enotian

Another technicality which may or may not be specified within a rulebook. The reality is that Lewis Rose (and now Nathan Greaves) is allowed to ride and importantly earn money in both the Premier and Elite League whilst not having achieved an average previously. Yet Robert Lambert who had also not previously achieved an average is prohibited from riding in both leagues because he has chosen to not accept a fast track place. So a young British prospect shows ambition and self belief (essentially qualities for any successful sports person) and his national association restrict him from gaining experience and income. The protagonist in me would urge Newcastle to include Lambert, forcing the BSPA to amend every result, to illustrate the farcical d/up/fast track situation.

oh dear the analogy police will be after you for that one but to continue it, the grocer doesn't stop you from buying both an apple and an orange because that wouldn't be good for his business. The rules must allow assessed riders to double up because that is exactly what Lewis Rose is doing. Is he not?

And Lewis Rose can? Exact same situation apart from the Fast Track label. Amazing technicality for the BSPA to cling to. Can't work out if they have something against Lambert or Newcastle having what would be a very strong team. Without Lambert the team changes don't really strengthen Newcastle as Danny King will not average 11 and will realistically average 9. Having never seen Greaves ride I can't comment on his ability to average over 3. However it's becoming apparent that d/up PL riders have a massive advantage over their non d/up opponents so you really do need a d/up rider to be competitive. I guess the d/up riders having more meetings and can invest more in machinery. Certainly Josh Gracjzonek was head and shoulders above anyone else last Sunday. Sad to see Rosen and Henry go but the team at the start of the season was too far under the points limit and the anticipated increases from Rosen and Kerr didn't materialise. Hopefully both will find a team place elsewhere.

Tai was once again excellent on BT Sport live. I can't speak highly enough of what he has achieved and how he presents himself in the media. I'm sure he'd prefer to be and deserves to be in the sun of Australia rather than the cold of Blighty right now but he continues to perform his role as World Champion to promote the sport brilliantly. With BT Sport taking Moto GP from 2014 perhaps they're also considering Speedway to fill their empty summer schedule?

The most important decision for promoters this winter must be which strategy to follow:- Either, a genuine Elite league, or reduce costs to Premier League level across the board. What hasn't worked over the last 10 years is falling between the two options. Which is effectively what the current Elite league is. A genuine Elite League would without question need to feature the majority of GP stars. To achieve that you need a) the cash to pay them so a TV deal would probably be required, fit into the riders schedules and that means racing on the same night every week, and c) tracks/venues that are conducive to GP standard racing. In a genuine Elite League less is more. I'd suggest 8 7 man teams. Each comprising of 4 International standard riders supplemented by a squad of 6 British double uppers from the Premier League. Rider grading to dictate team building. 10 home and 10 away league fixtures to be completed by end of August. Play Off finale in September. All fixtures on a Thursday night with potentially the weekly TV match on a Monday night so as not to effect Thursday night attendances. Priced at current Elite League levels. Alternatively, the current Premier League model could be adopted across the board but one big league has failed before. But two divisions of 15/16 teams could allow genuine promotion/relegation for the first time. With consideration given to reducing pricing to £12-£14. The content of each strategy is open to debate but the important choice is genuine Elite standard or reduce cost to Premier League levels.

Game over then! The PLPO format really needs looking at. Newcastle now potentially face (like last season) two home meaningless PO fixtures if Somerset gain a point at Redcar. Hardly the excitement the PO's are supposed to generate.

Would Kim Nilsson come in on his previous PL average??? Could do a good job. And I wonder what Pepe Franc's situation is at this stage of the season? Doubt he could match the scoring potential of Robbo but he'd score more than R/R.

But isn't that the Catch 22? What's potentially on offer depends upon whether or not Sky renew their contract and for how much. I don't think the promoters could commit to announcing that all 15 gp riders will ride in the 2014 Elite league without knowing they could afford to deliver that product. Something's need to be done behind the curtain.

Good point but it isn't even that straightforward as the missing riders teammates score would increase. Complicated For it to work it would need to be simple to apply and enable the team with the missing rider to be competitive. As I say a handicap system would only be marginally more palatable than guests so I can't see it being adopted.

Just assumed he'd be on a PL 7.00 assessed ave. But none assessed double uppers is the sort of rule that would exist isn't it.... ....for whatever reason. As he's unlikely to obtain an official average it must've been Thorssell as the only option as I can't imagine we'd be able to sign anyone from another PL 1-7. I suppose it could be an asset of another promotion who hasn't been active in Britain this season but I can only think of Monberg who'd be any better than our own asset Claes.

No need for a handicap system to be complicated. If you're missing a 9point rider, 9 point head start. (adjust in the event of a rain off if applicable) Not completely fair to the team with the missing rider (re 5th ride/tacticals)but it might incentivise teams to sign a replacement and/or develop a competitive No.8. Alas that's easier said than done. And on the basis that the guest facility is most likely popular with the riders I feel we're stuck with it regardless of how strange it appears in the context of a team sport.

Mikkel Michelsen must be the best case scenario. Looks like his Polish team didn't make the play offs and Eastbourne are all but done. Have a word Bjarne

Agreed

Rene Back 7.95 Stuart Robson 7.86 Ludvig Lindgren 6.84 Claes Nedermark 6.20 Richie Worrall 5.78 Steve Worrall 4.03 Jason King 3.53 42.19

But he has signed to ride for Lakeside next season.

You had to pick the last season that the British League had a full complement of 16 teams! Saw my first and last British League match that season. Joe Owen vs Dennis Sigalos. Hooked forever. Check out how many British riders you could pick a national team from... Belle Vue: Chris Morton, Peter Collins, Larry Ross, Andy Smith, Mark Courtney, Peter Carr, Kenny McKinna Coventry: Tommy Knudsen, Gary Gugliemi, Steve Bastable, Rick Miller, John Jorgensen, Sam Nikolajsen, Kevin Hawkins Cradley Heath: Erik Gundersen, Lance King, Phil Collins, Alan Grahame, Simon Cross, Finn Jensen, Steve Collins Eastbourne: Bobby Schwartz, John Eskildsen, Paul Woods, Antonin Kasper, Colin Richardson, Olli Tyrvainen, Denzil Kent, Steve Lucero Exeter: Ivan Mauger, Andy Campbell, Sean Willmott, Buddy Robinson, Robert Maxfield, Frank Andersen, Louis Carr Halifax: Kenny Carter, Neil Evitts, Steve Baker, Eric Monaghan, Doug Wyer, Steve Finch, Craig Pendlebury, Kurt Hansen Ipswich: Billy Sanders, John Cook, Jeremy Doncaster, Kai Niemi, Richard Knight, Nigel Flatman, Carl Blackbird Kings Lynn: John Louis, Dave Jessup, Richard Hellsen, Steve Regeling, Kevin Jolly, Martin Dixon, Keith Bloxsome Newcastle: Joe Owen, Rod Hunter, David Bargh, Eddie Ingels, Phil White, Martin Scarsbrick, Alan Mason Oxford: Hans Nielsen, Simon Wigg, Marvyn Cox, Melvyn Taylor, Jens Rasmussen, Ian Clark, Nigel Sparshott Poole: Michael Lee, Sam Ermolenko, Finn Thomsen, Stan Bear, Brian Jakobsen, Neil Middleditch, Kevin Smith Reading: Jan Andersson, Mitch Shirra, Per Jonsson, Tim Hunt, Malcolm Holloway, Pierre Brannefors, Peter Glanz Sheffield: Shawn Moran, Neil Collins, Les Collins, Dave Morton, Jan O Pedersen, Martin Hagon, Reg Wilson Swindon: Phil Crump, Bo Petersen, Ari Koponen, Shawn McConnell, Alun Rossiter, Alf Busk, Per Sorensen Wimbledon: Malcolm Simmons, John Davis, Kelvin Tatum, Gordon Kennett, John Titman, Roger Johns, Mike Ferreira, Andy Galvin Wolverhampton: Dennis Sigalos, Preben Eriksen, Peter Ravn, Andy Grahame, Robert Pfetzing, Kent Noer, David Cheshire

How about an un programmed reserve to take it up to seven man teams. I think that format would be excellent as perhaps the 7th and 8th ranked teams wouldn't be a match for the likes of Denmark. Or how about rotating the format on a 4 year basis? For example:- 2008: 6 or 7 men teams 2009: Pairs (using the old knockout GP format) 2010: Four Team Tournament 2011: Individual World Final (3 qualifiers, 1 repecharge + a final) 2012: bach to 6 or 7 men teams etc etc Variety is the spice of life.

I think I'm right in saying that the current heat format results in all riders having one ride from each gate position? Forgive me if I'm wrong. Although I believe that this is the fairest approach how about allowing teams trailing by say 6 points to alter the gate positions to their own advantage? It could be something as simple as allowing the trailing team to dictate a move from column A to column B gates or the more specific re-positioning of any rider, although odd or even gates would still need to be upheld. Sure it wouldn't have an effect in all meetings but I do feel that it's less open to ridicule than double points. Programmed gate positions seem to have been the norm forever but I'm sure that they were only introduced in the 80's to stop the best riders always getting the best gates. Whilst I agree with that if allowing changing gate positions as a tactic can result in closer matches it might be worth considering.

Just think it would add some variety and possibly allow teams to be built in different ways. Say that you're unable to acquire a genuine No1 so you go for strength in depth this flexibility would allow you to position your top man so that he wouldn't have to face the opponents genuine No1. I think it would add some tactical thinking and possibly make things less predictable. I think changing the 1 to 5 was allowed in the KOC a few years ago but invariably not many seemed to bother to swap pairings around for one or two matches.

Does anyone agree that the rigid structure to team line ups and the demise of old style tac subs has resulted in matches becoming far too predictable or at least repetitive? As it would appear that the BSPA prefer for all riders to have their 4 programmed rides (with fair justification) it would appear that the days of tac subs has gone. And with the structured 1 to 7 I find little variety in how matches develop. So it got me wondering if there was any merit in allowing any rider to ride at any position within the 1 to 7? Obviously the two lowest riders would remain as the reserves but they wouldn't have to ride in positions 6 and 7. On the downside it could mean that the top riders from each team never face each other but the flexibility should give team managers some way of affecting the result of a match and add some much needed variety, albeit before the match starts. I feel that allowing such flexibility would introduce some additional debate as to the tactical merit or otherwise of a managers line up.

You'd need to define 'established'. I'd base it on number of matches rather than average. This would reward teams who provide better training by allowing them to use developing riders at lower average until say they've riden 100 competitive matches or so. Very interesting. I'd rather see it phrased "all teams build to the same points limit but a rider who remains with the team he rode for in the previous season has his average reduced by 0.5". So say Simon Stead average 7.5 for Belle Vue in 2006 he'd come into the 2007 Belle Vue team on a 7 point average but would be a 7.5 rider to anyone else! Great idea.

After the Bosman ruling, considering an individual as an asset is no longer valid as anyone whose contract expires is free to sign a contract with any other employer. As speedway riders tend to sign contracts for the length of a single season and to all intents and purposes are self employed they are essentially a contractor and therefore free to sign as many contracts they are able to fulfill. Hence, riders riding in different countries. Therefore, last years saga surrounding transfer fees for Nicholls, Hancock, Hamill etc was totally dubious. Regardless of their legality transfer fees in general are a total drain on resources. I'm sure most promoters could do without having to shell out 10's of thousands of pounds to build a team. Surely it would be much better if they spent that kind of money on producing new riders. The problem speedway has is how to adapt a system without the notion of assets but which would still encourage investment in young riders, rather than importing foreign riders. Who'd spend money training a rider only for them to go and ride for a rival? To do this I believe that training contracts for riders should be formulated, designed to give structured instruction on all aspects of speedway. It might be necessary to offer different levels as not all riders start at the same level of ability. It would essential be a formal qualification in speedway. A "trainee" rider would sign a training contract with their preferred training provider/promoter who would provide the training required to reach the qualification standard. Once a rider qualifies they are then allowed to sign for any club they wish without any transfer fee being exchanged. However under an agreement between all promoters the riders training club would be compensated a nominal fee per season based on the riders ability (ie starting or finishing average for that season) and the standard cost of training. Essentially a loan fee payable each season to the training club. This would reward those clubs who provide the best training which should inturn increase the standard of training and hence improve the standard of riders produced. Riders without the qualification, ie foreign riders, would be subject to a similar loan fee but with a premium to encourage the use of qualified ie British riders so that it would be more cost effective to track a team of British riders than foreign riders. The annual loan fee for non qualified riders would go to the BSPA who could then use the pool of cash for the benefit of the sport in general. Eg, funding a winter tour for young riders or supplying air fences etc etc depending upon how big the fund totals.

Previously didn't they multiply or divide by 1.5 to assess riders swapping between leagues? So If you're a 9 point PL rider you'd be a 6 point EL rider etc etc. All depends on the relative standards in each league I suppose.

No you wouldn't. You'd only pay for the 5 meetings you promote. I think I'm right in saying in most instances speedway riders are on appearance and points money so they only get paid per meeting and the home promoter would cover that from gate receipts. I think that would be workable. It's certainly not a problem that couldn't be resolved using a bit of common sense and a little compromise. You can spend as long as you want uncovering reasons why things won't work and it's very useful to do so. But you shouldn't lose sight of what you want to acheive. In this instance it's a format to bring speedway to a wider audience of spectators, sponsors and TV viewers by raising the bar in terms of the standards of on track action, facilities and presentation. Yes you'll uncover problems but don't quit at the first sign of difficulty. If it's worth doing you find a way of doing it.

How would it be disasterous for cash flow? Say you're the euroleague promoter for Wolverhampton. You'd arrange to hire Monmore Green on 5 dates. You wouldn't need a season long lease with the landlord because you only want to run 5 meetings. (You might even only need to deal with the domestic league promoters depending on their lease) Whoever you contract with it will be additional revenue for use of their asset so I'm sure they'd be willing to allow the lions share of the rent to be paid after each meeting. Then you'd have ticket sales and race night payments being made at roughly the same time. I'm confident those 3 main cash flows would be manageable. I don't think there'd be any other major payments required. It's just like running a club night. You agree to hire a club pay a deposit arrange for dj's who you pay on the night when you've received your money at the door then settle up with the venue owner. It's quite simple really, that's how bits of kids manage to do it all over the country. Of course you need to promote it aswell but speedway is really good at th....... nevermind. e