Parsloes 1928 nearly

New residential estate recently built near there - which funny enough is called...: Paradise Park! I aagree though that to me, paradise would be Speedway back in Lea Bridge!!!

The ideal place for a new Speedway track (it seems to me) is in an industrial or retail type park off a major road away from residential areas. There are dozens and dozens of these within the M25 in areas which could certainly be defined as 'London'.. So is finding an all-new venue here in the capital THAT impossible..? It shouldn't really be...

Ha, ha, ha. Will LOVE to see what the GP apologists make of it if Scotty really IS the replacement!!!

I believe it did rain in '74. I wasn't there then but was in '77 and have only just dried out now!! The only time it's EVER been wetter than that night, Noah built his Ark!!

Sorry Phil but this could not be further from the truth.. Each GP may well indeed end up with a grand final but many times (especially under the current format..)the actual significance of who wins it in the context of the ultimate champion is totally marginal.. I've said it before and I'll say it again but I've been to many very important events over a range of sports but NONE even come close to comparing to the sheer breathtaking excitement of the old World Speedway Final. I can't in truth believe that you, Phil, with soooo much more expereience of those than I have can't agree..: which, as others have suggested, does make me now wonder why you say otherwise..

I agree 100%.

<unnecessary long quote of above post removed> I appreciate the huge detail of your response and - in contrast to so many other contributors to this particular thread - that you put a point based on facts, so of course I'll respond. My point is that in the past (sorry others for mentioning the 'P' word! ), they'd be no issue of a young gun like Darcy refusing to take part in the World Championship. He would of course take part from its earliest stages or from whenever he was required to and would stand and fall on his ability. So like Moore, Lee, Collins he might make a WF as a teenager ; like them fail to win it (yes, I got it wrong about Mirac but it was long before even my time!!); but be back for more. And all three of them were indeed world champs in their extremely early 20s. The point is that Ward (and some others before him in this very different GP ear) are choosing to say no to even being in the championship... Now I can't explain why they feel this way and choose to do this; but I can as a fan (as that's ALL I am) express regret at this; and wonder, as a personal opinion, if the fact that they do is good for the sport's premier competition... No, of course Ove and Ivan's world titles in their 30s wasn't bad for the sport but both were fighting off the best youngsters to win those crowns not just those of their 'generation' weren’t they! The only thing I'd disagree with you is about the maths of how much easier it is to STAY in the GP system then it is to qualify. Surely it IS the case that once in that 15 you only need to beat (a maximum of) seven other riders to stay in (and we all know finish 9th. and 10th and you’re highly likely to get that 'wild card' too..)- whereas for others it’s a whole qualifying process of 16 riders per meeting, what three or four of those and then top three or four in the final one. Come on, I'm no mathematician but I can clearly see in which pool the maths favour you!! Oh and the point (and stats!) about the poor quality of the 'Continental' (sic) qualifiers in the latter years...? Well sure, there were no Plechanovs or Plechs; but what are you suggesting...: that a country of HUGE significance like Poland should be de-barred from having competitors in the World Championship just because they are (or were..) in a lull..? Yes, the masses will now shout. But hold on... Look at without question the two biggest sporting events in the world now (and in history), the Olympics and the Football World Cup: they have competitors in them with no chance (or very little chance..) of winning but are there because it's a world-wide competition assembled on a national basis. Yes, why should a Bangladeshi sprinter keep out a USA college athlete from the competition with a faster time? Or New Zealand play in the FIFA World Cup with the Czechs not there..? Because it's a championship with restrictions on numbers of competitors from one country or continent; er, because it's a WORLD championship! No, that's NOT fair but ALL proper WCs work that way. And yes, let's take that argument about a 'pure' championship to its limit and let's be clear no Brit, no Chris Harris or anyone else would be representing GB in next year's (or last year's!!) SGP..! Pragmitism, commercial considerations and the global perspective means you configure a WC in the way you do.. That was the case then and sure as hell is now too!! The difference is the equality and opportunity in qualification within those perameters and that's where I think we've gone wrong now..

A one-off WF at Wembley or the London Olympic Stadium and I think you could more or less guarantee (the first time anyhow..) a capacity crowd..

Er, I have NOT brought it up much at all and you clearly misread my posting... And let's get this straight the decision to have that dual-branding rather than one combined one was that of the two clubs no-body else...

Says everything that needs to be about how much our sport's World Championship has changed... If people think that's for the better good luck to them... Personally I'd say that this has all been the most retrograde of steps and we shall live to regret it...

I was thinking of F1... Not saying inferior in terms of its commercial success, but inferior in terms of how bloody difficult it would be (without HUGE money) to get into...

Indeed - we should live in hope NOT sadness!!! In truth I'm usually among the more bullish in saying that there should be hope in our hearts about getting something out of the larger Olympics Park/Eton Manor grounds site but yes, you're right, brave hopes won't win anything there needs to be action... A leading local promoter has said he'll sit down and chat with me about thoughts on the subject once the season's over, so let's see what transpires... At the end of the day though, we'd need people with financial commitment asnd I'm afraid I certainly ain't in a position (next year THREE kids at university!! ) to provide any of that...! Went visiting Central Park in Sittingbourne yesterday and what an ideal venue for Speedway that is, and there's PP - so though not London clearly, there IS real hope for a new and top class venue at that here in the south-east... Simple train journey from the capital too...

Well, like others I always thought this way of dividing up the Sheffield and Scunny names was rather odd... But I understood the matrix being used: if Owlerton staged the away NL fixture then the home team in the 'return' branded the visitors as Sheffield and similarily for the EWR... So that's worked all year.. But come on, at the end of the day this side IS a Scunthorpe/Sheffield combined side (listed that way coz alphabetical!) and surely the record books (assuming they hold onto win the title today...) will show it that way. So surely the time has now gone to call the side Scunny today merely because the first leg of the Final was staged by them... It IS a combined side and both sets of supporters (saints and Prowlers) should feel equally entitled to call the side (of the edge of glory) as theirs...

My pick..? It's that we pick ourselves up from this sorry shambles and go back to a proper meritocratic World Championship and stop marginalising our sport by a copy of an inferior GP product..!

It just passed us by but still time (just) to recall a little-noted anniversary in the history of London Speedway. It happened (or rather didn't..) 40 years ago this week on Oct 15th. 1971.. Hackney Wick stadium was staging their leg of the London Fours (or may've been a stand-aloner) and featured the four capital sides of the day, the Hawks (of course), Wimbledon, West Ham & Wembley... Sadly the meeting was rained off - and sadly was the word coz the West Ham Hammers and the Wembley Lions in both cases never rode again... How ironic too that if '71 saw the end of two of London giants, then 20 years later in '91 it was a hugely significant year too in the ultimate demise of the other two.. 40 (and 20) years on how close are we to seeing any return to London as a Speedway centre..? Sadly not too far..

What a SUPERB site!! I loved Tiger and I loved Jag even more!! Many thanx for posting this link and for the labour of love that is your site!

Hmm, is it just me or hasn't this thread wandered massively off its intended subject... As I was down at Sittingbourne's Central Park today where - as has previously been pointed out elsewhere - it is indeed the case that the dimensions of a Speedway track have been pegged out on the centre green of the dog track, may I bring back on topic and suggest a Kent side at one of the UK's top venues is a real possibility for the 2012 NL..

A thriller in Manila would suit me (though awkward to get there! ) though I'd equally like a trembley at Wembley!! Grachan is spot on that the withdrawal of top young riders from the GPs just shows up the slippery slope this particular format is on... For once I agree 100% with by old nemesis mick the muppet:

Oh and Henry yes, I do apologise as you did indeed make some good points here and I did mean to acknowledge that. You are someone who does argue fairly and with clarity about the differing points of view and I fully acknowledge that, so sorry for implying otherwise.

Come off it - I ignored your very rude comment (the "bonkers" one) when it was made, but I won't now as you bring it up again (er, in what way do I imply that the word wasn't used against me!!). I deserve an apology because you said my argument that it's easier to stay in the GP series than to qualify for it (or to qualify for the previous system of a WF) was "bonkers". In fact, it's 100% entirely the case that it is easier to 'qualify' again from within the 15 of the GP field. I've no intention of stating the bleedin' obvious yet again by explaining why having to only finish in the top 11 of 15 is easier than having to qualify through a set of open rounds.. The ganging up, misquoting and downright bullying tactics on here is so, so typical of the BSF.. Especially when it comes to the subject of GP vs. WF, where so many who defend the former adopt a vicious and downright nasty approach of utter intolerance to those who take an alternative view. So tell you what, I shall indeed stop posting on this thread but if you think that in any way the purposes of healthy debate and sharing of views on this sport we're all meant to love has in any way been helped by the tactics deployed on here - yet alone your particular 'arguments', which have actually not been proven in any way - then you are sadly mistaken...

And English not your language either as I clearly posted THIS: "The fact that Eastern Europeans like him and indeed all bar Plech & Muller of those previously mentioned (at the time they made the rostrum...) did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain, shows what a meritocracy the old system was.." Bordering on the pathtic that you misquote like this...

Ha, ha, ha... So you all ignore the obvious fact that the current system is grossly weighted in favour of those in it and excludes others from a fair chance of competing, yet somehow come with a hypothesis that the likes of a two-time World Final runner-up (Plechanov) didn't, er, deserve to even be in the Final!! That's utterly - as was said by someone earlier... - bonkers!!! The fact that Eastern Europeans like him and indeed all bar Plech & Muller of those previously mentioned (at the time they made the rostrum...) did so with the clear disadvantage of not having had even the chance of racing in Britain, shows what a meritocracy the old system was.. You all (well most of you...) clearly prefer the GP series but to me it's been handled so badly.. I would - of course - prefer the old one-off World Final (it was bar none the greatest sporting event in the world - a night of unrivalled excitement..) - but okay if there has to be season-long series fair enough. What is NOT fair enough is what we have, when 11 of the same riders (out of 15) can stay in it unchallenged from outside their ranks leaving the slimest of pickings for 'outsiders'... Can you honestly imagine what would've been said if the old WF had changed so that the top eight one year were automaticaly in it the next year... Anyone who would've suggested that would have been laughed out of the place; but that is EXACTLY what we have now... And it's not as if all of the other eight places are even up for grabs either.. I think we should agree to differ but I still have yet to hear one argument even attempting to defend the gross unfairness of the current 'cosy club' system we have... You all just want to defend it regardless of even attempting to put forward an argument in its defence...

Yes the Poles & Russians back then didn't ride in the British or other western Europe leagues but that surely is no reason to have prohibited them. And you misrepresent how well they did. Plechanov was runner-up two years running in the mid-60s, Poles Walosek, Jancarz (who you mentioned in totally unfairly disparaging terms), Woryna (twice) and Plech (twice also) all made a WF rostrum. And I hesitate to mention the dreaded 'S' word as I know what reaction it'll bring (though Rob shall leap to the hapless Mr. Szczakiel's defence! ), but if one recalls '73 one will see that if Jerzy was an unlikely winner two riders very unlucky on the day not to have in fact pipped him were contryman Plech and top Russian, Chlinovski. Indeed between 1964 and 1984 the 'Continentals' produced 10 rostrum finishes to Australia's three!! So let's not be having it made out that they were all totally useless!!

Good god... The qualifying process allows at best exactly HOW many into the competition..? Four, is it..?... If people honestly can't see what's wrong with that then I do, in truth, give up... Defend the GP system as much as you like but for god's sake recognise that it is the perfect way to maintain the status quo and immeasurably more difficult to break into than to fall out of!!! As a matter of interest what is it about this that so many of you fail to understand!!

Look, of the 15 riders who started out in this year's GP, ELEVEN of them have 'qualified' directly for next year's (ie not needed to qualify by other means).. The top eight (yes staying in the top eight is tough but one's only competing with a further seven to do so...!). And this year those who finished 9th., 10th. and 11th. have all also been allowed back in!! Now there MAY have been occasions when the 9th. place for example DIDN'T qualify automatically (ie given seeded berth in following year's Series) - someone who knows about these things can tell us... - but I doubt it's happened often: so effectively one can afford to finish 9th., 10th and even 11th. and have a good chance of being back in... This is MASSIVELY different from having a proper qualifying system open to all... Surely to goodness whatever your views, people can see this!!! Good points have been made about the WF system of old in which riders had good runs in it even from a lower division... So it's NOT about me naming names, as Impartial One wants me to do it's about having a proper chance given to whoever is in a position to excel... Whatever you say, to have just four max spaces available (under the model used this year) for such riders is miles and miles away from being good enough and this has fundamentally changed (IMO for the worse...) our sport's World Championship.