Kevin Meynell

That actually happened in 1993 when an 8-rider, 18-heat format was used. The reserves had their averages multiplied by 0.5 (because they only rode against each and two second-strings), but the problem was that it became almost impossible for them to move into the main body of the team. It was even worse when reserves occasionally took extra rides against the better riders, but any points they scored were still multiplied by 0.5. The experience of 1993 proved this to be a fallacy. The most interesting races are invariably those where theoretically mismatched riders are paired against each other, and particularly where the underdogs manage to cause an upset. Everyone loves to see their No.2 or 7 give the opposition's No.1 a good race. By contrast, heats between evenly-matched riders are often quite dull because they end-up being predictable. Heat 15 is often the most boring race of the evening when in fact it should be the most exciting.

I seem to remember John Berry saying that he needed an average of 3,500 paying fans just to break even, so I guess revenue-per-customer was lower and/or operating costs were higher. Certainly tracks used to have full-time employees on the payroll, whereas now everything seems to be done on a part-time or voluntary basis. There is no doubt that attending speedway has gone-up hugely in the past 30 years. Apparently Ipswich charged 5 shillings admission in 1969 which according to the Economic History Services website (http://eh.net/) represented around 0.00003% of an average person's income (GBP 855). In 2000, the average per capita income was GBP 16,207, so 0.00003% would translate to around GBP 4.86 today. Of course, this doesn't take into account the fact that wages have increased above the rate of inflation and have significantly more purchasing power today. According to EPS's RPI calculator, something costing 5 shillings in 1969 would have cost GBP 2.53 in 2002. It's therefore possible to conclude that tracks receive far more money per paying customer than they did in the past.

A similar idea was used in 1993 (8-rider teams) and then again in 1997 (6-rider teams). Unfortunately, it was not popular with fans because it involved a lot of writing, and you also have problems if you're using R/R or riders get injured. It's actually difficult to devise a balanced heat format with 7-riders because there is always an odd rider out for each 'round' of heats. In addition, any heat format must attempt to space-out every rider's programmed rides as evenly as possible. It goes without saying that you shouldn't give a rider two programmed rides on the trot, but equally you shouldn't programme them every other heat (e.g. Heats 4 and 6) more than once in case they have to take R/R or T/S rides. Otherwise it could mean they might have up to 5 rides in a row!

I think it's important to develop riders that are committed to British speedway, wherever they happen to come from. Aussies and Kiwis tend to put British racing first, and you don't find them disappearing off to all manner of meetings abroad during our season. I have nothing against riders from Continental Europe riding in Britain, but their commitments elsewhere are increasing and causing endless disruption to the British leagues. We simply cannot go on having the number of absences in teams that we've seen in recent years.

It could happen if there were injuries early-on in the meeting. If my calculations are correct, they're actually paying out less prize money in total than last year (USD 84,500 as oppossed to USD 85,300)

I guess you mean with respect to basing averages on four rides and a 12.00 maximum? Of course, if you continued to base averages on four rides with the new system, the maximum average would then only be 8.00 (4 x 2.00) If you wanted to maintain historical continuity, I suppose you could divide race points by rides and then multiply by six, but this wouldn't be particularly meaningful (except to compare averages with those from the past). However, the way averages are currently calculated isn't particularly meaningful either, especially when certain riders regularly score more than 12 points a meeting. I have long thought that riders' averages should be based on points-per-ride (maximum average of 3.00 with the current system), which would be far more meaningful than a contrived points-per-match figure. It would also break the link in some peoples' minds between the points limit and match scores which are not directly related. Another way might be to express rider abilities in percentage terms, so a 6.00-point rider (current system) would be 50% and a 9.00-point rider would be 75% and so on..

I would actually consider radically changing the whole scoring system to eliminate the rationale for having bonus points in the first place. I've long thought that riders should only be awarded points for each opposition rider they finish ahead of. This would not only remove the need for bonus points, but it would stop the nonsense of teams being able to score points without actually beating a member of the opposition. Furthermore, assuming that we have to keep the ridiculous tactical ride system, it would make it more credible as teams would only get double points for each opponent beaten. For example: 5-1 would become 4-0 4-2 would become 3-1 3-3 would become 2-2

Well Sky certainly didn't want it because of its simplicity. Cricket must surely be the most complicated sport ever devised!

Wasn't that a John Berry innovation, so I guess that would have been introduced sometime in the 1970s?

But this isn't true promotion and relegation, and I don't see that it's hugely different from what happens in speedway now. There might be a case to split the BPL into two divisions if it reached 20 or more teams, but it's not feasible with 15 or 16.

I expect if you went back further, you'd find similar sentiments expressed by others as well. In some respects, it's amazing how little actually changes! With respect to the heat format, I do agree that 7-rider teams create an unbalanced heat format (particularly when you get to 15 or 16 heats), but equally I think mixing reserves in with other riders is not only important for their progress, but it prevents matches from becoming too predictable. The 18-heat format used in 1993 was all very well, but the dedicated reserves races really were the weak point of the whole idea. Often the best races are those featuring a couple of reserves against other riders (e.g. Heat 8). With respect to equipment, John Louis is exactly right, but riders are their own worst enemies when it goes to wanting the latest accessories. Equally, John Louis unlike most of us, is in a position to introduce improvements, yet the only major change that Ipswich would appear to have instigated is the much unloved tactical ride rule.

An infamous train and coach journey to Wroclaw for the 1992 World Final. Our train was initially delayed from Hook of Holland as the Dutch customs were on a go-slow that day, which had a disasterous knock-on effect as we rumbled across Europe. This culminated in us missing our connecting train in Berlin (we were in chartered carriages) and finding ourselves shunted into a siding for three hours. Eventually, a passing Russian train driver was persuaded to hitch-us to the back of his train and we proceeded to Rzepin just over the Polish border. Unfortunately, the coaches that had been arranged to take us from there to Wroclaw had decided to abandon us by that time, and we were left stranded in a small Polish village in the middle of nowhere, in 36 degree heat, with no Polish money, and just two hours before the start of the World Final! Luckily some enterprising Wolves fans redeemed their otherwise appalling behaviour on the journey (e.g. throwing beer cans out the window and abusing the Polish border guards), by somehow discovering the local taxi company owner and arranging for every available taxi to take us all to Wroclaw; which was a three-hour journey at the best of times. Even better, we managed to persuade the taxi drivers that the tour operator would pick-up the taxi bills at the stadium. From this point on, our luck was both in and out. About two hours into the journey, we could hear the World Final starting on the radio and we were still over an hour away from Wroclaw. However, only a few heats were run before a massive electrical storm broke and the meeting had to be suspended. That in theory would enable us to reach the stadium to see the rest of the meeting... had several of the taxis not broken down. Indeed ours got a puncture, but between us we managed to change the wheel (F1-style) in all of a couple of minutes. Even when we got to Wroclaw, we had to take detours round the city because several trees had been hit by lightning and fallen across the road (and in one case brought the tram wires down as well, which were sparking all over place). Another of our taxis contrived to run someone over in street. Eventually, we got to the stadium in time for the restart of Heat 8, so at least managed to see Havelock taking the title.

Sure, but whether those leagues are able to fit their matches around the SGP isn't really the issue (although it makes the situation less critical). They are still producing the riders that the SGP uses, and receive nothing in return for that (except a lot of grief in the case of the 2003 Scandinavian GP) The 20 match schedule currently run by the Polish League can just about be fitted around the 9 GPs, but if the SGP expanded any further, it would very quickly run into conflict. The British leagues have for years worked on the basis of staging 20-25 home meetings each season. This allows the fixed operating costs to be amortised as much as possible. I suppose you could reduce the overall number of meetings, but you would still have the same fixed costs (signing-on fees, equipment provision, running the back office etc..). There is also the problem that most promotions are tenants, and if they staged less meetings, stadiums might start looking to other things to replace speedway. In fact, we've already started to see this with a number of stadiums (e.g. Oxford). I actually agree with you that riding only once at home every two weeks or so may not be detrimental, particularly since that's what the average is now (19 guaranteed home meetings in a 32-week season) with the current disjointed fixture list. However, neither would I like to see a Polish-style season with only 10 home meetings. Perhaps the top-flight fixtures could be structured around two-levels of competition, with the SGP stars only appearing in one of them. However, I'm not really convinced that fans would turn-out to support the perceived lesser meetings in any great numbers, even though they'd be necessary to make the British speedway financially viable. In all honesty, I don't really know what the way forward for British speedway is anymore. The three big national leagues should never have relinquished the effective rights to the World Championship to a private company, but now that the FIM has sold-out for the next 20 years, it will be very difficult to get them back. I do believe though, that the SGP needs the national leagues for its continued existence, and if it forgets that fact, then it will itself have a short existence. As I said, I think the BEL has big problems with its product, but at the end of the day, it was team racing that got me interested in the sport and I'd can't see the SGP ever being an adequate replacement. And who is the BSPA?

Rico, I agree that the BEL is increasingly becoming an irrelevance, but I think you have to separate the issues. The SGP could not exist without one or more of the national leagues, whether those are in Britain, Poland and Sweden. The Polish and Swedish leagues also get nothing out of the SGP, so even if the BEL is ultimately ignored, the same issues will apply to them. At the moment, the SGP hasn't directly come into conflict with the other national leagues, but could easily happen if it expanded much further. In particular, Poland with its Sunday raceday could easily be disrupted if GPs were postponed or held in difficult to travel places. As Polish fans much prefer team over individual racing (judging by the crowds), I wonder how long they would put-up with things? Well, at least one person does :-)

BSI does not develop the riders that it uses for the SGP, but relies on the national leagues (not just in Britain) to provide them. Some develop them to a greater or lesser extent, but without domestic competition and the wages it provides, there simply wouldn't be a SGP. In return, the SGP uses the riders at will, disrupts domestic league programmes, and offers nothing in the way of compensation. Even if it did, I think it has every right to do so whilst riders rely on Britain for the bulk of their wages (not ignoring Poland and Sweden either). I'm well aware of that, because events run under the auspices of the oh-so-representive FIM take priority. It doesn't make it right though. Well it would be interesting to put that to the test if an ultimatum was made. Do you think that riders could make a living solely out of the SGP as things stand at the moment? There is no doubt that British speedway has big problems of its own making, but that isn't the issue here. Much of the interest in the SGP is by virtue of the participating riders' links to domestic teams. If you took that out of the equation, then I think the SGP would have very limited appeal. In fact, we're already seeing that reflected in the poor attendances at the majority of the GPs. The expansion of the SGP has not been a huge success (except for one person), which demonstrates there is only a finite amount of interest in seeing the same riders race over-and-over again in individual competition.

But why should British teams be forced to fit-in with the SGP, when they get nothing out of it? I agree and I don't advocate a return to a one-off final. However, the SGP should be (or at least should have been) run for the benefit of the domestic leagues which provide the bulk of the riders' income, rather than a private company (not that I'm knocking them for taking the opportunity). In cricket, test and one-day matches provide most of the income of the English (and Welsh) county teams, so it's perfectly reasonable for the national team to call-up riders at the expense of the domestic programme. This is not the case with the SGP, which as far as I know, pays absolutely nothing to the leagues that develop the riders in the first place. I don't actually think you'd lose that many riders from Britain, but even if we lost all the SGP riders, I think it's a price worth paying to have a credible domestic competition again. In reality, I think such action might force a compromise - such as a limited number of GPs (say six) during the season, a percentage of the SGP income (when it reaches a certain level) going to the leagues providing the riders, and no arbitrary arranging of cancelled GPs.

I think that was the hope, but I don't think we can honestly say that we've seen an increase in domestic attendances over the past six years. In fact, I'd say we've seen the opposite, and I suspect much of that is down to the irregular schedules and missing riders caused by the SGP. True, but that was also the case with the old World Championship which didn't cause anything like the same disruption. Friday and Saturday night teams can't ride on ten prime weeks of the season (if you include the SWC), and there were still far too many instances of GP'itis. Do you consider that acceptable to the paying public, particularly if they're getting no obvious benefit from the SGP?

Sure, but what do the domestic competitions get out of it?

I think it's irrelevant what the riders want or think. The issue is whether the national leagues who pay the bulk of the rider wages, should allow their schedules to be disrupted without getting any benefit in return (in terms of income or improved exposure). If the SGP can be turned into a competition employing the top riders full-time, then that's fair enough, but that's far from being the case at the moment. I have no doubt that riders could not afford to do the SGP without the existence of one or more of the national leagues, and yet the national leagues arguably get no benefit from the SGP at all.

Only because they're allowed to. If you made an ultimatum between the SGP and British speedway, it would be interesting to see how many would opt for the SGP.

Trees, I think it depends. The SGP was at a low-ebb at the time, and was possibly losing money. Therefore, it an organisation comes along that promises to rejuvenate the competition and generate some income for the FIM, then I'm not sure it was not such a bad thing. However, the question must be asked why the World Finals were allowed to deteriorate so badly in the first place. A conspiracy theorist might suggest it was done deliberately to ensure that the creation and selling-off of the SGP was a fait accompli. Even if you don't believe in conspiracies, why couldn't the likes of the BSPA and the Polish and Swedish authorities have done what BSI did? Finally, it's one thing to award five-year contracts, but a twenty-year contract is ridiculous, particularly as it appears that BSI can pull out if television and sponsorship money doesn't reach certain levels. That's the thing that's a sell-out.

Yes, but I think I'm correct in saying that every player in the Olympic-winning side was either Canadian or had moved there at a young age. They were able to play for Great Britain by virtue of Canadians having British passports in those days.

The fundamental difference between speedway and ice hockey is that British Speedway features most of the top riders in the world, whereas British ice hockey is a third-rate by world standards.

I don't have a problem with 2 points for a home win and 3 for an away win, but surely a draw is a draw? You can't award different number of points to each team in these circumstances, otherwise you'll end-up with the nonsense of winning and losing draws like you have in some cricket competition :-(

Without wishing to be pedantic, Guantanamo still does belong to Cuba. The USA only leases it, although Cuba always refuses to cash the rent cheque!