Kevin Meynell

The point of promotion and relegation in any sport, is when more teams want to compete at the highest level than can be accommodated. It is therefore the only fair method by which to determine the level at which each team should ride. It's all very nice to discuss how this might work in speedway, but the top league is hardly overwhelmed with numbers at the moment. The priority must be to ensure there are at least approximately equal numbers in both the BEL and BPL before we start worrying about enforced movements between the different levels of competition. Yes of course promotion and relegation can work in speedway, it does in the Polish and Swedish leagues, but it's simply pointless to consider for British speedway at the moment.

Hmm.. I guess you don't remember when meetings comprised 20 heats which took no longer to run than now? In the past ten years, the number of heats has been systematically cut back, with the remaining heats being strung-out longer to make it seem like the same value for money. In addition, admission have gone-up far beyond the rate of inflation, to the extent that we're paying nearly twice as much per heat in real terms nowadays. I think you either keep guests or get rid of them completely, not complicate the rules further. I favour the latter and believe that more use should be made of squad systems. It will simply not work until there are more teams trying to get into the BEL than there are available places. As the top league has had up to 18 teams in the past, the size of the BEL needs to double before we even start considering promotion and relegation. Yes, trying to make a profit for their shareholders (basically JP) at everyone else's expense! They effectively pay nothing for the riders, and pay insufficient prize money to allow riders to compete exclusively in the series. Of course, this would not necessarily be a problem if they had a policy of cooperation with the national leagues, but the past year has shown that they have blatant disregard for the competitions that effectively provide their riders.

There's talk of Arena-Essex moving-up, plus one other (the name of which will surprise everyone if it happens). Teams such as Ipswich will always be 'short' of fixtures as no-one else rides on a Thursday, and it doesn't really clash with the SGP. You can therefore run pretty much every week. Teams such as Oxford or Coventry don't have that option as they have to work around the SGP etc.. The other problem is that the introduction of the playoffs' means that all the league matches need to be crushed into five months instead of seven as before. I certainly wouldn't disagree that the fixture list is a bit of a joke, but I don't see anything changing unless the BEL is run without regard to the SGP, and without SGP riders.

Absolutely! You can often negotiate very good deals (including flights) abroad during off-peak periods, which work out cheaper than renting the conference room alone in Britain. To give you an example, a conference room for around 40 people would cost in the order of GBP 2,000 per *day* in a UK hotel. Then you'd be paying upwards of GBP 80 per person per night for accommodation. It's very easy to see why the promoters go off to Tenerife.

The BSPA offices are where their employed staff work. In any case, don't they share them with the ACU? Most things are have already been discussed and/or decided in previous meetings before the promoters get to the Annual Conference. I believe the conference acts as the official AGM (where accounts are approved, auditors appointed and officers elected), and is largely used to ratify most of the pre-agreed decisions. You also have to realise that important things are rarely decided in formal meetings. Real business is always done in bars and restaurants, and I hardly think that an annual jolly to Tenerife can be considered extravagent these days.

Yes, fixture planning, particularly in the BEL, is very poor. Unfortunately, nothing will change until the league is run without SGP riders as that competition occupies 10 weekends (out of 32) during the season. If you then add in the SWC, SGP Qualifying (admittedly soon to be scrapped), World U21, European Championship, European U19, the ECCC, not to mention all the compulsory meetings in other countries, it's amazing that the BEL can fit in any fixtures at all! But if you have competitions with knockout rounds, you need to schedule spare dates in case you progress. In any case, most teams usually experience one or two rainoffs each season, and these can normally be rearranged on the reserved dates. Teams also need to ride away to other teams with the same race night, which creates blank weeks in the home fixture list. Tracks generally aim for 20 home meetings per season. A 10-team league generates 36 matches (home & away twice), add in 2-6 matches for the Knockout Cup, and possibly 6-8 for the BLC, and you have plenty of fixtures. Many of the mid-summer dates are effectively taken by the SGP, SWC and other World/European Championships. You won't solve the problem until you find a way of resolving the clashes. Why do people get so upset about the promoters going to Spain for their annual conference? They pay their own fares, and as it's off-season, it probably doesn't cost any more to hold the event than it would in Britain. After a long, hard season, I wouldn't begrude anyone going to have their meeting in the sun. Also bear in mind, that most promoters probably can't take their holidays during the summer either.

Not really. I think fans should be able to at least *suggest* improvements, but unfortunately I'm realistic about how much notice the 'powers-that-be' will pay these. You probably need to add another option in your poll.

It's a difficult problem. Promoters are the ones that make the investment, so it's not unreasonable that they decide how to run the sport, even if they do make a pig's ear of it. I certainly wouldn't want someone else deciding how to spend my money for me and have no comeback. It's all very well people calling for an independent body to run the sport, but how would that body be constituted and who would decide its membership? I certainly wouldn't want the likes of the ACU to be involved, nor people from undefined groups (e.g. supporters). In fact, the Internet tried to do exactly this with it's governing body (ICANN) and it proved disastrous. There were various groups making absolutely no financial contribution to the organisation that voted to spend the money on all manner of ill-conceived and crazy schemes. However, I do believe that promoters must delegate the day-to-day running of the sport to an independent Commissioner as happens in North American sport. The BSPA would obviously appoint the Commisioner, but that person would have to have no connection with any promotion which would take much of the self-interested decision making out of the sport. In addition, the promoters would only be able to appoint or dismiss the Commissioner once a year (or even longer), so they'd have to evaluate that person on their overall performance, rather than on individual decisions. Finally, whilst promoters should always have the final say on what rules are implemented, any proposed rule changes should be deferred to the following season before being implemented to ensure they're properly thought through. I think it would also be sensible to introduce an advisory panel made-up of various people such as referees, team managers and maybe supporters to give feedback on proposed changes. Then at least some of the more embarrassing decisions of the past might be avoided in future.

I could comment on nearly every point, but I know the BSPA won't take a blind bit of notice. The sport needs restructuring, but nothing will happen until the SGP, BEL and Sky television are disentangled from one another. That is the issue preventing change at the moment. As I mentioned in a previous post, this exercise has been done before, and I know that the suggestions have been read by the 'powers-that-be'. Unfortunately, there has never even been a 'thanks, but no thanks', let alone any sign that some of the suggestions have been acted upon (with a couple of exceptions). In an effort to be constructive though, I would say concentrate on the points that are within the ability of the BSPA to change. They cannot change anything in the FIM, UEM, ACU and other national leagues without a massive schism in the sport, so there's little point pursuing that (although I suppose we can dream). I wouldn't disagree with some of the more fundamental rule changes, like introduction of squad systems and the abolition of guests, but some appear to be akin to rearranging deck chairs on Titantic. I think you have to ask whether changing something make the sport easier to understand and/or attract new supporters. If not, then leave things as they are. I don't wish to appear negative about your admirable efforts, but you first need to convince the patient that he needs to be cured.

Well there are going to be changes to the SGP. The FIM Biennial Session confirms the following... Individual Speedway World Championships: qualifying system for 2004: the format of all the Individual Speedway World Championships will be modified, with the addition of 3 heats. It will now consist of 20 heats plus 2 semi-finals and 1 final - The number of riders qualified from the 2004 Grand Final to the 2005 Speedway Grand Prix Series will be 2 – There will be no qualifying system to the Speedway Grand Prix as from 2005. The riders will be qualified according to their previous year’s classification or nominated by the Speedway Grand Prix Commission in accordance with the promoter. (As from 2005, the Speedway Grand Prix Series will be run with 16 riders instead of the current 24). Speedway World Cup: the final tournament will be held with 8 National teams (instead of 12), in two qualifying Events, one Race-Off and the Final; all events will be run with 4 teams (instead of 5). Consequently, a second pre-qualifying round has been added to the calendar.

Why would the fans lose out? In any case, there are hardly any fans left, which is why the sport desperately needs to attract new blood. It won't do this by only appealing to the few hundred remaining regulars.

Sean, The fundamental problem with any European-wide competition, is that the top riders currently ride for teams in more than one country. The only real (and credible) way around the problem, is for teams to sign separate squads for their European campaign, so that any one rider only rides for one team in the competition. Of course, each team would then need have a guaranteed number of matches to make it worth their while. A knockout cup would only guarantee a couple of matches, which isn't really enough to generate the necessary economies-of-scale. At the very least, you'd need to adopt a UEFA Champions' League-type format. The SGP has shown what can be achieved with proper organisation, but I'm of the view that fans in the major speedway nations prefer team racing. The SGP is in danger of killing the golden goose, as I'm sure most fans only follow it because their team's riders happen to be taking part. If the link with team racing was broken, I believe you'd see a rapid decline in interest. Personally, I'd rather see a European Cup/League, although that would obviously be more difficult to promote and organise than the SGP.

Of course, you also have to take into account that there will be a number of dropped points during the season. In addition, GDTS and guest rides are not included in the averages.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting to revert to having the final placings decided on the basis of the old format alone. I think the best solution would be to have the top eight after the 20 heats, qualifying for knockout semi-finals. You will then give every rider the chance to start off each gate, but you're unlikely to have many dead heats as most will still be in with a chance of qualifying for the Semi-Finals.

The Dugards are not the issue - it's the Andy Smiths and old Hungarians coming their predictable consecutive lasts that are the problem. Still, if people think the Pre-Main Event provides good entertainment, then who am I to argue? I would argue that it's harder to watch cricket, golf and Formula 1 without a scorecard (lap chart in the case of F1), but you let television take care of that. Which demonstrates the inadequacies of the knockout format. Under the old format, riders at least had to start off every gate during the course of the meeting. Okay, so the ballot for gate positions makes things less predictable, but you won't convince me that it's a fair method. One solution might be to divide the 24 riders in 4 groups of 6, and have them ride 2 heats each (e.g. Ht1 - 1,2,3,4, Ht2 - 5,6,2,1, Ht3 - 4,3,6,5) off an inside and outside gate. That would result in 12 heats which could replace the Pre-Main Event. The top four in each group would then qualify for the Main Event which is run on a knockout basis as now. I've just thought of that off the top of my head, so I'm sure someone better could be devised with a bit more thought.

Jeff, The heats during the Pre-Main Event where the top 8 'race' for gate positions are meaningless, but wasn't really my point which was that 24-riders means too much mediocrity at the moment. I'm not trying to make a comparison with the old format, simply making the observation. The problem with the current format is that its designed to 'randomise' the results as much as possible. Even the 'fairer' elements such as higher-placed riders being able to choose their gate positions in the Semi-Finals and Final were removed in the past couple of years. Sure the format is fine if you like a lottery, but it doesn't ensure that the best rider wins. Of course, that may be more important in the name of entertainment. Yes, but that was down to politics rather than any fault of the format. If the qualifying system hadn't been so skewed, you might have stood a chance of having the best 16 riders in the Final. I don't know what's difficult about understanding that every rider meets every other rider over the course of the meeting, scoring 3-2-1-0 in each heat. If people can understand the complexities of cricket, I'm sure they can follow that. I don't think filling in a programme under the current format is particularly easy either, and you didn't have to write a rider's name umpteen times in the past either. Yes, but that was nothing to do with the heat format. It was down to a general decline in the following of team speedway declining (something for BSI to note), and the Finals being held in the middle-of-nowhere. Norden started the rot, Pocking finished it. I still say the actual format used is a secondary consideration If an event is sufficiently well-promoted, people will still come however many riders you have, or whether there is a knockout format or not. As I said, I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether a knockout format is used, but I certainly don't think they've got it right at the moment.

That's what the discussion was about. I think it needs more than just a bit of fine-tuning. It needs a radical overhaul. How many fans travel to away meetings in the British leagues these days? The amount of money they generate is almost insignificant. An Euro League clearly isn't affordable as things stand at the moment. I would look to finance it with television and sponsorship money, much like the SGP is now. The problem with the current structure in Britain (and other countries) is that only a handful of teams can afford to run in the top league. Unfortunately, this isn't enough for a viable league, so other teams have to be induced to run beyond their means to make-up the numbers. A league at European level, would allow the 3-4 teams in each of the major countries to run top-flight speedway, whilst allowing the others to run at a more sensible, cost effective level.

Sure, but you also have to watch 40-year-old Hungarians and Andy Smith-types running consecutive lasts as well. You really need a format where all the riders start at the same stage. I think you missed my point. I realise the world has changed, and I also realise that we'll probably never see 100,000 fans at a speedway meeting again (certainly not at Wembley). My point was that the format doesn't really matter in the grand scale of things if the sport is otherwise popular and/or well promoted. Does the casual spectator really think or care about such issues? I don't think so! I don't have a problem with the knockout format per se (provided it's used for a series rather than one-off events), but there's too much mediocrity in the SGP at the moment, and you need to involve the top riders from the beginning of the meeting.

I admire your enthusiasm, but similar exercises have been done at various times since the first speedway mailing list appeared back in 1994. Various promoters have always been on the lists, and are fully aware of what is said - the fact that they're so quick to condemn 'gossip' in the Speedway Star is evidence of this. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of the revocation of the decision to get rid of helmet colours, there is little evidence they take notice of fans' views. In fact, us fans on the Internet are widely held to be 'anoraks'.

I would say that the whole Pre-Main Event is meaningless in the current format. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter what format you use if the event is well promoted, and the racing sufficiently exciting. The 'boring' 16-heat, 20-heat format still managed to attract 100,000 fans to past World Finals, which is three times the number of the best attended GP to date!

It's not about which countries deserve a GP, but who BSI can find to host one. Most if not all are actually organised by a local promoter who has to pay BSI a staging fee of around USD 50,000, and assume all the financial risks associated with the event. The television and sponsorship money is kept by BSI. If you look at the crowds at some GPs, it's hard to understand how they are making money, particularly as the local promoters is only able to sell a very limited amount of local advertising. I know there were question marks over the continuation of some of the GPs this year for this reason.

The problem with the 24-rider format is not so much the knockout aspect, but too many crap riders and having to endure the Pre-Main Event. It's also an issue for staging GPs outside Europe due to the costs of transporting all the riders. 16 or even 20 riders would be better, but unfortunately it's not possible to devise a good knockout format with sufficient heats. I think a return to the 16-rider, 20-heat format is sensible, but perhaps the top eight should qualify for knockout semi-finals as now, with the highest scorers having first choice of gate positions. The old format with A-B-C-D Finals was reasonable, but I always thought the C and D Finals were a bit of waste of time.

The real issue is not where the event is going to be held, but getting the format right. A 12-team competition means far too many weak teams, and the qualifying rounds are a foregone conclusion. The meeting format is also crap, what with pointless 5-rider races, no reserves, and too many heats that provide little chance of unexpected results. The whole thing also goes on too long, and causes too much disruption to the national leagues. I think the basic concept of staging a Final Tournament in one country is fine, but there should only be 8-teams (6 seeded directly, and 2 coming from qualifying rounds) in two Semi-Finals, with the top two going straight into the Final. Given that home fans generally don't have much interest in watching teams other than their own (except possibly in Britain), some consideration might be given to staging the two Semi-Finals as a double-header at one track (e.g. 2 x 16-heat events).

I generally like the idea of a European League, because if the financial issues could be solved, it would fit well in the current structure of the sport. Quite honestly, given that how myself and most fans prefer team racing, I'd rather have it than the SGP. However, the problem with any European League will be solving the mismatch between the number of fixtures staged in each country. Polish and Swedish teams only stage around 20 fixtures each, not to mention that the Swedish season only runs from May until September for weather reasons. If teams run exclusively in a European League, 20 fixtures will not be sufficient for the top riders, but the Polish and Swedish teams would have problems affording an extending programme as they rely heavily on sponsorship rather than gate money. In the case of the Swedish teams, they would also have problems fitting more fixtures into their short season (and I'm sure their riders would want paying before May). You could run a European Champions League-type competition in parallel with existing national leagues, but again, it would require the Polish and Swedish teams to stage more fixtures than they normally do. Alternatively, you might have the Polish and Swedish teams competing exclusively in a European League, with the British teams running in both the European League *and* one of the British leagues. In effect, they would be tracking separate teams, perhaps on the lines of the BLC. However, there is a danger that fans wouldn't turn-out in numbers for the inferior competition, and there is still the issue of insufficient meetings for Polish and Swedish teams' riders. The only way I see around the problem is to allow the Polish and Swedish teams' riders to double-up for different teams in their domestic leagues. Perhaps riding in the Danish, Czech and German leagues might be another option, but those leagues can't really afford the top riders at the moment.

Most, if not all, riders have their airfares paid by their teams in addition to their points money/salary. There might be some savings on machinery, but again, this is often sponsored as well. Realistically, there will never be an agreement to restrict the number of leagues that a rider can ride in. Britain, Poland and Sweden all want to see the best riders in their leagues, and quite honestly, there's no real reason why they shouldn't as their racedays generally don't clash. The Polish League rides on a Sunday and the Swedish League on a Tuesday, when no BEL team is riding. The real issue is the SGP and how it coexists with the national leagues, and the BEL in particular. At the moment, you have a commercial company (BSI) who are able (thanks to the FIM) to run the series without any regard to existing competitions, and without paying anything in the way of compensation to those affected. The money that they pay to the FIM (USD 1.1 million per season) does not come back into speedway, and even the local GP promoters who actual stand most of the financial risk are allegedly losing money.