Kevin Meynell

How long are people going to keep using those excuses? Longtrack meetings don't draw than a few thousand even here in Europe, so I'd say that 7,000 wasn't bad at all.

My memory may be failing, but I think the television rights were originally sold to a Danish company, with Sky taking some of their coverage. Again, I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that the early GPs were not shown live on Sky. What is certain, is that BSI were not involved until 1999. Up to that point, the SGP went to illustrious venues like Wiener Neustadt, Abensburg and Hackney (even if it was described as London).

I seem to remember that Sky didn't cover the SGP until a few years after it started. I think it was originally on other satellite channels, as was the World Final. Yes, and I still say that this was down to other factors beside the SGP. Unfortunately, none of us can prove it either way, so let's just agree to disagree. You must read the wrong papers, because the Daily Telegraph has always given the sport pretty good coverage. I am not for a moment suggesting that the World Championship does not have a higher profile than it did ten years, and yes it's largely held in better stadiums (although not all of them are better - Avesta, Hamar, Krsko to name but a few). Of course BSI have improved things, but you have to look at the bigger picture. If you're only interested in the SGP, then what they're doing is fine. However, I think the vast majority of fans prefer league racing to which the SGP is incredibly disruptive, without actually bringing any extra fans through the turnstiles or otherwise improving revenue. Of course, you might reasonably argue that attendances would have fallen even further without the SGP, but that's something else that no-one can prove either way. The real issue though, is that what you're currently seeing is a thin veneer. It is the local GP promoters that are taking all the financial risks and often losing money to allow BSI to be profitable. There is nothing wrong with BSI trying to make money, but local promoters will only be willing to take a killing for so long. That's why the Aussie GP didn't happen this season, and why there are question marks over the Slovenian, Norwegian and Polish GPs. Enjoy them while you can! In the meantime, the British leagues have to put-up with all manner of disruption. For all the faults of the BSPA, it still generates most of the income in speedway, and the SGP would not be able to exist without it. A few of the very top riders could possibly survive on the Polish and Swedish leagues alone, but the middle-and-bottom order SGP riders still depend very heavily on British income. I'm not suggesting to do away with the SGP, but BSI needs to recognise that no matter how badly-run the BEL is, it's own success is built on it. As far as I can see, BSI have improved two things. They have taken the competition to a handful of prestigious venues (although at least five of the venues are not an improvement), and have put the competition on television. That's great, but at the same time the series has too many mediocre riders, and a combination of crap tracks and a questionable format have turned it into a lottery. I wouldn't disagree that things are better than they were ten years ago, but I still wouldn't say the competition was in the category of 'very special' yet. It is much easier to promote ten events per year, than the 600+ that the BSPA members do (with less paid staff). Even then, the organisation of the SWC was pretty pathetic, and the Scandinavian GP a complete fiasco.

No, the GP Series started in *1995*, but BSI and Sky were not involved until the *1999* season. There were already 28 tracks in 1998, and 30 at the start of 1999, so the SGP has only added a further two tracks by your rationale. No, I simply don't believe everything that I read in the Speedway Star (whose editor and major shareholder just happens to be the SGP Assistant Director). That's a different issue - I don't have anything against television coverage of the sport. Perhaps it's escaped your notice that the BEL is shown on television more than the SGP?

Yes, I would say it is coincidence. The reason for the decline in tracks in the late-1980s and early-1990s was an insufficient number of levels at which tracks could run. You had to run at National League level at the very least, and the problem became worse when it became the BL Division 2 and costs started spiralling out of control as certain teams pushed for promotion. It was for this reason that the Conference League was started (originally known as the BL Division 3) in 1994. By creating a third tier of competition more or less outside the professional structure, it was hoped that financially-struggling tracks could run at a more affordable level, whilst new tracks wouldn't face such high-startup costs. In fact, this has been one of the few success stories in British speedway in recent years Nearly all of the new or revived tracks in the last few years are in, or started in the Conference League - Buxton, Berwick, Carmarthen, Isle of Wight, Mildenhall, Rye House, Somerset, Stoke, St. Austell (Trelawny) and Wimbledon. I think only Hull and Newport have gone straight in at a higher level. Another reason for the upsurge in lower-league speedway is the increasing lack of grasstrack meetings where many part-time riders used to compete. Although their number was declining anyway, the foot-and-mouth epidemic (and consequent cancellation of meetings) was a catalyst for many riders taking-up speedway instead. The SGP started in 1995, but BSI didn't take over until 1999 when the number of tracks had already started to rise. I therefore don't think you can put this down to the existence of the SGP.

Yes, but the FIM weren't out to make money, and after the permit fees and officials had been paid, the organisers (e.g. BSPA, SVEMO or whoever) got to keep all the proceeds. Nowadays, a prospective GP promoter has to pay a staging fee of USD 50,000 to BSI, and assume the organising costs. In return, they only get the admission and programme receipts, whilst BSI keeps all the television and sponsorship income. If the a GP promoter doesn't get sufficient revenue to cover their outlay, well that's just too bad! It doesn't take a genius to work out that those GPs with sub-10,000 attendances must be struggling to be profitable. I couldn't care less whether the riders are paid USD 1 or 10,000 for taking part. The point is that the levels of prize money are currently far too low to sustain the full-time circus that some people advocate. If BSI can raise the prize money to a level that can sustain such a competition, then I'll have no objection to them running the SGP the way they like. Until then, they need to recognise that they're effectively being subsidised by the national league competitions, and start showing some consideration towards them. Whilst top-flight British speedway has not been particularly healthy for a number of years, it should not be forgotten that it still provides the bulk of rider earnings. The SGP needs the BEL far more than BEL needs the SGP. I would personally like to see the SGP and BEL coexist, but unfortunately, BSI don't seem to be interested in that. Unfortunately, I don't see this reflected in improved attendances at local tracks, even though BSI have been running the SGP for five years now. Sure, it might be creating a dedicated television audience, but unless they actually come down to a track, the sport is doomed to be mid-afternoon Eurosport fodder.

I don't object the GP system per se. My objections are because the SGP doesn't attempt to coexist with the national leagues who still provide the bulk of rider incomes, because I don't believe that the SGP has a sustainable financial model, and because the competitors are no longer selected on merit. Pretty much in the same state as now, but without all the disruption. Yes, BSI have taken GPs to the odd large stadium and got a couple of 30,000 attendances (although most don't draw more than 10,000), but what does this mean for domestic competitions? How many fans has it actually added to attendances, or how much extra revenue has it generated for local tracks increased? Very little I'd suggest, and in the meantime, BSI shareholders are taking money out of the sport that's unlikely to ever find its way back. Now I don't actually have anything against BSI for trying to run a profitable enterprise, but few enterprises expect to get their raw materials (i.e. riders) for nothing, be subsidised by their franchises, and still be allowed to undermine their suppliers' businesses. Of course, when the suppliers have all gone out of business and there are no longer any raw materials left, BSI can get out and move to another industry, leaving behind a dead landscape. Until BSI are prepared to properly fund the SGP and become the riders' main source of income, I'm afraid the national leagues should not lay down and be ridden over roughshod. This said, if the likes of the BSPA had done their jobs properly years ago, there wouldn't have been any scope for the likes of BSI to come along and effectively hijack the sport. The likes of the SGP and SWC should be run by speedway promoters, not corporate entertainment companies.

John, This has been discussed to death elsewhere. Yes, the BPL is reasonably well-run and some might even say thriving, but this would not be the case if the BEL ceased to exist. Even if you banned the SGP riders, it would still have to absorb a number of tracks and riders which would cause inflationary pressures. The BPL cannot exist in a vacuum and a strong BEL it's just as much in it's own interests, as it is in the interests of the BEL teams. My comment about 'star' riders exactly illustrates my point. If the BPL does not wish to encourage its top riders to move-up, then you will eventually get GP-standard riders who will expect to be paid GP points money (e.g. Stonehewer). I would fully agree that the BEL has not made itself sufficiently attractive for the likes of Shields and others to move-up permanently, but if there is no prospect of riders moving-up at all, then the BPL will cease to become the mid-level cost-effective competition that it aspires to be. Few would dispute that the BEL needs fixing, but that's another issue.

I suspect you'll be living in hope for a long time, especially at the current levels of prize money ;-) I think we're more likely to see the series contract than expand in the next few years, as local promoters get fed-up of subsidising loss-making GPs.

No, there are still a whole two places available through next season's qualifying competition ;-) Personally, I believe all the riders in the SGP should have to qualify on merit, but with so many being nominated anyway, the qualifying rounds were becoming a complete waste of time. They would have become even more irrelevant with the reduction of the SGP field to 18 riders in 2005, so it's probably better to do without the disruption they cause to domestic programmes. What worries me though, is that the likes of the European Championship will be expanded, and we'll be back to square one again. To be honest, my interest in the whole world championship thing is waning. It's not really a sporting contest anymore, but a lottery to which you have to be invited.

Possibly less so ;-)

Trees, We don't need to know. The points limit has certain mathematical constants that will negate any changes within one season. In any case, a low points limit mostly affects the middle order riders who are generally not the expensive ones. It's the heat-leaders that usually cost the money, but with teams almost always being built top-down, they're never the ones for the chop. If costs are an issue, the promoters would be better off looking at how to implement and enforce a sensible pay policy. Using the points limit to do the job will not solve the underlying problem. Another problem with the BPL is that there is no longer any incentive for riders to move-up to a higher level. There are far too many 'star' riders making a comfortable living in the BPL.

But then you need to factor in the inflationary effect of bonus points, which history has shown adds around 5 points to the team total.

It doesn't stop them holding a European Individual Championship, or a European U19 Championship!

Why would you need to use grading? As to how a squad system might work, the following article appeared in the "Cheetah's Chronicle" a couple of years ago... The BSPA made an announcement in November 2000 that they would consider introducing a squad system in the British Elite League (BEL); possibly from 2002. Whilst this announcement went largely unnoticed, it promises to have a major impact on speedway as we currently know it. Speedway is unlike most other sports in that it does not operate with squads. Each team declares seven riders at the start of the season, and largely keeps the same riders throughout the season. Whilst it is possible to replace riders, their replacements must usually be recruited from elsewhere (e.g. other teams) and the new line-ups must still conform with the points limit. It is therefore impractical to make changes on a regular basis. In the event that team members are unavailable due to injury, illness, suspension or international duty, guest riders may be 'borrowed' from other teams (often in the same league) on per-meeting basis. This rather unique and sometimes confusing system has largely evolved due to the lack of finances, the limited supply of riders, and the fact that riders are only paid when they ride. Nevertheless, despite the obvious problems, it has worked reasonably well for many years. Why should the BSPA consider changing the system now? There are several considerations behind the proposed introduction of a squad system. At one time, riding in the British leagues was a priority for all top riders, but over the years, other national leagues (in Germany, Denmark, Poland and Sweden) have become increasingly competitive whilst offering equal or better money. As a result, it has become common for riders to sign for teams in two or more different countries. Britain still has the advantage of being able to offer riders more meetings than other countries, but the necessity to commit to a large number of meetings has actually dissuaded several top foreign riders from joining British teams. They realise it is possible to make the same money from riding in several other national leagues that allow more flexible schedules. In particular, foreign leagues tend to hold their meetings on designated days (e.g. Tuesdays in Sweden, Sundays in Poland), unlike in Britain where each team has a different race day. This makes it difficult to plan international commitments, and it is not helped by the fact that the British fixture list is generally published after those in other countries. The Grand Prix Series is also making increasing demands on the top riders. British teams currently attempt to schedule their fixtures around the GPs, but these combined with other international fixtures, means that some teams have a very irregular fixture list during the summer months. This is not good for their cash flow, and it means more meetings must be staged during the months when the weather is likely to be adverse. With the planned expansion of the GP Series and the World Team Cup in the future, it will become increasingly difficult for teams to work around the international commitments of their riders. In addition, with the increased media coverage that the five-year agreement with Sky Sports is likely to bring, it is recognised that the existing guest system lacks credibility. No other sport allows individuals to compete for several teams in the same competition, yet this is effectively what happens in speedway. It is difficult to imagine how football fans would react if David Beckham was injured and Manchester United borrowed Dennis Bergkamp for a few matches from nearest rivals Arsenal! Squad systems are used in all the other national leagues because they allow much greater flexibility. Riders do not have to commit to a full league programme, thus allowing them to fit meetings around international commitments such as the GP Series. It also means that guests are unnecessary as teams have additional riders they can use when their first choice riders are injured or otherwise unavailable. So squad systems operate successfully in the other national leagues, but how might they work in practice in Britain? The BEL is slightly different in that teams have more meetings and often ride two or more times each week. In addition, riders not selected for the main team in Denmark, Germany and Sweden, are often able to ride for a reserve or partner team in a lower league. This is not an option for BEL riders due to the way the points limit is implemented, and the restrictions on riders dropping down to the British Premier League (BPL). It is suggested that each team declares a squad of between ten and fourteen riders at the start of the season. The team manager would then be allowed to select any seven riders for each meeting, provided their combined averages did not exceed the points limit (currently 45 points). You would probably need a nucleus of around eight 'full-time' riders who would expect to ride in most meetings. The rest of the squad might then be comprised of riders who normally ride for teams in other leagues, but who could be called-up as necessary. For example, a couple of these riders might be 'substitute foreigners' who normally ride in other national leagues, but who could commit to a handful of meetings or provide cover for injured heat-leaders. The other riders would normally ride for BPL teams, but would be allowed to 'double-up' when their team was not riding. It might even be possible for BEL and BPL teams to make reciprocal arrangements to share a common pool of riders, much like they have in Sweden. It should be pointed-out that squad systems do not solve the shortage of top riders and it may still be difficult for teams to directly replace such riders in the event of injury. Nevertheless, they do allow the option of strengthening the middle or lower-order in lieu of a heat-leader. For example, if a No.1 rider with an average of 9.00 was injured, a 3.00 point rider might also be withdrawn and replaced by a couple of riders with 6.00 point averages. A fundamental change that would have to be made, is that for the purpose of the points limit, riders would have to retain their starting averages (i.e. average from previous season or assessed average) for the entire season. At the present time, new Green Sheet Averages (GSAs) are issued after six meetings and are then updated every month throughout the season. Such a change would be necessary as teams would otherwise be penalised if their riders rode above their starting averages during the season. The downside is that riders experiencing poor form would be stuck with a high average, but this might encourage promoters to give more careful consideration to who they signed at the start of the season. Obviously teams would benefit if riders rode above their starting averages, but the current system allows teams to ride above the points limit anyway. More interestingly, promoters would no longer have any scope to manipulate averages at the beginning of the season in order to strengthen their teams after the first issue of the GSAs. Of course, monthly GSAs could still be issued for the purpose of determining the reserves etc.. At the end of the day, would the introduction of a squad system benefit the BEL? There are certainly a number of advantages, but at the same time, the costs of signing the additional riders must be carefully considered. Riders may also be concerned about the possibility of them being dropped at will, as they are not paid when they are not riding. Nevertheless, these concerns could be addressed fairly easily. Many heat-leaders already ride for teams in other national leagues, whilst the second-strings and reserves could be allowed to double-up between the BEL and BPL. In conclusion, squad systems would allow the BEL to accommodate the increasing demands of the GP Series, and would encourage the top riders to keep riding in Britain. Perhaps more importantly, they would enable the sport to gain much-needed credibility by allowing the guest system to be abolished. It's certainly something for BSPA to think about over the coming year!

Yes, but we're not really getting that either. But the guest system has no credibility, not to mention that as every team is affected by injuries over the course of a season, things would tend to balance out over time. Poland and Sweden don't have guests, yet they still draw bigger crowds for the meetings. Hmm... we've had this discussion somewhere else ;-)

IMO, the points limit should be at least 48 points, and possibly as high as 50. It should not be about penalising moderately successful teams, but about preventing a handful of teams from dominating. Is that not a good reason not to do it then? The only thing a sub-46 point limit does, is force a number of middle-order riders out in favour of 3.00-pointer. Even if by luck or good judgement they happen to do well, they will find themselves out the following season, to be replaced by more 3.00-point numpties. It's not a constructive policy.

Mylor, A while back, Steve Purchase (then Oxford promoter) actually asked the fans for ideas as to how the sport might be improved. I sent him the following text, which although was written in 2000, is probably still relevant today. How many of these things have been addressed? Hmm.. do I really need to answer that ;-) Value for money One of the factors that has undoubtedly contributed to the diminishing popularity of speedway, is that it has become poor value for money over the past ten years. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it was relatively cheap to attend speedway and this combined with the lack of entertainment elsewhere, meant the sport did not have worry too much about it's presentation. However, since the beginning of the 1990s, admission prices have increased at a rate well above inflation (25%). Whilst this is also the case with football, that sport has changed beyond recognition with the introduction of superb new stadiums, all-star teams and branded merchandise. In contrast, speedway is still held in largely dilapidated stadiums, many of the top stars no longer compete in Britain (unlike ten years ago), and the number of heats per meeting has been reduced. A meeting used to consist of at least 20 organised heats; the main match and either a support competition featuring the top riders or a junior match. Since 1994, the number of heats has been cut to 16 heats, and now to 15 heats, but dragged-out over the same time. This amounts to a reduction of 25%, and one can only wonder how football fans would have reacted if the playing time of their matches had been cut from 90 to around 70 minutes, with the half-time break extended to 30 minutes! Admittedly some promotions make an effort to organise some additional races, but this is on an ad-hoc basis and the quality is often quite variable. If one takes into account the reduced number of races, speedway has actually become 50% more expensive in real terms since 1990. Obviously some of the highlighted problems are due to external factors. Most promotions do not own the stadiums in which they race, and they have faced disproportionate rental increases in recent years. In addition, the shortage of top riders, their ability to earn good money in other countries, and spiralling equipment costs, have all conspired to increase the running costs of league competition. Unfortunately, all of this inconsequential to the average supporter. He or she has a limited amount of disposable income each week, and will not spend it on something that is perceived to provide poor value. Nowadays, there are many attractions ranging from multi-screen cinemas to Premiership football shown on live television. Speedway must therefore compete for a share of the consumer's income. The re-introduction of 18-heat matches (as used in 1993) would be step towards providing better value for money. The problems that were highlighted as a reason for dropping the format could easily be fixed, and many supporters would be content with an extended match. Failing this, there should be some sort of organised junior competitition, either held BEFORE or DURING the main match (there can't be many forms of entertainment where the support event is held after the main event). It would probably be better to hold support races during a match (e.g. after heats 4, 8, 11 and 14) as it would give junior riders experience of changing track conditions, and would generally allow riders more time between each of their rides (thus allowing a swifter programme to be run). Fixtures The fixture list, at least in the BEL, really needs to be revamped. The traditional concept of each track staging a home meeting each week is unworkable given the small size of the BEL, and the demands of the GP and other national leagues. Instead, the league programme should be staged in rounds (as with football), with every team having approximately one home or away meeting per week. The British season is about 32 weeks long (mid-March to end-October) and the current BEL programme is 32 matches. Even if you don't schedule meetings in October (thus giving a 32 week season), that still only amounts to one meeting per week on average, and that doesn't include the five bank holiday dates (Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, Spring and Summer). Unfortunately, the current arrangement of fixtures has teams riding two or three meetings some weeks, then practically not riding during other weeks. If you examine Oxford's original fixture list... April - 3 home, 5 away + 1 Open May - 3 home + 1 KOC, 1 away + 1 KOC June - 3 home, 0 away July - 2 home, 6 away August - 4 home, 3 away Sept - 1 home, 1 away ... you can see there are no away fixtures in June, then six during July! In addition, there are only two home fixtures in July - which also would be the case if you scheduled one round per week. Oxford is not an extreme example either. The argument against having weekly rounds, is that supporters will 'get out of the habit' if there isn't a meeting each week. However, having irregular three week gaps in the fixture list is much more likely to do this than a regular one week on, one week off schedule. Football works in this manner without any problems. If you scheduled one meeting per week, it would be possible to arrange fixtures so that the Monday and Wednesday night teams rode at home during GP weeks thus avoiding the need for 'off-weeks'. Furthermore, it would also be much easier to coordinate fixtures with the other national leagues. Teams could still ride on their normal race days, and KOC meetings could be easily fitted around the other meetings. Guest Riders Some serious effort needs to go into investigating how the use of guest riders might be reduced. No other sport allows teams to borrow competitors from other teams in the same competition, and the guest system does not even exist in the other national speedway leagues. It does more to undermine the credibility of the sport than practically anything else. It is understood that riders often get injured or are forced to miss meetings due to commitments elsewhere. Teams need to be able to adequately replace these riders as under-strength teams do not encourage good attendances. The lack of finances, shortage of top riders, and the fact that riders are usually only paid when they ride, also means that it's impractical for teams to operate a squad system as in other sports. However, it might be possible to abolish intra-league guests in the BPL, and restrict their use in the BEL, if more use was made of inter-league guests. At the present time, BEL riders are not allowed as guests in the BPL. This restriction should be lifted to allow riders with a CMA of 6.00 or less (corresponding to the existing restriction on riders dropping down) to guest for absent BPL heat leaders. BPL second-strings could be replaced by Rider Replacement (or by a BEL/BCL guest if both second-strings are missing), whilst BPL reserves could only be replaced by BCL riders. This system should still provide adequate replacements for absent riders, and would allow intra-league guests to be totally abolished in the BPL. The BEL is more of a problem because it's difficult to replace the heat-leaders. Substitute foreigners might be a possibility, but these would undoubtedly be expensive. It might therefore be necessary to retain intra-league guests for heat-leaders only. Nevertheless, BEL second-strings and reserves could be adequately replaced by BPL guests, especially if the restriction on 'old-hands' was lifted. Taking this idea one step further, a limited squad system might be considered. Teams could declare seven riders as before, but would also nominate an additional (say) 7-14 riders. These riders would normally ride for teams in one of the other leagues, but could be called-up to 'guest' as necessary (providing their other fixtures allowed and their averages fitted). Not all squad members might be available for a given meeting, but this shouldn't be a problem if enough riders are nominated. A similar system exists in Sweden where most teams have an agreement with a team in another division to share riders. Points Limit Most (sensible) supporters recognise that the points limit is good idea and generally works well. However, the manner in which CMAs are assessed could be improved. Foreign riders that have never established a CMA are normally assessed at 5.00 or 7.50 in the BEL and 9.00 in the BPL, but this does not always provide a true reflection of their ability. For example, Tomas Gollob and Ales Dryml were both assessed at 7.50, but their actual abilities were very different (>9 compared to <5). Conversion factors could instead be introduced for riders that have competed in another recognised national league (e.g. Danish, German, Polish & Swedish). These would allow the ability of a foreign rider to be more accurately assessed. Conversion factors might be calculated by comparing the relative performance of riders already competing in both the BEL, and one or more of the other leagues. An analysis of the 1999 season, reveals that CMAs established in the Polish and Swedish leagues are similar to those established in the BEL (e.g. 8.00 = 8.00). CMAs established in the Danish Superleague should be divided by 1.15 (e.g. 8.00 = 6.96), whilst those established in the German Superleague should be divided by 1.3 (8.00 = 6.15). Conversion factors for the lower divisions could be based on the conversion factors already in use within the respective countries. The rules for reducing the CMA of a rider that has missed one or more seasons should also be clarified. At the present time, a rider may have their CMA reduced by 8% for each season missed due to injury, but there does not appear to be any established method for reducing the CMA of a rider missing a season for any other reason. It is therefore suggested the 8% reduction is applied to any rider missing a whole season for whatever reason, but only if they have not competed elsewhere in the world during this period. Stadiums Whilst it is recognised that most promotions do not actually own the stadiums in which they run speedway, efforts must be made to try and improve these in the longer term. Many appear to have changed little since the 1970s and the facilities often leave a lot to be desired. Consideration should also be given to how rained-off meetings can be avoided. This is a particular problem with the sport, and supporters will often not travel to a meeting if there is a chance of rain. The introduction of live televised coverage makes this issue even more acute. Perhaps covers similar to those used on cricket pitches could be used to keep the track dry before a meeting? The ultimate (but expensive) solution would be to build a roof covering the track and surrounding terraces, but leaving the centre green open. This type of construction is used to great effect in Assen where the Ice Racing Grand Prix is held.

What no-one seems to appreciate is that the equilibrium will always creep back to more than 45 points with the first issue of the GSAs, even if you start with a 40-point limit. A sub-46 point limit should only be used when the league expands, and you need to force re-distribution of riders to the new teams. Even then, it should only be used for one season. This is really a daft discussion. If you have a points limit, it mathematically *has* to be around 45-47 points if the size of league remains the same.

You actually need 42 points to draw a meeting in average terms, as averages are based on four rides. You then need to make allowances for the inflationary effect of bonus points (4-5 points per team), so in fact, 45 points is below the 'break-even' point at the moment. It's actually only coincidence that the current 45-point limit is the same as the score needed for a draw. This hasn't always been the case in the past.

Do you mean the 'classic' 20-heat format where you still only have one rider from each team in each heat, or the more recent 24-heat format where riders compete in pairs?

Kevin Yes, top team from each qualifier into Final, next two into Last Chance. Top two from Last Chance to Final. There will also be two separate Preliminary Rounds for non-seeded teams. The top team in each will qualify for the Final Tournament. I haven't heard anything about the heat format, but I heard the Joker may have gone (and about time too).

You can say that teams always have the option to decline promotion, but what happens if a BPL team wants to be promoted whilst a BEL team doesn't want to be relegated? It would be ludicrous to force a team to run at a lower level unless there was demand for places in the top-league; a situation that hasn't occurred since 1984! In a perfect world, it should only be one-rider, one team, but unfortunately the speedway world is far from perfect. The reason that doubling-up was introduced, was because so few BPL riders were prepared to take the plunge in the BEL, and it was supposed to be a way of letting them test the water, Quite honestly, I don't see anything wrong with doubling-up per se. It's nothing new (it used to happen with designated No.8s in the past), and it's not a problem provided teams from different leagues don't ride against each other. Unfortunately, what's made the situation farcical is the introduction of doubling-down, and allowing doubling-up in an inter-league competition (i.e. the BLC). That is totally wrong. This aside, I think doubling-up will be necessary if a squad system is ever to replace the guest system; something that I see as the most important change that speedway can make. It's clear that teams can't afford to have riders sitting around doing nothing, so the reality would have to be that teams only sign 7 or 8 full-time riders. The remaining riders in the squad would then normally ride for another team, but could be called-up as necessary. [More thoughts on how a squad system might work can be found at: http://www.meynell.com/speedway-articles/s...d-systems.html]

Scotland does not have separate representation on the FIM or UEM, so that's currently a non-starter. Yes, there have been Scottish teams in the past, but they were not officially recognised at world level (an explanation of this can be found at http://www.speedway-faq.org/british.html#gbteam if anyone's interested). If we want to be politically correct, we could equally make the case for Newport representing Wales. Unfortunately, British speedway is too small (and insignificant) to start breaking into individual entities.

If it comes down to a choice, I'm sure that many SGP would opt-out of that competition in favour of the British leagues. It is simply not possible any SGP rider to make a living out of that competition alone, so unless they have team places in Poland and Sweden (and few riders have a guaranteed number of meetings due to the squad systems in those countries), they would not have much option. Those riders opting out would basically force the standard higher than the current BPL, which is why the two leagues cannot exist in isolation. In reality, I suspect you need a enlarged BEL pitched at a slight lower-level than now, with the rest of the BPL teams running at about the same level.