Halifaxtiger

I am certainly trying not to look at this as a speedway fan. What I can say is everyone I have spoken to who isn't a fan agrees that the verdict is ridiculous. A friend of mine knows the problem; someone moved into a house that backs onto a cricket ground, then complained that they can't go into the garden for fear of being hit by a cricket ball. While I would agree that there should be some attempt at mediation, it still doesn't get away from the fact that these people moved in next to the stadium. That, to me, is the bottom line. I have none whatsoever. As I said above, the bottom line is they moved in next to the stadium. If you don't like the sea, you don't move into a lighthouse.

When I stayed over in a caravan in the stadium compound, the banger meeting finished about 10.30/11.00pm or so. You then have the bangers themselves being lifted onto trailers and wagons and being driven from the stadium, which probably took another 1-2 hours by the time everyone had left. They then started work on the track because there was speedway the following day (that doesn't happen much now). What I will say is that I woke up at 2am or so and heard the noise, then went back to sleep. Bearing in mind where I was, it wasn't loud enough to keep me awake.

I suspect that what happens might be less than legal. There was a lot of talk about intimidation in the first court case and although it was never proved I can believe it happened. What you say is fair (as usual) Vince. But what if you have to make noise at 3am ? Its arguable that they do need to. And this still doesn't get away from the fact that these people moved in next door. As such they knew the stadium was there and, if they did not (which, knowing the area, I find truly incredible) then that is their responsibility and theirs alone. I repeat: it is not for a locality to change to meet the needs of a newcomer. It is for the newcomer not to have moved in in the first place if it did not suit them.

I'd say Mildenhall is up there with Berwick (and there are others - Lakeside, Workington and Plymouth spring to mind) as a track that does its best to put on a good show. The gap between speedway at West Row and speedway at Loomer Road is positively cavernous. As far as I am aware, the worst problem they have had since the present promotion took over was that the starting gate malfunctioned for a couple of weeks. Otherwise, absolutely nothing has gone wrong. The team has been at least highly competitive and at best swept the board. The track is almost always excellent and ranks as one of my favourites across all the leagues because of the quality of the racing. I have spoken to Kevin Jolly a couple of times and he is most receptive to comment and even criticism (not that I had much). Its little wonder gates have doubled and that despite the fact that it is a 350 mile round trip from my home I have it marked down for more visits this season than anywhere else bar Sheffield and Belle Vue. Perhaps the most pertinent point is there is absolutely no reason why Stoke couldn't be the same.

What you say is true. Having stayed over a few times at the stadium so I could start work on Sunday for the speedway, noise does go to that time on banger nights. The meetings don't end until 10.30 or so, then there's the packing up and loading of the cars and work on the track. I drew the conclusion that the noise problem wasn't with speedway at all. The thing is though is that even if that's the case it still doesn't get away from the point that these people moved in next to the stadium. It was already there, and as such it is not for the locality to adapt to suit the needs of people moving in, but for people not to move there in the first place. That's why this ruling is bizarre, ridiculous and perverse.

Negative comment rarely solves anything in speedway for the simple reason that such comments are brushed aside as the work of ignorant imbeciles. Promoters know best, we know nothing. The fact that they come from passionate, long term supporters who genuinely care about their teams and see them being run into the ground counts for little, if anything. It seems to me that you advocate (at least to a degree) that we should simply be grateful for what we get (however awful) and not be critical in any way. Its not the first time I have seen such views. I regard them as nonsense, principally because they base absolutely no responsibility on the part of promotions to actually make the product attractive for existing and potential supporters. They indicate that if a club goes to the wall, it is entirely the fault of the stay away fans, not that of the promotion. Actually listening to your paying customers isn't part of that mentality. What has to be understood is that the management of every speedway club should do everything in their power to ensure that the speedway at their tracks is as good as it can be (a good example of that, as far as I am concerned, is Berwick). If they do that and people still don't come, they are blameless. I am far from convinced that that is the case not just at Stoke but across the country. Two friends of mine used to attend a northern track. When a friend of their's suggested to the promoter that the track might be prepared better for racing, the answer was 'if you don't like it, don't come'. BSPA attitude in a nutshell, and needless to say that club has now lost three paying customers.

I am a big supporter of having an experienced rider in the team - it was a bad day when Dean Felton quit. But do you need Mason for that purpose when you have Lambert, Compton (both of whom have been around for 10 years or so) and a team manager who used to be a rider himself ?

I agree, as long as it is no more than one per club. Although the NL is a development league, for at least half of the teams its a business too and its one that has to be viable (or at least with sustainable losses). The introduction of one foreigner can act as a draw card for paying spectators, and I need only to point to Cameron Heeps for that. I know people who went to speedway meeting just to see him ride - a brilliant 15 year old whose reputation was certainly proven by the performances he gave. Putting the foreign riders on a 7.00 average will mean that they don't take the places of British youngsters, more those riders who have been in the NL for years and have made no progress whatsoever (because, lets face it, the league is full of them). As an example (and no offence intended) a young Australian like Brady Kurtz could replace David Mason in the Kent line up. That in no way affects the development of young British riders and will almost certainly lead to more spectators going to meetings. Win win, I'd say. The NL has been foreigner free for about 3 seasons now (and mostly foreigner free for years before that); its made absolutely no difference to the numbers of foreign riders in the EL & PL. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that having a British only policy in the third tier has encouraged the two more senior leagues to bring British youngsters into their teams.

Sad, yes, but its one of the best I have ever read on this forum. Its the work of a passionate Stoke fan who despairs at the running of his team and wants things to change, and I suspect that he reflects the view of a lot of people at the club. I genuinely hope that those in charge at Stoke read it and take heed. I also hope that Vog changes his mind and goes along and, more importantly, has reason to do so. Finally, I hope that I will have the pleasure of his company this season, preferably when we are both at Loomer Road.

I have to say what I have been told is that those who are deliberately staying away have an issue with Dave Tattum only, not Malcolm Vasey. Even if things improved considerably, they'd still stay away if Tattum remained in charge.

I have to say I can't see them moving back in. I have little doubt that their claims of intimidation were true, so going back there probably isn't a good idea. Its exactly like that. I think that's very different. If you already live there, then you have a right to complain. If you move in next to it, you don't. Moved in 2006, Ray. Speedway, stocks, greyhounds, MX were all running at that time and had been for some years. In truth, I think their grouse was more against the stocks than the speedway. Not always, The Court of Appeal decision reflected exactly what every poster on this thread - and probably most unbiased people - would think.

I expected something a bit better from you, Malcolm, because that's a standard BSPA response - get a bit of criticism and just abuse those who are critical and write them off as ignorant keyboard commandos. There are those on here whose comments are based upon the axes they wish to grind and I'd agree they can be disregard totally. However, my view is honest, objective, fair and considered (they always are). It is based upon what I have seen, heard and been told by sources that I trust. Believe it or not, it is also in the best interests of Stoke Speedway, because it tells you how things can be improved and how I might attend more than I do now. Lets face it, I might be anything but alone. As far as I am concerned, there is no misinformation or falsity there at all. I'd never deny that I might be ignorant, but if its the case that I don't know about something how can I take that into account ? In the close season a friend of mine and I were given the opportunity to talk face to face with a current promoter of a PL club, one that had its share of troubles last season. His willingness to involve in dialogue with individual fans without any prejudice or spite, to answer questions and explain his position not only answered virtually every criticism that I and my friend had but turned him into someone for whom I have the greatest respect (we spoke on the phone only this morning). You have to ask yourself this question. What is in the best interests of your club - to engage and talk with potential fans (at least those you can engage and talk with, because clearly there are some you can't and won't accept anything you say) or ignore and abuse them ?

I tend to disregard the subjective vitriol poured out by Iannewsman as they are clearly those of someone with an axe to grind who has no intention of being unbiased. Having said that, speaking to the lads I know at Stoke they all say that if the present promotion left there would be a lot of people who would return, regardless of the level at which the club operated. I am not sure what Dave Tatum has done but according to them (and we are talking about passionate Potters supporters) he's alienated a considerable number of people. I don't go to Stoke much. The reason for that was put very well by a good friend of mine : 'Always some problem, always some lame excuse'. In the past few seasons, I have seen (or heard about) lights going out during the meeting, tea bars running out of food and drink and intervals being held two heats after a long sun break. I was there in 2011 against Dudley when spectators sat around for at least 2 hours waiting for an ambulance to turn up - official word was it was stuck in traffic, hearsay was it hadn't been arranged. I have seen 200 matches in the last three seasons and the worst track I have seen in that time was for the NL 4's in 2012 at Loomer Road. Having consulted a few people (riders, managers, track curators) before, during and after the meeting (because I completely unqualified to judge)while there was an acceptance that there had been bad weather there was a unanimous opinion that it was totally down to the Stoke promotion. On the rare occasions I have been subsequently, the preparation still hasn't been to the standard that paying fans should be entitled to expect. Then we have the fact that they were unable to complete a home racing programme of around 15 matches between March and October last season. Adding all that lot together, whichever way you look at it it isn't good at all. The sadness of it is there's no reason that with bit more effort, attention to detail and customer care Stoke would be an excellent place to watch speedway.

Absolutely spot on. I think this should be compulsory (as afar as I am aware only Newcastle and Plymouth comply). When Ash Birks was injured at Plymouth last year, the delay was around 15 minutes while they repaired the fence. At Rye House when Tom Perry was injured, it was nearly 2 hours. Look at the delays at the 4's at Peterborough. While fans appreciate that there will be delays when a rider is injured, if steps can be taken to avoid ridiculously long periods of time they should be. As far as I am concerned, this can, in most cases, be achieved.

Sadly, Rob, you and Vince are right. The only thing is that the Court of Appeal came to the common sense conclusion. How is it that the supreme court came to something that was completely the opposite ?

Maybe that's true but I regard that as utterly beside the point. How can it be that someone moves into an area, finds that they don't like aspects of it and then demands that the area changes to suit them be judged to be in the right ? To make such a ruling completely disregards the responsibility that a person has to ensure that the place they are moving to is right for them before they move. The activities at the stadium might be a nuisance, but they should have established that prior to buying the house. Any fault or blame here lies totally with the house purchaser. The ruling is ridiculous, bizarre and flies in the face of common sense, reason, logic and responsibility.

To my mind, its not those who have contested the case that are in the wrong but those who have made the decision. It beggars belief to me that someone can move into a home, say that they were unaware of the noise or nuisance from a facility nearby (because this isn't just about speedway tracks) and then have it restricted or closed down altogether. Surely the responsibility must lie with the person that has moved in to establish that the locality is to their satisfaction, not for the locality to change to suit their needs when they find that it is not ? The Court of Appeal ruling in this case was a superb example of the practice of common sense and natural justice being applied through our legal process. This decision is completely the opposite: a ridiculous determination that flies in the face of what any sane person would consider to be correct. Its little wonder that many have little faith in the justice system. I think the real point is that this isn't just bad news for Mildenhall. Its bad news for every speedway track in the country, and I really don't see why someone at Edinburgh, for example, couldn't use the case as a precedent for their own action.

’Dont criticise people who are losing money hand over fist." ‘’But today weve got a lot of people running tracks who are fans with a few bob and they idolise riders. Dont idolise them make them work and do things to promote tracks." Whichever way you look at it, those two statements are directly contradictory. I completely agree with SCB. It simply cannot be the case that fans are not permitted to be critical - as he has inferred, we are critical because we care. Failing to do so implies that fans are happy to accept poorly prepared tracks, crap facilities, the kind of 'take what you are given and be grateful' attitude that is all too prevalent within speedway and the corruption that lies at the heart of it. I call it as I see it (for good or bad) and will continue to do so. Getting the criticism in context and sorting out the wheat from the chaff is what is important, not muzzling the fans of the sport because you don't like what they are saying.

To be fair, Glasgow have done their best in the circumstances - the days of the aptly nicknamed 'Squaredome' are gone. If a trackman of the quality of Doc Bridgett does get involved, there's no reason why Ashfield can't be one of the better racing tracks.

Fingers crossed that the track preparation will be of a standard that makes for good racing, because its difficult to overstate just how important that is. The entrances to the corners at Glasgow are slightly too narrow, but other than that it has an excellent shape with its wide banked bends and medium length straights. I have often felt that the quality of the preparation has not matched the shape of the track at Ashfield (in that, it is anything but alone) but hopefully this season things will improve.

Marketing and advertising won't go amiss, but I think there will be a fair few who even if they didn't go (or did and stopped going) last season will still keep tabs on what is happening with the team. I suspect that a considerable number of them will be there on opening night, simply because the line up is so much more impressive than it has been.

The way I see it, remarks like that are not a reason for team managers to avoid this forum but more of a reason for them to participate. While I think most know those comments are total rubbish, setting the record straight puts them to bed for everyone. I think you have to have a sense of realism, too, because the team that the Young Stars put out must be at least reasonably competitive. Line up a team of youngsters (if they are available, which is of itself a further issue - you can't get a Robert Lambert in your side every year) and they could get humped home and away every week and prove a burden not just to the King's Lynn promotion but to every other team in the league because very few will want to watch them. NL speedway might be about development, but it must be at least reasonably financially sustainable. To me, the question is attempting to combine developing riders with others so that the team can compete (I think its the case that every team so far has someone who might, possibly unfairly, be stated to be an NL journeyman). In addition, it is accepted that having a more senior rider in the team is usually a good idea, because they are able to pass on their expertise and experience for the benefit of those who are younger. The Young Stars have a good record of giving talented youngsters their chance whilst ensuring that people will want to watch them. To me, that's very much to the credit of Buster Chapman and Dale Allitt.

To be fair, you're anything but the only one who has named Barker. Its a view, however, that I do not understand. I have never seen him give anything less than 100% on the track for anyone he has ridden for, be that in his NL days or for team GB. He's an amazingly unselfish team man who has pulled off some of the best team rides I have seen in the past few years. I have even seen him repair the fence at Plymouth during a meeting. I have never spoken to him myself but I am told that he is always approachable and does not forget who pays his wages. I am wondering just what there is to dislike. Ricky Wells certainly falls into this category. As far as I was concerned, he held Sheffield together last season with a string of consistent performances yet he never quite seemed to get the credit he deserved from their fans.

I don't think that anyone expects that. But he's a lot, lot better than 4.something.