In My View By Phil Rising

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

...way back in 1987 Oxford were the only team, if I recall, who released a 'star' rider (Simon Wigg) to assist the Hackey promotion who had taken the decision to enter Division One at a great cost.

 

It would prove costly for both Hackney and Oxord. Hackney survived only the one year at that level and Oxford just avoided the wooden spoon (although their League Cup campaign was good).

 

I remember Bernard Crapper saying that it had been a mistake but it was yet another example of not all promoters pulling together within the spirit of the sport.

Probably most teams could point to being 'hard done by' by the points limit, but after sweeping all before them in 1986, it was not unreasonable that Oxford should be forced to release a star rider, especially to a new team. That Hackney couldn't make a go of things at BL level was undoubtedly down to other reasons, but they certainly wouldn't have made a go of things if no-one had released riders.

 

I'd not have said Wigg was really an out-and-out No. 1 for various reasons, but the likes of Marvyn Cox and Andy Grahame did go onto become significant riders for other teams when they had to be released by Oxford, which I think shows the positive aspect of the points limit.

 

The sport has to consider the bigger picture than one promoter complaining about his own selfish interests, although I suspect Bernard Crapper was doing it for public effect and knew full well that Oxford probably couldn't afford to keep all their championship winning riders even if they could.

[waiheke1 4,295]

...way back in 1987 Oxford were the only team, if I recall, who released a 'star' rider (Simon Wigg) to assist the Hackey promotion who had taken the decision to enter Division One at a great cost.

 

It would prove costly for both Hackney and Oxord. Hackney survived only the one year at that level and Oxford just avoided the wooden spoon (although their League Cup campaign was good).

 

I remember Bernard Crapper saying that it had been a mistake but it was yet another example of not all promoters pulling together within the spirit of the sport.

of course you could argue that Wigg only joined Oxford in the first place because the 83 Cradley team were forced to release Wigg (and Ravn, and Jan O) in 1984 in order to get under the points limit.

plenty of team had to release HL over the years - I remember in 85 for example Aces needed to release 2 out of Ross, Courtney and P Carr (they ended up releasing all 3 and bringing in Andy Campbell, surely one of the worst decisions of all time).

if Oxrod hadn't released Wigg in 87 they would have likely needed to release Cox and Grahame to get under the points limit - hard to build a team with two 11+ riders, between them Hand and Wigg would have taken up over half the points available for team building.

Probably most teams could point to being 'hard done by' by the points limit, but after sweeping all before them in 1986, it was not unreasonable that Oxford should be forced to release a star rider, especially to a new team. That Hackney couldn't make a go of things at BL level was undoubtedly down to other reasons, but they certainly wouldn't have made a go of things if no-one had released riders.

 

I'd not have said Wigg was really an out-and-out No. 1 for various reasons, but the likes of Marvyn Cox and Andy Grahame did go onto become significant riders for other teams when they had to be released by Oxford, which I think shows the positive aspect of the points limit.

 

The sport has to consider the bigger picture than one promoter complaining about his own selfish interests, although I suspect Bernard Crapper was doing it for public effect and knew full well that Oxford probably couldn't afford to keep all their championship winning riders even if they could.

hard to argue Wigg wasn't a number one when he averaged 11+ in 1986, which put him 3rd in the averages I believe (behind Hans and Eric). i know he dropped a couple of points riding as number 1 in 1987, but he was hardly the worst number 1 in the league even then.

[steve roberts 9,246]

of course you could argue that Wigg only joined Oxford in the first place because the 83 Cradley team were forced to release Wigg (and Ravn, and Jan O) in 1984 in order to get under the points limit.

plenty of team had to release HL over the years - I remember in 85 for example Aces needed to release 2 out of Ross, Courtney and P Carr (they ended up releasing all 3 and bringing in Andy Campbell, surely one of the worst decisions of all time).

if Oxrod hadn't released Wigg in 87 they would have likely needed to release Cox and Grahame to get under the points limit - hard to build a team with two 11+ riders, between them Hand and Wigg would have taken up over half the points available for team building.

hard to argue Wigg wasn't a number one when he averaged 11+ in 1986, which put him 3rd in the averages I believe (behind Hans and Eric). i know he dropped a couple of points riding as number 1 in 1987, but he was hardly the worst number 1 in the league even then.

My initial comment was not really based on Oxford having to release a rider but more about that they were the only team to do so to support an incoming team to bring them up to an acceptable strength which was the essence of Bernard Crapper's comment at the time.

 

Other promotions were less than willing despite the call for unity within the BSPA to assist for the overall benefit of the sport.

Edited October 2, 2017 by steve roberts

[cowboy cookie returns? 747]

You appear to be the sort of fan who knows his stuff.

 

What happened the first time you went this season to put you off and what did you think had changed to encourage you back?

 

Having been tempted back you may have been disappointed (but you obviously wasn't) so what was it that had actually changed and will it keep you going to every meeting?

Up until 2008 or 09 I was almost an ever present at Ipswich however during my final season the rules were changed half way through the season regarding the play off from the top 6 to the top 4 making it through. At the time this played a part in our number one rider Hampel leaving mid season. By the time the following season arrived I had just had enough of speedway & started to pick & choose when I would attend. This started with about 10 meetings a season which was done to one by last season & 2 this year. My reason for returning on Saturday night was the fact that it was a big meeting with 2 well matched sides & no double points rule. The atmosphere was fantastic & the racing was good which gives me heart that the sport can still provide a great night out.

My first visit this year saw the visiting team not giving a 100% which lead to very poor racing a couple of riders clearly out of there depth & the use of the double points rules with guests thrown in aswell. All in front of a poor crowd with no atmosphere.

 

For me in even consider going back every week the double points need dropping the use of guests needs scrapping or at least only used once in a blue moon & doubling up needs to go. The big point is that I feel no connection to 'my team' because the riders are riding for other teams all over the place. So Saturday I attend not as an Ipswich fan but as a neutral able to enjoy an meeting between to good teams. I need connection to my team to part with £16:00 every week.

 

Added in the bikes are clearly to quick but that is another matter........

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

The point of the points limit is so that some riders have to be released, so they become available to weaker teams. If you build up to the strength of the champion team, that defeats the purpose.

 

And the fact is there have been occasions where a lower placed team than the champion had the highest combined points. It hardly seems fair they'd have to weaken whilst the champions didn't.

 

The 'mathematical equation' is a reflection of on-track performance to a large extent.

TYPICAL speedway ... weakened the strong to help the weak. That philosophy has damaged British speedway for decades. There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, which is what the BSPA thought might happened when Stuart Bamforth, bank-rolled by his business, came along. Any team that wants to continue from one season to another we the riders it has should be allowed to do so. Only if they want to make changes should that track be subject to whatever the points limit is.

 

I haver lost count of the times I have been told by a promoter that there is little point in trying to develop young riders if at the end of the season they are shunted off elsewhere to a track that cannot be bothered to do likewise.

Edited October 2, 2017 by PHILIPRISING

[StevePark 2,787]

But - by the same token - if 'we' scapped the points limit, then the teams with money (and we all know who they are ) would be able to sign 4, 5, 6 or even 7 number 1's/heatleaders and thrash everybody out of sight (Newcastle Diamonds under Ian Thomas for example). The big question is, would anyone turn up to watch that, when that team was riding on an away track (home supporters that is)?

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

hard to argue Wigg wasn't a number one when he averaged 11+ in 1986, which put him 3rd in the averages I believe (behind Hans and Eric). i know he dropped a couple of points riding as number 1 in 1987, but he was hardly the worst number 1 in the league even then.

Averages don't tell the whole story. Wiggy could be rather a selfish rider, and often seemed to put long track and grasstrack commitments ahead of team commitments. Moreover, he could have bad rides at crucial times, which is less important if you're second or third heat leader, but not so great if you're carrying a team.

TYPICAL speedway ... weakened the strong to help the weak. That philosophy has damaged British speedway for decades.

Well what's the alternative? Just let the weak sink without trace?

 

Speedway isn't like other sports which have an underlying pyramid of competitors trying to break through. There's only a relative handful of top-flight performers to go round, and due to the heat-based nature of speedway, if they're all concentrated in just a few teams it's going to lead to some terribly one-sided contests.

 

Few would suggest the points limit has worked properly let alone well, but it has resulted in success generally being shared around over the years, unlike something like the Scottish Premiership that's been tediously dominated by Celtic and Rangers for the last who knows whoever long.

 

Only if they want to make changes should that track be subject to whatever the points limit is.

You need to think it through. So one team inflates to 50 points or more (not beyond possibility for strong side), but then gets an injury to their top rider. So then through no fault of their own, they suddenly have to shed 8 points which would in practice mean dropping another one or two riders. It would be farcical and lack any credibility at all.

 

I haver lost count of the times I have been told by a promoter that there is little point in trying to develop young riders if at the end of the season they are shunted off elsewhere to a track that cannot be bothered to do likewise.

Yes, but that's a failure with how the system is implemented, not the points limit itself. You could very easily provide incentives within the system to encourage teams to develop riders and keep them on a minimum average for a certain number of seasons.

[THE DEAN MACHINE 4,770]

But - by the same token - if 'we' scapped the points limit, then the teams with money (and we all know who they are ) would be able to sign 4, 5, 6 or even 7 number 1's/heatleaders and thrash everybody out of sight (Newcastle Diamonds under Ian Thomas for example). The big question is, would anyone turn up to watch that, when that team was riding on an away track (home supporters that is)?

like who , one Brit , maximum one GP rider and 2 u21 reserves , leaving teams to sign 3 riders whoever they want , who are these 3 heatleaders ? There isnt the riders out there that want to ride here that are not in the GPs , people seem to think teams will just sign these superstars that in reality dont exsist , do an actual example ,write down all the teams , give them 1 Brit and 1 GP rider and just see who they could sign as there other 3, it wont be much different to the teams they have this year

[StevePark 2,787]

like who , one Brit , maximum one GP rider and 2 u21 reserves , leaving teams to sign 3 riders whoever they want , who are these 3 heatleaders ? There isnt the riders out there that want to ride here that are not in the GPs , people seem to think teams will just sign these superstars that in reality dont exsist , do an actual example ,write down all the teams , give them 1 Brit and 1 GP rider and just see who they could sign as there other 3, it wont be much different to the teams they have this year

 

I was talking more about the Championship (PL) rather than the Premiership (EL), but the principle is the same. A team in the Premiership could sign as their 7 (as perhaps a poor example) - Jason Doyle, Scott Nicholls, Max Fricke, Chris Harris, Kenneth Bjerre, Robert Lambert and someone like say Adam Ellis.

[steve roberts 9,246]

like who , one Brit , maximum one GP rider and 2 u21 reserves , leaving teams to sign 3 riders whoever they want , who are these 3 heatleaders ? There isnt the riders out there that want to ride here that are not in the GPs , people seem to think teams will just sign these superstars that in reality dont exsist , do an actual example ,write down all the teams , give them 1 Brit and 1 GP rider and just see who they could sign as there other 3, it wont be much different to the teams they have this year

Personally I don't think the present, or indeed past, economics would allow for strong teams indefinitely.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

Personally I don't think the present, or indeed past, economics would allow for strong teams indefinitely.

Sport seems to transcend economic principles, and speedway is unlikely to be any different. Plenty of top football teams can't afford the players they sign, and inevitably head towards bankruptcy as a result. It's just lucky there's usually always a sugar daddy able to bail them out until the next sucker comes along.

 

Speedway is even more susceptible to this with its prevalence of hobbyist promoters nowadays, but there's less of preponderance of sugar daddies waiting in the wings when teams do fall. There are some speedway teams that have been run on sensible economic lines for years, but we've also seen promoters come-and-go after throwing around money that made no sense at all.

[The White Knight 9,039]

Sport seems to transcend economic principles, and speedway is unlikely to be any different. Plenty of top football teams can't afford the players they sign, and inevitably head towards bankruptcy as a result. It's just lucky there's usually always a sugar daddy able to bail them out until the next sucker comes along.

 

Speedway is even more susceptible to this with its prevalence of hobbyist promoters nowadays, but there's less of preponderance of sugar daddies waiting in the wings when teams do fall. There are some speedway teams that have been run on sensible economic lines for years, but we've also seen promoters come-and-go after throwing around money that made no sense at all.

Sorry to go off Topic.

 

But there isn't at Sunderland Football Club sadly. We have the sucker.

[Grand Central 2,654]

TYPICAL speedway ... weakened the strong to help the weak. That philosophy has damaged British speedway for decades. There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, which is what the BSPA thought might happened when Stuart Bamforth, bank-rolled by his business, came along. Any team that wants to continue from one season to another we the riders it has should be allowed to do so. Only if they want to make changes should that track be subject to whatever the points limit is.

 

I can be endlessly critical of the promoters and some of their philosophies.

But then again the alternatives offered by some on the sidelines are just so dangerously naive that we must be truly thankful they have not been in a position to implement them

 

I haver lost count of the times I have been told by a promoter that there is little point in trying to develop young riders if at the end of the season they are shunted off elsewhere to a track that cannot be bothered to do likewise.

 

I am amazed at how often you have listened to such complete Horlicks without challenging it's voracity.

[uk_martin 1,606]

...There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, ...

 

There may have been a lot more money "in the system" if 40% of the Sky money over the many years of their lucrative sponsorship, had gone into the sport instead of into Terry Russell's back pocket to pay his mortgage off. Classic example of someone becoming "all right jack" whilst the the sport that they were supposed to be serving floundered.

[THE DEAN MACHINE 4,770]

There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, .

there simply isnt the talent around to buy it up , the quality from the 80s just isnt around in numbers , people keep saying the richest teams will just buy the best riders , who are these riders ? Where are they hiding ? Cause pretty much every top rider thats wants to ride here already does , so lets hear some names, pick pooles team for 2018 , remember must have I Brit and no more than 1 GP rider and there must be a chance they want to ride here so you can rule out riders like zmarzlik, Laguta and if Poland extend their rider ban there will be even less to choose from Edited October 2, 2017 by THE DEAN MACHINE