E I Addio

That is the point. We don't know what they have done because we are not old. We were told via Speedway Star that the Poole -v- Lakeside cancellation was going to be discussed by the SCB on 10th July and since then we have been told nothing. We have not even been told if that actually discussed it as planned or adjourned to another date. Then we have the Kings Lynn -v Peterborough appeal seeping out on the day of the Bellevue-v- Poole meeting and people are bound to think the worst. The whole thing gives the impression of being a big stitch-up and conspiracy. I am not saying it is a stitch-up but that's how it looks from a distance. The SCB could kill all this speculation by a few press releases on their website keeping the fans informed, and it is that lack of information, more than anything else that is sending the sport downhill.

There were lots of issues swirling around at that time. Stuart Douglas set out his position in an interview with SS in November 2010 but a number of clubs didn't want to listen to his ideas for stopping spiralling costs and the result is clubs now making bigger losses so we look like losing a lot of top riders in 2014 which is the very thing Duggo was trying to avoid if you read the article. Also when Cook and Douglas were calling for an independent body in May 2010, 6 months before the AGM Trump and Frost never came out at that stage and said "Yeah, great idea", it was only when it suited their purpose they started on about it. We can argue until the cows come home on the rights and wrongs of the winter of discontent, but nobody is going to change their opinion on it at this late stage. I am not saying that Cook, Douglas or anyone else is whiter than white. The issue that collectively the promoters have the sport in exactly the same position that two of their number were complaining about nearly 4 years ago. There may or may not be reasons why their cannot be an independent body, but there is no reason why there should be the "wall of silence" from the SCB that was being complained about. This is what really annoys me. The SCB are the body delegated by the ACU to have authority over the sport. On vitually every issue the fans are treated with the "wall of silence". Nothing is every explained, nothing ever clarified.It leads to speculation, some it accurate, some not so accurate, and fans be kept in the dark are leaving the sport. It would cost no more money and no more effort for the SCB to be more forthcoming and it would do a lot of good, but it never happens. It just leads me to wonder, who is it at the SCB, or who has control over the SCB that is responsible for this wall of silence?

Difficult to disagree with that.

That may well be the case, but one of the other complaints was the "wall of silence" from the SCB. It seems to me that seems to be at the root of a lot of problems. The SCB, rather like the Royal Family adopt a policy of "don't complain, don't explain" so fans are left in the dark, the sport appears to carry on like a ship without a rudder, fans leave and now it seems that sky are on the way out. A more open policy from the SCB could make such a big difference but nothing ever changes.

Because they wanted a 45 point limit that would have pushed Belle Vue and Eastbourne out of the EL. Swindon and Poole were also in favour of a 45 point limit but they discussed it rationally without walking out and were bright enough to see the damage that would be done. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation walking out is not the way to do business. The root of it all was that animosity between Ford and Trump. They were washing their dirty linen in public well before the AGM and it was always going to blow up between them for one reason or another. Bottom line is that in over three years nothing but nothing has changed apart from more fans leaving.

And the other parties are ?

Interesting statement here from Jon Cook and Stuart Douglas, pointing out that the sport needs an independent body, complaining about a complete wall of silence from the SCB, promoters stretching the rule book to the extreme, and allegations of Poole cheating. http://londonbikers....ritish-speedway The interesting thing is that it is so relevant it could have been issued today but in fact it dates from May 2009. The fans are entitled to ask what has been happening over the last 3 and half years, why are we in the same position today as we were then, are the majority of the promoters happy with the status quo, if not who is blocking the changes and why do the claims of Poole cheating persist season after season?

The inimitable Peter Karlsson

Read the thread. Sidney pointed out several sportsmen with perceived foreign connections who never quite hit it off with the British public, I was just pointing out the opposite was true with Briggs who rode for (and captained ) GB enough times despite being a New Zealander. Of course he wasn't universally, popular, nobody is, but I would say coming runner up (twice I think it was ) in Sportsnight Personality of the Year suggests he was more popular than most.

The speedway public took to Briggo though. Still massively popular decades after he retired. I wonder if to some extent its more due to personality than nationality.

He looks like Plug from the Bash Street Kids.

Are you going to do a report for the Peterborough Evening Telegraph ? It would be a good follow up to your article on Syria. Great for your journalistic career.

At the moment they play into the hands of the team with the best top two. Clubs like Poole, and Wolves can put the likes of Lindgren, Woffinden, Ward and Hancock out before heat 12 then have them again in heats 13 and 15 when points can really be made up. As for home track advantage, the home side also has to contend with an away track disadvantage. Its like cricket, the grounds men prepare the wicket to suit the home bowlers, and any track curator worth his salt prepares the track the way the home riders like it. Good batsmen, like good speedway riders deal with all conditions and those teams in both sports that can adjust to the biggest variety of conditions are the ones that win things. I totally disagree. If you are living in the real world I am not sure what world I am living in but it really doesn't matter. I am a big fan of Freddie Lindgren and I had one chance of seeing him at Lakeside this year and if he was out in heats 13 and 15 its alright by me. The fact that he won heat 13 and got beat in Heat 15 makes it even better. Those are great memories that I will reflect upon in the winter. And no, I never ever tire of seeing Peter Karlsson out in the big heats. Great sportsmen are never boring. Not to me anyway.

In the days you are talking about the old National League as the top league was called only had about 8 teams and there was such a wide bracket of abilities the "big five" were so much better than the rest they were still on 10 and 11 point averages so if they had gone off the gate with the rest the races would have mostly been over by the first bend. I think I am also correct in saying that back then the reserves would go off scratch and the normal team men started 5 or 10 yards behind. Anyway from the formation of the British League in 1965 it seems that everyone went off the gate until the golden Double was introduced.

Going back to my schooldays now but for a short spell at Hackney the teams came on parade to the tune of the old Harringay Racers (which was long closed by that stage) then they developed the idea and made a record of there own called "The Hackney Hawks" but the lyrics weren't very imaginative. The only bit that I can remember went on the lines of "The tapes go up and they're off like a gun, they don't give up till the race has been won". Don't think they even play at Sid and Doris Bonkers wedding anniversary these days though. Shame really. It's just what's needed at Cardiff.

Absolutely right there Sidney but add to that he had a nice tidy riding style and always good machine control. Great rider to watch. tool a fair number of track records as well, as I recall.

Look at the opening line of Arthur Cross' post that I was replying to. It says "Peterborough is a nightmare to make it look busy when its on tv". He goes on to say that 1500 people in Wolves makes it look a lot busier than the same number in EAOS. I was not saying its just camera positions, its a combination of things including non-regular race night, type of stadium camera positions coupled with the fact that a certain number of people are always going to stay at home when its on TV. Also Peterborough according to its owner gets poor crowds most of the time anyway.

I suppose you have hit on something that is at the root of a whole range of problems in the sport. Not much hope if that's the case. You have really depressed me now. :cry:

Who were they then ?

That is a very good point. You also have to consider the camera angles. At most TV meetings the cameras are situated mainly at the start and first two bens and are thus facing the parts of the track where least people go. As you say it is easy to make Wolves look busy because you can get a camera shot on an area where most people stand and even a few hundred at that point would probably seem reasonably well-filled, but I have been to stock-car meeting at Arena Essex where there were over 4000 people, with most of them standing on what would be the home straight and first two bends of the speedway track and if TV camera's were in their usual position it would still seem that there were not many people on bend 3 and 4 where the cameras were pointing.

The issue raised by Len Silver 45 years ago, is not guests as such, but it is teams who get guests that are much better better on a particular track than the rider they replace. Poole recent win at Eastbourne is an example of guests making a team stronger, which in devalues the league as a competition IMO. It seems to me that when guests replace a rider in an away meeting the guest should be on the basis of the away average of the rider they replace not the overall average. If a rider has an average of say 8 at home and 6 away giving an overall average of 7, his guest replacement should be a 6 point rider not a 7 point rider. If there is to be any disadvantage as result of a guest then that disadvantage should work against the team with a a rider missing, not favour them as the present system often does.

No. Like everyone else that can't argue on the facts you put words in peoples mouths instead of reading what is actually said. Sky have been around speedway long enough to know what the crowds are like and they haven't suddenly decided in the last two weeks that the crowds are not good enough, and they know that crowds drop on non-race nights. Punters going through the turnstiles don't pay Sky's bills. Sky's income obviously comes from advertisers and that in turn is based on the size of the TV audience not the live audience. In fact Sky's payments to the club reflect the fact that crowds drop when the meeting is on TV A lot of rubbish is talked about attendance figures, usually by people who are not there. Its notoriously difficult to estimate a crowd size and even more difficult when looking at it on TV because the TV camera's don't show all the crowd. At tracks like Wolves it is easy to make it seem like a decent crowd because everyone is in a fairly limited area. If you put the same number of people in somewhere like Coventry or Lakeside it will look a lot less because they are spread out more.

I found these programme notes of Len Silvers on the Hackney website. They were originally published in the Hackney programme of 29th March 1968-- more than 45 years ago and they are as true now as they were then about using guests on a horses for courses basis. 45 years on and the same old practice is allowed to continue on an ever increasing scale increasingly spoiling the league as a competition with any merit .Am I the only one that gets annoyed by this practice of horses for courses guests that IMO borders on cheating ? 45 years and still nothing done about it.:- Len Silver Talking 29th March 1968 When, oh when, are the wise men that control our sport going to realise that "guest" riders are undesirable? Last week I disagreed with Wolves’ use of Malcolm Simmons, and tonight I disagree with Glasgow’s use of Olle Nygren. Of course, it must be admitted that the arguments in favour of the use of "guests" is very powerful indeed, BUT, surely it must be wrong for a team to be allowed to use a "horses for courses" policy? And what about the ludicrous situation that developed last week when Wolves' boss Bill Bridgett was allowed a guest for Airey because of a financial dispute, while we were not even allowed the use of the "Rider Replacement" scheme in the enforced absence of our third heat leader Des Lukehurst because his illness was not of long enough duration? I can tell you all, that right or wrong, win, lose or draw, the Hawks will not use guests unless the regulations clearly show no possibility of dispute, and no possibility of gaining unfair advantage by their use. When we win the League battle it will be because OUR team is the best.

The BSPA was created in the first place because the independent body previously running the sport had made such a muck up more than half the riders in the country were riding in a pirate league.

Why would Sky want a big crowd ? If people are watching at home they are helping the viewing figures and watching the adverts that pay for the meeting. For every person in the crowd that's another person the companies paying for the adverts are not reaching.