Grand Central

That can't possibly be true. We have been told on several occasions here that this new competition is different to anything we have seen before. Innovation and total excitement are promised by people who know more than they have been willing to divulge. What you suggest is a tepid reheating of decades-old leftovers. Two semis and a final. And Poland seeded to the final. Surely not?

The simplest answer to the OP is that OAPs get a discount today, just because they always did in the past. Going back to a time when very few OAPs attending Speedway would have a private pension and would (then) have been on the poor side. That is/was the British tradition. The argument for taking the concession away is a fairly silly one. The negative impact of removing that 'discount' today would piss off so many that the promoters would be stupid to do so as the attandances would be hit badly. But then I would have thought SCB was very able to work that out for himself. So, I assume he just felt like prodding the hornet's nest due to boredom!

Of course it is always wise to take what these old duffers said with a large pinch of salt. The record of Coventry before 1979 under the old Rider Control Committee and after under the CMA formluas is remarkably similar. Actually, perhaps even better in some ways "when the averages came along" Not so much a failing of the avarages based system at all. Those promoters like Bamforth spent oodles more cash and others were (perhaps) just better skilled at working to the new regime than the CEO felt he was, especially after Peter Adams left Brandon. But the Bees still managed well, without the need to lament the change.

If I were to be cursed with so little personal knowledge of the past. That my views had to be shaped by YouTube alone. Then, hopefully, I too could be excused for coming to some pretty daft conclusions.

Actually, even that is only part of the story. We travelled to Wembley from Halifax and were ONLY interested in a KC win. It should have been the worst thing in the world for the despised Penhall to win and in THAT fashion. But he did. And yet even so ... that night remains in the top three Speedway meetings I have attended in my lifetime. And the other two up there are not GPs either. I do really love the SGPs ... but being honest probably only the odd one or two creeps into my Top Ten of best meetings ever. It isn't all about 'the racing'. Never has been The best EXPERIENCE is a combination of so much more that just 'counting up the passes' on the track. Perhaps you just had to be there. But Wembley 1981 really was THAT special. And trying to explain just how tangible that experience was to those who were not present is just utterly futile.

At least you have changed your tack so much that it now makes some sense. The original glib statements. So oft repeated, were just incorrect. Not semantics or opinion.

Yes, it was oddly written. But then Peter Oakes has had a few odd moments this year . I noticed he has even had to bring up the Italian weirdo again, when raking over those particular coals once more seems very ill judged. But his fixation is seemingly very strong. Personally, I would have thought that particular episode's coverage in the The Star would have gone down in the LOSER section itself, alongside the Peter Collins cock-up interview. Which were surely low points of the year to rival at least some of those that were chosen..

I'll informed nonsense yet again.

Yes... But liquidating the few assests they have may go some way offsetting just a bit of losses suffered over the last few years of this, latest, I'll fated exercise .

It is getting a bit silly to play this rather childish game of 'correcting' people when it suits. And then to finish each little bust of activity with this coquettish denoument of 'wait and see'. I do not get the impression that the full details will have been worth any of the teasing. The 'FIM Monster Speedway Damp Squib' starts in June.

That is just not true. There were FIVE men per SWC team Why would you say otherwise. And only Speedway could be mental enough to call THREE people a PAIR. For all the years that the World Best Pairs operated - which you have repeatedly said yourself was a competition YOU enjoyed - it managed with two men and only had the very occasional time that was reduced to a single man. But If they want or feel they must have three per team then at least show SOME sense and actually call them TRIOS.

I was going to respond myself. But it would be superfluous after reading SCBs post. I do not think I have seen a better critique. Brilliant.

Not so much 'interesting' as 'crucial' Surely no one could countenance a World Championship level event which gave more points to the pair who come second and third?

Far be it for me to suggest any such thing. But feel free to enlighten me on an alternative forum, discussion site or any other online facilty that offers such a representation of the 'wider soeedway public' that you consider better. If one exists. Then I imagine that you, and me, would be contributing to that. And not lurking around here.

So that is one more 'vote' for the new format. Well done ! As that side seem to be lagging a fair bit behind at the moment I suppose KT could be coming in as. a 'Joker' to record double votes for his 'team'. As I am sure the organisers will want to 'pep' the competition up with such exciting ideas that have been loved by so many in the sport before. This could turn into a winter long series.

I suppose it depends what sort of restuarants one frequents. General speaking I would choose something that I knew I liked from the menu That could be (say) Sirloin cooked medium rare. Not Liver or any other offal. If I sat down at my table and was told I had no say in what I was to eat. But had to hold my nose for a 'variety meat' selection of whatever was left in the kitchen. Then I may make my excuses and leave. But to request that I eat it first. And then just HOPE that I did not throw up later. No. Thank. You.

There certainly are. The SWC being one of the very best. But apparently we are supposed to keep our gobs shut until we have actaully seen this stupidly entited/conceived 'Speedway of Nations' next June. And not expose the folly of abandoning the SWC now. In my view, that would not be 'looking for a positive'. It would be just fiddling whilst Rome burns. .

In a world seemingly over-populated with supposedly sensible sycophants. I can take great pride in being tagged as 'silly and cynical' And in a lifetime of Speedway watching it is an attitude that has served me well. When others cannot seem to see the blatantly obvious in front of their eyes. There is great need for some people to keep pointing out that the Emperor is 'stark-bollock naked'.

Sounds more ominous, than exciting. It seems that 2017-18 is to be marked by a concerted lack of clarity from the administrators on the decisions made at their respective conferences. To the point of a 'news blackout' on particular elements. The BSPA seemed to have made important rule changes at their AGM that were not communicated publicly and then even changed them as well afterwards. Or not. Now we have the FIM throwing the Premier World Team Event out of the window and are replacing it with some sort of event the like of which has never been seen before. And they are keeping it secret. Or only telling ther family friends. Those who have agreed not to tell anyone else. I wonder why all successful sports are not run in this clearly superior fashion.

I wonder if the ACU (presumably Tony Steele) even requested any more than three places ? Was there even a debate within the CCP or did the 'same again' just go through on the nod ?

I agree completely. I think I have already nailed my colours to the mast ... I really dont like any type of pairs event. But what is this obsession with doing something extra in pairs events to 'encouraging team riding' ? We don't feel compelled to do that in league racing. After all, the team riding that really sets the pulse racing is (usually) a 5-1. As far as I am concerned ALL Speedway scoring whould be 3-2-1-0. A second and third is EQUAL to a win.. End of. Any contrivance that promotes the idea that winning a race is not the be all and end of Speedway is bonkers. It is a triumph of medoctracy with pairs settling for the minor places and giving up the race for the lead. That is not what we want happening race after race at a major championship The 21 heat 7 pairs format does at least allow the normal scoring to be used and mostly gives a decisive result. And a simple match race decides a tie. But is a bloody stupid subsitutue for the SWC.

By which time -when it is too late - they will see how perceptively correct us naysayers were all along.They will bin the whole idea. Then attempt to bring back the SWC. And spin the whole cock-up off as some sort of triumph. We have all been here so often before. 6 rider races, two-day world finals, major championships being held among cow pats in the wilderness. Time after time these so called passionate numpties get the chance to beggar about with this Sport. And then Sod off leaving the mess they have created behind. It really does make one sick.

You raise an excellent point on the pairs scoring. It is another annoying part of this daft format of Speedway. Personally I would NEVER change from 3-2-1-0 for any match of any type. And I absolutely hate those pairs events that do 4-3-2-0. But chances are that with folk who actually think Jokers are a good idea in a World Championship Final and have forced them on us for over 15 years. Just about ANYTHING is possible with this latest folly.

I cannot believe that you are perpetuating this daft train of thought. On the almost monthly 'Tai is an Aussie' thread we end up with people pointing out that 'Jason Crump was born in Bristol' or 'Mark Loram was born in Malta'. All of no relevance whatsoever. And here you are doing something very simlar. Really, really weird.

All the arguments in favour of ANY deal to get the sport on TV are as valid as always, especially for the long term position of the sport ... BUT The specific terms set out by BT look as if they are just impossible for any promoter to sign up for when they considered their costs for 2018. No one can realistically expect them to be able to deliver on a guaranteed 7 GP men. The costs would be immensely greater than anything that could be recouped from sponsorship or gate receipts. £3000 would not come close to the costs of putting on a TV meeting AND reducing admission to £10. Especially when you were committed in the contract to giving all the 'plum' meetings to that arrangement. I have always thought, and said here, that BT would be able to offer a poor 'take it or leave it' deal. Which they so definitely have. And I had been of the opinion that 'taking it' would turn out to be the correct move But if Flagrag is correct with the extra commitments being demanded of the promoters. They are just asking the impossible. So 'leaving it' will be the only POSSIBLE decision the Promoters can make, I don't think BT have left them with much choice, I'm afraid.