continue to move to the cliff edge and the day when they go over the edge isn’t far away. 

[Aces51 2,778]

10 minutes ago, theblueboy said:

I see the weakest clubs in speedway continuing to dictate terms to the BSPA. 

I suspect there isn’t many, if any, clubs that hasn’t had their fan base seriously eroded over the last 10 years.

Speedway in the UK continues to erode the quality every year, yet, apparently using lower averages each year, which in theory makes the costs more sustainable. Can anyone tell me how many clubs have made a profit in the last 10 years, and evidence to support this?

Surely, if you are cutting your cloth every year because you are addressing cost issues but you are not breaking even or making a profit then the business model you are using does not work! 

Speedway clubs are like lemmings. They continue to move to the cliff edge and the day when they go over the edge isn’t far away. 

I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread is proposing a further cutting of the cloth or a further erosion of standards.

The argument seems to be to remain at the level we are next year or to make a dramatic increase of 4 points, knowing that will increase costs and not be achievable for some teams because there are not the riders or the money available to do it.

My suggestion is to improve the standard in small steps year on year in a way that is achievable and affordable.

[theblueboy 960]

29 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

I wasn't aware that anyone on this thread is proposing a further cutting of the cloth or a further erosion of standards.

The argument seems to be to remain at the level we are next year or to make a dramatic increase of 4 points, knowing that will increase costs and not be achievable for some teams because there are not the riders or the money available to do it.

My suggestion is to improve the standard in small steps year on year in a way that is achievable and affordable.

It’s not. But this thread would be redundant if the promoters in this country had a brain.

I want to see the best riders in this country. Others are happy with lesser riders, me I am paying £18, so I think as I am paying top dollar the best riders, that want to ride, should be here. 

Setting the average to the highest available average is the best way to return speedway to a level that the customer wants to see That’s not me just saying that, I am judging that by the number of missing people on the terraces.  

Edited October 25, 2019 by theblueboy
Naughty language

[B.V 72 1,054]

The way to strengthen teams in our league is savvy management by spotting and signing up and coming riders on low averages who then go on to improve their averages.These riders then go on to be the leagues stars replacing riders like Nicholls,Harris and Andersen who's age is catching them up a little,

Swindon have shown us how to do this twice by signing Musielak and Jenssen who have been a major factor in two of Swindons league titles.

There will always be up and coming stars the secret is spotting them early and getting them signed up before anyone else this is where a good manager is worth his weight in gold.To me watching an up and coming rider shine gives me more of a buzz than the club signing an over priced super star who can often leave you disappointed.

Edited October 25, 2019 by B.V 72

[DC2 11,150]

53 minutes ago, Aces51 said:

 

The argument seems to be to remain at the level we are next year or to make a dramatic increase of 4 points, knowing that will increase costs and not be achievable for some teams because there are not the riders or the money available to do it.

 

 

Just analyse that though. 

You assume a 46.34 limit will

”increase costs”:

Will it? On the face of it Peterborough could have two new 8 point riders to replace Garrity and Ostergaard and yes, you would expect Zagar and Kildemand (for example) to cost a lot more money, but, boy, what a cracking team would they have (Zagar, Wright, Tungate, Hans Andersen, Kildemand, Nicholls, Proctor), almost certainly title favourites and the crowds should increase considerably as a result. Could such expenditure therefore break even?

Swindon’s costs, with the same team, would be about the same, and the other five clubs (with Sheffield replacing Poole) would only have to replace a reserve or two with a five or six pointer, at little extra cost, to be competitive. There were seven 5 to 6 pointers without clubs at the end of the season.

That would leave an eighth club starting from scratch, but if it were a financially solid and well supported one, like Glasgow, it could cope.

You say “riders are not available”:

As you can see above, that’s not the case for a seven team league, there are several riders from this season who could return and strengthen clubs.

So we’re back to the eighth club. Could Glasgow get the likes of Chris Holder, Vaculik, Sundstrom and Bech? Are they ambitious enough?

 

[Aces51 2,778]

43 minutes ago, theblueboy said:

It’s not. But this thread would be redundant if the promoters in this country had a brain.

I want to see the best riders in this country. Others are happy with lesser riders, me I am paying £18, so I think as I am paying top dollar the best riders, that want to ride, should be here. 

Setting the average to the highest available average is the best way to return speedway to a level that the customer wants to see That’s not me just saying that, I am judging that by the number of missing people on the terraces.  

You may be right about the missing numbers, although I think there are many reasons why they no longer attend. It is a fact that crowd numbers had dropped drastically long before the best riders departed. The decline started in the 1980's.

We probably all agree that we would like to see the best riders return but clubs can no longer afford them. At the moment speedway has to run on a basis that is currently affordable. There needs to be a plan to stabilise the sport to avoid any further decline and then to gradually try to build it back up to the best standard that is achievable. That means doing nothing which puts that progress at risk and a sudden significant increase in the team points limit may well do that.

You say you are paying top dollar so the best riders should be here. The best riders want to be paid top dollar and I'm afraid that your £18 won't cover it unless there was an immediate large and sustained increase in crowd numbers. I doubt you or any sensible person is going to invest thousands of pounds in the hope that crowds will increase sufficiently to cover that outlay. That's why it has to be a step by step plan to rebuild the sport to a stage where that investment risk is a sensible proposition.

Where we might agree is that the BSPA bears much of the responsibility for the position in which the sport currently find itself and a healthy degree of scepticism about whether they have the ability to come up with a workable plan to solve the problems.

[robins les 53]

On 10/24/2019 at 1:13 PM, The Stag said:

The limit should be 45.00 points every year. That way you're not diluting the product and everyone has an equal and fair chance of competing. 

That's ignoring the fact the present points average covers up to heat 14, as all averages are based on 4 rides.