TonyM
-
Content count
192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TonyM
-
-
Hi Tony...thanks for the comments.In brief, I should state that 90% of football clubs do not run at a profit, and likewise, most stadiums these days are being funded principally by the Council under the guise of a mixed-use community venue. The Football Club then typically become tenants under a Council appointed 'Stadium Management Company' who then try to make a profit out of the anicilliary facilities such as conference suites, 5-a-side pitches etc...
You are correct in saying that the Football Foundation offer Stadia Improvement Funds and grants, but they are only a very small part of the build cost. There is nothing stopping speedway promotions from obtaining funding from bodies such as Sport England, as long as the facility has a greater benefit on the community leisure provision. This is why Speedway promotions will not get away with merely building speedway-only tracks. Mixed-use is the way forward imho, and this is both how a business plan can be put forward to obtain the funding in the first instance, and also how a profit can be made over the life of the building.
Appreciate what you are saying about how football clubs and councils can stucture a deal whereby the football club is in effect 'subsidised' through other use or peppercorn rents but it is far easier to run a 'football in the community' scheme than one for speedway (even given the good work Lynn have done with their study centre)
I would be amazed if speedway could meet the Sport England criteria in the way more traditional sports can in terms of participation / equality etc
I think we both agree on mixed use, I just dont see how a speedway club could lead such a venture, even if you take out the fact that the sport is on its knees financially other sports have access to so many other funding streams that speedway because of the way it is governed (for want of a better term) does not. IMO a speedway club would nearly always be better going in as a 'second partner' or whatever term you wanted to use. Interesting that at the end of your article you use the example of Exeter Rugby club and their new stadium, not sure if you knew but they used to be landlords for the speedway but when they moved no provision for speedway was included - perhaps if speedway was seen as a key partner in the use of the stadium rather than something they were happy to leave behind we could get the facility upgrade we think is long overdue for speedway (also ask the question why the speedway didnt lead the move and have the rugby club as tenants and why Exeter speedway rather than building from scratch is now working with the local racecourse)
-
LS, thanks for emailing the article, interesting reading
If anything I would take the exact opposite view in that for the sport to survive and prosper it must generate good returns for co-operative landlords rather than look to become the owners themselves.
Essentially I cant see that the speedway community would be able to raise the initial finance either internally or externally to create their own stadiums, many of the examples you quote would I guess have had a fairly substantial element of funding from the Football Trust or similar such orgainisation as well as possible proceeds from the sale of existing facilities, and even if the returns from the 'extras' surrounding the track were cash generators why would lenders include a vast (in relative terms) area that was used for such a specialist and loss making (if EL promoters are to be believed) activity as speedway
Even in its current state there are very few tracks where speedway is 'profitable' and many where facilities are subsidised by other activities be it greyhounds, stock cars or whatever so perhaps we should look to how the sport can be developed to start being an attractive (both physically and financially) tenant before we get ahead of ourselves and look to pour money the sport doesnt have into new stadia
-
Speedway does not need buckets of cash thrown at itWhat it needs is more people on bikes
HOW YOU ASK ...NON LEAUGE RACING.
Open up all the tracks that can’t afford league racing for amateurs to have a go racing no prize money just trophies.
Every rider on a bike gets 4 in the gate plus other spectators and bring the admission price down
I was reading another thread on lack of training facilities why should you be training and for what get racing form your own rider clubs and do it yourselves.
Then you can create a rider depth and people can show how good they are before hitting the Pro Leauge scoring 2 points and getting canned.
In a nutshell the more people involved.... the bigger the following ....... make a lot of noise doing it
Then the sponsors and money starts coming in
I appreciate the idea of expanding the 'pyramid' at the bottom which should mean that there would be more quality coming through to the higher (pro) levels of the sport but two major problems:
1. taking the highlighted text out of context - speedway is viewed as a noisy sport and thus locations where it is welcomed are few and far between
2. as it currently stands speedway is an expensive sport to participate in with specialist machinery which seems to need constant (read costly) love and attention, added to the cost of creating and maintaining a safe racing area and the sums dont add up
Rather than a DIY approach there should be more of an initiative taken by the BSPA (with its governing body hat on) to develop some form of coherent development policy within its existing structure
-
With respect to anyone else's views, all the tactical rules do is offer the opportunity to reward a team that is performing badly. It only cures the sympton, not the illness. The BSPA need to address the issue of unequal team strengths and track fairness, then the rule would not be necessary. What Sky may or may not want should be irrelevant.Great post, particularly highlighted bit. With speedway lurching from crisis to crisis the conference this year could do well to use this criteria as to whether to adopt / adapt any rule
-
Big problem is what is in it for the 'squad' riders, to take your points in turn
A. A national cup competition of PL and EL B teams, which they would use there CL riders in to balance out the sides, which in turn would give CL riders the chance to meet PL teams.Looking at your draft Poole team you've raided half the PL to get the squad so who would be left to ride for the PL teams? Equally CL riders get plenty of chance to ride against PL opposition with guest appearances covering for PL reserves, with what can only be described as 'mixed' success. Why would PL teams want to race these extra fixtures in what is a fairly full fixture schedule at PL level anyway?
B. The opportunity for riders who don't get regular racing being full time EL to have more meetings to open up there opportunity to increase earnings, which in turn would increase the chances of them moving up.Who in your list doesnt get 'regular' racing, the bottom end of your draft team would end up with less meetings than they had this year for their respective teams - which members of the squad are you refering to?
C. It would tighten the gap between the EL and PL as it would give improving PL riders more opportunities to meet standard EL riders eg Legualt a rider who is in the PL racing well but struggling for EL meetings to gauge his progress could meet ELB teams.Would this by Kyle riding for his PL club against an EL B team or for the EL B team (getting limited meetings) against a weakened PL?
D. With less meetings in this country it would give the GP riders a less hectic calendar which in hand could increase the chances of them showing up.Possibly, although there would still be potential fixture problems but accept there would be more scope for flexibility
E. Would recuce costs as it would mean paying GP stars for less meetings, they asked for less lets give them less.But what would the 'squad' members ask for, possibly less per meeting than GP riders but would they really want to be 'cover' riding only 'B' meetings, I'm guessing what you save on one hand you would lose on the other as these riders (if they exist) would probably want fairly hefty signing on fees to mitigate for fewer meetings
There is your main problem, speedway as it currently stands places a large financial risk on its competitors by way of equipment costs and having large squads means large equipment costs to be funded. Giving each rider potentially less meetings to recoup that outlay means higher up front payments and/or higher costs per meeting unless they can earn elsewhere from that equipment when not active in the squad, sorry but I cant see how the above would be attractive to either promoters or riders
-
Unlike many other sports, it seems to me that speedway - or British speedway at least - doesn't bother with coaching much. Why?Self interest, easier and cheaper to buy in a ready made / part way there foreigners than spend the time, effort and money developing talent in house. Obviously this is a generalisation and I'm sure there are pockets of good practice out there but fundamentally the system is structured in such a way that long term development of riders is almost pointless from a financial / practical point of view. The annual merry-go-round of rider changes each post season to fit the latest average points limit is hardly an incentive either
Speedway is unique in that riders are paid quite early in their careers, operate mostly without major sponsors, and rely on club interest or a personal mentor to help them develop...But I can't see where the leadership would come from in speedway to do this on a National scale. The ACU/SCB? - probably not; the BSPA? - even less likely! Anyone else? ......
Whilst this is undoubtably part of the problem it could also be part of the solution if clubs saw any potential benefit in developing their own riders they may take look more favourably on coaching, however so many are living a hand to mouth financial existance at present its going to be a pretty hard sell to talk about 'investment' in future riders
The SRA/VSRA ......
Regards.
PS.
Funded in part by the BSPA & a %? of licence fees...... To easy.
Not sure how this would work, % of licence fees which riders can then 'spend' at tracks to get track time / finance equipment / coaching? Who would administer who received the money and how much and measure what sort of return was received for the investment
A more radical option (pipe dream) would be to restructure UK speedway along the lines of major league baseball in the US with 'major' teams (effectively the EL however it is made up post conference this year) and attached 'minor' teams (anything below EL level and including the CL). Riders would be signed to an EL side from the start of their careers which would hopefully encourage the top clubs to take an interest in what was going on lower down the ladder, PL and CL clubs would hopefully benefit from being part of a larger (more financially stable) organisation with a focus on bringing riders through to the EL side
The other thing that would make 'coaching' a greater priority would be to standardise the equipment used in the CL thus linking success more closely with trackcraft than the ability to raise finance to fund 'better' equipment
-
Would it not be possible to arrange an Indoor Series. They already have experience of laying tracks indoors (Cardiff & Brighton) and it won't be affected by the weather.Other motor sports now do this (trials, supercross etc). IMO it would add to the atmosphere and help promote the sport. It could be staged over several rounds and it could even be done using a touring 'Dream Team' (like the yanks did in basketball)
Anyway just an opinion.
I would guess the major problem would be with cost both in terms of venues big enough (cant think somewhere like the NEC or O2 arena comes cheap) and the insistence on trying to lay a shale track as is done in Brighton (not to everyones taste)
If an alternative surface could be found that could be more easily laid and removed and perhaps look at less powerful bikes it may be possible but would still think that the venue cost would make it a fairly big gamble based on what the maximum attendance could be
-
I think everybody can see why Redcar fans are genuinely upset though - from a totally logical sense it makes no sense whatsoever to leave them out of the 4s. In a practical sense I can see why it has been done and whether you agree with it or not it has at least been explained now. That should really be the end of it but you have to admit in all honesty that anybody would be a bit miffed if circumstances had meant this had affected their club.Many Redcar fans are posting in a sensible way and most appear to have, probably rightly so, let it go but there are a few that don't seem able to do either of these. A couple of people have posted very bitter comments and the odd one has been downright offensive but I don't think it's fair to treat the whole club in the same way because of these 'supporters'. I know when Sheffield were left out of the original line up certain Tigers supporters found it impossible to act like grown ups but that didn't mean the rest of us didn't have a valid point to make. Let's all just treat individual idiots as just that and not see them as representative of any one club as a whole.
Agree with every word
-
Fair dues to Jonathon for a long press release accepting there have been cons as well as pros for the super7even this year, yes its a bit self congratulatory but the guy is a promoter, when was the last time you heard Don King come out and 'say that boxing match was a complete mismatch and even my grannie could have knocked the loser out' - wont happen
Shame there is a lot of 'I's in there as I would have hoped that there was more than one promoter keen to be involved with these events (wasnt Matt Fords name mentioned when the series was announced?)
I am sure changes will be made for next season and perhap the 'depth of feeling' on here will give more power to JCs at the conference if he thinks qualifiers are the way to go for the 4TT next year, as SL has said he got many things wrong at Lynn when he first started (mainly through youthful inexperience) but has listened and changed things where necessary, also nice to see a press release that appears to have been spell checked!
-
Thanks Kevin, I was just trying to clarify what you were proposing. I was hoping this thread could be more about what the sport would/should look like and come to some consensus (well you, Andy and me!) view rather than putting forward suggestions (however valid) without having a framework in which to assess them
Yes a mechanism for rewarding loyalty sounds a good idea as it fits in with the framework for fans in having rider continuity over time but ideas cant be viewed in isolation so we need a workable framework first (some ideas may work for one group but not for another - fans may want weekly speedway for £1 per meeting but riders want to be paid and clubs want to make money so there will always be an element of compromise with some proposals)
-
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.
The point of the thread is to try and look at the sport as a whole rather than individual club issues, clubs may come and go for all sorts of reasons but unless there is some pretty radical change and soon then I fear it will be reach a point where even the 'good' clubs will struggle to carry on
What do you think clubs need / want from speedway?
As an aside I'm not a great fan of incremental changes as they often have the effect of giving the illusion of change whilst side stepping the 'big' issues
-
I think the main question to be asked is whether itinerant riders should have a future in British speedway. In other words, should be continue to employ riders who have multiple commitments in multiple countries, or should we attempt to have a more self-contained league? The most obvious manifestation is whether British speedway should try to co-exist with the SGP, but equally riders having many employers has been problematic.Of course, a loss of 'overseas' riders would mean a reduction in the supposed quality of British speedway, and the need to develop and promote more home-grown (by which I don't necessarily mean British) riders. However, I think this British speedway really must break from this mentality as this commitment to employing the "world's best riders" regardless of the long-term consequences will eventually doom the sport here. How much longer will fans tolerate matches between sides cobbled together from whoever could be bothered to turn-up that particular week. It would be much better to have stable line-ups, even if this means supposedly 'lower' quality. In any case, new stars would eventually be born.
Looking from the professional end of the riders spectrum;
1) you think they should be able to make a living from the UK alone and that it should be a 'full time' commitment?
2) the chance of 'progressing' to SGP level but if that is achieved they would have to relinquish their UK riding place?
From a club position - only UK based riders could be contracted (obviously this would allow overseas riders to come over and then be based here for the season but not flying in on a meeting by meeting basis)
The second question is how to devise a sensible team equalisation system. Most people agree this is desirable, but any system should allow a degree of medium-to-long term planning, and should not be so punitive as to penalise middle-of-the-table teams. The principle of the points limit isn't a bad one, but the current system been misused over the years and does nothing to encourage team building from one's own resources.Didnt want to get into too much detail as regards how teams are assembled / regulations that should be in place but essentially looking for clubs to have a more stable team membership (within the confines of team equalisation) with a commitment to develop their riders
-
Lots of threads since the start of the season about the demise of speedway (particularly the top flight) in this country and various possible remedies to get speedway out of the downward spiral from those that think it is in one
Two frustrating things for me from these type of threads are
1)the narrow range in which many of us speedway fans ideas are constrained by - ie ‘drop the points limit to 40 and all will be well’ type postings; and
2)the continual ‘my club has been wronged’ / ‘nothing wrong at my club so stop complaining’ type posts – this is exactly how I imagine the BSPA conferences to be and would like to think that we as a group could look a little further than our own clubs present situation to come up with ideas that are good for the sport as a whole
Rather than finding answers (which we don’t seem to be able to agree on anyway) perhaps we could take a step back and come up with the right questions. So from my point of view there are a number of groups to be considered and accommodated in any changes and would like some thoughts on whether the assumptions of their needs are realistic, this is not a thread about how the needs of a particular group can be met rather a discussion of what each group is looking for from the sport in the future
Promotions (aka clubs) – financially viable (difficult for many sporting organisations) maybe partially offset by higher profile for owner, may also be linked to sponsors requirements
Sponsors – fall into a couple of categories, those that support a rider / club as it is their ‘hobby’ and those that do it as a commercial business decision – these are likely to be putting more in but will rightly want more out in terms of exposure be it national, regional or local media coverage and association with a successful club in a successful higher profile sport
TV/Media – exciting matches, variety of teams, ‘personalities’, credible league competition, certainty of scheduling and fixture taking place
Fans – as for TV but bias towards successful home team, sensible meeting schedule, good facilities at stadiums, continuity of riders over a period of time
Riders – again I would split these between the ‘professional’ and the semi-pro / amateur. Professional wants to maximise earnings but also balance that against financial risk so a more stable earnings pattern would perhaps be a better way of putting it, I am guessing both groups would want sensible fixture scheduling although perhaps even more important for the semi pro / amateur. Good practice and coaching opportunities and chance to move up the earnings scale with sufficient ability
-
Unfortunately they are in a no win situation (not sticking up for JC who has made some mistakes along with all the positives surrounding the Super7).
You could make a strong arguement that given the timescale between now and the restaging date they could recalculate the lineup 30 days before the meeting as per the original qualifying criteria - response from the fans who went in the rain and whose club is no longer in the tournament would probably be less than complementary and thats without the financial hit of reprinting all the programmes from scratch
Equally keeping the original lineup (or the revisied original lineup) leads to its own can of worms as far as Sheffield and Redcar goes and heaven forbid if Sheffield were in the top seven averages come early June and the BSPA go back to the original original line up
Personally I would go for a recalculation (Super7 tickets are redeemable at any of the other events so the PL pairs may see some cashed in there, equally an offer of a refund to any fans who wished to would not do any harm in the PR stakes) but think it is the less likely of the two options
-
Yes, thanks for the link Subedei
Not sure why there was such strong opposition as the idea seemed fine to me (before my forum days) - trying to give an incentive to a 'beaten' team to keep going and be rewarded in part for doing so. The home side getting 6 for a win, 5 for a draw or 0 for losing - seems a bit drastic, losing your no 1 through injury may tip the scales in a close meeting
How about simply saying point for each 10 points scored up to 40 (both home and away) plus 2 for a win and 1 for a draw (open to the idea that draws and wins might be worth additional points, say 2 and 4). Easy for fans to calculate, encourages teams to keep going once the meeting is lost and does not reward home advantage (a win is a win)
Producing the following points
53-37 (home team 6 (4+2), away team 3)
44-46 (home team 4, away team 6 (4+2))
45-45 (home team 5 (4+1), away team 5 (4+1))
Obviously this would replace the aggregate point (interesting that the old which bonus point are we discussing came up in the argument) - cant work out quite why some were happy a team could earn a 'bonus' point by losing but reject the idea that a team getting close to drawing a meeting should be rewarded in some way
-
Why should then winning team be penalised (as they were with the tactical ride rules) for being good enough to lead by several points?Most rules even themselves out over the course of a season in terms of being penalised / using them to your advantage
Generally the idea of any 'tinkering' should be to keep meetings alive as speedway can rapidly turn into one sided processions (were you there last week?)
Personally I prefer the changes that are likely to produce better racing:
1) Letting ANY lower averaged rider replace another subject to minimum of 3 rides for each rider (thus an in form rider should have more opportunities and produce better racing). This would also provide better cover for 'in meeting' injuries. I would also prefer to see all teams start as 7 v 7
2) Option of losing team changing of gate positions, could be abused but if thought through with reasonable boundaries (limited to certain heats / swap from A to B or B to A once in a meeting) could provide an element of help to a losing team
3) Introducing 'bonus' points for away scores rather than aggregate wins to encourage more balanced team building and lessen the incentive for massive home advantage to 'build up a lead'
4) Better pre meeting practice available particularly for away riders
Rules that 'keep the score close' but do nothing to add to the quality of racing are IMO just a smoke screen and I would put the tactical ride in this category
-
I never understand this obsession with expansion when speedway is doing so badly in its core markets. Why not try to attract more people in places where the sport already operates, rather than chase nebulous markets in regions where sport in general isn't of much interest to the locals?Fair point about total virgin markets but I would like to see the GP circus attempt to give the sport a boost in Australia and/or North America
Problems with domestic markets are partly self inflicted and are not really related at to whether 'speedway' the sport could or should be expanding internationally
-
from the NA press release ...Demand for tickets to the Elite League Best Pairs at King's Lynn Speedway this Saturday has been so high that the organisers have decided to open the box office at the venue in Saddlebow Road on Wednesday night between the hours of 6-8pm to sell tickets in advance for fans want to avoid queuing on the day,
Super7even series organiser Jonathan Chapman said 'The advance tickets having been selling like hot cakes through our ticketing agency but they have now had to stop taking orders as the event is only a week away, we know some local fans still want to buy them in advance so hopefully they will be able to make it over to us on Wednesday, if not they will still be able to buy them on the day!'
Fair dues again to JC, emailed him after last weeks Lynn fixture expressing my surprise that EL Pairs tickets were not available at the box office and that this might not be helpful in attracting them to the meeting, pointing out that if neutral venues are quite rightly chosen for these events then everything that could be done is done to encourage 'home' fans to attend
Hope to see tickets on sale for other super7even events at the box offices of the venues when their team are at home as a matter of course in the future
-
Wasn't getting at JC, Tony - he's done very well within his brief, but I certainly think he could have been given greater scope to rethink the big events and plan ahead to deliver something even bigger and better for 2008, say.Not on here to defend JC, as he does most certainly have his faults, but I think in this case he has probably pushed the boat out as much as he could within what the BSPA would run with. As I said, lets hope it all comes off and he then can go back in the autumn with a big grin saying 'I told you so', and he seems just the sort of bloke to do just that, and is given a more of a free role for 2008
I think there are a number on here who would have been happy to have given him a blank sheet for 2007 but as ever the BSPA follows the conservative line unless given no option - there always seemed a bit of 'lets throw JC et al a bone to shut them up' about the whole sub committee anyway so I would imagine there are some promoters out there who probably think some of ideas for 2007 are too radical
-
Good news for me with Lynn hosting the pairs rather than an 'individual' style event (always prefer 2v2 in a race). Not fussed at all about the MotoX or whatever but if it gets a few more through the gate then it will have worked and I can always find something else to do
We are always hearing from our promotion how 'fair' our track is so looking forward to seeing the track with riders who will be able to cope with a bit more grip than some visitors over the last few years
-
Fine, so the organisation and marketing have been improved, there's a bit more entertainment on offer and the British Final top 5 can qualify for the GP stages, though the whole thing left me slightly underwhelmed. I'd expected a more radical new range of competitions involving more tracks and more riders. Too high expectations, I guess.
Lets be fair Andy, the sub committee that JC chaired probably had a pretty narrow brief in terms of what it could and couldnt do and it was perceived by many that the only thing wrong with these national events was the promotion. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that remit this does seem to be a step in the right direction, each event feeding of the marketing of the whole super7even is a good idea, clearly defined dates and criteria for selection and for lineups to be announced is good (OK the cynics may say there will be a 'subject to change' proviso but at least the powers that be are trying), many have called for 'additional attractions' and whilst everything will not be to everyones taste they cant be faulted for trying different things, also free entry for the under 11s at all meetings is great and may just go to prove a few promotions wrong that still fail to do this for league meetings, especially with the autograph signing session adding to the 'thrill' for the young (and not so young) uns
Lets hope the whole scheme is a success, probably requires at least 5 of the 7 to perform much better attendance wise, and then this group can go back to the BSPA in the autumn and say 'promotion does work' and start looking at league speedway and how better to move that forward
-
You have to be clear about what results you want from the change, is it to provide 'closer' racing or closer scores (not the same thing) or to provide a 'fairer' assessment of a riders ability (average)
Currently the riders have the following matchups:
1 (HL) - 3 HL, 4 SS, 1 RES
2 (SS) - 2 HL, 4 SS, 2 RES
3 (HL) - 3 HL, 3 SS, 2 RES
4 (SS) - 2 HL, 4 SS, 2 RES
5 (SS) - 3 HL, 4 SS, 1 RES
6 (RES) - 2 HL, 3 SS, 3 RES
7 (RES) - 1 HL, 2 SS, 5 RES
So the problem in allowing a manager to select anywhere in the 1-7 for any rider would be if one side opted for the 'traditional' line up and the other side put their best HL at 7 he would only have one ride against an opposition heatleader but five against their reserves. There is some merit in allowing any rider in the top 5 to change position as the impact is nominal and may allow for better 'partnerships' to be tracked although that is usually overcome with the current system as you would be unlikely to pair you two heatleaders together
You would also have the problem of 'late' changes to riding orders affecting programmes, something that is far more of an issue in speedway than say a change in football / rugby
As regards tac subs the current tactical rules have shown any extra rides by the top riders in a side puts the emphasis of team building at the top end to the detrement of the lower order, perhaps a better tactical rule would be an extension of the reserve replacement rule to allow any higher average rider to be replaced by a lower average rider for one ride in a meeting, this would encourage a bit more diversity in team building, looking to balance second strings with big and small track experience, and provide fans with some closer racing with visiting riders who could ride the track getting an extra ride(s) - may also help matches with injured rider not just being replaced by reserves for their remaining rides
-
and you know that their employers would do this for them? and what about the people doing this extra work, thats not an option, all that would happen is you would get an even greater gulf between the proffessional riders riding nearly every night and the amateur ones riding once or twice every two weeks.wont happen, and if it did it would kill speedway as we know it, might even be the end of team speedway
Lots of things appear to be killing team speedway and home meetings once a fortnight was an idea put forward to try and save some team speedway in this country.
The saying "if you keep doing what we've always done you'll keep getting what you've always got" seems to be particularly relevant to speedway and the way it has been run, so any other ideas other than "promoters need to promote better" as to what can halt and hopefully reverse the decline of speedway are welcome
The CL in this country is already amateur (so non professional team speedway can exist) and continued cost cutting by PL promoters will soon make that league semi pro at best and some would argue that we already have a vast gulf between the top and bottom of the PL (can Zorro, Topinka et al really be compared with Legg, Bowen etc) and are these lads filling the reserve berths really full time professionals with no other income apart from their speedway earnings?
What less meetings per club may allow is for the concentration of the 'pros' with the lower end of the pro ranks also competing with the top end of the amateur ranks in a similar way to how cricket works down from the pros (generally first class counties) to semi pros (minor counties are often a collection of 'club pros' and 'keen amateurs') to amateurs (club cricket which often has one or two club pros playing / coaching). Obviously the main barriers to this under the current system are the fixture congestion and equipment and maintenance costs.
I still maintain that equipment and maintenance costs would be cheaper for clubs to provide as a 'team' package and this may also reduce some of the barriers to entry into the sport for potential new riders and allowing a flexable approach to riders in a team if they were on a semi-pro basis (ie a CL team would have to pitch up with say 11 bikes and 7 riders from their squad rather than currently where all of the CL squad have to go through the expense of purchasing and maintaining their own equipment which obviously reduces some riders ability to be competitive)
-
and what happens to the lesser riders who only ride in england, one meeting a week would not make it worth their while.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'?
Kings Lynn Stars
in Years Gone By
Posted
Thanks Trees, I had called my Mum and after lots of do,do,do do-do-do do do ing we got the tune and the memories flooding back but alas no title to seach Youtube for, not a dry eye in either of our houses tonight but thanks again