BSI Problems?

[Kevin Meynell 2]

There seems to be one major problem with this you cannot have the BSPA or any other federation taking over the sgp rights as there all  bent. Do you think the likes of TR-MF and so on would not keep all the money.

 

That's as maybe, but it's up to the BSPA to agree their financial relationships with the likes of TR. Then again, you might equally ask how BSI managed to get the SGP rights for 20 years!

 

The bsi are independant from all other speedway and that is how it shoud be.

 

And what do they actually contribute to the rest of speedway - in terms of attracting support and/or finance? Everyone repeats the mantra that the SGP is good for speedway, but I'm afraid I don't see bigger crowds and more sponsors at British tracks.

Edited September 10, 2004 by Kevin Meynell

[The Know 221]

The bsi signed a very long deal with the FIM as they knew it would take time to get it working correctly and to make money. Why should thet spend many years building it up to lose it to someone else. Regarding british speedway why should they help it when in the past they have only put bsi down. But regardless of this john p is doing a lot for britishspeedway behind closed doors which will soon be known by all.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

The bsi signed a very long deal with the FIM as they knew it would take time to get it working correctly and to make money.

 

Yes, but why did the *FIM* agree to a 20 year deal? With the best will in the world, even if BSI were doing a good job now, a lot could change over the next 20 years, not to mention that other companies might come in with better offers.

 

But regardless of this john p is doing a lot for britishspeedway behind closed doors which will soon be known by all.

 

Well I look forward to seeing what it is.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

Looks like the national federations missed the boat, especially when it came to the renewing of the contract - that was the point they could have stepped in, but in reality could you really see that happening?

 

Of course, the national federations and leagues allowed the World Championship to be run down in the first place, so one wouldn't expect much imagination from them. The fact that an average outfit was even able to come-in and upsurp them, shows just how poorly the sport is run.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the time and effort of staging some of the recent world finals was worth the small gain to be made

 

I'm not necessarily advocating a return to the one-off World Finals. The SGP probably does offer more possibilities for attracting television and sponsorship deals, but at the moment no-one is benefitting except BSI.

 

Then again, would the promoters use the money they did receive to enhance the sport at grass-roots level, no they'd have just paid the money out to Rider X to entice him to ride for them the following season.

 

I don't doubt it, but it would still be money in the pockets of the local tracks rather than that of one individual.

 

I am guessing that none of the fee paid (I assume that was part of the contract) to the FIM gets filtered through to the national federations as things stand at present (genuine question)

 

There are unsubstantiated rumours that the FIM pays the SGP prize monies, which would presumably be funded out of the amounts that BSI pays them for the rights. If this is correct, then that would not leave much (if any) money for redistribution elsewhere.

 

As for your point about the Polish league, on a general principle I agree, however without opening up a huge political debate there appear to be countries who are able to enforce their rules

 

They can try it on, but people need to complain about violations. BTW - this equally applies to the various illegal actions of the British Customs & Excise.

[fatface 2,554]

Sweden Denamrk and Poland?

 

I think you're missing my point. Why should BSI expect to benefit from the development programmes of any country, whilst putting nothing back themselves? For that matter, why should any country bother to develop riders when they can be used by the SGP without any compensation (be that financial or otherwise)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You've obviously got a big problem with BSI. It's almost as if you are suggesting that riders that have been through youth development programmes and go onto a high level shouldn't go and compete in that nasty Grand Prix, all for the benefit of those terrible men at BSI.

 

Development programmes should be about getting more riders into the sport, new generations of riders into the sport and consequently fresh talent at the very top of the sport. Who benefits? Clubs, supporters, sponsors, promoters, etc. or in other words "Speedway", the whole sport benefits and unfortunately for you that includes your sworn enemies at BSI.

 

If you are trying to make the point that BSI puts nothing directly back into grass-roots development, then thanks for stating the bleeding obvious for us all. What they have undeniably done is increase the profile of the sport's top men and the World Championships - team and individual.

 

Consequently, interest in the sport is now much higher than it was in the bad old days pre-SGP and pre-SWC. Old supporters have come back and new ones have arrived. We have crossed this bridge before Kevin, but I did dig out figures that proved there has been around a 50% increase in the amount of operating tracks in Britain since our profile has been raised. Coincidence? I'm sure you will try and prove it is.

 

Over to you, King Copy-Paste.

[Guest Carp]

The SGP probably does offer more possibilities for attracting television and sponsorship deals, but at the moment no-one is benefitting except BSI.

Even taking this at face value and assuming there's no benefit to anyone bar BSI, surely they deserve to benefit because they're the ones taking the risk.

 

The "prestige" big-stadium GPs represent a considerable gamble on the part of BSI, and no financial small investment. It would have extremely easy of them to just leave all the GPs at existing facilities and take a small profit from each, but they had the balls to go to the bigger venues and I really don't see how they can be criticised for that.

 

The other rather reassuring benefit of BSIs involvment is it spreads that financial risk around nicely. Or, to put it another way, if for some reason SGP has a terrible year financially, it doesn't really effect national speedway - no-one else gets hurt. Personally I'd worry immensely if league promoters were heavily involved in the financing of SGP, because any serious GP financial problems would have a direct impact on club speedway and we may well loose teams as a result.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

You've obviously got a big problem with BSI.

 

If you read my posts properly, I clearly state that I've nothing against BSI. I'm simply not taken in by the hype that surrounds the SGP, and I also question whether the current setup is beneficial to speedway as a whole.

 

It's almost as if you are suggesting that riders that have been through youth development programmes and go onto a high level shouldn't go and compete in that nasty Grand Prix

 

Not at all, but the fact remains that they're only financially able to compete in the SGP because they also ride in one or more of the national leagues. Yet, the SGP does not benefit at least one of those leagues in any conceivable way.

 

unfortunately for you that includes your sworn enemies at BSI.

 

I don't have any enemies at BSI - I don't know anyone there and couldn't care less what they do because I can choose where to spend my money. I'm merely of the opinion that the current SGP setup doesn't particularly benefit the sport as a whole, despite what we're endlessly told.

 

Consequently, interest in the sport is now much higher than it was in the bad old days pre-SGP and pre-SWC.

 

Is it? I would say that overall crowd levels at BEL and BPL tracks have never been lower.

 

I did dig out figures that proved there has been around a 50% increase in the amount of operating tracks in Britain since our profile has been raised.

 

Firstly, an increase in the number of tracks isn't particularly useful if average crowds are still going down. Secondly, as I've said before, most of the new tracks started before BSI were involved with the SGP.

 

Bearing in mind that BSI started promoting the SGP in 1999, the number of tracks were as follows (BCL figures only count standalone tracks):

 

1995 - BPL 21, BCL 5, Total 26

1996 - BPL 19, BCL 7, Total 26 (no change)

1997 - BEL 10, BPL 14, BCL 3, Total 27 (+1)

1998 - BEL 9, BPL 13, BCL 3, Total 25 (-2)

1999 - BEL 10, BPL 14, BCL 5, Total 29 (+4)

2000 - BEL 9, BPL 14, BCL 5, Total 28 (-1)

2001 - BEL 9, BPL 15, BCL 4, Total 28 (no change)

2002 - BEL 9, BPL 17, BCL 4, Total 30 (+2)

2003 - BEL 8, BPL 18, BCL 4, Total 30 (no change)

2004 - BEL 10, BPL, 15, BCL 5, Total 30 (no change)

 

It can therefore be seen that has been a net gain of five tracks since 1998 (hardly a 50% increase as you suggest), but four of those tracks actually started in 1999 which was first year of the BSI contract, so can hardly be down to their influence. Since then, there's been a net increase of precisely one track, so I don't quite know where you're getting your figures from

Edited September 11, 2004 by Kevin Meynell

[Kevin Meynell 2]

because they're the ones taking the risk.

 

Are they? I thought it was the local promoters who were taking the financial risk. Furthermore, BSI can cancel their contract with the FIM if television and sponsorship revenues prove insufficient to run the series.

 

The "prestige" big-stadium GPs represent a considerable gamble on the part of BSI, and no financial small investment.

 

The gamble is more a threat to their credibility than their finances. The local organisers are the ones taking most of the financial risk.

 

but they had the balls to go to the bigger venues and I really don't see how they can be criticised for that.

 

I'm not criticising them for that, but they're not taking the risk some people seem to think.

 

Or, to put it another way, if for some reason SGP has a terrible year financially, it doesn't really effect national speedway

 

Yes, that's a fair point. However, BSI seem to be doing okay financially, despite indifferent promotion.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

Rico,

 

It's an emotive issue, some are pro-SGP and others aren't.

 

If people like what the SGP offers, then that's fair enough. Even I'll admit that the GPs can sometimes be exciting.

 

However, I think people should ask whether the current model for running the SGP is likely to be sustainable in the future. They should also ask why the much-vaunted expansion has not really happened, why the levels of prize money have never been increased (although that may change next season through virtue of there being fewer riders), and why the series seems further away than ever from being a full-time circus.

Edited September 11, 2004 by Kevin Meynell

[The Know 221]

K.M as you have pointed out you do not know anyone at bsi or know their plans for the future so why keep putting them down. It would appear you do have a problem with them maybe you should turn your attention to the crap job the BSPA do, as they do have problems.

[SCB 0]

TBF, I think KM has pointed out some good points. We mnay not all agree with them (some I didn't but do now, some I do and some I don't).

 

If you're of the opinion that BSI and there runing of the GPs is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that up to you. But IMO, it's not, it good, don't get me wrong but I'm sure that some how there could be a better way, sadly I don't know how exactly or I would post on here.

 

Kevin can only speak/type as he see's so future plans are o an extent no relevant, we can onyl judge BSI on there past, which has not bene so great at time, though to there credit, has been absolutly spot on at others.

[Kevin Meynell 2]

K.M as you have pointed out you do not know anyone at bsi or know their plans for the future

 

I haven't for a moment suggested that I do know their future plans. I'm just commenting on their track record to date.

 

As you seem to know so much the future, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what your relationship with BSI is?

 

It would appear you do have a problem with them maybe you should turn your attention to the crap job the BSPA do

 

I'm certainly no fan of the BSPA either, but this thread is not for discussing their incompetence. Furthermore, comparing BSI and the BSPA is like comparing apples with oranges. The BSPA collectively organises hundreds of meetings per season, and at a variety of different levels. By contrast, BSI organised 13 this season (less than every British promoter).

Edited September 11, 2004 by Kevin Meynell