Grand Central

So, I shall say again. All true.

All true. But I don't think the 'panel' will be sitting today in order to change what the One Show people are already geared up for tonight. If Tai is on the list BSI - at least - will already know as the BBC would have to get their video/ pictures sorted in advance.

I hope you are not right . Unfortunately, not true.The short list is being decided on by a 'panel' of worthies. The voting does not start until that list is named and only those 10 can be voted for.

I agree to a point.But the Black and white ones did not look good on the newstand in Smiths. And surely there is just one photo available of Peter Craven that is a little different than the one on the cover that has been seen time and time again.

What a wonderfully direct answer. No sugar coating there. All that spin on the 'fountain of youth' coming to the Top Division next year. When this is the view of some really committed followers of the sport. A top league with two 'Junior' races included may have limited appeal.

They also employ a whole load of young people on minimum wage in dead end jobs. The Job Centre will have told them that it will offer them valuable 'experience in the workplace' which will be so useful in their future careers. They will be putting in long hours or split shifts doing the most menial of work with no future prospects whatsoever. But they do keep costs down. Obviously this has no correlation with any moves being made in British Speedway. .

I think you will be hard pressed to find a definitive answer to this question. Best answer I can come up with is that up to until 1976 all the meetings I checked show helmet colours going with gate positions.. After 1990 I cannot find any that use this method and all helmet colours are fixed for the team. In between 1976 and 1990 you would have to go back and check each programme individually as there is no consistency.

You may be totally correct. But as the redeclarations of teams during the season do indeed come down to margins as low as a few hundredths of points. To an astute Team Boss that will be all that is needed. Any middle order guys who do not start the 2014 season may fit ever so nicely into certain teams when they choose to re declare mid season. Those rider's 2013 figures may just look ever so slightly - or marginally, as you put it - appropriate when the 2014 figures of the incumbants are just a little bit inflated. As I said, it is with that sort of nuance that certain promoters keep gaining an edge. Perhaps this will be something we will return to when the cut-off date for Play Off places is approaching next year!

It would be an absolute delight if such a positive outcome were forthcoming. Unfortunately my involvement back in 1993, and to a lesser extent in 1986, when similar moves were made, makes me very pessimistic. Back then there were far more top line riders who were fully committed to Britain who could have been able to offer all the things you mention to the Juniors promoted at the time. It never happened. They were paid minimal monies and got diddly-squat from the 'big guys' in the team. I have no reason to believe it will be any better this time.

On a different, but related aspect. I wonder what effect these changes will have on the thorny subject of averages. The NL reserves will have their own which will not matter about team positions as they are locked in at reserve. But if the NL guys are protected from Heat Leaders, but meet second strings, that will upset the other figures too. It will mean that the second things will have some average-inflating easy rides. And just to balance things up the format will mean that the Heat Leaders will be meeting each other proportionately more often; thereby deflating their averages. We will end up with three sets of averages for Heat Leaders, Second Strings and Reserves. None of which are directly comparable to each other. That should make life even more interesting mid-season. My money is on Matt finding an 'edge' for his team in the resulting melee.

As you say not worth arguing about. Try and be a little less touchy, though. My contribution on this point started with correcting another person's fixation on the two ride point. It was he that had the fixation It was you that joined in and have got caught in the crossfire.

Not quite true.. PR was writing before Cook gave his extra information. And PR never mentioned anything about TWO rides. It could easily have been more, say three, races among themselves. Fixating on TWO rides was never a reasonable inference from the very, very brief teaser statement from PR.

Well, I can't confirm it, but I can agree that this is looking likely. Of course back in 1993 when they upped the number of lesser riders in the main teams and created more 'protected' races in the format for them they also increased the total numer of races in the match to 18. That was part of the compromise, I suppose. I have no idea whether that is going to happen this time. My cynical side says not. If the development of British riders was truly the main focus of this decision then the rides for the youngsters would be extra to the normal 15 we pay full price for. But if they are subsumed within a fifteen heat format then the cost cutting will be seen as being overwhelming. Having only 11 or 12 fully fledged First Division heats in a match will be just too few. In my opinion.

Fair enough you took this statement by PR .... And wrote these yourself .... So just to clarify. NOT the BSPA statement. AND PR never said anything about only TWO programmed rides for reserves. Thank goodness that's clear, now. We don't want to get all confused.

There was no confusion. The original BSPA statement made no reference whatsoever to the number of rides nor the format of them. Jon Cook's Press Release make it clear that there would be two reserves races AND 'easier outings against rival second strings'.

No it doesn't. Perhaps you could quote where you think you have read this.

I agree with almost everything you say here.Including your scepticism about implementation. I think that the promoters are taking the tried and tested route of watering down the top league to cut costs whilst maintaining everyone's option to continue to pay for top men as well. It's difficult to see what other option could have been adopted. I'm less sure that this will offer one iota of 'fast tracking'. But using the PR spin of that in negotiations with Sky may be something Russell can work with. It will be interesting to see how the whole thing operates over the season. We should remember the occasion another similar method was last used. In the eighteen heat format of 1993 there were two juniors in protected places in each team. And remember how getting those two riders 'right' won the league for Belle Vue. The untried hopefuls thrown in at the start had been swapped for Smith and Schofield by mid season. It transformed the Aces chances. Come the decider at Wolverhampton - truly the best 'play off' before they had even been created - and the Aces duo trounced their opposition counterparts. And the League was won.

OK. I see the point that they 'could' ride in up to three leagues. If there are enough days in a week. So will we be getting guests in these slots as well?

As a cost cutting measure. It should be quite effective.Just five mouths to feed. Not six or seven. But to mock it up as a 'fast' track is laughable. To say it is about 'progression' for these guys when there is NO progression is plain silly. Any guy who is Under 21 with ambition would surely want to get a low end Premier League berth and get as many rides as possible against that sort of opposition and progress up the ranks in that League. That is progression. What sort of person would equate 'ambition' with getting locked into the 'fixed' position of EL reserve for the year?

These cost cutting measures pretty much mimic every other similar move going back almost 30 years. In 1986 an untried junior had to be used at number 7 by all first division teams. This lasted a couple years In 1993 the eighteen heat format had double reserve races and 'protected' races for the two Reserve League riders that had to be used. It lasted just the one year. All these moves were just about cost cutting exercises. Back then it was about reducing the wage bill to just six 'proper' riders. I find it wonderful that Jon Cook has been able to mock this up as a bright new future for fast tracking the best of the youth. Such is the wonder of good 'spin'. Now we are down to just being able to pay for five full wages. So we have a semi-professional EIite League. Where the reserves stay reserves all year, on a pittance. Won't the best showing guys in these berths want to go to the Premier League to earn some real money. Just as soon as they can?

My, rather childishly scrawled, programme from 1975 shows that Mike Hiftle won Heat 1, with Rick France second. Both scored six points.

I can see that Sky will now have vacant slots in their 2015 schedule ... But not 2014. They still have their current contract with UEFA right through to the Berlin Final in May 2015. TR will need all his famed wheeler-dealing skills to sell Speedway right now as some sort of gap-filler, so far ahead. I think that people should also remember that Sky did not offer a huge sum for the football rights out of benevolence. They offered more than ever before (but still not enough) so as to be able to sell it to subscribers and advertisers at a big profit. Not winning that contract does not mean they 'have money in the coffers' for Speedway. It means they will be looking for another contract, probably very expensive, with something that pulls in punters at a substantial rate. I don't know what that will be. But it won't be Lakeside v Eastbourne on a damp and dreary Monday night.

I would like to see the document that did show such figures.As they just do not add up. Ten clubs getting a flat fee of anywhere near £100k (plus the PL share). That's a £1M already. So the extra money for 30 meetings at an up to £10k per match compensation ... £250 to £300k? AND 'Mr20%' Terry Russell's £200k. Where does that fit in?

Yes, the seven for Poole does include the Play Offs. Birmingham did almost as well with four home meetings before their two in the Play Offs as well. But all other clubs were just also rans with either just one or two home showings. I will qualify this by reiterating that I did miss a couple of meetings earlier in the year. PR, perhaps you could help us understand what the method of splitting the Sky Money has been ... in general terms, of course. I thought it was along the lines of ... Starting at £1M per annum with the first 20% going to TR. A certain amount was then put aside for staging club's 'compensation' (how much?). The rest of the bulk was split eleven ways with each EL club getting an equal share and the whole PL sharing the eleventh slice. Is this about right? PS I agree that this discussion should be carried on elsewhere. This is not fair on the Coventry folk who want to chat about their own stuff.

Just looking at my hard drive where I have archived meetings this year. 27 meetings saved (including 3 PL) and SEVEN are from Wimborne Road. 4 others also feature Poole away. This is not an exhaustive list as I did miss a couple of meetings when I was out of the country