MattK

Lee Kilby says the new track will be 320m. Currently it is 363m. That means the inside of the speedway track on bends 1 and 2 will be roughly where the outside of the training track is today.

You're not wrong. You can see the houses encroaching on the stadium on Google Maps. Everything above the red line used to be open fields offering a nice barrier between the housing estate and the stadium. Now it is all housing. They even demolished the away pits and build a house there. You can see how close they are in this picture from Swindon's Instagram account. That wall is the side of someone's home. If you want to be really depressed, here is the Master Plan for the whole development.

The only restriction I have ever seen documented in the planning consent was that "no more than 200 houses can be occupied until a contract is signed to build the new stadium". Obviously, "a contract is signed" is a very vague term, but I am sure GI would claim they have fulfilled that clause when work "began" a few years back: http://www.justintomlinson.com/news/3699-huge-news-for-speedway-fans-as-work-starts-on-new-abbey-stadium

How were the houses built outside of the agreed planning consent?

It looks like my printer when I need to change the cartridge.

The difference between the promoters and the fans is that they have all the information available at their fingertips to come up with a solution, whereas the fans have nothing. Share profit and loss, attendances, wages costs and so on with the fans and we can come up with a detailed, costed model for British speedway. Until then, fans are merely shooting in the dark.

Bit of both: https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/17377892.swindon-robins-chairman-terry-russell-plans-to-start-work-on-improved-abbey-stadium-race-track-layout-next-month/?fbclid=IwAR3uizI8HG0iYr6vtKHJvPqEKDEuBoKA5qsXoEEvVyXw5VELs4LpjlPNTyY This bit frightens me: I'm not track expert, but I'm pretty sure Cardiff is only used for a single meeting. I'm not sure that you can translate their construction approach and use it for a track which is going to me used every week.

Is it not completely within the gift of clubs to pay riders less today? In turn riders will have to adjust their costs accordingly. The problem is clubs want to field a competitive team and they know that crowds are higher when a team is winning. This creates two competing objectives, cutting your cloth according to your income and fielding a winning team. Given that not all clubs are equal when it comes to income, some have higher crowds, others have more generous sponsors and so on, this creates fundamental inequality in the league. Therefore clubs are forced to decide between fielding a weaker team or pushing their budget to a level higher than their income. And then we've gone full circle. Regardless of how much you cut costs, clubs have one method and one method only to attract riders, money. This is why cost cutting doesn't work. There will always be one club prepared to pay slightly above market rate to attract the best riders and this in turn creates an arms race among all clubs. The only way to ensure a long term sustainable future for British speedway is to boost income.

I agree, hence why I have "perceived", as I don't think the actual quality is significantly lower than say a decade ago. However, the points limit in the Elite League at least as been reduced pretty much every year, which results is a slow decline in the overall standard of riders.

I agree about the admission costs. However, clubs seem to use increasing admission costs as a substitute for lost revenues caused by declining numbers. Therefore, if an amateur league, albeit with lower costs, resulted in a fall in attendances, history does not bode well for admission costs to be set at level which will attract fans.

Over the last decade the quality (at least perceived quality in the eyes of many fans) has been gradually reduced in an attempt to reduce costs. The knock-on effect of this has been a marked reduction in paying customers. Can anyone explain to be how making a significant reduction in quality by making the sport amateur would result in anything but a significant reduction in paying customers?

As far as I can see, the details of the planning permission have not yet been published. Once this is done we'll be able to see the exact wording of the "conditions".

I think two riders performances in the strongest club league in the world does make a difference.

Holder finished above Fricke in the Ekstraliga averages last season.

I agree. I don't think Fricke is significantly better than any of the riders you mentioned. The area he is ahead is when it comes to profile. Winning the World U21s in 2016 did his profile a world of good and has catapulted him forwards on the world stage gaining him rides in both Sweden and Poland and in turn vital experience against the best in the world. Whether he can turn this experience into improvement remains to be seen, however I think this season he will be superseded by Kurtz and maybe even Holder.

Isn't the idea to create a clear difference in quality between the two leagues, so that in five years time a 7-point CL rider will be equivalent to a 3.5-point PL rider? Presumably this will be achieved with low points limits for the CL in combination with an increasing conversion factor to make double-uppers less attractive. Whether this works in reality remains to be seen.

The regulations (albeit for 2018) states: "16.2.7 The most recently established MA will be used. If a rider has an established MA in both the Premiership and Championship Leagues, established in the same season, that leagues MA will apply to that league." Therefore, Barker and Bjerre will use their CL MA as it is the most recent. Similarly, the AGM Statement says: "Conversion rate for 2019 will be 1.5" The conversion rate has always worked both ways, otherwise how else do you calculate a rider with a CL average's PL converted average?

Because Riss, Etheridge, Todd Kurtz, Wajtknecht and JB Andersen all rode in the Premiership in 2018. You may disagree with the rule, but it is there in black and white for all to see and being applied consistently (as far as I can tell).

Swindon, Somerset and Newport are pretty much equidistant from Bristol, depending on what part of the city you live in. I'd be amazed if the number of people who travel from Bristol to Swindon on a regular basis exceeds double figures, so I think it is a stretch to suggest Newport could have been saved if the Seven bridge toll wasn't in effect.

Bit of both. With Doyle in the bag I feel we would have been better off building bottom up, rather than seemingly top down. Batch is a decent rider, but I think we should have saved a bit more for the reserves.

Don't get me started on Batchelor.

Who produced those figures. What a klutz.

Again, your are letting your perception cloud the evidence. MPT averaged almost a point more than Musielak in his two appearances at Swindon last year, only 0.11 less away all season and is available for 1.16 less which would have given us some valuable points to strengthen the rest of the side. And all riders are available if you get your chequebook out.

It's not that I don't like him, I just feel there are better options available: You say he took a while to get dialled in, I say that is a lame excuse for a rider who had already spent a year with us. I agree, he was terrific sporadically, but he was woeful in equal measures, especially away from home. As for his ability to improve, he didn't show that last season when he started on 7.37 and finished on 6.52. You can say "forget averages" but you run the risk of you opinion being swayed by your bias.

I think we'll be OK at home, even if one of Lampart, Wajtknecht or Shanes has an off night we have enough strength to cover them. I think we will struggle away from home as we've signed three riders Musielak, Wajtknecht and Shanes who all scored poorly away from home last year. Obviously, addressing our woeful home form is a huge step forwards, but I'm not sure if it is playoff material.