2022 Teams & Points average

[Skidder1 7,637]

14 hours ago, lisa-colette said:

Did really well at Poole when Plymouth were last down. 

....and you never know could be a replacement (6.93) for Rooboy???

[Falcon1983 557]

13 hours ago, The Dog said:

The problem I see with this is that half the riders would achieve an average that would keep them out of a team for the following year. 

I'd go the other way and increase the team average to 49 or 50 points. You'll never build to that number but riders could race without fear of being redundant afterwards... 

This is why averages to build teams should be abolished and replaced with categorized riders A B C, D, E plus the rising stars

 

[King Jamie 356]

On 10/20/2021 at 2:07 PM, wtf said:

I think the general reason for the playoffs isn't that the champions gates suffer towards the end of a dominant season, it's more that no one else has anything to race for. Wasn't it the 2011 Glasgow dominant season where they won the league early that started to trigger play offs?  not sure. But it's intention is so that another 3 or 5 clubs have something to race for towards the end of a season.

Whether you agree with it or not, I think that was the rational behind it

 

I do understand that but I can't help but feel the Promoters have kinda caused their own problems.

If you think back, each track had their 'base' crowd. The hardcore. The Mr Campbell's of this world could sit down each Nov / Dec and think, "right, we've x season ticket holders for next season. That's £y. Now, we can have a directors' meeting and decide who we want to sign and what contracts we should offer those riders."

Back then, the base crowd was larger than it is today. Now, I'm aware there are several reasons for this but I can't help but think that one of those is that the integrity of the sport remained intact. Every League meeting meant something in the grand scheme of things and the table toppers were crowned Champions. Even sides at the bottom didn't race in front of empty terraces.

Changing that mindset to allow a team below first to lift the trophy also changes the paying customers' philosophy towards the sport. Why buy a season ticket when only 2 or 3 fixtures truly matter? And instead of routinely turning up, some may now think, "hmm, Berwick this week. We usually beat them and we're almost certain of finishing in the top 6. I'll save my money and go to the important meeting next month instead."

Now, when that fan then repeats their thought process to their mate(s), they in turn then think, "och, Mike's not going on Friday, I'll probably give it a miss as well" and, before you know it, your floating punter numbers have nosedived.

Lower season ticket numbers also affects the thinking of Mr Campbell and his friends. "Our base budget is a lot lower for next season. I don't think we can afford Jock McTavish, which is probably just as well given the lower points limit. We can blame that if anyone asks."

This then leads to the floating punter thinking, "look at the points limit. How low can you go? What are they doing to the sport? I'm not going to watch rubbish. I want Jock McTavish back. At least he was top quality."

And so it goes on and on. Let's just hope it's not too late for some kind of salvage operation.

[wtf 621]

19 hours ago, King Jamie said:

I do understand that but I can't help but feel the Promoters have kinda caused their own problems.

If you think back, each track had their 'base' crowd. The hardcore. The Mr Campbell's of this world could sit down each Nov / Dec and think, "right, we've x season ticket holders for next season. That's £y. Now, we can have a directors' meeting and decide who we want to sign and what contracts we should offer those riders."

Back then, the base crowd was larger than it is today. Now, I'm aware there are several reasons for this but I can't help but think that one of those is that the integrity of the sport remained intact. Every League meeting meant something in the grand scheme of things and the table toppers were crowned Champions. Even sides at the bottom didn't race in front of empty terraces.

Changing that mindset to allow a team below first to lift the trophy also changes the paying customers' philosophy towards the sport. Why buy a season ticket when only 2 or 3 fixtures truly matter? And instead of routinely turning up, some may now think, "hmm, Berwick this week. We usually beat them and we're almost certain of finishing in the top 6. I'll save my money and go to the important meeting next month instead."

Now, when that fan then repeats their thought process to their mate(s), they in turn then think, "och, Mike's not going on Friday, I'll probably give it a miss as well" and, before you know it, your floating punter numbers have nosedived.

Lower season ticket numbers also affects the thinking of Mr Campbell and his friends. "Our base budget is a lot lower for next season. I don't think we can afford Jock McTavish, which is probably just as well given the lower points limit. We can blame that if anyone asks."

This then leads to the floating punter thinking, "look at the points limit. How low can you go? What are they doing to the sport? I'm not going to watch rubbish. I want Jock McTavish back. At least he was top quality."

And so it goes on and on. Let's just hope it's not too late for some kind of salvage operation.

I think your assessment is pretty accurate, and I think it's as much a statement on society and how mindsets have changed. People today seem to only respond to instant gratification and instant stimulation. Long gone are the days of supporters who would be there through thick and thin. It's to do with the gimmick mentality, the new era, call it what you like, there are so many things competing for our attention these days. You only have to look at a speedway crowd and they are watching a race, then looking at there phones, then watching a race etc. There's so much competition for our attention and our ££ and unfortunately speedway and it's promoters don't have the skillset or desire to keep up.

They chuck in the playoff hoping to attract new supporters forgetting what impact it will have on their hard core fans, much as you stated above. Now don't get me wrong, you can't keep all the people happy all the time. But to demonstrate the business acumen of our beloved speedway promoters, consider this:

We've had a pandemic for over 18 months changing the way we live, travel and socialise etc. During the height of the pandemic, some tried a streaming service a couple of times, then gave up. How do you get an ever aging fan base to watch and pay for speedway, how do you get away fans to watch speedway and not have to travel. The sport has been begging for clubs to add to their revenue by offering a streaming service, a centralised service, a season ticket holders service, just to allow say 500 fans from 300 miles away to watch their club and vice versa.

So in 18 months 12 of which were sat on their backsides, both Scottish clubs have demonstrated their business acumen, Redcar have stepped up and are doing the same. If I've missed any others out, I apologise, but they obviously haven't advertised/promoted  it well enough for me to notice (Poole once or twice maybe?). And that's it. 

My hat goes off to the promotions of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Redcar. The rest? You deserve all you get

Here was the chance to centralise a scheme, offering season long passes for different leagues. How do I add a few hundred away supporters from Poole or Kent to my revenue in Glasgow or Edinburgh ?  Exactly! what about the reverse arrangement? 

People have changed, their attention spans have changed, the only constant is the leadership of the BSPL.  

[MartinBSN 617]

2 hours ago, wtf said:

I think your assessment is pretty accurate, and I think it's as much a statement on society and how mindsets have changed. People today seem to only respond to instant gratification and instant stimulation. Long gone are the days of supporters who would be there through thick and thin. It's to do with the gimmick mentality, the new era, call it what you like, there are so many things competing for our attention these days. You only have to look at a speedway crowd and they are watching a race, then looking at there phones, then watching a race etc. There's so much competition for our attention and our ££ and unfortunately speedway and it's promoters don't have the skillset or desire to keep up.

They chuck in the playoff hoping to attract new supporters forgetting what impact it will have on their hard core fans, much as you stated above. Now don't get me wrong, you can't keep all the people happy all the time. But to demonstrate the business acumen of our beloved speedway promoters, consider this:

We've had a pandemic for over 18 months changing the way we live, travel and socialise etc. During the height of the pandemic, some tried a streaming service a couple of times, then gave up. How do you get an ever aging fan base to watch and pay for speedway, how do you get away fans to watch speedway and not have to travel. The sport has been begging for clubs to add to their revenue by offering a streaming service, a centralised service, a season ticket holders service, just to allow say 500 fans from 300 miles away to watch their club and vice versa.

So in 18 months 12 of which were sat on their backsides, both Scottish clubs have demonstrated their business acumen, Redcar have stepped up and are doing the same. If I've missed any others out, I apologise, but they obviously haven't advertised/promoted  it well enough for me to notice (Poole once or twice maybe?). And that's it. 

My hat goes off to the promotions of Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Redcar. The rest? You deserve all you get

Here was the chance to centralise a scheme, offering season long passes for different leagues. How do I add a few hundred away supporters from Poole or Kent to my revenue in Glasgow or Edinburgh ?  Exactly! what about the reverse arrangement? 

People have changed, their attention spans have changed, the only constant is the leadership of the BSPL.  

The biggest problem with streaming is cost. Unless you have a very dedicated and knowledgable team of volunteers willing to run it for you then you're looking at £1500 minimum per meeting for a live stream. The revenue from that wouldn't change anything, not once other costs were taken into account

[wtf 621]

1 hour ago, Marshall07 said:

The biggest problem with streaming is cost. Unless you have a very dedicated and knowledgable team of volunteers willing to run it for you then you're looking at £1500 minimum per meeting for a live stream. The revenue from that wouldn't change anything, not once other costs were taken into account

People will always find the money for the things they value the most. The clubs that value it will find a way, they then need to make it of value to their customers. £1500 per meeting If that is the cost is 150 people at £10 each. I guess as a promotion they have to look at it as can I get 150 (away fans probably) to sign up for the stream? Then build from there. Just the usual risk vs reward business decisions they have to make?  I'd have thought it was a lower risk and a longer term gain than some of the kneejerk rider acquisitions some of them go for. When you think of what plymouth were spending on two heat leaders each meeting this year, it makes streaming seem cheap. 

I guess many will stick to doing the same thing year after year and miraculously expect a different result. 

 

[MartinBSN 617]

1 hour ago, wtf said:

People will always find the money for the things they value the most. The clubs that value it will find a way, they then need to make it of value to their customers. £1500 per meeting If that is the cost is 150 people at £10 each. I guess as a promotion they have to look at it as can I get 150 (away fans probably) to sign up for the stream? Then build from there. Just the usual risk vs reward business decisions they have to make?  I'd have thought it was a lower risk and a longer term gain than some of the kneejerk rider acquisitions some of them go for. When you think of what plymouth were spending on two heat leaders each meeting this year, it makes streaming seem cheap. 

I guess many will stick to doing the same thing year after year and miraculously expect a different result. 

 

It's not 150 people though. £10 stream means £8 after vat. There's then payment processing costs and the stream running costs. The £1500 is purely for the production team.

The profit would be closer to £5-6 per stream. Meaning you now need 300 people. If championship clubs are only getting 500-800 to actual meetings then 300 buying an away stream is a big ask

[GS550 449]

On 10/21/2021 at 2:11 PM, Ryan555 said:

Would say this is a better balance across the 2 leagues in my opinion by not having an overly strong championship where teams can manage to fit 4 heat leaders in a team

You say Championship teams had 4 heat leaders.  Glasgow had only 2 heat leaders until Ostergaard got injured, and after that only 1 heat leader.  The rest have effectively been second strings and reserves.  And Glasgow finished the season in 2nd spot in the Championship table.  So not as if with only one or two heat leaders they finished in the bottom half of the table.  Sorry but your point that Championship teams have 4 heat leaders this season doesn't seem to hold water.

[Ryan555 144]

6 hours ago, GS550 said:

You say Championship teams had 4 heat leaders.  Glasgow had only 2 heat leaders until Ostergaard got injured, and after that only 1 heat leader.  The rest have effectively been second strings and reserves.  And Glasgow finished the season in 2nd spot in the Championship table.  So not as if with only one or two heat leaders they finished in the bottom half of the table.  Sorry but your point that Championship teams have 4 heat leaders this season doesn't seem to hold water.

I never said  it’s every team but in my opinion I’m kinda needs to be made very hard or result in you needing like a 2 point rider at 2 to make it happen 

[GS550 449]

5 hours ago, Ryan555 said:

I never said  it’s every team but in my opinion I’m kinda needs to be made very hard or result in you needing like a 2 point rider at 2 to make it happen 

Nor did I say its every team.  But you clearly did make a point about 4 heat leaders in Championship teams.  I only pointed out that the second placed team Glasgow did not have 4 heat leaders, that until Ostergaard got injured they only had 2 heat leaders and after that only 1, the rest being second strings and reserves.

If you are going to make a point about teams having 4 heat leaders as you did then you would maybe have a point if it was widespread, i.e. not "all" but commonplace throughout the division, and that teams with only 1 or 2 heat leaders e.g. Glasgow were rooted to the bottom of the table but clearly this is not the case.

Your mention of 2 point riders is maybe more where the attention needs to be focused as if teams are only allowed say one 2 point rider then it would discourage teams from assembling 4 heat leaders and the rest all 2 pointers.  I know somebody will say something about an existing rule and that's fine as I gave up trying to follow the ever changing rule book a while ago.

[Jaizer 2,864]

Thought on the "rising star" situation. Why not just create a list of riders considered to be rising stars (Josh bates need not apply) and say that every team has to consist of at least 2 of them but based on their CMA and new riders come in on a 2.00 from NL? Means for example Berwick can keep flint and bickley, Leicester the Thompson twins, Edinburgh kemp and Edwards, Glasgow Bailey and Brennan but without drastically weakening the league. And will allow same riders more spots in the top league, if there is one

[Skidder1 7,637]

5 minutes ago, Jaizer said:

Thought on the "rising star" situation. Why not just create a list of riders considered to be rising stars (Josh bates need not apply) and say that every team has to consist of at least 2 of them but based on their CMA and new riders come in on a 2.00 from NL? Means for example Berwick can keep flint and bickley, Leicester the Thompson twins, Edinburgh kemp and Edwards, Glasgow Bailey and Brennan but without drastically weakening the league. And will allow same riders more spots in the top league, if there is one

The Rising Star scheme should increase to '2 per team' only in the Championship, with the Premiership remaining at 1 Rising Star!  Just my opinion.

[Jaizer 2,864]

1 minute ago, Skidder1 said:

The Rising Star scheme should increase to '2 per team' only in the Championship, with the Premiership remaining at 1 Rising Star!  Just my opinion.

Suppose depends how many teams in top league. Of the rising stars in championship not there now that might hold their own Thompson twins, Jenkins, bickley, Thomas bowtel, bailey is getting there. Might be enough to keep it competitive. I'd say if do have 2 in top league should have 2 protected reserve races

[Endeavour 681]

On 10/22/2021 at 12:00 PM, Falcon1983 said:

This is why averages to build teams should be abolished and replaced with categorized riders A B C, D, E plus the rising stars

 

And who categorises them? There was so many discrepancies in standard of rising stars and the grading. A fair points limit and let the teams build accordingly .

[Gazc 7,098]

On 10/20/2021 at 1:58 PM, lisa-colette said:

I like it, not sure we have ever been described as the 'people's league champions' before though! Lol.

But of a tongue twister too! Try saying it really fast 

Replied to the wrong post edited.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Gazc