Kevin Meynell

With two new teams in the BEL, there undoubtedly needs to be a wholesale distribution of riders in some form. Whether a grading system is the way to do, only time will tell, although I've never managed to think of a way of making it better than the points limit.

The number of EU nationals in the UK has nothing to do with the EU, provided they have the same opportunities as British riders to seek employment. That is certainly the case here, although it may not be the case in Poland if they put restrictions on foreign (including EU/EEA) riders as suggested.

Phil, The format of those competitions are never decided until the season is underway, usually only a few weeks before the events are held! Personally, I'd like to see the return of the fours qualifiers as an inter-league competition for BEL and BPL teams.

Gary, The internal labour market has nothing to do with the EU, which is only concerned with freedom of movement between member states. In this respect, speedway has been ahead of the game for years, with riders being allowed to compete in multiple countries. I wouldn't disagree that the retain and transfer system would be blown out of the water if it were challenged in a British court, but I think the points limit (and probably also grading) could be justified. In theory, nothing prevents any one rider from riding for any particular team, and the system still allows everyone to be employed.

Are these grades confirmed?

Yet many people still think BSI are doing a good job! BTW - Postlethwaite is now getting over GBP 350 grand per year for running the show, whilst some venues struggle financially.

Prague would be worth going to. It's a fantastic city and reasonably cheap. Krsko is a real racing track, but in the middle of nowhere, although you could stay in Zagreb (Croatia) which isn't far away. Personally, I won't be going to any until there's more cooperation from BSI with respect to the disruptive effect on league racing.

Unfortunately, the few sensible or fairly reasonable decisions have been completely overshadowed by all the other nonsense. It's not a question of a kneejerk reaction against particular changes, but whether these changes will bring in one extra fan through the turnstiles. In the meantime, the sport becomes uncomprehensive to the existing fans who can't or don't want to be bothered keeping up with all the pointless tinkering. It is of course necessary to tinker with league structures in a sport which leads a marginal existence, but the basic rules of running a meeting should remain stable. How often do the laws of football change. We've seen about ten changes in 100 years, as a result, it's become accessible to everyone.

I'm guessing at the grade boundaries. I just heard that six grades were proposed, with each team allowed a maximum of 19 points. Given that the average rider has around a 6.00-point average, and that a low points limit would have been required to accommodate the new teams, you can make a reasonable guess at what the grades will be.

Piecing together the various bits of information I've heard about the grading system, it seems that the grades will be based around averages. Realistically it has to be that way as some riders may drop-out, others will come in and so on.. It would seem there will be six grades, which I'm guessing will be something like the following... Grade 1 - 10.01 to 12.00 (6 points) Grade 2 - 8.51 to 10.00 (5 points) Grade 3 - 7.01 to 8.50 (4 points) Grade 4 - 5.51 to 7.00 (3 points) Grade 5 - 4.00 to 5.50 (2 points) Grade 6 - Below 4.00 (1 point) I'm not sure about the lower grades, as grading would eliminate the need for minimum assessed averages. However, I think we can assume that Grade 4 will be based around the 6.00-point mark. It would seem that teams can then choose their seven riders from any category up to a total of 19 points. This corresponds to around a 41-point limit (including bonus) using the median values, but teams could effectively go as high as 46, or go as low as 35.5 points.

They're all big boys and shouldn't be riding in the league if they're that much out of their depth. The reserves already have easier races, what with Heat 2, and then meeting another reserve in at least 2 or their remaining 3 programmed rides. The suggestion to mess around with Heat 8 is just yet more pointless tinkering, that will do nothing to solve the underlying problems in the sport.

Will you think it a good idea when all the other heats have to be re-jigged, with some riders having a gap of seven heats between some of their programmed rides, and others being programmed every other heat? Heat 8 is where it is for a very good reason, which is to give Nos 1, 3, 4 & 5 evenly-spaced rides. If tactical substitutions are a problem, you could simply not allow them in Heat 8. It's one of the BSPA's worst ideas ever, so no doubt it'll probably be approved :-(

I'm quite sure a lot of the proposed rule changes are leaked by the BSPA to test the water. It's therefore in everyone's interests to point out the problems before anything is adopted.

The meetings on grass are generally entertaining, but I don't find the ones on genuine longtracks to be particularly interesting.

I think this is a perfectly valid point, although I believe semi-professional speedway would have survived. Unfortunately, we can only base our arguments on the situation as it is now. He's hardly here now as it is ;-)

At that time, there was a five-year World Final rota between Britain, Sweden, Poland, Denmark and Germany. Germany originally got on the rota by hosting the 1989 Final in the Munich Olympic Stadium, and promising to hold the 1993 Final in the Berlin Olympic Stadium. When the switch to Pocking was proposed, the Final should have been taken away and held elsewhere. The reason that it wasn't was undoubtedly down to the fact that the CCP President was German. I have no idea why Vojens was ever allowed to be on the World Final circuit, although the fact that Danish riders were so dominant at the time would have certainly been an influencing factor. My own feelings are that certain elements within the FIM wanted to run the old format into the ground in order to justify the introduction of the GP Series, and the subsequent sale of the commercial rights. Unfortunately, they did too good a job, and it took them five years to find a buyer. Incidentally, selling off World Championship rights is fine for most motorsports as the top competitors already competed in them exclusively. The problem with speedway is that the top riders have always ridden in national competitions which (still) provide most of their income. For a start, many of the same people would have attended the two Polish and Swedish GPs. In addition, a lot of Poles go to the Czech GP, and a lot of Swedes go to the Danish and Norwegian GPs. I also know of several Brits that attended every GP this season, and quite a few that attended four or more. Ryanair has done wonders for cheap travel! The worst case scenario is that it'll take top-flight British speedway down with it. I know most of you BPL fans don't think much of the BEL, but if it disappears, it will have a detrimental effect on the BPL as well (see other threads for details). Pocking is actually quite a decent venue for normal racing, but it should never have been allowed to hold a World Final. You continue to quote this figure whilst ignoring the fact that the number of tracks was rising whilst GPs were being ridden in front of sub-10,000 crowds. As I said, let's just agree to disagree on this point.

God forbid that anyone should disagree with the gospel according to the Speedway Star!

Yes, it is my real name, and I think there are some people on this forum that have actually met me ;-) I have no connection with any promotion, nor with any particular interest group. A lot of the information I quote is actually publicly available if you know where to look - from the FIM, Companies House, and so on. I've also got to know a few insiders over the years, who forward tidbits of information from time-to-time. Finally, once you're familiar with Bernie Ecclestone's F1 model, everything falls into place given that John Postlethwaite is a stated admirer of his methods. I think it's important to point out that I don't actually have anything against BSI. To a certain extent, I admire the vision of John Postlethwaite (as BSI is basically his vehicle) to see the opportunities offered by the SGP, and raise the necessary finance to make it happen. In a sense, they do offer a glimpse of what's been lost in the sport during the past twenty years or so. However, I think it has to be recognised that the SGP does not have the solid foundations that many seem to think. Furthermore, until BSI are able to run a self-sustaining competition, they should be working with, rather than against the national leagues; and I'm mostly referring to the BEL here.

It's long ceased to be 'our' World Championship ;-) The rights to it were 'sold' by the FIM in 1997.

Yes, because they were held stadiums with small capacities. I didn't go to the 1994 Final in Vojens, but the 1993 Final in Pocking was a sell-out, and could have sold far more tickets. Who would you say has the biggest viewing figures - Grandstand or Sky Sports? You accuse me of being selective, but then you do exactly the same. Aggregate attendances do not tell the whole story, because many fans will watch multiple rounds of the SGP. I suspect there are still only 40,000 fans that watch World Championship speedway, but a good percentage attend several rounds. Once again though, you miss my point. I'm not arguing that a handful of the GPs are better attended, or even that they're watched by more viewers, but I dispute that BSI have created that market. I think it was always there, and anyone that had the vision (and financial backing) to rent out a large stadium and do the proper promotion would have got the same crowds. As I've said previously, BSI have undoubtedly improved the SGP compared to what it was, but I don't think it's as good as people seem to think, and I also question their economic model. Time will tell I suppose! You surely don't believe that the quoted attendance figures are all paying customers? I heard that at one GP, only half the reported number of people actually paid to get in. And I would ask how many of those people have we seen through the turnstiles in Britain?

The pre-BSI SGP was undoubtedly run into the ground given that nobody had an overall responsibility for it. However, my point was that whilst 30,000 fans at a speedway event might seem impressive today, you were still getting bigger attendances only ten years ago. I wouldn't dispute that BSI have brought 2-3 big venues onto the circuit, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the attendances of most of the GPs are not significantly higher than they were before BSI came along five years ago.

I think there are enough lower order riders to go around, but they're just not willing to ride in the BEL. I take your point about the top riders though, and a more equal distribution is undoubtedly required if the BEL is to attract and keep new teams.

I never said it didn't, but I still say that other factors beside the SGP are responsible for the increase in number of tracks. Not completely true. A few of the World Finals in that period were shown on BBC Grandstand, and without wishing to hark back to the 'good old days', most of them still drew more fans than any of the GPs do now. I'm not disputing the impact of television. I dispute the impact that the involvement of BSI has had on increasing the number of tracks, which was your original premise. Well that's alright then! Yes it does, and BSI have taken advantage of its weakness. Well done to BSI for spotting the opportunity and taking it, but it doesn't mean that you have to agree with what they're doing in collusion with the FIM (who are supposed to work in the interests of all parties). I think you could legitimately argue that point when there were only six GPs (which is why that number was originally chosen), but not since the increase to nine/ten. Don't forget you also have the SWC which takes a whole week, and there are still the qualifying rounds as well (although not for much longer). In addition, I don't ever remember a World Final being cancelled because of the incompetence of the organisers, and then re-arranged the following week over a full programme of BL fixtures. No argument from me about that, but you're trying to compare apples and oranges. This said, I'm not blaming BSI for the failings of the BEL, but I do question how successful the SGP would be if the BEL ceased to exist. Thank you! And would you consider that BSI is trying to co-exist with the BEL at the moment? I don't actually think the GP presentation is that good, considering the amount of money and professional staff it can call upon, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion. I would start by limiting the number of GPs during the European season to six, evenly spaced-out every 3 or 4 weeks. Any additional GPs should be held outside the European season, although I personally believe that more than ten is overkill. I would also ask the FIM to account for the USD 1.1 million that BSI supposedly pay them for the rights, as no-one really knows where this is going (although it's alleged that the FIM pay the GP prize monies). Then I would look into the circumstances behind them signing (as reported) a 20-year extension to their original deal, as that is not in the interests of anyone but BSI. No, they passed the buck and blamed the local organisers (who were certainly not blameless), even though they were ultimately responsible as the series organiser. For a start, you have to question the lack of supervision earlier in the week, but by the Friday it was obvious to everyone there that the track was unrideable. Yet, they still opened the stadium the next day and tried to run the event. I've not heard one good word about that event. The tracks were a disgrace, the ticketing was a shambles, and it was almost impossible to get any information from the official website. There are really only three rounds that draw large crowds - the British, Polish and Scandinavian GPs getting around 25-30,000. I think the Czech, Danish, Swedish and other Polish GP are in the order of 15,000, Slovenia about 8,000, and Norway less than 5,000. The British GP seems reasonably impressive until you realise there were nearly that number at the 1990 World Final in Bradford, and 50,000 at the Final the year before. In fact, even the 1991 and 1992 Finals managed to draw around 30,000 each. I think this demonstrates that there has always been support for big speedway events if they're held in the right places, rather than in the middle of a field. Whilst I don't actually advocate a return to the one-off World Final, it does seem a little suspicious that the prime advocates of the GP system were the same people that allowed consecutive World Finals to be held at Pocking and Vojens. Yes it was, and probably not.

In theory, the SCB should be doing this, but in reality, the complicated administrative structure of motorcycle sport means that the grassroots level of speedway is not well represented. I think it's completely unrealistic and unreasonable to expect those that put their money into the sport to give-up control. Those who take the financial risks should ultimately decide how to run things, however badly that may be. What does need to be taken out of their hands, is the day-to-day decision making that is affected by self-interest and knee-jerk reaction. The commissioner-system is one way of doing that, and seems to work quite well in North American sports.

Firstly, having more BPL riders in the BEL will actually make the league weaker and ultimately might encourage more teams to move-up. Secondly, there is virtually no rider progression from the BPL these days, which is leading it to become an 'Elite League' in its own right. I've already made this point elsewhere, but the BPL is positioned as a cost-effective middle-tier and needs a viable BEL to remain that way. If the BEL was to disappear, the BPL will end-up having exactly the same problems. Neither league can exist in isolation, and this 'PL good, EL bad' attitude does not help the sport. I could understand the BPL's point-of-view if it were being decimated as the National League was back in 1991, but losing couple of teams out of eighteen won't make a blind bit of difference. In fact, sixteen teams is arguably the optimum number for the league. I completely agree that introducing a 40-point limit is not the way to go about encouraging riders to move-up to the BEL. It'll mostly be the middle-order riders who are not good enough for the BEL that will be forced out, to be replaced by three-pointers. A more effective strategy would be to introduce a limit on top-end strength, or say that any rider above a certain (BPL) average must ride in the BEL. I can perfectly understand the concerns of BPL fans who don't want to lose their favourite stars, but the bigger picture needs to be considered. This is that the BPL is not supposed to be an Elite League, and neither can it afford to be one.