Kevin Meynell

'Conference' is an Americanism that gained popularity in Britain when American Football was shown on television here. I think football first used the term for the effective fifth division (known as the Football Conference), and rugby league also started using it as well. A conference tends to be associated with a competition that has an unbalanced fixture list (i.e. teams don't meet home and away an equal number of times). As teams in the early incarnations of the speedway third division only had to ride a minimum of twelve fixtures and didn't have to meet every other team, somehow the idea that it used 'conference principles' seemed to take hold. I wouldn't object to calling it the 'British Conference', but 'Conference League' is just ridiculous.

But a losing team still needed to beat the opposition! I do think there does need to be a mechanism to allow teams losing heavily to stay in touch, although I always thought that tactical subs should only be allowed when eight rather than six points down.

Whatever race format or quirky rules you can think of, the teams with the best riders will still win. You fundamentally need to ensure that teams are roughly of equal strength, or the weakest teams are able to obtain the pick of the best new riders. Unfortunately, the current points limit has become punitive rather than being there to prevent one or two teams from running away with things. That is where it has failed, but some sort of team equalisation will always be needed, particularly in speedway where differences in ability are magnified more than in many sports.

IMO, all sports have been afflicted by such marketing nonsense, with the result that we now have ridiculous names like the 'The Championship' for a second division, and 'First League' for a third division. Speedway also has a 'Premier League' which isn't the premier league at all. What's wrong with first, second and third league so everyone knows where they stand? I've never liked the term 'Conference League' because something can either be a conference or a league, but not both. Calling it a 'Super League' though would be a total misrepresentation, and I'm not a great fan of 'National League' because it's non-country specific. I'd just call it the British Conference and be done with it. Fans are not stupid and even if they don't immediately grasp the status of the competition in the overall hierarchy, they soon will. In fact, trying to make it out to be something it's not could actually be counterproductive if fans are tricked into thinking it's the highest level of the sport.

Yes, that's correct, although the No.8 rider is optional. The 3rd reserve was introduced (I think) last season.

The problem is that it would mean paying the travel costs of another rider, not to mention that riders might not be happy to travel for only one guaranteed ride. However, if you went to 8-rider teams, it would be possible to give the two reserves either two or three programmed rides, and which would give them more spare rides (4 or 5). I think you're always going to get the freak matches where reserves run out of spare rides due to a high number of injuries. I've seen matches where one team had only 3 fit riders by the end, and in these circumstances even three reserves wouldn't help much.

Rule 070.2.4.2 of the FIM regulations states.. "The Referee may inflict a penalty on any person who fails to comply with any regulation or instruction given, or is guilty of misconduct or disloyalty or unfair behaviour, or who shows by word or action dissent from any decision given by the Referee or other authorised Official. The penalty may take the form of a warning, a fine or a disqualification of a rider/sidecar team from one or more heats, removal from the meeting and/or a warning or a report to the FMN of the rider/sidecar team for action as that body may consider fit." Section 20 of the current SCB Regulations gives similar powers to the Referee, and I'm pretty sure they have the same rule in Poland as well. The only time I've ever seen this rule used was in a match between Arena-Essex and Poole around 1990 when (I think) Alun Rossiter was excluded from two heats with no replacement allowed. However, I heard about a 'sending-off' in the Polish League only a couple of seasons ago.

Andy, It's not commonly known, but these sanctions are already available to a Referee. Unfortunately, they are rarely implemented as in more than 20 years of watching speedway I've only once seen a rider banned from two of his programmed heats.

An athletics track increases the distance between the pitch and the stands, which also forces the rake of the stands to be extremely steep if those at the top are not to be situated a long way from the pitch. It's a particular problem at the ends of the stadium where the bends of the athletics track create wasted space between the stands and the pitch. I think most fans would agree that the best football experiences are where fans are situated very close to the pitch, and incorporating an athletics track makes this difficult to achieve. To me, athletics has a total disproportionate influence on decision making in terms of its actual popularity, and I'd much rather have a decent stadium for pitch sports than one that's a horrible compromise. After all, when was the last time the old Wembley hosted an athletics event, and how often is Crystal Palace filled? Andy, with respect that happens in France as well. They've gone vastly over budget on many projects (e.g. TGV, Ariane, their new aircraft carriers), but their government really doesn't seem to care about blowing vast amounts of taxpayers money on grandiose enterprises. Sure, but that's not saying much for a new stadium built at a cost of millions. It has reasonable transport connections, but there's bugger all in the vicinity, nor is it a particular pleasant area to walk around. I would contrast it with the Munich Olympic Stadium which is set in a beautiful park in which you can spend the entire day. I think no-one has bettered that in the last 35 years.

I think we need less GPs rather than more (at least during the European season), and certainly no more than one per country. The more GPs you stage in one country, the less 'exclusive' they become, and the harder to draw a decent crowd to both.

The sightlines are crap for football if you combine athletics, and that's no good if football is the major sport. The old Wembley suffered badly from the audience being too far from the action. I appreciate you could have all manner of moving stands and raised levels etc.., but in all honesty it's just not worth the effort for the once in 10-20 years that you'll stage a major athletics events. I'm not so sure the French do get it right, but if they do, it's probably because they don't insist on all manner of private financing initiatives. That said, they do pay far more tax than us, so it comes at a price. Not much fun if you're a taxpayer who doesn't like sport. BTW - the Stade de France is a terrible location and suffers from the athletics track problem as well.

Rugby (Union) already has a very decent national stadium at Twickenham, whilst football and athletics aren't really compatible in the same stadium. I have nothing against athletics, but the sport simply doesn't draw the crowds to justify massively modifying an already expensive stadium. It would be far better to build a smaller purpose-built stadium for athletics. I've visited quite a few of the former Olympic venues around the world, and a good number have become crumbling white elephants, largely because an athletics stadium isn't much good for anything except athletics which simply can't fill large venues.

Heat 15 was held over six laps during the 1999 BEL season. It was not successful because a processional race just became even more processional.

Speedway is not Formula 1. It's also fundamentally different in that the top riders make their living in the national leagues rather than the SGP. The Speedway World Championship until recently, was always structured as a number of qualifying rounds that (in theory) allowed any rider in the world to enter. By contrast, motor racing has (or used to have) a hierarchy through which upcoming drivers progressed. I'm not sure that the move to having drivers pay for their seats in F1 has been an improvement for the sport. In fact the opposite - F1 is now filled with mediocrities and is more boring than ever.

It's rarely referred to as a World Championship these days. It's called the FIM Speedway Grand Prix.

It's not a bad idea, but it's just tinkering with what is an unfair and uncompetitive system. The World Championship should be an open competition so that any rider in any speedway-riding country has a chance to make it to the SGP. However, whilst the SGP remains in the hands of a company that is allowed to conscript its riders from domestic competitions, I really don't care what they do. The qualifying rounds had become a joke because half of the new SGP riders each year were still handpicked anyway.

The purpose of the points limit is to ensure that better riders become available to weaker teams. There's no point having a team equalisation system that doesn't force the strong teams to release riders. I do believe there needs to be some sort of system for teams to naturally improve up to a pre-defined limit, but I don't believe that teams should automatically be allowed to build-up to a high limit.

And so say all of us! I've always been in favour of not allowing tactical subs until 8 points down. I also think that would reduce the incentive to throw races, so I wouldn't see a problem with allowing tactical subs up to Heat 14. Never liked the concept of the rule, and it's next to useless anyway. I don't see that tinkering with the guest system is the solution. It would be better to find a system to do away with it completely - perhaps by giving a points advantage to weakened teams. That would more-or-less be what it is now. I'd prefer to introduce a points limit that prevents cheque book speedway, but allows teams to naturally develop up to a certain limit. For example, you could make the points limit (say) 42.00 without bonus, but allow an extra (say) 0.50 points for each rider retained from the previous season. Thus, if a team kept all its riders from the previous season it could build-up to a maximum 45.50, but if it only kept four it would only be able to built-up to 44.00. The aim is to give riders a chance to improve without jeopardising their place next season (because a team would lose points by dropping them), but equally it wouldn't allow teams to get stronger-and-stronger. I don't object to having more points for an away win, but I dislike the idea of awarding different points for a draw. In addition, the bonus point is important for keeping a meeting alive if a team is otherwise being beaten. What about 5 points for an away win, 4 points for a home win, 2 points each for a draw, and a bonus point for a home and away aggregate win?

It seems a lot (and probably is for Conference rider), but look at the high chance of moderate to serious injury to oneself, plus the ever present threat of public liability. Quite honestly, I'm amazed that any insurance company would even touch speedway, let alone do it for under GBP 20 per meeting. I expect speedway insurance is not an 'off-the-shelf' product so needs a specialist company or specific arrangements to be made. Unfortunately, with such a small market, that is never going to come cheap.

Look at the insurance risks involved in speedway though.

You cannot apply management consultancy principles to everything. There are what, a total of two engine manufacturers in speedway these days? Is one really going to bother to stay in the market if the other wins an exclusive deal? Didn't Dunlop decide the speedway market was no longer worth bothering about when Barum got the exclusive deal for tyres a few years ago. The speedway market is too small to get much in the way of bulk purchasing savings. It might be possible to draw-up a standard specification and then allow any manufacturer to build to that, but I can't see how making life difficult for the few remaining suppliers is going to solve anything.

There may be a case for standardising engines and components to reduce power, but a single manufacturer would do little to reduce costs. You'd just end-up in a monopoly situation as other manufacturers would drop-out of the market, and you'd be at the mercy of one supplier. In addition, standardised sealed engines are not as 'equal' as some people seem to think. I race in a kart class which uses sealed engines that can only be maintained by approved dealers. Are they all the same? Are they hell! Furthermore, there are always whispers that certain dealers will make non-standard modifications for certain drivers who are in with them. It's certainly the case that some drivers seem to blow-up a high number of engines.

A UK-born grandparent doesn't automatically entitle someone to a UK passport, but they are allowed to live and work in the country for (I think) up to 5 years. If they can prove continuous residence after that time, they can then become a British citixen. I would guess as time passes, there will be fewer and fewer Commonwealthers with a UK-born grandparent. Personally, I think restrictions between the UK and the likes of Australia, New Zealand and Canada are ridiculous, but I guess that's politics for you.

It lasted for just the 1993 season. It was basically an attempt to combine the 15-heat main match with the 6-heat 'second-half' matches that existed prior to 1993. The teams were increased from 7 to 8 riders with the two reserves (Nos. 7 and 8) being junior riders. They had two dedicated reserve races, and met second-strings (either the No.2 or No.6) in their other programmed heat. The other feature was the bottom, middle and top scorers after Heat 15, meeting in Heats 16 and 18. I suppose the intention was to try and give fans better value for money, whilst not increasing costs too much. I think another aim was to have more even-matched heats, with lower-order riders have easier rides. The main problem was the fact that matches dragged-on too long, and it didn't help that the interval was held after Heat 15. Another problem was that the 'evenly-matched' heats actually proved to be quite predictable and the extended format reduced the chances of a shock away wins. As previously mentioned, it was also difficult for the reserves to move-up into the main body of the team, whilst the nominated heats made life difficult for short-handed teams. I personally thought the 18-heat principle was a good one, and could have succeeded if the heat format was re-jigged slightly and the running of matches speeded-up. Unfortunately though, it wasn't given a chance and the BSPA reverted to a new 16-heat format the following season.

The classic 13-heat format gave the Nos 1 to 5 pretty equal rides (even if the No.2 got slightly easier opposition in theory), but easier rides to the Nos. 6 and 7. In one sense, this was a good thing because it allowed in-form riders to move-up into the main body of the team, whilst out-of-form riders could drop down and regain some confidence. Of course, it isn't totally fair, but arguably produces better racing. The current 15-heat format is pretty crap really in that some riders meet more than others, others don't meet at all, and the Nos 1 and 5 (or A and E in new money) have much harder rides (often meeting in Heats 13 and 15). Still, it's difficult to devise a decent 7-rider format for anything more than 14-heats.