BWitcher

I haven't implied anything that wasn't said. You quite clearly stated. USUALLY THE AMERICANS. I've asked you who these Americans were as I can only think of two, Hancock and Hamill.

You've hit on one of speedway's biggest problems here Dean and it's a mentality shared by many fans. A successful business identifies the way it wishes to operate then works out a way to overcome any hurdles. Speedway goes about it the opposite way and thinks of the hurdles first and immediately gives up.

I was trying to be polite. You're claiming that the riders.. and I quote.. usually the USA ones..decided they should be rewarded with massive contracts and signing on fees. Now as I've said.. there were only two USA riders of top quality by the time Sky came on board. Ermolenko wasn't at the level he once was. So was it really 'usually' the USA ones? Of course, it shouldn't be forgotten that it wasn't long before Hancock left the British scene and Hamill began to tail off in his effectiveness. So who were the 'usually the USA ones' for the next 10 years and more of the Sky coverage?

Masters wasn't having a good year till he moved to No 4. Schlein was flying at No 4, less so since he moved to a heat leader spot.

'Usually USA ones'. I forgot we were inundated with those. Hancock and Hamill I assume you mean? So that's your theory, all the fault of Hancock and Hamill?

You have stated that crowds pre sky are higher than now. You are wrong. Whatever sky have or have not done at 'grass roots level' is an entirely different argument.

No thanks. I prefer to look at the average attendances for a whole season rather than just one tv game. You should try it, might help you making stupid comments. Average crowds in 1987 in the top flight of Rugby League were less than 5000. They are now around 9000.

We shouldn't have signed Thorssell. Period. Lindgren was simply an option, if we couldn't afford him we should have gone elsewhere. You are right in your second sentence, but that's what happens when you mess up your team building, it only takes something else to go wrong and problems escalate quickly.

Stop bringing Lindgren into it. It's not relevant. What you need is riders to maintain their average as a minimum.. and improve them to be successful. When we sign a rider almost guaranteed to lower his average pressure is then put on other members of the team who have to increase theirs by more to compensate. Thorssell, Heeps and Howarth have been the positions letting us down. As stated, Thorssell himself hasn't been letting us down, the management let us down by putting him in that position. Howarth has been blighted by injuries which effected his performances... and Heeps I'm afraid has been woeful.

Let me get this straight. You expected Thorssell to add to his average at the start of the season. He has dropped a pt. Hence you think he is doing a decent job? Err yes... that's laughable! Thorssell's performances haven't been laughable. The club signing him as No 1 on the average he had was.

Nothing to do with the 'Poole' mentality. Over the years numerous riders have had to have a season away from the club due to their averages not fitting or being right for that particular season. Far bigger names than Thorssell.

Somehow thinking riding one point below your average is 'decent' is laughable. Although, I'll cut you some slack because in some respects it isn't bad... and I'll agree that he hasn't done too bad to keep his average from dropping by just a pt. What it highlights is what a terrible decision it was to pick him in the first place. If they couldn't afford Lindgren, they STILL shouldn't have signed Thorssell with the average he was saddled with. Not an attack on Thorssell, just the realities of the average system.

We've been agreeing on a little too much of late...

On a thread that is about the decline of Sports due to Sky's involvement.. you say Sky has thrown money at other sports and speak of how in decline they are it was logical to assume you were agreeing with the OP thesis as you gave no other reason for their decline. Now you've clarified it we seem pretty much in agreement, there are lots of factors involved, the digital age being a big one. How much certain sports have actually 'declined' is open to argument. 'Evolved' might be a better word in some cases.

Dropping 1pt from your average is not a decent job. It's under performing to the role you were employed for. If he wasn't expected to replace close to the level of Lindgren's scoring he shouldn't have been selected in the first place. Let's put it this way, if the whole team dropped almost 1pt each from their average, would the team also be doing a 'decent job'?

So you want clubs to make a profit without taking into account their income. The second part of your statement I agree with.. the rest you are wrong on.

Except there are. I've listed all the ones who made a profit in 2016/17. There were only 3 Premier League sides who didn't.

Two? Some of them are going ten minutes early.

Right.. So the argument is, Sky has pumped money into lots of sports, given them massive exposure and that is what has caused them all to 'decline'. No other reasons.. all Sky's fault? Seriously? lol Just think for a moment where some of these sports would be if Sky hadn't got involved with them....

Well, let's look at accounts for year end 2017. Name one Premier League club... I'll go more.. Here are the ones who made a profit: Arsenal, Bournemouth, Burnley, Everton, Hull, Leicester, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Stoke, Swansea, Tottenham, Watford, WBA, West Ham

Another living on a different planet. Rugby Union has not thrived?

The signing of Thorssell has been shown to be a mistake, averaging a pt less than his starting average. That was pretty obvious from the get go. Howarth has suffered numerous injuries which have impeded him this season and due to the poor form of Heaps, Morris was thrust into the main body of the team which of course has greatly effected his performances/confidence. That 'should' have been compensated by an upturn in the performance of Heeps but it hasn't happened. Masters started a little below par but has been flying since he went to No 4 (a la Thorssell last year). Schlein is likely to go to No 1 soon and his average will take a hit there too. Changes aside, the key thing now is if Thorssell moves away from No 1 he must ride at 5. It would be absolutely insane to put him back at 4 and elevate his average again for next season.

Not sure what planet you are on, or whether you've just copied and pasted the opening post from another source.. The downward spiral of football since Sky? lmao. Seriously? Then you try and cite a Thursday night Rugby League game as proof that has also had a downward spiral? Rugby League attendances are higher now than they were pre Sky. Absolute nonsense article/post.

Little bit late for that now.

Definitely not purpose built. Outside viewing there was awful. As mentioned above it was the London Lions that were there for a season, in 1996.