enotian

Apparently on par with Danny King on the training track??

more than the tax man was told he was on?

I'm guessing that you set a criteria which is based on a number league appearances on the continent rather than position in national/state championships like non EU riders. Even so I imagine it changes the contract discussion dynamics when the pool or riders is restricted. No more bringing in an EU youngster who'll ride for less to benefit their career. Add the new IR35 rules from April 2021 which could impact on how all riders are paid and there could be some tough negotiations ahead

I see that the FA, EPL and EFL have agreed a points criteria for EU footballers signing for English clubs post 1 January 2021. I'd imagine the BSPA will need to come up with something similar. I guess if you get to set your own criteria you could set the bar fairly low??

Or the scientists identify why some people are more at risk of a life threatening reaction whilst others are not, so those genuinely at risk can be protected and the rest can re-intergrate back into society. Including enjoying the odd speedway meeting. You make sensible suggestions. Have you ever thought of becoming an MP....... Regardless we're waiting for the Boffins to deliver........ they're currently James Sarjeant (had plenty of chances but still we all believe they can do it) but we need them to be Tai Woffinden. Here's hoping.

Wayne Carter....

it is but my point was it's not possible to do it without signing riders to long term contracts. and in all honesty do the British clubs actually develop any talent? I don't think any clubs spend a great deal in developing talent. I don't think they can afford to. I'm not aware of any having a salaried dedicated youth coach, isn't it generally volunteers and parents who put the most effort in? The clubs just provide the opportunity of track time, which is important but hardly an extensive training programme. If there was an official training programme then I think you could demand that any young rider who signs up to be part of it has to ride in British speedway for a certain number of years or has to reimburse for the cost of training. Not sure who funds the Poultec training but as I understand it youngsters have to pay to enter the British Youth Championship so I don't think many British riders will feel so indebted to British speedway that they would turn down the opportunity to ride in other leagues. I think the BSPA are doing as much as they can nowadays and if that means more riders are getting opportunities overseas that's a good thing as long as they keep to conveyor belt going

I would imagine that the FIM prefer their SGP riders to be riding in less leagues. Don't suppose they'd ever endorse what the Poles are doing but I suspect they'll turn a blind eye. They'd only intervene if the Polish authorities actions were impacting on the SGP series. I suspect you're correct and British speedway will have to learn to live without International stars..... ....which, with a few notable exceptions, I thought it already was.

I enjoy my job but I wouldn't do more of it for less money but you have a point. I suppose we'll find out if riders start giving Poland a miss. Interesting to see what Jason Doyle does for example. The trouble is that if you don't do Poland then you can do Britain, Sweden and bits and pieces elsewhere. I think there's only really three substantial league programmes, Britain, Poland and Sweden. Then factor in that the top riders want to ride in the toughest competition to ensure that they're competitive and it would seem unlikely that, even though they'd prefer to ride/earn more regularly, any of the top riders will give Poland a miss.

true, but the point being made was that what the Polish League are doing is not restraint of trade. The riders can choose to earn less by only riding in Poland (plus one other league) or (possibly) even less by not riding in Poland but riding in 4 other leagues.

and how long would that contract last??? currently they mostly last for 8 months of a season. speedway riders are self employed. I'd say the vast majority of people would work for the person who pays the most. add in that riding against the toughest competition helps you progress/stay at the top. It's just something else we have to learn to live with......

we hope but Glasgow said they couldn't accommodate social distancing. then there's the greyhound stadiums which might not jeopardise their core business. just impossible at the minute. I do hope they've thought about what can be done if there's no improvement in the situation throughout next Summer. Some viable alternative funded by fulfilling the Eurosport deal or streaming. GP''s are asking people to take part in vaccine trials so there must be something close to being ready but who knows.....

they'd get less meetings though. if a home season has say 24 fixtures and you have two teams you have 48 home fixtures and the same away. only one home team and you only get to ride in half that. it's not quite that simple because currently teams face each other more than once home and away and that wouldn't be possible with one combined league of say 20 teams. i mostly agree, although would say they deserve to earn as much as possible for the risks they take (at their choice of course). but again the problem might be if riders walk away then how do you fill the teams. we're already talking about some not riding in the UK so if there was a 20 team league that's 140 riders needed. where do they all come from especially if some established riders decide they can't make it pay? without seriously diluting the standard? so whilst i don't like doubling up and like the sound of one big league it just might not be feasible. Doubling up for anyone was always a Pandora's box that should never have been opened.

totally agree one problem though. Doubling Up. Will/can the domestic riders settle for riding in one league only?

7 years 6 months! He'll serve half and be out in time for the start of the next UK speedway season.... Apologies, it's not a joking matter. Anyone who prey's on the vulnerable has no place in society regardless of how tough their start in life might have been or the addictions which might have consumed them. I suspect his victims will suffer the after effects of his actions for much longer than he will atone for them.

Agree with this entirely but just to be fair to FIM I think the idea of SON was that more countries could participate rather than there'd be more varied winners as such. The SWC only had 8 or 9 nations, one or two of which were also rans. The problem this year was we didn't get to see the likes of France, Finland, Italy, Slovakia and Slovenia so it lost that element. On that basis I think SON has a place but agree that SWC was superior

What if the question is "what do cockney's call their arses?" I imagine Bewley takes all the rides anyway so the third team member might as well be someone who benefits from the experience, as will Bewley. Might even get to have a pop at some of the U21 riders as we look prime candidates to be on the end of that tactic. Such a shame Woffinden is injured as I genuinely thought we had a good chance. Hopefully in the not too distant future we'll be able to adequately replace him. As someone mentioned earlier Adam Ellis might have been worth a punt but not fair on the lad when he's been injured.

it would also give all 16 riders the chance to plug their sponsors while they 'ponder' over gate pick for their final. It's ideal for for this scoring system. Probably much better for TV highlights as well. I quite like the idea of 5 finals. D Final:13th to 16th, winner progresses to the C Final: with 10th to 12th, winner to B Final with 7th to 9th, winner to A Final with 4th to 6th, winner to the Grand Final with 1st to 3rd. All gate picks after heat 20, no track grading in between finals. Effectively you could finish on zero points after 20 heats and still win the GP (however impossible that might be). Offset against the fact that you qualify direct to the Grand Final if you finish in the top three. No safety net of finishing 2nd in a semi final. After heat 20 you have to win it to still be in it. I suppose it's the conundrum all sports wrestle with. Balancing a fair test which rewards the best competitor with the need for entertainment.

Sorry you misunderstood. What I mean is that if you live stream a regular league match, away supporters who would not have had any intention (or opportunity) to attend might very well pay to watch their team. I think I might if it was the best entertainment option that night. Remember you're competing with other TV which people have already paid for or a night out. So say the away team has 1000 regular supporters and you get 500 of them to pay £10 to stream, then that's £5,000 you wouldn't have made without streaming. Excellent. Then there's neutral supporters. I really can't see this being many. Put it this way if Leicester v Eastbourne was available to stream for £10 on a nice summers evening there are plenty of other things I'd rather be doing here in Newcastle (at least there will be again next summer). But you are reaching a global audience so let's say 1,000 neutrals pay £10 so you make £10,000 extra. Excellent. The question now is does £15,000 income cover the cost of providing the stream? And importantly what negative impact does it have on your gate receipts? I don't know how much it would cost to stream a meeting but I suspect TV standard would be very expensive. If you're talking one camera and one commentator then less costly but lower standard. Again remember you're competing with other activities. I've no idea but say a man with a camera and a commentator providing all the streaming tech charge you £5,000. You're still £10,000 up. Excellent. But what about those supporters who would have turned up and paid on average £15 who now stay at home and stream for £10. Or worse where a group of people (family of four) pay £10 instead of £60 on the gate. If 50 families did that then you've lost £10,000 on the gate receipts (consider that the family would also be saving travel costs so it's a real threat). You are no better off and that's before you consider the impact on bar takings and the like. The threat of bad weather could make this even worse if more people who would have normally paid on the gate decide to stay at home. I reckon most people attend as a group or at least as a pair. If they stay home and share a stream that's £10 instead of £30 at the gate. Clearly the numbers are made up but I've tried to be realistic. It all seems a bit too marginal with a risk of actually losing money for any promoter to try this at league level. Feel free to suggest that there are 10,000 neutrals out there desperate to stream league matches every night of the week but you'll struggle to convince me. Don't get me wrong I think it would be great but it just doesn't sound financially viable to me. As I said earlier it's your shared events which could really attract the number of streaming sales needed to make it viable.

to be fair though is streaming of league matches even at Premiership level viable? you might increase income from away supporters who wouldn't have travelled but how many neutral supporters would pay to watch a match that doesn't involve their team? then you have those locals who used to attend as a family but now just buy one streaming pass instead. regardless, would the income received even cover the cost of providing the coverage? for a league match? you need to scale it up to make it viable. i can see how it could work for shared events, pairs, 4TT, rider championship with all teams represented. potential there are a lot of supporters who wouldn't normally travel who just might pay for those streams. how about doing a magic weekend event a la rugby league where all the teams participate at the same venue? or have a knock out cup weekend (quarter finals on the Saturday, semi's and the Final on the Sunday all at the same venue) charge £50 to stream 7 matches over the weekend?

https://app.box.com/s/fzngmofjdpxqb3ycqmkihyjmezg8mepe for excel users

exactly. if you could convince a local authority that having a speedway (or sports) stadium would bring thousands of visitors to the region (for example for a GP) to boost the local economy then you might be part of the way there. but then who funds it? Gateshead FC have been looking for a new stadium for years. There's plenty of waste ground in Gateshead but there's no funding. I'd have thought with Rob Grants lineage to farming you're looking at a Berrington Lough type prospect rather than a NSS Manchester.

How about 5 additional heats? Top 3 straight to the A Final proceeded by 4 heats of winner stays on. Starting with 16th to 13th, the winner of which progresses to heat 22 against 12th to 10th and so on until the winner of heat 24 joins the top 3 in the A Final. Effectively you could finish 16th after heat 20 and still win the meeting. The traditionalist/purists will love it!!!

Just for a bit of fun.... if you can imagine a world where 2021 exists and the Diamonds have a Championship speedway team (with the same averages and points limit in place) and Archie Freeman is available on a 2.00 average..... what do you do to the 2021 team, remembering the 2020 team was already 2 points under the limit. Stick or twist? And if you're twisting, how would you twist??? Newcastle Diamonds 1. Claus Vissing 8.43 2. Matthew Wethers 6.92 3. Nick Skorja 5.00 4. Ondrej Smetana 5.00 5. Max Clegg 4.92* 6. Connor Mountain 4.61* 7. James Wright 4.00 Team Total: 38.88 Remaining: 2.12

its about the % of TV meetings in these circumstances though or rather the % of none TV meetings with no crowds. Much less fixtures in Sweden and Poland. Whereas in this country they'd have to have run many loss making none televised meetings without crowds, to maintain the integrity of the competition. Of course they could have thought outside the box and arranged a much reduced competition which was affordable within the TV revenue and would still fulfill the contract. Had they have done it quickly enough it might have been one of the first live sports to appear during lockdown and who knows what the audience might have been. But they didn't. Or maybe you're right and the TV deal isn't worth a bean so it wasn't worth trying to secure the income from it? Either way someone dropped a bollock.