James Easter Tells It Like It Is

[george.m 3,063]

What's best for the sport.

What's best for the individual.

Deepens which foot the steel shoe is on.

[Grand Central 2,654]

Sorry Dave, I still believe you are missing the point.Of course, what JB was asking of his fellow promoters was not in Billy's best interests. But it WAS in the best interests of the sport as a whole, by effectively putting a maximum ceiling on what riders could demand from their clubs. He was attempting to draw a line in the sand with the co-operation of all the other clubs.And from JB's actions in this instance, it's probably safe to assume that Billy was demanding quite a lot, even for a No.1.

I think your assumption may be a little wide of the mark though.

 

We are taking about a time when the British League was graced with the likes of Ivan Mauger, Ole Olsen, Bruce Penhall, Michael Lee, and Dave Jessup. I have no no reason to believe that Ipswich were paying Sanders more than other clubs were paying these guys.

 

The very fact that upon hearing what Ipswich were paying could lead to others immediately offering more would tend to suggest that actually he was not getting that good a deal from JB at all.

 

I do not think that JB was attempting to set a MAXIMUM ceiling of any type in this anecdote.

He was just trying to limit Sanders options, to just his own advantage.

 

Ivan and Ole's paymasters at the time probably silently winced knowing just how high the REAL 'ceiling' had already got at the time.

Miles above Billy's head.

.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Grand Central

[BluTiger 21,700]

Sorry Dave, I still believe you are missing the point.

 

Of course, what JB was asking of his fellow promoters was not in Billy's best interests. But it WAS in the best interests of the sport as a whole, by effectively putting a maximum ceiling on what riders could demand from their clubs. He was attempting to draw a line in the sand with the co-operation of all the other clubs.

 

And from JB's actions in this instance, it's probably safe to assume that Billy was demanding quite a lot, even for a No.1.

It's probably safe to assume you have no idea of Bill's demands. One could assume that JB's motives were also of self interest interest, which would seem more likely. 'Fixing it' so Billy could not negotiate a better deal for himself elsewhere was completely out of order..

[TonyMac 720]

Sadly, with neither Billy nor JB able to confirm the finer details of the financials sums involved in this debate, none of us will ever know.

 

Interestingly, in the same Backtrack interview, James Easter does also add that he thought Billy should have moved much sooner than he did to escape the shadow of John Louis at Foxhall and become a No.1 in his own right.

Edited February 19, 2014 by tmc

[jeff 60]

"I remember being with John Berry at one of the winter conferences at a time when he was having a lot of trouble trying to do a deal with Billy Sanders, who wanted a lot more money than Ipswich were offering him. So during one meeting of the general council, JB told them all exactly what was going on with Sanders and asked for everyones agreement not to approach his star rider or offer him more money under any circumstances. If they did, he warned them that he would never deal with them or do them any favours ever again. And they all stuck by that verbal agreement, it worked. No-one else came in for Billy and so he stayed with Ipswich on the same money as before. Promoters have got to stick together in this way."

 

Surely this situation occurred at a time when promoters were making decent money - in which case this is about maximising promoter profit at the expense of Billy Sanders income. It was not a case of pay restraint necessary to enable the business to survive. I don't think John Berry's action was a gesture intended to save British speedway or even Ipswich speedway. It was to protect his own income and contribute to the building of a substantial early retirement nest egg.

[Dave the Mic 258]

Sorry Dave, I still believe you are missing the point.Of course, what JB was asking of his fellow promoters was not in Billy's best interests. But it WAS in the best interests of the sport as a whole, by effectively putting a maximum ceiling on what riders could demand from their clubs. He was attempting to draw a line in the sand with the co-operation of all the other clubs.And from JB's actions in this instance, it's probably safe to assume that Billy was demanding quite a lot, even for a No.1.

Sorry, but I repeat, I'm not missing anything. So you think it is "safe to assume" Berry was operating in the best interests of the sport, rather than try and keep his star asset at a pay rate below market level? Of course. As has been said since my post, we are talking an era where genuine speedway superstars raced in the UK, unlike today. The likes of Sanders, Penhall, Mauger, Olsen, Collins, Lee, Jessup, Michanek, Autrey to name a few were racers in that day who put bums on seats and any club would want one of these guys in their ranks. The kind of money the likes Olsen , Mauger, PC would have been on would have been stratospheric in comparison to what Billy was likely to be on and he was trying to better his deal.

 

I think Grand Central and blupanther have hit the nail rather firmly on the head. In no way was Billy in the wrong for trying to get a better deal, but the way JB tried to stop it was wholly incorrect and I feel your assumption that he was doing it for the good of the sport is misguided at best.

 

I can't believe Tony, you honestly believe what you're saying. Speedway promoters have never been graced with the best of reputations. Back stabbing each other, bending the rules, screwing each other over, trying to deals with riders behind the backs of the club that owns a riders contract. It's like it now and it was like I then.

 

Two of the main reasons speedway in the UK is in the mess it's in (and there are lots, which would take a week to write about) are the fact that it is run - allegedly - by a group of individuals from member clubs, who, generally, rather than looking after the interests of the sport as a whole are more interested in their own end. And secondly, the greed of promoters in the past who, rather than invest in the future of the sport by looking at building their own stadiums or tracks, simply piggy backed off the back of stadia that already existed, therefore, money that could have been invested in the infrastructure of the sport for its future, went into the pockets of the GRA, rugby clubs, and football clubs, to name a few, whilst the promoters raked off tidy profits.

 

That has now led to a situation where most tracks can only run on certain days in this country which has, in recent times caused another issue. The UK, once the centre of the universe for speedway, is now a poor relation. Poland and Sweden operate much more attractive league systems for increasingly mobile and busy racers, as they race on the same day every week and so riders can commit easily, whereas here the fixture list is all over the place, which is why we have fewer and fewer stars racing here, meaning less people through the turnstiles. The sport is in 2014, British promoters still thnk we are in the 70's when top line riders only raced here, not in every European country going and a 12 round GP.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

Surely this situation occurred at a time when promoters were making decent money

 

Did they though? From reading Backtrack and various autobiographies over the years, many promoters even during the 'golden era' would appear to have led a very hand-to-mouth and often marginal existence. Even if they had successful periods, that could be wiped out because of a bad season or over-expansion.

 

For every Ochiltree and JB, there would appear to be many others who fell by the wayside. Indeed, even the Len Silvers and Ian Thomas's don't seem to have got immensely rich from the sport.

 

That tracks came and went even during the most successful periods, would suggest there wasn't as much money in it as people popularly believe.

[spiegal 294]

That is a thoughtful and very accurate assessment of what has happened over the years. I can certainly recall many Promoters who were just a call away from the Bank Manager.

In my occassional postings I have always tried to actually come up with ideas which may/may not be a way foward. I have never believed that posting forever moaning about the sport should have any creedance at all, UNLESS they offer something positive.

Maybe its time to create a "WAY FORWARD" section. You never know, people do listen, and good ideas are not the perogative of those in seats of power.

[Grand Central 2,654]

.Maybe its time to create a "WAY FORWARD" section. You never know, people do listen, and good ideas are not the perogative of those in seats of power.

.

There is, and always has been, a section of the forum called 'The Future of Speedway' with just one subsection entitled 'The Way Ahead'.

It is accessible from the main page.

It is not over populated.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Grand Central

[Dave the Mic 258]

On another point tmc:- Backtrack is an excellent publication & I am a keen subscriber, which will continue. I don't much like some of your columnists & don't always agree with some of what is said, but nonetheless, the magazine is a great link to the era I recall with the most fondness in my 40 years of watching speedway.

 

I would like to make two points on a post you made earlier.

 

You say James wasn't being personal, but like a previous poster, I feel it became personal the minute he derided fans for not "putting their arse on the line". Well, being a promoter for 5 minutes doesn't qualify in that category for me & I rather suspect that over 40 years of attending speedway, paying entrance fees, buying programmes, food, souvenirs, sponsoring riders, travelling & goodness what else, visiting virtually every track the length and breadth the country & lots more besides, would suggest that over that 40 years, through 3 recessions, I have put in my fair share of my hard earned - I dread to think how much - & I resent the implication of a 5 minute speedway promoter wonder that speedway fans don't contribute, so can't have a say.

 

Secondly you say his comments have been taken out of context. That's as maybe. However, you put soundbites of his interview from Backtrack on a national speedway forum, not for the good of the public but, I suspect, in an attempt to sell more magazines, which is fair enough. However, this is a forum, the very definition of this is to provoke discussion & debate, which has happened. You may not agree with all that is said, but people on here are passionate & forthright & when they feel criticized or offended & they have the right to say so.

 

If you are fearful of your subject being taken out of context because the snippet isn't being looked at in full context, perhaps you should have considered this before posting part of the interview that has created such feeling.

 

You can't have your cake & eat it.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

If you are fearful of your subject being taken out of context because the snippet isn't being looked at in full context, perhaps you should have considered this before posting part of the interview that has created such feeling.

 

 

I read the whole article and I don't feel the taster snippets were especially out of context. If you analyse the article in depth then you can point to some contradictions, but I think it should be viewed as an interesting narrative of the Travel Plus 'empire' and one of the better known 'back room' characters. I think it's clear people have had their run-ins with James Easter - on here, through his business dealings, and no doubt within the sport, but obviously an article needs to say some controversial things in order to sell the publication it appear in.

[Dave the Mic 258]

 

I read the whole article and I don't feel the taster snippets were especially out of context. If you analyse the article in depth then you can point to some contradictions, but I think it should be viewed as an interesting narrative of the Travel Plus 'empire' and one of the better known 'back room' characters. I think it's clear people have had their run-ins with James Easter - on here, through his business dealings, and no doubt within the sport, but obviously an article needs to say some controversial things in order to sell the publication it appear in.

I didn't either, nor did I say they were, I was merely pointing out to Tony that if he was concerned about people commenting that they were he shouldn't have put them on an open forum without the full detail. I also fully appreciate that some juicy bits need to be included for it perhaps to seem a worthwhile read to some & I wasn't criticising Tony for posting it. I was simply saying that he cannot complain about people taking a snippet out of context if the full context isn't published.

 

I don't debate that the entire article isn't interesting, indeed it is.

[Grand Central 2,654]

I read the whole article and I don't feel the taster snippets were especially out of context. If you analyse the article in depth then you can point to some contradictions, but I think it should be viewed as an interesting narrative of the Travel Plus 'empire' and one of the better known 'back room' characters. I think it's clear people have had their run-ins with James Easter - on here, through his business dealings, and no doubt within the sport, but obviously an article needs to say some controversial things in order to sell the publication it appear in.

Really HA, do keep up.

It was tmc who posted the snippets who was thinking they had been taken out of context.

No one else.

 

Absolutely no run ins with the guy here.

It is a very interesting article.

And it has stimulated debate.

It is why we come here

[Bruiser McHuge 589]

James Easter....I wouldn't get out of bed to listen or read one word that he has to say about anything...that's all..

[The White Knight 9,039]

James Easter....I wouldn't get out of bed to listen or read one word that he has to say about anything...that's all..

 

Good Night then.