Brits In Sec/pairs

[Humphrey Appleby 13,993]

The speedway sport in general. Or perhaps you mean that it's negative for the sport to receive sponsor money, TV-exposure?

Depends who the sponsorship and television money is going to. If much of it is being taken out of the system by private promotional companies, then it's hardly benefitting the tracks.

 

Television exposure - well the assumption is that it's good, but has it actually brought more fans through the turnstiles? The television companies may be paying fees to televise, and sponsors may be interested because they're getting on television, but again, who does that money go to?

 

BTW - I don't have any great problem with an international pairs competition. I just think it should either be between proper national pairs or alternatively proper club pairs. I also think these sorts of competitions should be promoted by an international association of professional speedway tracks for their benefit.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Humphrey Appleby

[uk_martin 1,607]

...much of it is being taken out of the system by private promotional companies, then it's hardly benefiting the tracks...

 

This is the world of business for you. Those who do the work and take the financial plunge in promoting an event deserve the rewards that come from it. And on the flip side, if they make a right horlicks of it (Warsaw 2015, anyone?) then they are the ones to feel the financial losses and ignominy.

 

If the (British by any chance?) tracks want to get the benefit, let them stump up the investment...oh wait a minute, they do don't they? It's called the ELRC, or even the "Elite Riders Championship" as it was re-named a year or two ago. And what a great job the combined expertise and experience of the British tracks did in making the ELRC such a worthwhile competitor to a BSI or OneSport promoted event. Or maybe they didn't.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,993]

This is the world of business for you. Those who do the work and take the financial plunge in promoting an event deserve the rewards that come from it.

It's not the world of sport which can't operate on the same competitive business principles as the real world. Even the Americans understand that, which is why the NFL (arguably the most successful of the major sports there) is run on what would be perceived as socialist principles anywhere else.

 

The premier competitions of virtually all the major global sports whether football, cricket, rugby or whatever are run by the governing bodies of those sports, and the financial benefits accrue to them. They may partner with other organisations to help organise and promote the events, but the generated profits come back to the sport and are usually redistributed to the member federations and their clubs. The one big exception is F1 which is run by Bernie Ecclestone's company, but he was historically involved in the sport and pays huge amounts to both the FIA and the F1 teams for the promotional rights.

 

By contrast, the premier speedway competitions are run by 2 or 3 private companies that otherwise have nothing to do with speedway. They pay fixed amounts to the FIM and FIM Europe for the promotional rights, but out of that comes the prize money, and the rest disappears internally within those organisations. The promotional companies keep the rest of the money which is lost to the sport.

 

And what risks are these companies actually taking? They contract local promoters to stage most of the GPs, who pay them for the privilege of staging them and incur all the financial risk in the event insufficient fans turn up or its rained off. Those local promoters also get no share in the television and sponsorship money which is kept by the series organisers.

 

So really the only risks are those GPs held in big stadia that are directly promoted, but whilst the Cardiff GP would have been something of a risk 15 years ago, it's well established now.

 

And as for 'doing the work' and Philippe's assertions that I know nothing about event management, I don't think BSI or OneSport are especially professional outfits, whilst the other one which I forget the name of, hasn't even managed to stage an event as far as I know. There have been far too many fiascos down the years, and even at the ones that go ahead, it's apparent that little effort goes into improving the local organisation or promotion at most of the events.

 

And on the flip side, if they make a right horlicks of it (Warsaw 2015, anyone?) then they are the ones to feel the financial losses and ignominy.

Except they haven't. The local promoter in Warsaw was the PZM who copped the flak as they were legally responsible for putting on the event.

 

If the (British by any chance?) tracks want to get the benefit, let them stump up the investment...oh wait a minute, they do don't they? It's called the ELRC, or even the "Elite Riders Championship" as it was re-named a year or two ago. And what a great job the combined expertise and experience of the British tracks did in making the ELRC such a worthwhile competitor to a BSI or OneSport promoted event. Or maybe they didn't.

Nobody is holding up the BSPA as a example of how things should be done, but they're running a different business. BSI and OneSport only have to run a handful of events each year, cherry picking the riders and best dates, and not even having to pay the going rate for top riders. The BSPA members are running grassroots tracks putting on an extensive weekly programme of meetings employing 150 or more professional riders, not to mention the development leagues.

 

There's clearly little vision within the BSPA, far less capitalisation available, but BSI and OneSport do nothing that an international body of promoters couldn't do if they were willing to cooperate. Bring in an experienced commercial manager and contract an experienced promotional and events management company, and then go from there. It's not rocket science, although would need a change of attitude from the various speedway leagues to stop fighting with each other and have a bit of vision with respect to their own collective benefit.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Humphrey Appleby