TonyM

As has been posted it is more than likely that the PL will end up semi pro soon anyway and having less meetings may make this easier to manage for those that choose this route, as I put in the original post greater use of doubling up may provide opportunities for those that want to remain full time. I am a big fan of doubling up the lower end of the EL with the top of the PL - how is this any different from a rider riding in either the EL or PL combined with an overseas club other than travel would be reduced. It wont stop the natural development of talent, in fact it may help it as riders would have a smoother progression between the leagues if the EL used the PL to provide a bottom end 'squad' system (say 1 second string and 2 reserves from 6 PL riders). Less meetings per season for each individual club would make this more viable and may in turn spread the costs of 'keeping' a speedway rider between two clubs I fully accept riders would want more 'per meeting' but probably less in absolute terms for the season as their running costs would be reduced - also what percentage of a riders income is meeting based and how much is fixed for the season in terms of 'sponsorship'?

Sorry, badly phrased - "feel free to add your opinion its an open forum" Dont really have a preference whether posters agree or disagree Ron, more to the point does the post move the debate forward, particularly in this section which is depressingly low on topics and posts

Better meeting than some had predicted proving the point that you dont need 'names' to provide entertainment although better track conditions may have helped more with yet again an overly slick track not really providing too many racing lines (was there no one to drive the water truck tonight?) Hope Tom is OK although the signs dont look too good at present

What utter ?**?> . What right has any UK fan to act so superior to criticise overseas riders for riding in their home country, perhaps no one should take on young riders in case they want to compete in the under 21 championship, clubs know what they are getting when they sign riders up I think TT has fallen out with the Czech authorities hence he didnt ride for them in the World Cup, but I would have fully backed them if they forced him to miss Lynn fixtures for the duration of the SWC on the grounds that other overseas (and British) riders who were selected were stopped from riding for their clubs

I take the point re distance by riders manage for one off meetings such as GP qualifiers, under 21s etc - if the money was there riders would travel The attractiveness would lie in the fact that this would be the premier team competition in Europe, probably the only chance to see GP riders ride in a proper team event (dont count the world cup as this is individual format racing, but with cumulative scores) You miss the point with your Swindon example, increasingly less and less of the top riders are riding EL and the gulf in standard between the top and bottom riders in the EL is getting larger. The Euro league would allow the GP riders to ride only Euro league (plus a domestic league if they wanted) with the second tier below the GP standard probably riding one domestic league (perhaps two) plus the Euro league, thus it would not be a team of unheard of Poles, we are talking about national leagues being more home based (not necessarily home nationality) so tell me who would be riding each week at Swindon then? This is the logical step to riders saying it is not worth travelling all over Europe EVERY week for the odd meeting without a big pay out thus we end up with the foreigners who are willing to travel who with the greatest respect are not always the best

I think you are right Kevin in that the league must have stand alone teams who ride exclusively in the Euro league, an alternative to 'clubs' may be some sort of representative sides, so for the UK (with a bit of geographic licence): South West - drawing from Poole, Swindon South East - Eastbourne, Reading, Oxford East - Arena, Ipswich, Peterborough Midlands - Wolves, Coventry and Belle Vue This would allow riders to 'double up' and augment the 'international' riders who essentially would ride just GP and Euro league fixtures and would help spread the cost with 'squad' riders being able to earn the bulk of their money domestically. 38 meetings may be too many for a representative set up but you could cut the second divisional match or condense the groups to 3 for UK and Poland with 2 for Sweden plus Denmarks one

True but Lynn's promotion seem to be as guilty as any of the hype, still work in progress IMO Pretty good meeting even with the huge variation in abilities on show with most races having a couple of matched riders. Special mention to James who beat everyone he would have expected to and would have been in the final but for a unbelievable exclusion (was right in front of us and Jones was the 'cause' of the accident), Mark Thompson who has never successfully made that step up to a regular PL place but rides Saddlebow well and Adam who by his own admission has only ridden a handful of meetings this year yet looked really good and pushed the EL lads

Wouldnt disagree - my 'second year' phrase was in relation to the rolling contract not second year at a club, thus this year Rye could not continue with their top three of Neath, Robson and Werner so had to let someone go, in this instance I would allow any of these riders to be loaned out for the season but if Rye wished to continue to hold their contract they must return in the 2007 line up otherwise be sold / released ie no ongoing loan income which is the root of the asset system Less of an issue for developing riders although how often have you heard the phrase 'he would benifit from a loan spell at a smaller / bigger track' so in effect it could be a seen as rider development, again the rider would have to return to his original club the following year for them to keep his registration Whether riders should stay at a minimum average is debatable as it would lead to a cliff edge when the 'established' kicked in. Better to keep with the reductions you outlined re average manipulation which would allow riders to progress without setting a one size fits all limit to development ie must make it by 21 / 100 meeting etc Personally I would rather have the 'problems' associated with reducing a riders average than try to explain how team equalisation equates to unequal teams - really a reduction is only an extention of the 2.5% British reduction we currently have and no one seems to have a particular issue with its operation Guests could be viewed either way, why should the opposition be disadvantaged by riding against a stronger side when the reason for that strength (a returning rider) is not in that side. This presumes that sides with returning riders should have resulted in a team strength greater than could have been compiled without the reduction / increase Minimum averages are going to be an issue either way - if +0.5 then all riders on 2.5 or above can be retained with a 3, if -.5 then move the starting average to 2.0, the maths work whatever (the subtracting of averages would naturally lead to riders starting at a lower figure, the adding to teambuilding limits leads to higher introductory averages)

Sounds OK enotian but still creates assets by another name or would the loan / training reimbursement fees be payable for the first (say) 3 years after which the rider would be a complete free agent. Either way would still see the scramble for 15 year old signatures that currently exists, although the idea re foreign riders with loan fees to a central pot sounds better than at present The main criticism would be that it does not compensate ongoing development in a way that the current transfer system does ie Scunthorpe could produce 4 'qualified' riders a year who go on to PL team places, 2 of these riders go to PL teams with good development programmes and make to to EL level but receive nothing for this work whilst Scunthorpe pocket a (presumably) higher loan fee for getting 'their' riders EL places As discussed before I would prefer 2 year rolling contracts with compensation for a club who wished to retain the rider for the second year but the rider wanted away and with the option of a 1 year loan to allow for riders who could not fit in average wise in the second year ie riders could only be loaned out for 1 year of any 2 year rolling contract so if loaned out in year 1 and were not part of a teams plans for year 2 would have to be released as a free asset / nominal fee. This should reduce transfer fees as it is the purchase of rights to a rider for 2 years not forever and would limit 'asset building' clubs thus creating a more level playing field for team building each season. Combined with some form of average incentive for 'returning' riders we could see a reduction in the end of season merry-go-round which I am sure all fans would appreciate

Really tinkering around the edges (imo revolution not evolution is looking more and more the only way forward) but having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21. Prior to this he could ride as a 'free agent' from year to year without any loan fee issues. This would help end the scrap for 15 year olds signatures and hopefully by 21 clubs would know what they were getting (as an aside I am with HenryW in that a fairer method would be rides rather than age but take the point about complicating things further)

First pick at what? Not the junior rider moving up a league as that is hardly going to make or break a club, particularly as he would most likely want to ride for his local track where he can keep expenses to a minimum whilst he learns his trade and picking foreign imports is such a lottery anyway who is to say who is going to make it Personally I was in favour of the new reserves rule in the PL but as ever poor implementation has (and will) result in the whole scheme being abused to such an extent so as to make it worthless. Plus the current system may well see a number of riders struggling to be placed once their easy time at reserve comes to an end Better to encourage clubs to stick with riders by offering average reductions for returning riders and scrapping the asset system for rolling contracts. We might then see investment in rider development rather than asset development which seems to be at the heart of a number of promoters strategies (so sad to read the new Oxfords promotions views on why sponsorship mattered)

Wouldn't need a brave club if the BSPA adopted it at the next AGM, yes to a certain extent there would be an initial free for all but it could be argued that to a degree it is only extending the doubling up rules ie allowing a rider who could not secure a 1-7 EL berth to force his way in by good performances in the PL whilst the rider he replaced, if not injured would probably get some rides in the lower league (if he was not riding there already) The end result of all this would probably be a better squad system in the EL with all but the top riders (essentially those with overseas commitments) having a PL squad place as well Could then increase the points limit for EL then to a higher figure without a resulting hike in wage demands as the top PL riders would essentially all be available for EL squads to create competition but equally would be able to accept less as it would be a supplement to their PL earnings not their sole source of income Personally I think this would work better with a smaller EL, larger PL but perhaps thats a bit off topic

All of these objections and not even mentioned the asset system As I have said before I dont see promotion and relegation as the answer, better to have a select few clubs who can invest in the top level of our sport knowing their position is (subject to certain criteria) relatively secure As for riders, I think the way forward must go hand in had with a commitment by the top clubs to start investing in the lower levels of the sport (akin to the way the NFL farms out its fringe players to the European American Football League or whatever it is called nowaday) Currently the lower league clubs scramble for young (and particularly overseas) riders signatures to then make a buck on the sell on value / loan fees or to protect themselves from higher loan fees charged by other clubs does nothing to really invest in rider development. Far better for an EL club to partner 1 (or 2) PL clubs and start developing squads that can move up and down the leagues in the way baseball players can move up from the minors mid season (cue outcry from PL supports with a self interest view but as one myself this would be a price worth paying for a real Elite league with the best riders on show rather than the hotch potch of GP / Elite / alsorans that EL squads currently contain)

Cant see where the crowd would go?

Sorry more of a 'parent' thing if anything which looking at the time between the end of heat 14 and the start of the victory lap can take in excess of 15 mins, not a lot of incentive to stay when the match is often over as a contest by the end of heat 14 Whilst it may not be dead obvious the rules are such that it isnt even nominating 2 from 7, more like 2 from 3 or 4 and I really dont see what takes all the time 1. Work out who is eligible 2. Talk to said riders (as we have seen at Lynn some riders prefer not to ride heat 15!) 3. Weigh up combinations (who rides well together etc) 4. Confirm gate positions How can the above take sooooo long

Totally agree that team riding is something of a lost art - no reason that the 'pairs' in my example HAD to be 1+2, 3+4 and 5+6 - essentially they are just a way of getting a 2x2 race (real speedway), so if for example a team wanted their no 1 to ride with their no 4 this would be no problem as they each race against the opposition PAIRS I like your 14 heat format but it does leave reserves with only 4 rides, depends on your view of team building - I prefer 6 riders but there is certainly an arguement for 4 + 2 'reserves', although IMO this is sometimes abused with sides looking for a false average reserve to have seven rides in a meeting. I would prefer to see any lower average rider able to replace a higher average rider throughout the team with a limit of (say) twice per team per meeting (in my format this would be in the nominated element, giving extra flexibility to team managers). I have never been a big fan of the final nominated race - loads of hanging around for the obvious suspects to be announced and would be easier to schedule a 'decent' heat at 14 or 15 instead

I like the principal, perhaps a variation could be moving to six man teams (may this be a better way of reducing costs for PL) with all riders having a scheduled 5 rides. First 'half' would be a pairs style event with 3 pairs riding against each of the opposition pairs. Second 'half' would follow your idea above with six heats with each rider matched against his opposite number, who partners each rider is left to the team management. This would give a natural break in proceedings after heat 9 and rules could be brought in for the side in the lead (normally the home team) to submit their riding order for the remaining races to both the referee and opposition within (say) 10mins of the end of heat 9, the losing (away) team would then have a further (say) 5 mins to submit their riding order Variations could be brought in to allow for who could be nominated ie if a team is 10 points down then they can select any 2 riders to have 2 nominated rides or similar such ideas This would also satisty AndyM's valid point that averages are skewed by riding position and not riding ability with all riders riding against every one of the opposition team at least once and the second half being a random(ish) selection depending on different teams tactics (would you choose to have a heat 13 style match up or would you have your 'top' riders protecting the reserves?)

Sorry Kevin but I didnt foresee any repetition for the top league - just 5 home league fixtures (and personally no cup competition either). This would allow those with 'other' committments to fully commit to this short but hopefully intense competition Fair point about teams tracking two different grade sides but I would take the opposite view, a fan base is a fickle thing and I would suggest there are a number of tracks where 'casual' fans already 'pick and choose' their meetings particularly in the PL which has way too many fixtures. If there are fewer meetings at the higher level I would think a viable number would support the lower level (with lower cost base) side as well and the higher level would be the 'flagship' level to get casual fans into the sport If the balance of the lower leagues is set right there should be just as much competitive racing down the structure for those less casual fans (dont want to open the whole EL vs PL vs CL debate but good speedway meetings tend to be more of a result of equally matched riders than of their respective grades)

TOTALLY agree Don't get me started, I'm in enough trouble with Tsunami already Hopefully, but history would suggest otherwise Enotian, some good ideas but perhaps a little too drastic and unworkable for the foreseeable future Whilst a European league works well in some sports, football and rugby have almost reached this point, these are sports with large player bases to draw from and where there are strong domestic league structures. Speedway both nationally and internationally has a much greater ability gap spread over far fewer participants. In reality a sixteen team league with 7-10 man squads would require 112-160 riders and IMO the gap between a rider ranked in the top 20 is massive to a rider ranked in the 80-100 range let alone 150+ I would encourage / accommodate the top riders to ride in all the top leagues throughout the speedway world and have sensible structures underneath these leagues to develop national talent. If we look at ‘rider pools’ rather than any existing structure IMO the UK should have a top league with about 6 teams – these could justifiably be termed Elite, made up of the GP riders, ‘top’ overseas riders and doubling up riders from the next tier down. 6 teams needs 42-60 riders and with this number most riders would be competitive I would follow this structure down which would look something like this: Division 1 – 6 teams – 42-60 riders, GP riders, overseas riders and riders doubling up from div 2 Division 2 – 10 teams – 49-70 riders, no GP riders, top riders to double up into division 1 sides, lower order riders doubling down with division 3 sides Division 3 – 10 teams – 49-70 riders, top riders to double up with division 2 clubs lower order riders doubling down with division 4 sides Division 4 – however many sides (hopefully 20+) split regionally with a national playoff system at the end of season The reason divisions 1 and 2 can both live with 10 clubs is that riders would probably ride in more than one national league (as with the current EL) whereas division 2 sides would probably have more national based (though not exclusively British) riders. Division 4 would have a British only focus similar to the current CL IMO the above structure (and reduced fixtures for any individual side) should encourage more tracks to run multiple sides to get a similar number of fixtures in a season whilst those clubs that rent stadiums may say fewer more evenly matched meetings are what they are looking for Riders would ‘have’ to double up to get their required number of fixtures and this would allow riders to move up the scale in a less risky fashion than at present

Sorry but I couldnt disagree more about guests, in such an individual sport we have to do all we can to get as many evenly matched meetings as possible and to get this we need some form of substitute system. The football analogy is looking at a different sport where individuals have less of an impact on a team and even then look at the outcry over Chelsea having a reserve team of internationals which by many is deemed unfair. Perhaps the only thing would be to have a number of 'central contract' riders whos contracts were held by the BSPA and were there purely to act as substitutes for the top riders (with lower order riders being covered by more squad systems / doubling up)

Some good questions Andy but one fundamental question is in whose interests are we looking from and how can we accommodate the interests of the promoter / track owner / team owner / rider / fan / TV / sponsors Personally number one in this has to be stadium owners as has been said on various posts the standard of stadia needs to be brought up to that which would be standard at any lower league football ground and we must make speedway an essential offering at their venue Personally I would rather see fewer closer meetings than more meetings at which the result (if not the margin of victory) is a foregone conclusion. To do this I would propose more divisions with less (more evenly matched) teams and I know this goes against the grain but this would inevitably lead to more doubling up / squad type arrangements throughout the divisions to allow riders to earn a living but equally ride at the appropriate position (2nd string in div 1, HL in div 2 etc) in the right division. Taking this to its logical end this would result in the lower division teams being 'feeder' teams for the higher division teams, indeed it may well be that a division 1 side would also track a division 3 side for this purpose along with enabling there to be a commercially viable number of meetings at speedway only venues A smaller Division 1 would probably suit Sky as they would have closer meetings and would in effect show a greater proportion of that divisions meetings. Hopefully new fans would be attracted by closer racing (the holy grail??) with existing fans probably supporting both the top division side and the lower division side at their track to get their regular speedway fix (in the way that some do at present with PL/CL track sides). Sponsors hopefully would find their own level but remember if we can concentrate the cream this should be a product that could be sold to national / international companies not just the local builder / car showroom The hardest sell of smaller divisions would probably be to team owners themselves as the above is based far more on an american 'franchise' system with all levels acting in the interests of the common good (very uncapitalist I accept) rather than the constant infighting we experience at present

I think we have to remember what Sky get out of the deal - reasonably cheap mid week schedule filling during the football off season Sorry if that sounds cynical but who really thinks that speedway would get a look in were it a winter sport and had to compete head on with football and to a lesser extent rugby This should in no way be seen as a negative post, far from it our seasonality presents the sport with a real opportunity and with 2005 not having a major football tournament I would have thought Sky would continue the relationship. I would still prefer to see a more compact league format for the TV schedule, which allows viable club structure underneath but cant see that happening without a single (neutral) head at the top of the sport

Well finally got to the end of the thread and at present the pros are way behind but perhaps there is a silent majority out there (perhaps not ) I am in favour of dropping tac subs and have no real problem with the golden doubles as the rider still needs to score points in a programmed ride which has to be better than placing a heat leader in a totally mismatched heat against a second string and a reserve Agree with Star Fever (for once) that the rules helped to provide two exiting meetings between Lynn and Sheffield keeping both alive till the end Just one point Phil (sorry havent worked out how to copy yet) - yes it would encourage the team mate to slow down but what the hell are the opposition riders doing letting this happen this may well provide for some great tactical racing rather than the pin your ears back stuff that so dominates modern speedway. Just the thought that it might encourage some riders to realise that speedway is a team sport and not a first past the post heat is enough for me to support it for at least a season or two

I would agree that EL racing is not always the best racing but we have to accept there are only so many hours of coverage that Sky will devote to speedway and IMO that time should show the best riders in a team environment (no real interest in the individual GP series myself but it has been promoted to the nth degree and is now a fact of life). The aim for us is that this coverage wets the appetite of viewers to go and see the real product live at their local club I think the main problem with EL is the vast gulf between the heat leaders and the rest and my proposal above would hopefully reduce this gap (by bringing in on form / track specialist non GP riders) and allow those non GP riders a more level playing field in division 2 I think if we are realistic about getting PL / EL racing to any sort of TV slot we have to accept this will be in a regional highlights programme akin to how some ITV regions show local football down to Div 3 on a Sunday lunchtime

So here’s my two pence worth Sorry but cant see the European league / cup scenario working due to the doubling up of so many riders across a multitude of countries. So what was the aim of this league – as I see it two things to give GP riders less rides with equivalent money and to make meetings more competitive at all levels of the sport Lots of us have posted here and elsewhere that team speedway is really the sport we love and to this end I would propose changing the UK leagues to the following structure which I think would give team speedway a higher profile across the UK Division 1 6 teams based on a regional basis with no team owners but agreed managers Up to 4 GP riders (no more than 2 of top 10) remaining riders to come from any of the lower division affiliate teams for any fixture but priority given to lower league club in the event of a clash (should be plenty of alternatives for this squad system) – no points limit for these fixtures Home track to rotate around the region with no more than 2-3 meetings at any track Finance for the riders, management and track promotion to come from the centre (possibly direct from broadcaster / sponsor) although should be a fair amount of gate receipts for each ‘home’ track getting its share of the occasional fan being drawn to the big names May also need to be a fee payable to the promotion which owns the 'rights' to a GP rider Individual clubs would benefit by running the meetings and promoting their club at these meetings (hopefully with the home track specialist on view). Six regions would allow enough distance between most tracks for the individual clubs to be relatively unaffected by the higher league, and with only 5 home meetings this should allow for a proper league schedule to be put together over an 11 week period (with a break for the internationals) thus giving TV / Media a stable and quantifiable league to report on. I appreciate that some clubs have their hands tied when it comes to race night but with meetings spread around the regions some Saturday night clubs might relish the opportunity of running a festival type event on a non GP weekend, certainly it should not be beyond the wit of the powers that be to produce a viable fixture list Division 2 Effectively the top league without GP riders. Those at or near the top would still be tested by competing in the division 1 when available but should be able to earn a living in what would effectively be a halfway house between the EL and PL in current standards. I would limit this league to 12 teams giving each track 11 home league meetings which with a couple of division 1 meetings plus the cup should provide a viable schedule. Option to name non top ten GP rider from the regional division 1 side as heat leader replacement in the event of injury only. Use of doubling up / down to provide an element of a squad system at the lower end for non heat leaders Division 3 Possibly split North / South with riders doubling up / down with division 2 (or taking their place in division 1 side if selected) and utilising Division 4 sides for squad system at the lower end. If regionally based look to have some form of playoffs at the end of the season. My preference would be for a 14-16 strength single division but lower costs may mean more teams hence the split Promotion and relegation between Division 2 and 3 should not pose as big a hurdle as is currently the case between the EL and PL. Possibly involve the bottom 2 Division 1 sides in any playoff system Division 4 Feeder league to give experience to newcomers – limit on experience and some form of limit on foreign riders although would not like to see a blanket ban as now with loopholes for the Aussies Sorry this goes on a bit and for those who don’t like doubling up / down then I would ask what is the alternative in a sport that is as prone to injury as speedway, at least the squad system allows for a ‘friendly’ guest who would be known to the fans rather than whoever is available Possible structure for the six regions could be similar to the BLC cup groups but with an adjustment to allow for there currently being more EL clubs in the south. Tried to avoid more than 2 in any one region North - as BLC Northish - as BLC less Coventry East - as BLC less Rye House South West - as BLC less Wolverhampton & Newport plus IoW South - as BLC less IoW and Swindon plus Rye House Midlands - Coventy, Newport, Swindon and Wolverhampton May be a bit fantasy speedway but cant see any other way for the EL to be viable than without GP riders but the above gives the media something to focus on