Humphrey Appleby

You don't want to have balanced teams, and it's not achievable as demonstrated by the fact that you still get teams at the top and bottom of the leagues regardless of how punitive the points limit is. What you want to avoid is complete mismatches and years of dominance by a single team, whilst providing some encouragement for teams to develop their sides. Any system must allow teams to develop over 2 or 3 seasons without fear of being broken-up if they merely finish above mid-table, allow them to genuinely develop without needing to resort to average fiddling (e.g. through manipulated assessed averages), and protect young riders from the vagaries of team equalisation. Equally though, teams shouldn't be allowed to strengthen indefinitely, and there should be an upper limit whereby they have to relinquish a rider or riders if they become too dominant. I think it's difficult to get away from a system based on averages, although some sort of draft system might be considered whereby teams are allowed to retain a certain number of riders at the end of each season, with the rest released into a pool along with any new riders, whereby they're picked by teams in reverse finishing order. However, a draft system only really works well where there's a single dominant league that everyone aspires to ride in, and that doesn't really happen in speedway. The other oft-suggested alternative is grading, but that's just crude averages and makes riders near the top of their grades more in demand than ones at the bottom. For me it's no improvement on the points limit. So I'd introduce an a variable points limit that allows teams to build to different limits depending on how many riders they retain from the previous season. The basic points limit would be set around the break even point (i.e. 42 points) to which every team would be allowed to build, but teams would be allowed to build to a higher level depending on how many riders they retained from the previous season. A suitable tariff would need to be worked-out, but let's say 0.5 points per rider, which would in principle allow a team to build up to a maximum of 45.5 points. The idea behind this is that it would prevent teams from simply going-out and signing a strong side, but it would allow up-and-coming teams to develop over two or three years without being penalised. Teams only finishing mid-table would be able to keep their sides together as it would be unlikely they'd improve by more than a couple of points in a season, whilst the upper limit (45.5) would still prevent successful teams from becoming overly dominant. It should also prevent middle- and lower-order riders who improve their averages, from being squeezed out of teams as their continued presence would allow a higher points total. Equally, this might encourage more rider loyalty as it would be advantageous average-wise for riders to stay with the same team. Combined with this should be an incentive for teams to develop new riders. So, I'd allow U21 riders or those in the first three years of their careers to ride on a low fixed average (e.g. 3.00), but only if they stay with the same team. Having said this, they'd be allowed to be loaned to one team in another league (either upwards or downwards) for a maximum of (say) one or two seasons to gain experience without losing their 'junior' status. Average manipulation is almost impossible to entirely eradicate, but could be mitigated by using factored averages. In other words, a rider's team building average would be comprised of two components - their starting average and their actual average for the season. At the beginning of the season, the starting average would be weighted more heavily, but towards the end of the season their actual average would be more significant. The weighting would depend on how many matches had been ridden, so if a rider managed to ride in all league matches, their team building average would be their actual average. The factored average at the end of the season would then constitute the starting average for the following season. The lower averaged team could be the better team, but I don't think you can get close to the 39 points using the 13 heat formula used in 1976. So 12 x 3 (no bonus points scored) + 4 = 40 which is a combined CMA of 43.08, and 12 x 3 (with 12 bonus points) + 2 = 50 which is a combined CMA of 53.85.

Football (and speedway) was a relatively cheap form of entertainment until the early-90s, standards were lower, and treating people like cattle seemed to be acceptable. There was also something exciting about going to football as a young person, being part of baying mob and surging up and down the terraces, but Bradford and Hillsborough brought home the fact that people could die. I also cringe now at the racist abuse, plus of course there was (and to some extent still is) an appalling hooligan element. It's commonly said that hooligans only fought other hooligans, but that's frankly not true and regular fans were taking their lives into their hands almost every time they went to a big match. The reality was that attendances were falling throughout the 70s and 80s because football was not a nice place to go for women, families and ethnic minorities, and that whilst I find the football experience much more sterile than in my youth, I'm glad I can now sit in some comfort, not get crushed, suffocated or burned to a crisp, and not have to run the gauntlet of post-match violence (as much perpetrated by the police as anyone else). I suspect though, speedway wishes it has the problems of there being enough people to cause a crush in the first place...

When it is not preferable to be off gate 1, and since when is gate 3 ever any good at most tracks? I think BSI will just be happy to have a rideable track and the starting gate working.

Why is obviously why your link says it's a flag designed by the Council of Europe to represent Europe. I'm sure we know by now that the Council of Europe is not the EU, even if the EU adopted the flag, but then so did the Ryder Cup. Except it wasn't made up for the European Union. And what flags are not made-up? In your day it was also acceptable to put up "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish" posters, but fortunately times have changed.

Speedway has to be just about the only sport where the grassroots subsidises the premier event.

No roof though. The cost of hiring a large stadium is likely to be such that the organisers need to guarantee that it'll go ahead. Well okay, BSI have admittedly managed to have two abandoned meetings in indoor stadia, and one that was nearly abandoned, but you get the picture...

If it were just four blokes riding round in circles, I'd lose interest pretty quickly and it's one of the reasons I have little interest in individual racing. Team racing adds all sorts of dimensions, and I think team riding, substitutions and other strategy keeps interest even if the racing itself isn't spectacular. Teams also allow for better continuity - individual riders come-and-go, but fans can establish allegiances to teams over many years. The problem is the concept of team speedway has been damaged by lack of continuity, scheduling conflicts, punitive team building restrictions, inconsistent application of the rules, and so on...

It's not the EU flag. It's the flag of all Europe.

I think it more likely the rioters and looters would have been shot.

Easy to say, but where is money coming from to pay for the stars who didn't draw the crowds when they rode in Britain before? I'd agree that presentation and marketing desperately need improving, but the sports needs to attract a new fanbase, and most non-speedway fans will have never heard of even the speedway world champion. Therefore why waste money on the top stars? In addition, trying to market a sport that takes place in less-than-salubrious stadia and which is an organisational shambles, would just be a complete waste of money. In fact, it would do more damage than good because anyone you did manage to attract would simply never return once they actually saw the sport and what a farce it can be. Sadly, I think the sport in Britain needs to start from the ground-up, positioning itself as cheap form of entertainment and trying to build itself up as a grassroots sport. Only if there can be sizeable investment in a few decent venues running in a remodelled competition should British speedway even attempt to run with star riders, and what serious businessmen would invest money in speedway the way it is at the moment. All very well, but British tracks don't have the same economic model of subsidised stadia as Poland and Sweden, far less stadium availability on one or even two nights a week. Sweden also benefits from having very long light evenings because it's so far north, which is not the case in Britain in March and October. British speedway undoubtedly could be better, but it's not as straightforward as copying what Poland and Sweden do.

Middlesex Crusaders did change their name.

Do people still not get it? The Welsh government pays BSI a sizeable sum of money to have the British GP held at the Millennium Stadium. Cardiff is also the 'marquee' round used to market the whole series to sponsors - which is no doubt what the massive effort to ensure no screw-ups after Warsaw was about. It would seem unlikely that another British GP would be organised that might potentially draw crowds and interest away from Cardiff. Manchester would be too small and doesn't have a roof anyway, even if the local tourist board was prepared to cough up some cash. I think the AFL season starts then, or at least the pre-season.

Yar... and a combine harvester...

It's always been like it - at least for the past 25 years. Of course, the Internet congregates all the negativity into a few places, whereas we previously just moaned on terraces with our nearest neighbours.

What people outside the US often don't understand, is there are vast areas with very little practical law enforcement, and where police help can be many miles away. People need to have guns for their own protection. There have also been a couple of events in the UK in recent times - the container ship wreck and the nationwide riots - where law and order broke down almost completely. This demonstrated that even in the most stable, prosperous nations, we're only ever one step from anarchy if people feel there will be no consequences for their actions. In these circumstances, how are people expected to protect themselves?

And just how many leagues are there in the world...? Are you seriously suggesting the British leagues are weaker than the likes of the German or Finnish? Stop swallowing the OneSport propaganda and accept BSI were just inept. Why on earth would they want an event with 55K to be a failure? There's no conspiracy against Poland, and BSI certainly don't do British speedway any favours.

Roscoe P. Coltrane will be turning in his grave...

He was prepared to allow it to continue in the Northern States that had it. The South wanted to ensure a balance of free and slave states in the Union to avoid being outvoted if abolition was on the agenda. This became increasingly contentious as the western territories gradually became states and entered into the Union. These sorts of racist treatises were hardly unique to the South. Many in the north would have shared similar views, even if they actually didn't actually agree with the institution of slavery. For many years after the Civil War, the lot of the African Americans in practice became substantially worse. Whereas there was often a degree of paternalism on the part of slave owners, the aftermath of the Civil War saw all sorts of racist policies being introduced.

I could understand why it may offend Black Americans, but not black people in the UK. Several nations practiced slavery, not least Denmark which was one of the biggest slave trading nations, yet no-one calls for the banning of the Danish flag in speedway. I think the Confederate flag has been misappropriated by extremists, and whilst it does stand for a regime that supported slavery, hardly more so than the Union and many other nations at the time. Rightly or wrongly, it's also one of the most globally recognised symbols of rebellion which is undoubtedly why it's prevailed over the years, whereas other banners have vanished into obscurity. Do Robins offend anyone? Well of course Southern Democrats stood for segregation and many of the racist laws introduced in the post-Civil War period. The Republicans were wiped out politically in the southern states for a century afterwards, although by Clinton's time there had been a swing back in their favour so maybe he needed to appeal to those old 'traditional' voters. There were some ghastly Southern Democrats - one even leading the Senate into the 2000s.

It's obviously for marketing/promotional reasons to leverage funding out of the local authority, although there are no doubt some aspirations to stage prestigious British meetings given the uncertainly over the ongoing future of Coventry which it could be argued is the current de-facto national stadium. I'd be surprised if it has any official 'national stadium' status.

Saving money on staffing?

Sorry to hear the news.

BSI organise the series, organise the local hosts, and stipulate who has to build the track etc.. etc.. The FIM may have to formally sign off, but frankly what position are they in to refuse if 55k fans are expected to turn up in a couple of days? Quite simply BSI need to be ensuring that required standards are being met. You can argue legalese till the cows come home, but who is going to turn up if the buck is continually passed when things go wrong? I might have been persuaded to go to the GP in Melbourne, but why should I take the chance if no-one will take responsibility for actually putting on a proper show and will hide behind small print?

There's possibly no-one at BSI who has a clue what a decent track should look like. They've largely relied on Ole Olsen until now.

The sudden diligence is commendable, but why wasn't it done last year? And if a sand-based track is known to be a problem, then why was this not flagged previously?