baldinhio

This is putting a lot of responsibility on Tony Steele particularly in light of his performance in Warsaw. I agree with Racers and Royals in believing BSI should ultimately be responsible to the punters as they are the ones making around £2m profit per annum from speedway. Can you clarify who you feel is ultimately responsible to the paying public when a meeting is abandoned due to poor preparation be it the track, starting gate or other controlled items (I acknowledge heavy rainfall may cause abandonment with no one to blame). At the same time any update you can provide on the long awaited enquiry into the Warsaw fiasco would be appreciated.

Do you know how this sum is distributed?

I refer to "People at the top" being short sighted. That can include both the FIM & the BSI. I am not privy to knowing what figure is paid to the FIM and can only look at the BSI retained profit figure which was last reported at £2,000,000 plus per annum. I totally acknowledge the BSI have no contractual obligation to develop riders and as part of IMG their primary motivation is profit. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with making a profit but at the same time some may question the distribution of the "Cake". That said, my guess is nothing will change given the riders rarely act together and there is no pressure group to fund development. In a previous response you stated the BSI were "Beyond reproach" which I questioned not least because of a non personal email response to a hand written letter. I appreciate you are a fan of the BSI and as declared to others do business with them but do you really believe they are beyond reproach on Warsaw and the nature of their response?

From my own conversations with GP riders the financial returns from GP's are poor (Maybe the top three or four are better looked after?). The riders desire to be involved outweighs the the lack of financial reward. However, for any strike to be effective it needs all the participants to act together and generally speaking speedway riders are not team players. That said they stood together in Warsaw. Time will tell if they or an agent have the inclination to collectively challenge the BSI. It would be good to hear a response from Philip Rising as his comment on the BSI being beyond reproach instigated my post. Your idea of some of the profit finding it's way into development is credible but as with rugby and football the people at the top have somewhat short sighted views.

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree? BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify? You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough? If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree? BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify? You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough? If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?