Kevin Meynell

Tomaz, I'm very much a supporter of speedway in smaller countries, but equally the best way to support them is to ensure the sport is healthy in the major income generating countries. I also think the smaller countries need to participate in proper competitions (e.g. World Championships), and not mickey mouse events created to justify the existence of mickey mouse organisations (namely the UEM). To this end, I would much rather see a GP in Slovenia than in Monaco

I haven't for a moment suggested that I do know their future plans. I'm just commenting on their track record to date. As you seem to know so much the future, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what your relationship with BSI is? I'm certainly no fan of the BSPA either, but this thread is not for discussing their incompetence. Furthermore, comparing BSI and the BSPA is like comparing apples with oranges. The BSPA collectively organises hundreds of meetings per season, and at a variety of different levels. By contrast, BSI organised 13 this season (less than every British promoter).

Rico, If people like what the SGP offers, then that's fair enough. Even I'll admit that the GPs can sometimes be exciting. However, I think people should ask whether the current model for running the SGP is likely to be sustainable in the future. They should also ask why the much-vaunted expansion has not really happened, why the levels of prize money have never been increased (although that may change next season through virtue of there being fewer riders), and why the series seems further away than ever from being a full-time circus.

I would say that you've got to improve support in the existing countries before you go off and try to expand in other markets. It's very difficult to popularise sport in non-traditional markets these days. The NFL didn't really suceed with NFL Europe, and they threw millions at it. Equally, football still has a mixed reception in the US, despite all of FIFA's efforts to popularise the game there. Okay, France admittedly has one speedway track, but I'm sure you'd have more success if you put promoted speedway in places like Germany, Italy and (yes) Slovenia.

Are they? I thought it was the local promoters who were taking the financial risk. Furthermore, BSI can cancel their contract with the FIM if television and sponsorship revenues prove insufficient to run the series. The gamble is more a threat to their credibility than their finances. The local organisers are the ones taking most of the financial risk. I'm not criticising them for that, but they're not taking the risk some people seem to think. Yes, that's a fair point. However, BSI seem to be doing okay financially, despite indifferent promotion.

If you read my posts properly, I clearly state that I've nothing against BSI. I'm simply not taken in by the hype that surrounds the SGP, and I also question whether the current setup is beneficial to speedway as a whole. Not at all, but the fact remains that they're only financially able to compete in the SGP because they also ride in one or more of the national leagues. Yet, the SGP does not benefit at least one of those leagues in any conceivable way. I don't have any enemies at BSI - I don't know anyone there and couldn't care less what they do because I can choose where to spend my money. I'm merely of the opinion that the current SGP setup doesn't particularly benefit the sport as a whole, despite what we're endlessly told. Is it? I would say that overall crowd levels at BEL and BPL tracks have never been lower. Firstly, an increase in the number of tracks isn't particularly useful if average crowds are still going down. Secondly, as I've said before, most of the new tracks started before BSI were involved with the SGP. Bearing in mind that BSI started promoting the SGP in 1999, the number of tracks were as follows (BCL figures only count standalone tracks): 1995 - BPL 21, BCL 5, Total 26 1996 - BPL 19, BCL 7, Total 26 (no change) 1997 - BEL 10, BPL 14, BCL 3, Total 27 (+1) 1998 - BEL 9, BPL 13, BCL 3, Total 25 (-2) 1999 - BEL 10, BPL 14, BCL 5, Total 29 (+4) 2000 - BEL 9, BPL 14, BCL 5, Total 28 (-1) 2001 - BEL 9, BPL 15, BCL 4, Total 28 (no change) 2002 - BEL 9, BPL 17, BCL 4, Total 30 (+2) 2003 - BEL 8, BPL 18, BCL 4, Total 30 (no change) 2004 - BEL 10, BPL, 15, BCL 5, Total 30 (no change) It can therefore be seen that has been a net gain of five tracks since 1998 (hardly a 50% increase as you suggest), but four of those tracks actually started in 1999 which was first year of the BSI contract, so can hardly be down to their influence. Since then, there's been a net increase of precisely one track, so I don't quite know where you're getting your figures from

Of course, the national federations and leagues allowed the World Championship to be run down in the first place, so one wouldn't expect much imagination from them. The fact that an average outfit was even able to come-in and upsurp them, shows just how poorly the sport is run. I'm not necessarily advocating a return to the one-off World Finals. The SGP probably does offer more possibilities for attracting television and sponsorship deals, but at the moment no-one is benefitting except BSI. I don't doubt it, but it would still be money in the pockets of the local tracks rather than that of one individual. There are unsubstantiated rumours that the FIM pays the SGP prize monies, which would presumably be funded out of the amounts that BSI pays them for the rights. If this is correct, then that would not leave much (if any) money for redistribution elsewhere. They can try it on, but people need to complain about violations. BTW - this equally applies to the various illegal actions of the British Customs & Excise.

Yes, but why did the *FIM* agree to a 20 year deal? With the best will in the world, even if BSI were doing a good job now, a lot could change over the next 20 years, not to mention that other companies might come in with better offers. Well I look forward to seeing what it is.

That's as maybe, but it's up to the BSPA to agree their financial relationships with the likes of TR. Then again, you might equally ask how BSI managed to get the SGP rights for 20 years! And what do they actually contribute to the rest of speedway - in terms of attracting support and/or finance? Everyone repeats the mantra that the SGP is good for speedway, but I'm afraid I don't see bigger crowds and more sponsors at British tracks.

Rico, There are quite a few issues here, so I'll try and disentangle them ;-) In many respects, my arguments equally apply to Poland and Sweden (not to mention other countries), but it's Britain that happens to be most affected by the SGP. As you'll know from the mailing list, I'm far from being a little Englander, but equally Britain is one of the major income generators in world speedway, yet has in effect been rolled-over by those with little or no financial stake in the sport. You don't really hear objections from Poland and Sweden about the SGP because through virtue of historical accident, their leagues do not directly clash with the GPs. However, if the GP ever expands further, it will certainly start to cause problems with the Polish League because they will have to start scheduling fixtures on GP reserve days. I also think that many countries have not yet woken-up to the real nature of the SGP. Once they realise how much money BSI is making, and how they are getting next to nothing despite taking nearly all the financial risk, then things may start changing. Indeed, the fact that the SGP has not expanded beyond a few countries is possibly an indication that the number of mugs are running out. That is not to say that I have anything against BSI. They spotted an opportunity, the FIM agreed to the terms, and they went out and raised a decent amount of television and sponsorship money. Fair play to them, and who can blame them for trying to make as much money as possible. However, you have to ask whether all this is a good deal for the sport. In the past, the profits from World Finals were usually shared by the tracks in the staging country, but now they're simply going to a private company. In effect, GBP 0.5 million is being lost to the sport each year. Now I would take the point that much of this is new money that has been generated through the efforts of BSI, but one has to question why the likes of the BSPA, SVEMO and the PZM couldn't have formed a promotional company and done exactly the same? The next problem is the amount of disruption that the SGP causes to the British leagues. With the agreement of the FIM, they are able to schedule GPs on prime domestic race nights, use any riders they wish, and re-arrange fixtures without any concern for anything else. That might be all well and good if domestic speedway was compensated in some manner, or if the SGP demonstrably brought new fans and/or money into local tracks, but I don't think that's the case at all. I do think the SGP possibly interests former fans of the sport who can watch it all on Sky, but attendances have arguably not increased in Britain as a result, and certainly not to the extent that it compensates for all the disruption. Now that we've established that the SGP's benefit to domestic speedway is marginal at best, that raises the question of use of rider assets. The SGP is currently able to take the pick of the riders from the domestic leagues, regardless of whether those leagues need them. Yet it is precisely those leagues that bear the cost of developing these riders. The argument has nothing to do with which country has the best development programmes, but the fact that the SGP can use other organisations' assets without compensation. The SGP could not continue to exist without the domestic leagues, yet it simultaneously undermines those leagues (mostly the British leagues). We now come to the question of how good BSI actually are at promoting the SGP. I personally feel they made a decent enough start in the first three years after obtaining the rights, but I don't think they've done anything great since then. They have established 2 or 3 'glamour' GPs which draw crowds on par with about 10-15 years ago, but the other GPs do little better than before BSI came along. They've also had a number of very poorly-organised events (including the SWC), which I think is unacceptable for a professional events company that can call on eight staff plus local organisers. In addition, the much-vaunted expansion programme has yet to happen (and in fact we're perhaps even likely to see a reduction in events at lower-key venues), whilst the levels of prize money have remained static which makes a full-time series even less likely. In conclusion, I think you've got to separate the issues of whether BSI do a good job or not, and the consequences of their involvement in speedway as a whole. I personally do not believe the FIM has done the sport any favours by giving a 20-year contract to a commercial company with no domestic speedway interests. Why is it a mutually exclusive thing? Can't the BSPA get their own Sky deal without supporting BSI and the SGP? [bTW - this is a rhetorical question as I already know the answer ;-)] Well if the Polish Leagues don't drop the restrictions on EU riders next season, the European Commission will be receiving a letter. Poland can't expect to have the benefits of EU membership without fulfilling their obligations as well. I see the point of developing your own riders, but sport can't exist above the laws that everyone else has to follow.

I think you're missing my point. Why should BSI expect to benefit from the development programmes of any country, whilst putting nothing back themselves? For that matter, why should any country bother to develop riders when they can be used by the SGP without any compensation (be that financial or otherwise)?

And where will BSI get the next generation of riders for the SGP?

Well, speedway very nearly wasn't run by the FIM in the past, and once the speedway authorities finally wake-up, might not be in the future. Professional riders fundamentally need to earn a living, and have only ever participated in the generally poorly-paying World Championship whilst they knew they could make that living elsewhere (i.e. in the national leagues). If they had to decide between the SGP and the national leagues now, they would undoubtedly have to opt for the latter option. Again, where is the money going to come from to finance this? The projected expansion of the SGP has failed to materialise, and it's only a matter of time before the existing GP organisers get tired of making losses to enrich BSI.

Quite right. I'm quite convinced that if it came down to straight choice between the SGP and the national leagues, the riders would choose the national leagues hands down. The SGP is light years away from being a full-time circus.

And where is this money supposed to come from? The SGP is nowhere near in the same league as F1.

Yes, but no-one's going to make a living out of SGP alone. Reducing the number of riders from 24 to 16 will save about USD 13,000 per meeting, so every remaining rider will potentially get a pay rise of USD 813 each. It's still not going to pay the bills. In any case, does anyone believe that the SGP riders would actually sit around doing nothing for up to 3 weeks at a time, when they could be out earning more money? I think a dose of reality is needed.

He apparently believes that hard, slick tracks produce closer racing. Of course, he also once suggested putting chicanes on the bends to 'improve' the racing as well!

I think BSI could rightly claim that they're paying just over GBP 750K per year to FIM for the rights to the SGP, and that it's the FIM who should be apportioning that money amongst its member countries. You might ask the FIM where that money is going. That's not the issue at all. The national federations should never have given away the rights (and therefore potential profits) to a commercial company with no interests in domestic speedway.

But who will you find to take the financial risk of staging GPs in non-speedway countries. Obviously Monaco wasn't interested, as nothing seems to come of the much-trumpeted relationship with Prince Albert (or whatever his name was). Can it survive on crowds of 2-3,000?

I think BSI are finally getting found out. Despite the hype, there is a very limited market for the SGP, and the lack of expansion is undoubtedly down to no-one willing to take the financial risk of hosting a GP. With the loss of Ullevi, the SGP is now down to just three 'prestige' GPs - in Cardiff and Copenhagen and Poland. The other six are more-or-less making-up the numbers, as even the other GP in Poland doesn't draw great crowds. Who still thinks that BSI are doing a fantastic job?

Not to mention the poor crowds there! Which is no doubt cheaper as well.

I can only think it's because tracks putting on decent second-halves would show-up others. Presumably there's a concern that using riders from the main match would increase costs, which not all tracks could afford. I'm not sure that a return to the old 13+7 heat format is desirable, but it would be nice to see a properly-organised competition after the main match. This could be part of a season-long national competition.

I'm not complaining about BSI themselves (although I'd like to know how they wangled a 20-year contract from the FIM). They are a commercial company who were given the rights to the SGP, and it's quite natural they wish to maximise their profitability. I'm merely pointing out the facts of the matter. Unfortunately, you're only seeing things from the point of view of a BPL fan who is unaffected by the SGP. The British leagues ran on Saturdays long before BSI came along, so why should they be the ones who have to change, particularly when it doesn't benefit them in any way? In effect, they take three days because practice is on the Friday (and although it's supposedly not compulsory, most riders have to attend), and the restaging date is on the Sunday. That rules out 27 days (plus another 7 days for the SWC) during the season, and during the time of year when the weather is usually good.

I don't think anyone is criticising BSI for trying to make as much money as possible - good luck to them. However, I do question why the speedway authorities, and particularly the major speedway leagues, allow them to get away with doing so. BSI don't do anything particularly clever, and certainly nothing that existing speedway promoters couldn't have done if they had half-a-brain. Speedway could then be sharing GBP 0.5 million amongst itself, instead of it going into JP's pocket.

Well, I guess KFC weren't actually providing the bargain buckets because BSI were taking legal action against them to recover the sponsorship they defaulted on BTW - the SGP sponsors are most definitely paying hard cash.