Mr S Bear

My understanding of the current situation regarding the planning application for the “new” Swindon Stadium is as follows. Outline planning permission was granted on 17 August 2011 Reserved matters approval was granted sometime in 2017 A further reserved matters application was submitted on 5 January 2018 (should this really have been a totally new planning application) and the major change from all previous schemes that the rather than the Abbey Stadium being totally demolished and relocated to the south east of its current location it was proposed that the current track be shortened in length, the grandstand be rebuilt with a modular construction (basically a tin box with a balcony) and a new car park formed. The reason given for this major change in the Speedway Star was that the previous proposed site had drainage problems (although these “drainage problems” did not stop the developers showing approx 75 new houses on the former site) On 16 February lawyers acting for Barratt Homes (the builders of the new houses adjoining the Stadium) wrote to the council expressing their concerns about this major change to the proposed development – the major one being the lost of the buffer zone between the new houses and the new stadium the most interesting comments in their letter being the following “having processed on the basis that the stadium would be located in accordance with the approved masterplan and previously reserved matters, it would be impractical to expect my clients to redesign their own development in order to accommodate the effects of the stadium, particularly because the need to do so arises solely from a decision, taken very late in the day, to retain the stadium in its current position” and “a further consideration that, unless suitable measures are put in place at the planning stage and then enforced to ensure that noise and other disturbance from the stadium so close to residential properties is adequately and properly mitigated, the residents of those properties may choose to bring an action for nuisance against the operators of the stadium. This could have severe consequences on the ability of the stadium to operate in the future” The developers on 19 April agreed with the council for an extension of time to reach a decision and suggested an extension until the end of May (one assumes they meant 2018 although at the present rate of progress it could be 2081) In mid July a batch of revised drawings were submitted mainly dealing with landscaping issues but strangely one of these was dated April 2012 and shown the old scheme with the stadium being relocated to the south east According to the Swindon planning web site there is no date set yet for the planning committee to discuss the application and being a speedway fan for many years and so by nature cynical about statements by promoters I would tend to treat statements by the Swindon promotion that they expect to receive planning shortly on par with comments in 1914 that “the war will be over by Christmas” Even when/if the reserved matters application is approved it is not certain that this will be the end of the matter judging by the comments expressed by Barratt Homes lawyers in their letter. Did the decision to retain the stadium in its current position made the previous outline planning permission null and void, afterall by no stretch of the imagination could the change to the location of the stadium be called a minor amendment especially with its effect on the overall masterplan and the houses already built and occupied, and should the application made in January 2018 have been a totally new planning application and if the present reserved matters application is approved will it Barratt Homes/the owners of the new houses adjacent to the stadium apply for a judicial review. On the subject of breaching planning approvals when the development received permission the associated travel plan stated that “the stadium operator is committed to managing spectator travel by promoting sustainable transport and managing car demand associated with stadium events” Some of measures to achieve this were Promotion of a Swindon Robins fanzine car sharing database Discounted parking for multi occupancy cars Structured parking tariff at the stadium parking Travel options and public transport info and details of structure of parking tariff to be included in programme, leaflets and web site The plan stated that the promoters would voluntarily introduce the last three measures during the 2014 season. It would be interesting if any Swindon fans could confirm if of these measures were introduced in the 2014 season or even the 2015 season or the 2016 season or the 2017 season or the 2018 season.

Looking at the drawings for the revised scheme for the redevelopment of the Abbey Stadium on the council web site I would comment as follows It does not help that some of the descriptions of the drawings/documents do not match the actual drawings/documents which suggests a less than professional approach or a rushed and unchecked submission. This is further reinforced by the fact that there are two different car park layouts/size and shape of grandstand shown on different drawings- the one on the master plan dated May 2017 is different from that on the site plan dated December 2017. I would have expected that the relevant consultant would revised the drawings so that everyone is singing off the same hymn sheet and the planners know what they are approving, the builder knows what he is building and the developer knows what he is paying for. Whilst the first floor hospitality area is large (approx. 37.5m x 19.5m) I would question how useful it will be for speedway or greyhound fans who want to watch the racing. The floor is flat and the two projecting wings at either end of the viewing balcony limit the amount of the speedway/greyhound track that can be seen and anybody viewing the racing from the balcony will further restrict the view of fans in the hospitality area. I assume that its main function will be to generate monies from conferences/functions etc There are two stands shown at either end of the main “grandstand” building 11m x 10m and 25m x 10m but the submitted drawings gave no further details. Judging by the perspectives of the grandstand posted on this forum these stand appear to be temporary stands similar to those at Leicester but with no cover! Other than these stands and the first floor viewing balcony fans will have to stand on the hardstand which runs round the outside of the greyhound track but as there no site sections are included in the submitted documents it is impossible to say if the hardstand is flat, sloping or terraced so viewing could be a problem -remember the complains about the viewing at the Belle Vue Greyhound Stadium There are two rooms at either end of the viewing balcony which are I assume control rooms for the speedway and greyhounds. The one at the east end is approx 4m back from the first bend and the one at the west end is in line with the end of the fourth bend. The drawings state that the length of the new track is 420m and the home straight measures some 38m and if we assume that the start/finish is half way along the straight then the east box is some 12m in start of the start/finish line whilst the west one is some 26m behind the start/finish line. This could be a problem as some refs have trouble making the correct decision when they are in the traditional location in line with the start/finish line. Also the ref’s boxes are accessed from the main public stairs so I trust the doors are strong and have good locks. The site plan show a total of 469 car parking spaces plus space for 24 motor cycles, 5 spaces for mini buses, 3 spaces for coaches plus a bus stop/lay-by. I understand from the last season eve of season Speedway Star special that the Abbey Stadium is not served by public transport. It is some years since I saw 8 buses or coaches at a speedway meeting so the number of spaces for buses/coaches does appear to be excessive or maybe they are required to encourage people to get to the stadium by other means than car as required by the transport plan for the previous scheme. The buses/coaches appear to have a separate one way exit route from that used by cars but all exit routes join together and exit onto Lady Lane. This may be a problem when a large crowd tried to exit at the same time. There appears to be no access from the ground floor reception area to the main spectator area without using the stairs/platform lift so I assume that the public access to the spectator area is via turnstiles either side of the “grandstand” but the submitted drawings do not give any information. Also the riders have to cross the hard standing to access the track so measures will have to be taken to prevent riders riding into spectators. Considering that the reason for the decision to redevelop the current site of the stadium rather than move the stadium is due to problems with drainage it does seem strange that it appears that the relevant consultants have not discussed or reached agreement with the relevant statuary authorities which has resulted in the Lead Local Flood Authority recommending that the scheme not approved as it does not comply with current guidance or there is outstanding information. Although it is not part of the planning application the question that does need asking is when the developer /contractor hopes to build the development. The scheme involves changing the size and shape of the speedway and greyhound tracks, building two car parking areas and associated access road and junctions, demolishing the existing grandstand and erecting new grandstand and if the speedway/greyhound racing continues during the construction period ensuring the safety of the public who will be attending the speedway and greyhound.

People are discussing the proposals for the New Abbey stadium but few people it would appear have looked at the drawings and documents uploaded to the Swindon Council planning department web site. On March 1st the Highway Department of Swindon Council wrote to the planning department regarding their concerns on the submitted proposals. In brief their concerns were that the drawings showed insufficient information to demonstrate that safe and suitable access for all could be provided to reduce/minimise conflict between all users as well as inadequate car parking facilities. Additionally the Highway Department felt that the proposal did not comply with certain policies of the Swindon Borough Local plan. Due to these concerns the Highway Department recommended that the application be refused. These concerns were passed on to Gaming International Ltd (GIL) and March 31st there was a meeting between all parties and on May 19th GIL wrote back to the planners answering the points raised. On 26th May and 27th June revised drawings were submitted to the planners. Whilst these revised drawings do appear at first glance to have addressed most of the concerns of the planners/highway engineers. For example the car park layout has been revised to increase the number of spaces provided and there are pedestrian routes through most of the layout which provide separation between pedestrians and vehicles. The major changes are that the overall site layout has been realigned, following comments from the highway department, so that the new stadium does not overlap with the existing stadium, , and the decision has been taken to use modular construction for the main stadium building and the race building. A closer look at the drawings raises a number of concerns and questions. The decision to realign the overall site layout to avoid conflict with the existing stadium has resulted in the need for the developer to acquire more land to the east corner of the site as well as rerouting an existing footpath. It is surprising that a fundamental change to the overall design of the development has occurred so late in the design process. Weren’t highways or the planners consulted at an early stage to discuss the sitting of the new stadium in relation to the existing stadium? What is rather concerning is the fact that the revised overall site plan and acoustic plans show the revised realignment and new car parking layouts the general arrangement plan showing the surfacing proposals and the location plan do not and it is worrying that all parties are not singing from the same hymn sheet and that no one in the project team appears to have checked the drawings before they were submitted or if they did they did it badly. As mentioned earlier the main stadium has been redesigned to take account of the decision to use modular construction (ie prefabricated units) which I assume was taken to reduce the construction time. What concerns me and I would also worry the planners is firstly that there are no indications on the proposed elevations of the main stadium building what exactly will be the specification of the external materials and their colour but how can the planners hope to make a informed decision on the visual impact of the building if they do not know what the proposed external materials will be or their colour especially as condition 3 of the outline planning permission states “ prior to the commencement of works on site in connection with the development hereby permitted details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the site should be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority”. Elevations with no notes at all about external materials hardly seem to satisfy this condition. Secondly whilst the footprint of the stadium building has been revised to suit the change to modular construction resulting in the building now being approx 48m x 30m rather than the previous approx 44m x 27.5m this increase in area is not reflected in the footprint of the stadium building shown on any of the drawings showing the overall development which once again shows a lack of checking by the project team. Will the increased footprint fit on the site without affecting both the car parking layout shown and the associated circulation space. The floor plans of the main stadium building do show far less information on the proposed internal layout and the intended uses of the space than on the previous submitted drawings. In many ways there look like plans prepared at an early stage of a project for a round table discussion with the client to consider the internal layout rather than a finalised layout for submission to planners for approval. There is no indication of construction of intended materials, no windows are shown at on the ground floor plans but are shown on the elevations, no indication on what the large open spaces at both ground and first floor will be used for. I am assuming that the ground floor will be used as a market area and that the first floor will be used as bar/restaurant/events as previously as shown on the previous set of drawings but the submitted drawings should state this and show an indicative layout as on the earlier drawings. As on the previous drawings there appears to be no space labelled as a referee’s box. There are two rooms facing the track at either end of the first floor, both accessed from the escape stairs, but either has a room name and additionally assuming that the line half way down the home straight on the master plan is in fact the start finish line then the two possible referees boxes are at either 12m behind the line or 24m in front of it Whilst there is no longer any car parking on the infield as per the 2007 submitted drawings, and was suggested by the traffic plan submitted in January with its reference to parking within the stadium, the two gates on the inner edge of the track are still shown. You would have thought that in 9 years someone, developer, architect or tenant would have spotted these and removed them. Also there appears to be some discrepancies between the revised travel plan and the submitted drawings regarding the number of motorcycle and cycle spaces to be provided. The travel plan states 37 motorcycles and 44 cycles whilst the drawings show 20 spaces for both motorcycles and cycles. Additionally the travel plan mentions the provision of a taxi rank for 8 taxis but the drawings only show a taxi drop off point. Conditions 31 and 32 of the outline planning permission required the main access to the development to be via Lady Lane and access to the pits, kennels, coach and park and ride drop off point was to be via Salzgitter Drive. The drawings submitted in January had only one access to the site, via Lady Lane, and in their letter of March the highway department expressed their concern about the non compliance with the conditions of the outline permission. The revised drawings still only have access to the site via Lady Lane and it is not clear from the uploaded documents if this access arrangement has now received the approval of the highway department and the conditions have been dropped The updated traffic plan contains a list of voluntarily initiatives and measures proposed by the developer to be introduced during the 2016 season to encourage higher multi occupancy car travel as follows Structured parking tariff Discounted parking for multi-occupancy vehicles Travel options and public transport information to be included in match programme and stadium web site Potential discounts on admission tickets for people travelling via public transport for occasional fixtures It would be interesting to know if any of these initiatives has been introduced so far this season. Whilst I have no doubt that by changing to a modular construction the build time will be greatly reduced my main concern is when will the plans receive approval from the planners – they do appear to be a work in progress rather than the finished product.

The following is an extract from a book written by former Australian international John Langfield in 2003 called "How to master the art of motorcycle racing" on the subject of riding bumpy tracks " During a race do not alter direction or back off on the throttle in an attempt to miss bumps or ruts in the track. The faster you go the more the wheels will skim across the surface and make the ride smoother. Looking for undulating areas will make you lose concentration. The subconscious reaction is to try to avoid the bumps and the tendency to back off the power comes into play causing the weight to transfer to the front of the machine and speed to slacken off actually bringing the bumps into contention. When the throttle was open and the weight was on the back we had the all-important speed and the track surface condition was less of an issue. Try it and you will believe."

Proud Potter claims that recent problems at Stoke “have not been of our making” Therefore who was responsible for the following? At the Under 21 QR meeting there being no flag marshal on the second bend Allowing the first running of the Buxton Knockout cup meeting to start with a generator in a worse state than the Greek economy especially a generator which runs both the track lights and the air fence which is surely a health and safety risk Amending the readmission policy following the Buxton meeting and therefore asking fans for £4 who attempted to use their programmes to gain free admission as per the terms of entrance in their programmes especially as the revised readmission policy is not a BSPA/SCB regulation. Running an amateur meeting with no ambulance cover. Having fans wait 2 hours for a paramedic to turn up especially when the paramedic claims he did not receive a booking. Telling these fans that “at least it was a nice day” Malcolm your team may be good but off the track the promotion at Stoke seems to go from one cock up to another and the public relation side of the promotion is a diaster and therefore it is little wonder that you met many former regulars who no longer go and many neutrals limit their visits to the bare minimum. It is no surprise that the first question you ask someone who mentions they went to Stoke speedway is what disaster happen.

Two questions spring to mind following this meeting 1) Should it have started in the first place bearing in mind the problems that the promotion were having with the generator which appears to be in a worse state than the Greek economy. The lights in the bar kept coming on and going off, the air fence kept going up and down and there was an apparent inability to turn all the track lights on at once which resulted in one race being run with only lights on turns one and two. The question that the promotion, the clerk of the course and the ref must ask themselves is what would have a coroner said to them at an inquest into the death of rider who had ridden into the unprotect Armco barrier following the failure of the generator during a race and the track lights going out and the air fence collapsing after he asked them if there were any problems with the generator before the meeting and they had said that the generator kept breaking down? Shouldn’t the BSPA/SCB require a track with an air fence and an Armco barrier to be on the mains rather than depending on what appears to be a generator than has seen better days or does a rider have to be seriously injured or killed before action is taken. 2) If the meeting had been called off at heat 9 rather than heat 5 which re-admission policy would the Stoke promotion have applied. The policies stated on the out of date promoters notice at the turnstiles or Stoke version of the 2010 BSPA policy as stated in the programme both of which only give you re-admission if a meeting is abandoned prior to heat 8 or the 2011 BSPA re-admission policy as stated in the rule book and a number of programmes of other tracks. This policy now allows if a meeting is abandoned before heat 12 completed reduced admission to one of the next 3 meetings at an agreed rate based on the number of heats you have seen or if you can not get to the next 3 meetings you can apply to the speedway office for a refund. In the National League the rate per heat for adults is the admission price divided by 15, so at Stoke the rate would be 80p per heat. Both Belle Vue, notices at the turnstiles, and Buxton , notice in the programme, state and follow the BSPA policy

The question to ask if how Tyson Burmeister and indeed Kenny Ingalls got a work permit in the first place. Assuming that both are not EA citizens and neither has a British grandparent then they will have needed to apply for a work permit from the UK Border Agency (UKBA) through the points based immigration system Tier 2 (Sportsperson). According to the “Tier 2 of the Points Based System – Policy Guidance Version 10/2010” document on the UKBA web site, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk, item 92 sportsperson requiring a permit under tier 2 are required to obtain an endorsement from the appropriate governing body of their sport, i.e. BSPA, and this endorsement to confirm that they are: 1) Internationally established as a player/coach at the highest level and 2) They will make a significant contribution to the development of their sport at the highest level in the UK and 3) The post could not be filled by a suitable settled worker. Having only seen both Tyson and Eddie on one occasion I cannot say if they do met all three requirements but reading the previous postings some people have serious doubts but it is clear someone at the BSPA does not share this view. Of course an alternative method would be to do as a rider did last season and have a 6 month visitor’s visa and when people point out you cannot work in the UK with this type of visa claim you were in fact born in the UK

Or before he was deported by UKBA due to his six month visa not allowing him to ride league speedway either as an amateur or professional a fact that the BSPA knew about and should have stopped him riding in the first place and which Newport should have know about being his employer and so liable to any fines imposed by the UKBA. I wonder why Newport have said they are not allowed to use Aussies in next years NL?

I agrre that Newport were missing riders due to injuries and riders returning to Australia as did Buxton but for the Main Man to include Mark Jones in the list of missing riders does seem strange to certain people.The reason Mark Jones was missing was that his six month visa/permit ran out in early September. A question that either Mr Mallett or Mr Rogers have answered, letters sent to them in early September and I am still awaiting a reply, is did Mark have the current paperwork to ride any NL meetings in 2010 because as Tyson Nelson found out in July a 6 month vistors visa does not allow you to ride team speedway either as a professional or a amateur according to the immigration rules of GB as outlined on the UKBA web site and breaking these rules can result in heavy fines for the employer and deporatation for the illegal immigrant Is anyone from the Newport promotion prepare to come on this forum and state where on the UKBA web site it states that holders of a six month permit/visa can be employed as a sportsman or why or how Marks' paperwork was different from that held by Tyson Nelson otherwise maybe they should remeber the old saying about the best thing to do when you are in a hole is to stop digging By the way congratulations to all at Buton especially the promotion who did comply with the rules be they the rules set by the BSPA or the UKBA

Riders are classed as withholding services and it is nothing to do with visa's/work permits due to the fact that 6 month work permits do not allow you to ride speedway in Britain. Following questions being raised regarding Mark Jones returning home due to his visa running out after 6 months I wrote to Newport Speedway in September questioning if he had the correct visa to ride in Britain, no reply as yet and to the Management Committee of the BSPA asking if they checked riders paperwork to ensure they had the correct visa's/permits. They have replied "the BSPA have consulted with the BSPA for the 2010 season and are in dialogue for 2011 to ensure any changes are adhered to by the members of the association"

The only Commonwealth/Australian riders who are only allowed to ride in the NL for two years are those who do not have a patrially/ancestry visa. To get a rhis type of visa one of their grandparents must have been was born in the UK or in the case of grandparents born in what is now the Irish Republic born prior to 1922. To find out more about visa requirements see UKBA web site, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk or the Mark Jones topic. All other Australian/Commonwealth riders I beleive should be tier 5 permit holders under the youth mobility scheme and can only ride for two years in NL, can not ride in PL/EL and must ride as amateurs. The only people saying that Australians will be banned in the NL in 2011 are Newport in this weeks Speedway Star and they are saying " we are not allowed to use Australians" so maybe the ban only apply to Welsh teams maybe as a form of punishment for wrong doing in 2010, see Mark Jones topic, and other teams may be subject to a similar ban if the BSPA take a close look at riders permits/visas/passports maybe something they should have done prior to riders taking part in the NL as part of their role as a governering body appointed by the UKBA to police the immigration rules in speedway on thir behalf rather than it appears taking the words of promoters as gospel.

Following Mr Rogers claims was Mark Jones was returning to Australia because his six month permit had ran out and claims that this meant that Mark had ridden illegally in the UK, plus rumours that other riders may be riding without the correct paperwork, I decided to read the UK Border Agency (UKBA) web site, www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk, regarding who requires a work permit/visa to work in the UK and how long these last for it is clear that either Mr Rogers was misquoted in the Star or he was mistaken/misinformed on the type of work permit/visa Mark had or the reason Mark was returning home or Mark had been riding illegally in the National League. According to the web site people like Mark, ie non EEA (European Economic Area which is the EU plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland) citizens can visit the UK and in some cases work in the UK subject to the following conditions. Those just wishing to visit require a visitor’s visa which lasts for 6 months but they are not allowed to work and the web site expressly mentions not working as a professional sportsman and as Len Silver and Tyson Nelson found out claiming to be an amateur rider in the NL with this visa is also not allowed. Sportsman can enter the UK on a visitor’s visa and take part in their sport if certain conditions are met. These include taking part in a particular event or tournament but taking part in a league or a season is expressly not allowed unless the visitor is an amateur and is joining a predominantly amateur club and the club is in a league which is not regarded as professional within the sport. Commonwealth citizens who wish to work in the UK and whose grandparents were born in the UK can get a patrially or ancestry visa which lasts for 4 years and normally allows them to be eligible for residence after this period. Commonwealth citizens not satisfying the conditions to obtain the above visa and non EEA citizens must apply for permission to work in the UK via the points based immigration rules administrated by the UKBA. The system is split into 5 tiers and the ones associated with sportsman are tiers 2 and 5. In both cases riders would require endorsement from the sport’s governing body, the Governing Body Endorsed Sponsorship (GBE) mentioned in the Speedway Regulations, as recognised by the UKBA which is the BSPA. Riders who do not qualify under tier 2 ie the BSPA will not confirm they are internationally established as a rider and they will make a significant contribution to the development of the sport which one assumes would include riders wishing to ride in the NL need to apply under the youth mobility scheme of the tier 5 regulations. These require that the rider is aged between 18 and 31, sponsored by their own government, they apply prior to coming to the UK and the maximum stay is two years and they cannot work as a professional sportsman only as an amateur getting board/lodgings and expenses. The speedway Regulations, 17.4.7.6, also require riders with a tier 5 permit in the NL to only ride for one club during their stay and they cannot ride in the EL or PL. The allegations regarding the legality of Mark Jones riding in the NL first appeared in mid August and so one assumes that both the Newport promotion and the BSPA must be aware of them but yet so far either of them has confirmed that Marks’ immigration paperwork was in order and are they willing to do so now or admit that it was not? Also will the BSPA confirm that it is their standard practice, and if so do they intend to include it in the 2011 regulations, that they see all the necessary immigration paperwork/permits/passports etc of all non British/EEA riders wishing to ride in Britain prior to them riding for a team to prevent any future allegations/rumours of riders riding illegally or major problems with insurance companies if “illegal” riders are injured or with the UKBA or do they just accept the words of certain chosen promoters that the paperwork is in order.

If riders are riding in Britain on Visas which do not allow them to work how does this affect any insurance they may have. If they were seriously injured or worse killed would the insurance company claim that insurance was not valid as rider was breaking the law. How would the riders employer, ie his promoter, stand as he has employed an illegal worker. Could he also face charges, fines or even jail.? Will the BSPA or SCB clear up the situation or will it he swept under the carpet with all the other difficult stuff, such as riders contracts and the Bosman ruling, - I am surprised they can open any doors at ACU HQ at Wood Street

Crowd Figures In the past the FIM published attendance figures for all motorcycle world championship finals, including speedway, in the first issue of their magazine each year. From these figures I was able to find out attendance figures for 97 of the first 100 GP’s (only missing Linkopping 95, Hackney 96 and Wroclaw 96). This year they decided in their wisdom not to publish these figures and Oliver Godallier the FIM Marketing and Communications Director told me that if I want the figures for 2008 to go to the promoters website www.speedwayworld.tv I have contacted Nicola Sands the speedway press officer at BSI/IMG twice, in May and August, asking for the figures for 2008 but so far I have had no response so I assume that BSI/IMG are unable or unwilling to release the figures into the public domain. In post 17 Phillip Rising states that the attendance in Latvia in 2009 was the best to date and in post 24 he says that he was informed that the figure was 6000. According to official FIM attendance figures in 2006 the attendance at Daugavpils was 9000 and this dropped to 7000 in 2007. In post 17 Mr Rising states that the 2009 attendance was up 2008, a figure which is not as yet in the public domain and in post 24 the 2009 figures is given as 8800. Based on FIM figures from 2002-2007 the average attendance at Krsko was 8166 and ranged from 12000 in 2002 to 7000 in 2005 & 2006. For a full breakdown for the first 100 GP’s attendance figures see www.speedwayfan.co.uk So the question is will anyone contracted directly or indirectly with BSI/IMG be prepared to release attendance figures for the 2008 and 2009 GP’s? MoneyNo doubt the SGP makes a good product to sell to TV companies throughout the world, although one is bound to ask why then IMG seem unable to sell the air fence advertising. At most GP’s a large percentage of the airfence ads are the upcoming GP’s and how many international companies are associated with the GP’s? Also who gains from the large viewing figures, 100 million in India? One assumes that BSI/IMG get income from the TV rights but how much goes to the workers, the riders risking their lives. Up to and including the GP at Vojens in 2009 the riders had earned on average per GP as follows Crump $11,000, Sayfutdinov $8000, Gollob $6200, Hancock $5900, Jonsson $5500, Lindgren $5100, Bjerre £5100, Andersen $4500, Holta $4300, Adams $4000, Ulamek $4000, Harris $3843, Pedersen $5125, Walasek $3600 and Nicholls $3400 with the average exchange rate being £1=$1.52 and these figures cover all riders expenses, travelling, accommodation and points. When was the last time that the riders had an increase in the money they earned and are BSI/IMG planning to increase the monies that riders can earn. For a breakdown of what riders have earned from previous GP series see www.speedwayfan.co.uk

The annual report for the SRBF gives no email address only its postal address which is ACU House, Wood Street, Rugby, CV21 2DU. As this is also the home of the SCB you could try contacting them office@scbureau.plus.com or telephone 01788 565603 fax 01788 552308. The person in charge of the SRBF now is I believe the former ref Paul Ackroyd. Its just a pity that the £99 spend by the fund in advertising in 2007 (down from £469 in 2006) couldn't run to placing ads,giving contact details and brief description of what the fund does, in the programme when each track holds its annual collection for the SRBF or do, as someone connected with the fund once informed me, programme editors throw away any ads the SRBF send them.