Humphrey Appleby

I'd accept the 'interview' was probably some sort of filler piece and there wasn't the room to elaborate much detail, but sorry what was printed didn't go into any detail about what specifically should be changed. There was some general mumbling about the mistake in allowing reserves to move up, the flaws of which were pointed out in significant detail on this forum before they were even implemented. Then there was some half-baked idea about only having one draft rider per team, ignoring the fact this would make it impossible to have any protected heats. Is that really tearing up the rulebook and starting again? And in fact most of the rulebook is actually reasonably fine - it's just the bits related to team building that are badly thought out, inconsistent and at times ignored. It's pointless 're-writing' the rulebook until the powers-that-be come up with a team building system that can help struggling teams but doesn't penalise mid-table ones, encourages more long-term rider development, and limits the incentives to fiddle averages. As others have pointed out, it's also pointless to re-write the rulebook whilst the rules are continually ignored or allowed to be broken. Is it too much to ask to have some articulation of some sort of plan as to how to address the current farcical running of the sport?

Yawn - it's been said over and over again, but when is it actually going to happen and what does it mean in practice? Some detail about what's wrong and what can be improved would be good.

The irony of Jersusalem is obviously lost on some.

I guess the ticket sales were okay though...

Didn't fulfil the conditions of the original lease, allegedly... Heard it was something to do with not fencing the perimeter.

It doesn't really matter who did what or who's to blame. It's been another disaster for the sport and ultimately attributable to insufficient testing of the track and possibly other facilities. The promotion took a gamble that backfired, and must carry a fair degree of culpability for that regardless of the contractor issues. One also has to wonder how someone manages to omit an entire damp proof course without any noticing, especially if it's an element critical to the track which is the core ingredient of your product. I don't care who's contractually responsible - I'd have personally been inspecting the work at every juncture, especially with such limited time available to correct snags.

It's clear there were several failures along the line, possibly down to unfortunate circumstances as well as ineptitude, but once again speedway shoots itself in the foot. What should have been a triumph for the sport in an otherwise depressing downward spiral, has turned into yet another damage limitation exercise, but one that even manages to alienate remaining fans. A case study in how not to run a professional sport.

The bottom line is that Belle Vue are responsible for putting on the meetings and deciding to take the money of paying punters. In hindsight it was too optimistic to run a high-profile meeting with such little testing of a new track and facilities as well.

Did nobody check the specifications at each stage of the work?

The Polish subsidiary of KFC was a SGP sponsor a few years ago, but apparently didn't want to pay up.

Quite, but then neither did I take up smoking because F1 was a procession of mobile fag packets during my formative years. I guess it's down to nanny statism that thinks people can't make adult decisions for themselves, but then many can't...

The sport will never improve whilst speedway fans continue to apologise for the incompetent way in which the sport is run. There are undoubtedly several parties that have screwed up, but the bottom line is the promotion is ultimately responsible for the project management and ensuring the track is fit for purpose. They are certainly responsible for attempting to go ahead with a meeting when there were known to be significant problems with the track and possibly other things as well. The fans pay their money to the promotion - that's all we need to know. Speedway promotions seem incapable of taking responsibility for the meetings they put on, and only that, genuinely seem to believe they shouldn't be responsible. Witness all the buck passing over the GP failures over the years (and BTW - is Speedsport doing the track at Warsaw again after all the talk of legal consequences).

I'm sorry you've been affected by cancer, but I think you missed the point of the post. Speedway couldn't even tap in the big evil money of the cigarette manufacturers, but only the a**e end of tobacco products - namely Skoal Bandits. Jaw and mouth cancer is especially unpleasant as it's disfiguring and in the worst cases leaves people unable to feed themselves.

It somehow sums up speedway that it got sponsorship from domestic coal products at a time when nobody had coal fires anymore...

That was all good clean cancer though...

The bottom line is that the onus always has to be on the host track to produce a track fit for racing. The SCB may ultimately have to sign off on certain aspects, but they don't really have anyone experienced in preparing or riding a track, and they're not the ones that will ultimately carry the can for an unfit track. If the SCB signed off on a track that's subsequently required substantial remedial work, then that just sums it all up...

Mickey mouse organisation of a mickey mouse competition.

It's not a very interesting competition though, is it?

It's not really arbitrary. 7 riders means that heats can be programmed so that no rider has two programmed on the trot, but more importantly, so that riders usually have more than one heat in between their programmed rides as well. You can do it with 6 riders as well, but then you leave yourself short in the event of in-meeting injuries or when having to operate R/R. It also means that extra rides taken by reserves and (in the past) tactical subs could mean riders have 3 or more rides in a row. Actually 8 riders would be a better number for a 15 heat meeting because it would allow for more balanced heat permutations, but you're paying the travel of extra rider that isn't strictly needed.

Pretty arrogant and disgraceful attitude that came over in the interview. There are undoubtedly better promoters than others, but some also have geographical and economic disadvantages. All promoters are ultimately reliant on each other to make for a viable competition. Even more so when speedway is at death's door, particularly the Elite League. If Ford hadn't worked this out after years of promoting, then you really have to despair for the future of the sport.

Don't see how a private monopoly authority can make demands like that of professional riders, regardless of what they might put in their terms and conditions for a licence. There might be rules saying that, but I doubt they're legally enforceable.

The difference between the NFL and speedway, and indeed most other professional sports, is that it's really the only place where players can turn professional and as such has no real competition for players. It also has a huge underlying feeder system - namely college football - from which to draw the best talent. British speedway has none of this, and is in competition with other leagues for riders. It's also more important in speedway to have a 'star' rider of which there are relatively fewer than in the NFL. An unmodified draft system still has the potential to allow teams to accumulate a number of stars, and does not force teams to release them to other teams in need. I once toyed with some ideas of how to make a draft system work in speedway, but came to the conclusion it's basically unworkable in speedway given the structure and economic conditions.

I don't doubt there's a rule. I simply don't believe it would stand up to any legal scrutiny if a rider decided to challenge it. Riders have to have a licence to work, issued by a monopoly authority. Yet that licence dictates who they have to work for and when - hmmm.... As I said, different if a rider has accepted to ride in a meeting and withdraws.

I very much doubt that mandating a competitor to race in a particular meeting as a condition of issuing a licence, would ever stand up to any legal challenge. If a competitor has agreed to take part in a particular meeting then that's another issue.

They'd leave themselves wide open to being sued for restraint of trade, and rightly so. At best they might sue the riders for breach of contract or something, assuming they'd formally agreed to ride in the meeting, but unlikely to be worth the effort or expense.