TonyM

Thanks Trees, I had called my Mum and after lots of do,do,do do-do-do do do ing we got the tune and the memories flooding back but alas no title to seach Youtube for, not a dry eye in either of our houses tonight but thanks again

Appreciate what you are saying about how football clubs and councils can stucture a deal whereby the football club is in effect 'subsidised' through other use or peppercorn rents but it is far easier to run a 'football in the community' scheme than one for speedway (even given the good work Lynn have done with their study centre) I would be amazed if speedway could meet the Sport England criteria in the way more traditional sports can in terms of participation / equality etc I think we both agree on mixed use, I just dont see how a speedway club could lead such a venture, even if you take out the fact that the sport is on its knees financially other sports have access to so many other funding streams that speedway because of the way it is governed (for want of a better term) does not. IMO a speedway club would nearly always be better going in as a 'second partner' or whatever term you wanted to use. Interesting that at the end of your article you use the example of Exeter Rugby club and their new stadium, not sure if you knew but they used to be landlords for the speedway but when they moved no provision for speedway was included - perhaps if speedway was seen as a key partner in the use of the stadium rather than something they were happy to leave behind we could get the facility upgrade we think is long overdue for speedway (also ask the question why the speedway didnt lead the move and have the rugby club as tenants and why Exeter speedway rather than building from scratch is now working with the local racecourse)

LS, thanks for emailing the article, interesting reading If anything I would take the exact opposite view in that for the sport to survive and prosper it must generate good returns for co-operative landlords rather than look to become the owners themselves. Essentially I cant see that the speedway community would be able to raise the initial finance either internally or externally to create their own stadiums, many of the examples you quote would I guess have had a fairly substantial element of funding from the Football Trust or similar such orgainisation as well as possible proceeds from the sale of existing facilities, and even if the returns from the 'extras' surrounding the track were cash generators why would lenders include a vast (in relative terms) area that was used for such a specialist and loss making (if EL promoters are to be believed) activity as speedway Even in its current state there are very few tracks where speedway is 'profitable' and many where facilities are subsidised by other activities be it greyhounds, stock cars or whatever so perhaps we should look to how the sport can be developed to start being an attractive (both physically and financially) tenant before we get ahead of ourselves and look to pour money the sport doesnt have into new stadia

I appreciate the idea of expanding the 'pyramid' at the bottom which should mean that there would be more quality coming through to the higher (pro) levels of the sport but two major problems: 1. taking the highlighted text out of context - speedway is viewed as a noisy sport and thus locations where it is welcomed are few and far between 2. as it currently stands speedway is an expensive sport to participate in with specialist machinery which seems to need constant (read costly) love and attention, added to the cost of creating and maintaining a safe racing area and the sums dont add up Rather than a DIY approach there should be more of an initiative taken by the BSPA (with its governing body hat on) to develop some form of coherent development policy within its existing structure

Great post, particularly highlighted bit. With speedway lurching from crisis to crisis the conference this year could do well to use this criteria as to whether to adopt / adapt any rule

Big problem is what is in it for the 'squad' riders, to take your points in turn Looking at your draft Poole team you've raided half the PL to get the squad so who would be left to ride for the PL teams? Equally CL riders get plenty of chance to ride against PL opposition with guest appearances covering for PL reserves, with what can only be described as 'mixed' success. Why would PL teams want to race these extra fixtures in what is a fairly full fixture schedule at PL level anyway? Who in your list doesnt get 'regular' racing, the bottom end of your draft team would end up with less meetings than they had this year for their respective teams - which members of the squad are you refering to? Would this by Kyle riding for his PL club against an EL B team or for the EL B team (getting limited meetings) against a weakened PL? Possibly, although there would still be potential fixture problems but accept there would be more scope for flexibility But what would the 'squad' members ask for, possibly less per meeting than GP riders but would they really want to be 'cover' riding only 'B' meetings, I'm guessing what you save on one hand you would lose on the other as these riders (if they exist) would probably want fairly hefty signing on fees to mitigate for fewer meetings There is your main problem, speedway as it currently stands places a large financial risk on its competitors by way of equipment costs and having large squads means large equipment costs to be funded. Giving each rider potentially less meetings to recoup that outlay means higher up front payments and/or higher costs per meeting unless they can earn elsewhere from that equipment when not active in the squad, sorry but I cant see how the above would be attractive to either promoters or riders

Self interest, easier and cheaper to buy in a ready made / part way there foreigners than spend the time, effort and money developing talent in house. Obviously this is a generalisation and I'm sure there are pockets of good practice out there but fundamentally the system is structured in such a way that long term development of riders is almost pointless from a financial / practical point of view. The annual merry-go-round of rider changes each post season to fit the latest average points limit is hardly an incentive either Whilst this is undoubtably part of the problem it could also be part of the solution if clubs saw any potential benefit in developing their own riders they may take look more favourably on coaching, however so many are living a hand to mouth financial existance at present its going to be a pretty hard sell to talk about 'investment' in future riders Not sure how this would work, % of licence fees which riders can then 'spend' at tracks to get track time / finance equipment / coaching? Who would administer who received the money and how much and measure what sort of return was received for the investment A more radical option (pipe dream) would be to restructure UK speedway along the lines of major league baseball in the US with 'major' teams (effectively the EL however it is made up post conference this year) and attached 'minor' teams (anything below EL level and including the CL). Riders would be signed to an EL side from the start of their careers which would hopefully encourage the top clubs to take an interest in what was going on lower down the ladder, PL and CL clubs would hopefully benefit from being part of a larger (more financially stable) organisation with a focus on bringing riders through to the EL side The other thing that would make 'coaching' a greater priority would be to standardise the equipment used in the CL thus linking success more closely with trackcraft than the ability to raise finance to fund 'better' equipment

I would guess the major problem would be with cost both in terms of venues big enough (cant think somewhere like the NEC or O2 arena comes cheap) and the insistence on trying to lay a shale track as is done in Brighton (not to everyones taste) If an alternative surface could be found that could be more easily laid and removed and perhaps look at less powerful bikes it may be possible but would still think that the venue cost would make it a fairly big gamble based on what the maximum attendance could be

Thanks Kevin, I was just trying to clarify what you were proposing. I was hoping this thread could be more about what the sport would/should look like and come to some consensus (well you, Andy and me!) view rather than putting forward suggestions (however valid) without having a framework in which to assess them Yes a mechanism for rewarding loyalty sounds a good idea as it fits in with the framework for fans in having rider continuity over time but ideas cant be viewed in isolation so we need a workable framework first (some ideas may work for one group but not for another - fans may want weekly speedway for £1 per meeting but riders want to be paid and clubs want to make money so there will always be an element of compromise with some proposals)

The point of the thread is to try and look at the sport as a whole rather than individual club issues, clubs may come and go for all sorts of reasons but unless there is some pretty radical change and soon then I fear it will be reach a point where even the 'good' clubs will struggle to carry on What do you think clubs need / want from speedway? As an aside I'm not a great fan of incremental changes as they often have the effect of giving the illusion of change whilst side stepping the 'big' issues

Looking from the professional end of the riders spectrum; 1) you think they should be able to make a living from the UK alone and that it should be a 'full time' commitment? 2) the chance of 'progressing' to SGP level but if that is achieved they would have to relinquish their UK riding place? From a club position - only UK based riders could be contracted (obviously this would allow overseas riders to come over and then be based here for the season but not flying in on a meeting by meeting basis) Didnt want to get into too much detail as regards how teams are assembled / regulations that should be in place but essentially looking for clubs to have a more stable team membership (within the confines of team equalisation) with a commitment to develop their riders

Lots of threads since the start of the season about the demise of speedway (particularly the top flight) in this country and various possible remedies to get speedway out of the downward spiral from those that think it is in one Two frustrating things for me from these type of threads are 1)the narrow range in which many of us speedway fans ideas are constrained by - ie ‘drop the points limit to 40 and all will be well’ type postings; and 2)the continual ‘my club has been wronged’ / ‘nothing wrong at my club so stop complaining’ type posts – this is exactly how I imagine the BSPA conferences to be and would like to think that we as a group could look a little further than our own clubs present situation to come up with ideas that are good for the sport as a whole Rather than finding answers (which we don’t seem to be able to agree on anyway) perhaps we could take a step back and come up with the right questions. So from my point of view there are a number of groups to be considered and accommodated in any changes and would like some thoughts on whether the assumptions of their needs are realistic, this is not a thread about how the needs of a particular group can be met rather a discussion of what each group is looking for from the sport in the future Promotions (aka clubs) – financially viable (difficult for many sporting organisations) maybe partially offset by higher profile for owner, may also be linked to sponsors requirements Sponsors – fall into a couple of categories, those that support a rider / club as it is their ‘hobby’ and those that do it as a commercial business decision – these are likely to be putting more in but will rightly want more out in terms of exposure be it national, regional or local media coverage and association with a successful club in a successful higher profile sport TV/Media – exciting matches, variety of teams, ‘personalities’, credible league competition, certainty of scheduling and fixture taking place Fans – as for TV but bias towards successful home team, sensible meeting schedule, good facilities at stadiums, continuity of riders over a period of time Riders – again I would split these between the ‘professional’ and the semi-pro / amateur. Professional wants to maximise earnings but also balance that against financial risk so a more stable earnings pattern would perhaps be a better way of putting it, I am guessing both groups would want sensible fixture scheduling although perhaps even more important for the semi pro / amateur. Good practice and coaching opportunities and chance to move up the earnings scale with sufficient ability

Yes, thanks for the link Subedei Not sure why there was such strong opposition as the idea seemed fine to me (before my forum days) - trying to give an incentive to a 'beaten' team to keep going and be rewarded in part for doing so. The home side getting 6 for a win, 5 for a draw or 0 for losing - seems a bit drastic, losing your no 1 through injury may tip the scales in a close meeting How about simply saying point for each 10 points scored up to 40 (both home and away) plus 2 for a win and 1 for a draw (open to the idea that draws and wins might be worth additional points, say 2 and 4). Easy for fans to calculate, encourages teams to keep going once the meeting is lost and does not reward home advantage (a win is a win) Producing the following points 53-37 (home team 6 (4+2), away team 3) 44-46 (home team 4, away team 6 (4+2)) 45-45 (home team 5 (4+1), away team 5 (4+1)) Obviously this would replace the aggregate point (interesting that the old which bonus point are we discussing came up in the argument) - cant work out quite why some were happy a team could earn a 'bonus' point by losing but reject the idea that a team getting close to drawing a meeting should be rewarded in some way

Most rules even themselves out over the course of a season in terms of being penalised / using them to your advantage Generally the idea of any 'tinkering' should be to keep meetings alive as speedway can rapidly turn into one sided processions (were you there last week?) Personally I prefer the changes that are likely to produce better racing: 1) Letting ANY lower averaged rider replace another subject to minimum of 3 rides for each rider (thus an in form rider should have more opportunities and produce better racing). This would also provide better cover for 'in meeting' injuries. I would also prefer to see all teams start as 7 v 7 2) Option of losing team changing of gate positions, could be abused but if thought through with reasonable boundaries (limited to certain heats / swap from A to B or B to A once in a meeting) could provide an element of help to a losing team 3) Introducing 'bonus' points for away scores rather than aggregate wins to encourage more balanced team building and lessen the incentive for massive home advantage to 'build up a lead' 4) Better pre meeting practice available particularly for away riders Rules that 'keep the score close' but do nothing to add to the quality of racing are IMO just a smoke screen and I would put the tactical ride in this category

Fair point about total virgin markets but I would like to see the GP circus attempt to give the sport a boost in Australia and/or North America Problems with domestic markets are partly self inflicted and are not really related at to whether 'speedway' the sport could or should be expanding internationally

You have to be clear about what results you want from the change, is it to provide 'closer' racing or closer scores (not the same thing) or to provide a 'fairer' assessment of a riders ability (average) Currently the riders have the following matchups: 1 (HL) - 3 HL, 4 SS, 1 RES 2 (SS) - 2 HL, 4 SS, 2 RES 3 (HL) - 3 HL, 3 SS, 2 RES 4 (SS) - 2 HL, 4 SS, 2 RES 5 (SS) - 3 HL, 4 SS, 1 RES 6 (RES) - 2 HL, 3 SS, 3 RES 7 (RES) - 1 HL, 2 SS, 5 RES So the problem in allowing a manager to select anywhere in the 1-7 for any rider would be if one side opted for the 'traditional' line up and the other side put their best HL at 7 he would only have one ride against an opposition heatleader but five against their reserves. There is some merit in allowing any rider in the top 5 to change position as the impact is nominal and may allow for better 'partnerships' to be tracked although that is usually overcome with the current system as you would be unlikely to pair you two heatleaders together You would also have the problem of 'late' changes to riding orders affecting programmes, something that is far more of an issue in speedway than say a change in football / rugby As regards tac subs the current tactical rules have shown any extra rides by the top riders in a side puts the emphasis of team building at the top end to the detrement of the lower order, perhaps a better tactical rule would be an extension of the reserve replacement rule to allow any higher average rider to be replaced by a lower average rider for one ride in a meeting, this would encourage a bit more diversity in team building, looking to balance second strings with big and small track experience, and provide fans with some closer racing with visiting riders who could ride the track getting an extra ride(s) - may also help matches with injured rider not just being replaced by reserves for their remaining rides

Lots of things appear to be killing team speedway and home meetings once a fortnight was an idea put forward to try and save some team speedway in this country. The saying "if you keep doing what we've always done you'll keep getting what you've always got" seems to be particularly relevant to speedway and the way it has been run, so any other ideas other than "promoters need to promote better" as to what can halt and hopefully reverse the decline of speedway are welcome The CL in this country is already amateur (so non professional team speedway can exist) and continued cost cutting by PL promoters will soon make that league semi pro at best and some would argue that we already have a vast gulf between the top and bottom of the PL (can Zorro, Topinka et al really be compared with Legg, Bowen etc) and are these lads filling the reserve berths really full time professionals with no other income apart from their speedway earnings? What less meetings per club may allow is for the concentration of the 'pros' with the lower end of the pro ranks also competing with the top end of the amateur ranks in a similar way to how cricket works down from the pros (generally first class counties) to semi pros (minor counties are often a collection of 'club pros' and 'keen amateurs') to amateurs (club cricket which often has one or two club pros playing / coaching). Obviously the main barriers to this under the current system are the fixture congestion and equipment and maintenance costs. I still maintain that equipment and maintenance costs would be cheaper for clubs to provide as a 'team' package and this may also reduce some of the barriers to entry into the sport for potential new riders and allowing a flexable approach to riders in a team if they were on a semi-pro basis (ie a CL team would have to pitch up with say 11 bikes and 7 riders from their squad rather than currently where all of the CL squad have to go through the expense of purchasing and maintaining their own equipment which obviously reduces some riders ability to be competitive)

As has been posted it is more than likely that the PL will end up semi pro soon anyway and having less meetings may make this easier to manage for those that choose this route, as I put in the original post greater use of doubling up may provide opportunities for those that want to remain full time. I am a big fan of doubling up the lower end of the EL with the top of the PL - how is this any different from a rider riding in either the EL or PL combined with an overseas club other than travel would be reduced. It wont stop the natural development of talent, in fact it may help it as riders would have a smoother progression between the leagues if the EL used the PL to provide a bottom end 'squad' system (say 1 second string and 2 reserves from 6 PL riders). Less meetings per season for each individual club would make this more viable and may in turn spread the costs of 'keeping' a speedway rider between two clubs I fully accept riders would want more 'per meeting' but probably less in absolute terms for the season as their running costs would be reduced - also what percentage of a riders income is meeting based and how much is fixed for the season in terms of 'sponsorship'?

Sorry, badly phrased - "feel free to add your opinion its an open forum" Dont really have a preference whether posters agree or disagree Ron, more to the point does the post move the debate forward, particularly in this section which is depressingly low on topics and posts

Taken from the EL section looking a whether there would be enough quality riders to expand the EL to 12 teams I have long thought that fortnightly speedway has a number of benefits including attracting back some of the top riders who wont / cant commit to the current UK schedule The main arguments against seem to be: 1) Clubs must place a block booking for stadiums 2) Cost structure is based on x number of meetings 3) Fans will get out of the habit of coming Cant comment on the first on although I doubt many clubs would lose access to their stadiums but may have to to pay more per meeting The cost structure argument was probably valid in the 70s with the pile it high sell it cheap nature of the sport, but things have changed and I would guess clubs are less dependant on crowd numbers than they were and the income generated from a meeting would not necessarily cover the variable costs of staging ie much more dependant on TV / sponsorship money which tends to be per season not per meeting. Some may also argue that whilst total attendance may drop, average meeting attendance may rise with more floating fans being able to attend regularly. The same could be said for riders with income being less dependant on pts x meetings given the higher maintenance costs which mirror the number of meetings ridden so would not necessarily be much if any worse off If people really think 3 is true then how do people ever remember what to do when March comes round - what this argument is really about is breaking with tradition and 'selling speedways soul' something apparently far worse than the current death by a thousand cuts that the sport is currently going through So if combined with sensible scheduling, greater use of doubling up rules for riders who wanted to (and would still be fresh enough to do so) it could work, feel free to say why not

What utter ?**?> . What right has any UK fan to act so superior to criticise overseas riders for riding in their home country, perhaps no one should take on young riders in case they want to compete in the under 21 championship, clubs know what they are getting when they sign riders up I think TT has fallen out with the Czech authorities hence he didnt ride for them in the World Cup, but I would have fully backed them if they forced him to miss Lynn fixtures for the duration of the SWC on the grounds that other overseas (and British) riders who were selected were stopped from riding for their clubs

I take the point re distance by riders manage for one off meetings such as GP qualifiers, under 21s etc - if the money was there riders would travel The attractiveness would lie in the fact that this would be the premier team competition in Europe, probably the only chance to see GP riders ride in a proper team event (dont count the world cup as this is individual format racing, but with cumulative scores) You miss the point with your Swindon example, increasingly less and less of the top riders are riding EL and the gulf in standard between the top and bottom riders in the EL is getting larger. The Euro league would allow the GP riders to ride only Euro league (plus a domestic league if they wanted) with the second tier below the GP standard probably riding one domestic league (perhaps two) plus the Euro league, thus it would not be a team of unheard of Poles, we are talking about national leagues being more home based (not necessarily home nationality) so tell me who would be riding each week at Swindon then? This is the logical step to riders saying it is not worth travelling all over Europe EVERY week for the odd meeting without a big pay out thus we end up with the foreigners who are willing to travel who with the greatest respect are not always the best

I think you are right Kevin in that the league must have stand alone teams who ride exclusively in the Euro league, an alternative to 'clubs' may be some sort of representative sides, so for the UK (with a bit of geographic licence): South West - drawing from Poole, Swindon South East - Eastbourne, Reading, Oxford East - Arena, Ipswich, Peterborough Midlands - Wolves, Coventry and Belle Vue This would allow riders to 'double up' and augment the 'international' riders who essentially would ride just GP and Euro league fixtures and would help spread the cost with 'squad' riders being able to earn the bulk of their money domestically. 38 meetings may be too many for a representative set up but you could cut the second divisional match or condense the groups to 3 for UK and Poland with 2 for Sweden plus Denmarks one

Wouldnt disagree - my 'second year' phrase was in relation to the rolling contract not second year at a club, thus this year Rye could not continue with their top three of Neath, Robson and Werner so had to let someone go, in this instance I would allow any of these riders to be loaned out for the season but if Rye wished to continue to hold their contract they must return in the 2007 line up otherwise be sold / released ie no ongoing loan income which is the root of the asset system Less of an issue for developing riders although how often have you heard the phrase 'he would benifit from a loan spell at a smaller / bigger track' so in effect it could be a seen as rider development, again the rider would have to return to his original club the following year for them to keep his registration Whether riders should stay at a minimum average is debatable as it would lead to a cliff edge when the 'established' kicked in. Better to keep with the reductions you outlined re average manipulation which would allow riders to progress without setting a one size fits all limit to development ie must make it by 21 / 100 meeting etc Personally I would rather have the 'problems' associated with reducing a riders average than try to explain how team equalisation equates to unequal teams - really a reduction is only an extention of the 2.5% British reduction we currently have and no one seems to have a particular issue with its operation Guests could be viewed either way, why should the opposition be disadvantaged by riding against a stronger side when the reason for that strength (a returning rider) is not in that side. This presumes that sides with returning riders should have resulted in a team strength greater than could have been compiled without the reduction / increase Minimum averages are going to be an issue either way - if +0.5 then all riders on 2.5 or above can be retained with a 3, if -.5 then move the starting average to 2.0, the maths work whatever (the subtracting of averages would naturally lead to riders starting at a lower figure, the adding to teambuilding limits leads to higher introductory averages)

Sounds OK enotian but still creates assets by another name or would the loan / training reimbursement fees be payable for the first (say) 3 years after which the rider would be a complete free agent. Either way would still see the scramble for 15 year old signatures that currently exists, although the idea re foreign riders with loan fees to a central pot sounds better than at present The main criticism would be that it does not compensate ongoing development in a way that the current transfer system does ie Scunthorpe could produce 4 'qualified' riders a year who go on to PL team places, 2 of these riders go to PL teams with good development programmes and make to to EL level but receive nothing for this work whilst Scunthorpe pocket a (presumably) higher loan fee for getting 'their' riders EL places As discussed before I would prefer 2 year rolling contracts with compensation for a club who wished to retain the rider for the second year but the rider wanted away and with the option of a 1 year loan to allow for riders who could not fit in average wise in the second year ie riders could only be loaned out for 1 year of any 2 year rolling contract so if loaned out in year 1 and were not part of a teams plans for year 2 would have to be released as a free asset / nominal fee. This should reduce transfer fees as it is the purchase of rights to a rider for 2 years not forever and would limit 'asset building' clubs thus creating a more level playing field for team building each season. Combined with some form of average incentive for 'returning' riders we could see a reduction in the end of season merry-go-round which I am sure all fans would appreciate