RobMcCaffery

Yes. They make mistakes like this. Looks like the tennis has finished. You could email them.

And what would tennis fans say if they suddenly found themselves watching speedway instead of the end of a knife-edge tennis match? Mistake was not to schedule the speedway on Eurosport 2.

In that case it would have started at 6... Looks like they've just decided it's too long to keep the crowd waiting. British Eurosport is now showing general filler material, waiting to join the main service. This shows how Eurosport is a very, very different animal to Sky with its various services all needing to wait for each other sometimes. For example parts of Europe get live Premiership football on Eurosport. It's quite a complex set-up.

Looks like Eurosport have enough clout to delay the Torun meeting until they're ready to show it. This could be a taster for the European Championship. Bear in mind these events are run very differently to the GPs and by a rival to BSI so it seems Eurosport can dictate things to their own convenience.

It's because the main Eurosport service is showing an over-running tennis match. The British version is just padding-out until both can go to the speedway.

No, just a case of them considering an over-running tennis match to be more important. Would you like the end of a late-running speedway meeting to be taken off to go to another live event?

Still Superbikes on the British service.

Eurosport have always had a reputation for flexible scheduling, mainly due to much of their sports coverage being live. Looks like we're getting the first sample of it with our sport. I think you'll find the trailers and ads are automated hence the trail going out 7 mins after the programme should have started. There are several versions of Eurosport, hence the British prefix to ours. We've got Superbikes while mainland Europe has tennis on the main service. Obviously they've got to synchronise both for both to go to Torun.

British Eurosport 1 just rain a trailer for the meeting, advertising a 6 pm start. Unfortunately they played this out at 6.07 p.m..... Ads now. (Edit - back to Superbikes)

The lottery comparison is truly absurd. I'm not dictating to you how you should enjoy a meeting, I'm stating why I didn't. Winning a million would be wonderful. Paying out for a poor night's entertainment isn't exactly a sane comparison. You have the right to enjoy what you saw. I didn't. Can you understand that?

I expected an adequate track that would give me £45-worth of entertainment. It is most certainly not a delusion to expect value for money. You go for 'the occasion'. I pay to watch good speedway. Each to their own and you are perfectly free to spend yours how you wish. I did not consider I got value for money last night and am very unlikely to return. If you're happy with what you had, fine. I've seen plenty of tracks over my 43 years of involvement with speedway. Last night's was below acceptable standards for a temporary track. It's happened too often for what is an expensive night out. BSI expect me to pay good money. I expect good service in return. No matter who the finger points at it's BSI's business. I am sure they are equally upset, but how often are we to be expected to put up with situations like last night?

Well, I finally made my first visit to the GP and it will probably be my only visit. I paid £45 on the day. For that I got an impressive atmosphere and presentatrion, a high standard of riding but a desperately disappointing level of racing on an incompetent track, viewed from a seat with good sightlines but about as far out of the stadium as you can get. I did not get value for money. Instead I am expected to make allowances. Charge me £20 and I might, but not £45. I'm lucky though - I only live an hour's train ride away so at least I didn't have the travel and accommodation costs of many. I've learned my lesson. It was an experience, especially the squalid arrangements for ticket sales on the day. I know most book in advance but I only got the chance to go on the morning of the event. Apart from the negative aspects of a poor meeting BSI's incompetent track robbed them of a prize asset on the night - a Brtish rider capable of winning the event. Yes I know they worked miracles to get it as close to right overnight. They shouldn't have had to. It did remind me of Wembley though - the Ian Thomas indoor events at the Arena....

Some people allow gripes to become obsessions then spend their time trying to justify their dislike by forcing it on others. Naturally the sheep-like mentality of some sees them join in. Everyone has a right to their dislikes but to just keep on ramming their view down everybody else's throats is rather unhealthy. We've just had some wonderful Grands Prix and yet this same depressing sad bunch can only whinge about commentary.

I'm pretty sure that between Middlesbrough Teessiders in 1968/9 and Teesside Tigers they rode for a couple of years as Teesside Teessiders, certainly in my first two seasons at Rayleigh in 1971 & 2. I can't comment on 1970. I seem to remember the change to Tigers came in '73. Rob McCaffery.

What shone through in the interview was how much Richard cares still for Exeter Speedway and its supporters and how highly they regard him. I hope the published version does justice. As is often the case wheen looking back to good times, they just didn't last long enough, often for riders as much as the fans. Regards, Rob McCaffery.

This really is so very tiresome. So the qualification to be a promoter is to be psychic and be a winner. I can assure you that some of the most loathsome promoters I have experienced had no back history in the sport and no proven record of success. In my opinion being successful doesn't entitle someone to be obnoxious. Steve's actually a very genuine and friendly guy - amazingly when he's treated appallingly that diplomacy is worn down, as quite frankly is mine. Anyway, I've stated my points as clearly as I can. I was there, you weren't. You clearly thricve on a row - I despise them, as I do relentless attacks on honest, decent people from those hiding behind fake names. Anyway, I'm delighted to talk about Hackney Hawks but on this other, unrelated subject I've said my piece, no doubt to the relief of others trying to read this thread. If you wish to carry on your attacks against Steve please open a new thread and if you really stand by your words why not put your name to them? By the way, I've tolerated this for a long time but it's would HAVE and could HAVE, not of. See, my patience really is exhausted. Rob McCaffery

Steve was ousted after the first meeting which went ahead against his wishes. You can't blame someone for subsequent events when they're not involved. As for relying on a partner, well many many people have run speedways with a partner. Indeed many promoters have run for many seasons over the yearts without any financial involvement of their own, including at the present time. As for diplomacy, well anyone who ever had dealings with several promoters in the past would consider Steve to be a model of reason by comparison. Belle Vue in the eighties was a particular horror story, for example. Like I've said before, it's very easy to take standpoints based on observations - especially if the story's being told, as usual by the winners. I've met some thoroughly disgusting people in speedway over my four decades. Believe me Steve Ribbons isn't one of them. Now back to Hackney.... Rob McCaffery.

Tina, don't worry. It takes passion to achieve something, especially in speedway. The knowledge will follow with experience.I'm very much of the school (a very old one) that believes if it's good speedway the title of the competition or its 'meaning' really isn't that relevant. Sadly we've seen the opposite attitude prevail in speedway for many years which in turn has come close to killing off anything that isn't league racing or the World Championship; challenges, individuals, pairs, four-team-tournaments and even second-half individual racing that did so much to bring on young talent. Enjoy Leicester. The old track was a special place, as was Hackney (crowbarring the discussion back on-topic ;-) ). Rob McCaffery.

Apologies then. The involvement of someone who cannot be mentioned on the BSF aroused my suspicions. Rob McCaffery.

You are of course quite right in most points but please cut Paul some slack over the use of 'Mickey Mouse'. Paul's one of the most genuine people I've met in the sport. I would disagree with him though about this view, but not lose one speck of respect for him. In many wauys this follows-on from my last posting and I apologise for leaving Leicester out of the list of 'nomad' teams, especially since their dream is now coming true. The problem is for every Hackney,, Dudley, or Rye House there was a Southampton - we were told in the latter case it was a serious attempt to get the sport back there but the jury is very much open on that one. It was easy for some promoters to put on challenges against lost teams just to make a few quid out of speedway-starved supporters. I'm sure in many cases the intentions were genuine to give fans 'another night'. Personally I'd have umpteen challenge matches against whatever named team, you like if it gave us back: Hackney, Cradley Heath Wimbledon Canterbury Ellesmere Port Oxford Reading Crayford (yes even them) and so many other tracks. I'd dare to include Rayleigh and I'm sure Paul would include Romford. Yes, it can be dismissed as dreaming but in several cases it's borne fruit as Leicester will find to their joy this year. A few challenge matches are a small price to pay, and anyway, if they're fun what's wrong with them? Rob McCaffery.

It's very simple. I've known Steve Ribbons for years and have been acting as a helpful ear over the phone for over ten years now. I was involved in the 99 Rye House revival and also with him at Wimbledon and Sittingbourne. I would have been helping out at Mildenhall where he wanted me to be the meeting presenter, an offer I hsad to decline simply through the distance involved. I did not get involved with Norwich/Swaffham because I didn't agree with the idea. As for my own credentials - forty years of following the sport, several years as a meeting presenter and announcer, including five years at Rye House, an occasional speedway journalist and for a frustratingly brief spell chief presenter and commentator on speedway for Britain's first dedicated sports TV channel. Yes there is plenty I don't know, and many others know far more than I but I think I've earned a right to be at least heard. Most of all, I've done my time on freezing cold terraces, hundreds of miles from home supporting my team and living speedway since I was first captivated by it in 1971. Of course I don't know everything that has gone with Steve over the years but I do know plenty, and far more than the vast majority of posters on this forum. When Steve came to me to tell me about Mildenhall I stressed to him the need for this one to work - that he needed capital and in turn the Fen Tigers desperately needed stability. Steve's finances now are very different from his days as a willing fan. It's very, very easy on a forum for hearsay and rumour to become 'facts' and indeed that has happened over Mildenhall this year. Now 25 Year Fan may have insight that I do not have but since he like most on this forum hide behind a false name how can I judge, except on what I read here. Make no mistake Rye House's revival was started by Steve, as was Wimbledon's. In the lattter case it is incredibly difficult to tell the story since an individual concerned has a hold over the BSF and has all comment about him banned. This posting may also be deleted for me just stating that. (I'm keeping a copy this time in case it is). It's hard to defend someone when the whole story can't be told. Steve has been harshly treated and yes his combative style has made important, influential enemies. There should be no confusion over an apparent conflict between my forum postings and my support of Steve. Both are based on my sincere beliefs. There is an old line of 'Give a dog a bad name..." Well I am furious that Steve wasn't given the chance to clear his and that the usual ill-informed judgemental rubbish keeps being repeated by those who really haven't got a clue. Now, this is about Hackney, not Steve, but short of transferring these postings to a separate thread I have no choice than to post here. In 1999 we were criticised for creating a nomad team in the form of Rye House, quite offensively and ignorantly by an individual in power within the NL. Well, I see the creation of Hackney as being a natural progression. Many others have been inspired by Steve's vision and supporters of Wimbledon, Redcar, Scuinthorpe, Weymouth and perhaps Dudley can be thankful that he bothered to do something, even though his reward has been so viciously undeserved. All of those were represented by 'nomad' teams following Steve's example. I look forward to seeing Hackney race on their own track again one day and it will be heighterned by the knowledge that I played my part in supporting a friend establish a principle - that someti8mes, if we dare to dream we CAN make a difference even if we get despised for doing so. Rob McCaffery.

Many thanks to you both. I just try to say honestly how I feel. It's very reassuring to know some are listening. I hope you both enjoy the season to come after this quite appalling winter. Rob McCaffery.

I trimmed the post after I'd woken-up.... Now I see that it and my original posting have both been deleted, presumably because I made a justifiably adverse comment about someone in Steve's past who has the BSF management running scared. I defend Steve because he is a friend and has earned my respect. By contrast I cannot respect someone who attacks another while hiding behind a pseudonym. 25 minute fan made a series of witless comments about Steve's past including an allegation that I had to refute: Bear in mind Steve recently had to take this poster to task: 'If the Rye House revival in 99 had to be rescued it was very well-hidden from everyone else involved, but then how would I know what was going on, I was only involved in it all? Yes further cqapital needed to be introduced to actually get the Rockets back to Rye House the following year but it didn't have to be performed the disgusting way it was.' If people prefer to believe the word of an anonymous critic against someone involved in what actually happened then good luck to them. My involvement in the sport is very limited these days and it is quite simply down to people like 25 Minute Fan, anonymous windbags talking what emerges from an ox's behind. The forum's full of them. Thankfully the sport isn't but the stench spreads. Some people try to achieve, others just to destroy. I know which side I'd rather be on. Rob McCaffery.

Firstly i am delighted to see the Fen Tigers saved, but I would think it very unfair to say that Steve was the only stumbling block to the original application, bearing in mind that reports from that meeting suggest that the objections were as much about Dave Coventry. Evidently those reports must have been inaccurate. Now that matters have been resolved I wouldn't want Steve to be the scapegoat yet again, principally for standing up to the same BSPA that so many others condemn and yet do nothing to back their words up. Incidentally the rightly praised link-up with Ipswich was part of the original plan. Time to draw a line under it. Steve has walked away from the sport and some of the Wimbledon people can claim some kind of satisfaction. The Fen Tigers have been saved and I am sure it will be far less of a fight to survive from now on. Rob McCaffery.

Derek, I of course mourn the closure of any track and Crayford's loss was of course far greater than Hacknety's but there WAS a loss for some at Hackney - they lost their team and found their track invaded by strangers, both in terms of management but also on the terraces. I can assure you that my wife wept no crocodile tears, she simply walked away from the sport and only attends very occasionally now to see old friends. As ever in these situations it's shades of grey, not black and white. In some ways my Rockets did the same thing when they moved into Rye House from Rayleigh and I'm sure there were those at Hoddesdon who mourned the previous amateur days. I miss Rayleigh every time I go to speedway. Every track I visit fails to be 'home', including Rye House, even after 37 years. The only track that comes close in terms of location and atmosphere is Swindon but in some ways that just emphasises the loss. For Hawks supporters like Jay the whole set-up had changed at Waterden Road - team name, colours, riders, management and even the circuit itself and the speedway she knew had closed to her every bit as much as London Road had to Kestrels' fans. I'm sure many others took a different view but I suspect some agreed. I didn't agree with her but I respect her opinion. In any case she's an Upton Park girl and they're not known for gentle persuasion ;-) It's all over a quarter of a century in the past now. Perhaps it's time to move on? If Hackney had survived and the Rockets not been revived in 1999 and Hackney were now launching a Rockets NL team I'd be overjoyed to see my team back, in whatever form. I hope Hackney's fans respond in the same way to the new Hawks and that Rye House and Lakeside fans get behind the team in addition to their own. Hackney hsad its tragic side but my memory will always be of some of the finest racing I've ever seen. I'm delighted to see the name return and if, IF, it starts something rolling, like we did with the Rockets in 99 and we see a new Hackney found a space in the post-Olympic East End then nobody will be more delighted than me. The Hawks were my Rockets' parent - the Kestrels were my Rockets' troublesome brother ;-) Rob McCaffery