Halifaxtiger

Truth is, you can't solve it. Neutral tracks are the ideal but the home fans just don't turn up so they are unprofitable and I don't blame the BSPA for rejecting that idea. All you can do is to make sure that the maximum possible is done to ensure that the big meetings are seen to be as impartial as possible. Taken with all the other requirements - size of stadium, corporate & dining facilities and reasonable car parking - it narrows the field down even more. Interesting to read the comments of Keith McGhie in the Redcar programme last night. He obviously feels that Sundays result didn't do much for the credibility of British Speedway and suggested that the meeting be shared out amongst the tracks. I must admit I did smile when I saw his first choice..............................Birmingham

I think you are missing the point (or, more accurately, points). What might look to you (and others) as an anti-Sheffield rant by a vicious and biased fan with an axe to grind is anything but and is actually far more important than that. It concerns two issues: 1/ The criteria used for the allocation of top meetings; 2/ The credibility of British Speedway in general and PL speedway in particular. I am not a member of the BSPA and consequently had no idea of the allocation procedure. Laurence Rogers is (or was) and does and he told me on Saturday night in response to a direct question that it was about bids. I am sure that is not the only criteria - after all, Buxton could hold the ELRC if that was the case - but what I am concerned about is whether the record of a track in holding previous big events is taken into account. As far as I am concerned, the shambles at the PLRC in 2004 should have ruled out Sheffield and I was frankly amazed that they got it the following year. That doesn't apply to them for 2010, but it does for Rye House and the NLRC after the dreadful track surface on Saturday night. It seems to me that past records must be part of the criteria for the allocation of venues but experience suggests that it is not - that just has to be wrong. SCB has hinted at Sheffield's home bias but far more convincing were a set of statistics produced by Shoddy last year (I am sure he could show them again if necessary). On the basis of home & away form over a number of seasons, that indicated that Sheffield was one of the worst home banker tracks in the PL - I stand to be corrected, but if memory serves me well only Exeter was worse. That might be difficult for you and a lot of Tigers fans to stomach, but that's not my prejudice, its his figures. So, we have the PL's most prestigious meeting on one of its most biased circuits. Its representative was, according to last weeks Speedway Star, 20th in the league standings and qualified for the meeting with one of its lowest averages so he is a long way from being one of the best in the league and should, by rights, have been a rank outsider. Things is, though, this rank outsider was riding on his home track, a track that opinion suggests and statistics show has a pronounced home advantage. He wins, and its not too difficult to jump (and it would be a big jump)to the conclusion why. Ask yourself three questions: Would Ashworth have won it anywhere else ? Would Howe, Proctor & Ward got in the final elsewhere ? Does the fact that a rank outsider on his home circuit (a circuit with a pronounced home bias)won the meeting enhance or damage speedways credibility to someone looking in ? I'd say No, Yes & damage. As you can see, from my perspective Sheffield (and Rye House) isn't the problem, its the example and my point is not about slagging Sheffield off, but putting things right for the future and ensuring that as much as possible is done to ensure that our sport is presented in the best possible way so that we might attract more fans, sponsorship and media coverage. For a start, lets be assured that past records are part of the selection process. The ideal is to run meetings on neutral circuits but that is a financial disaster. So the next best thing is to choose the PL circuit that is seen to be the most like a neutral circuit, along with other relevant criteria such as central location, good crowd capacity, decent parking and maybe dining and corporate facilities. Sheffield has all those; so does Birmingham, and Birmingham has the advantage of being seen as less biased (they all have it, just some more than others).

I only actually made two observations. I seem to remember very clearly the riders refusing to ride and then the track being bladed in 2004. I am not sure what year the bike covers was but I also seem to remember Jan Staechmann coming on here and giving us his side of the story and saying the riders were forced to put sponsors bike covers over their own - something they were very unhappy about. However, I'd be quite happy for you to put me straight, though, and give me the factually correct position. In answer to your first point, yes. Are you offering your services ? The thing is that everything should be done to ensure that the track is as neutral as possible - how many complaints are made about the pairs at Somerset ? Sheffield does have a pronounced home bias - you proved that yourself last year with a very fine set of statistics - so why hold the meeting there when there is a possibility of an adverse reaction and the devaluation of a riders win ? Your spot on with your point about neutral tracks and its something that is ignored or overlooked. Having said that, Birmingham would definitely be a better choice. It is at least as good a stadium as Sheffield, has a bigger home support and I would say is regarded by everyone as far fairer. Yes, he did. The only thing is is it necessary to 'get over it' year after year ? Since 2003, the PLRC has been held at Sheffield on 6 occasions. On 4 of them, a Sheffield rider has won. On another (in 2006) as has been pointed out Andre Compton went out through injury but he was the only man on the night to haed the eventual winner, Magnus Zetterstrom. You could make a reasonable argument that only in 2008 in 6 seasons was there a clear winner from another track which contrasts very starkly with Compton's dreadful performance at Swindon in 2007. We want our sport to be taken seriously. We want to attract new fans and sponsors and shut the knockers up. Holding one of our most prestigious meetings at one of more biased circuits with the result that a home rider who just scrapes into the top 20 PL averages wins it is hardly likely to achieve any of those goals.

Personally, I would not have given it to them following the 2004 meeting when, in full view of the Sky cameras (the first time PL racing was on Sky, if memory serves me correctly), there was a riders strike because of the condition of the track - something which had the EL bigots in raptures and jeopardised any future televising of PL meetings. Wasn't the following year marred by a massive argument over the bike covers that the Sheffield promotion wanted the riders to use but the riders refused to ? To my mind, if someone does a crap job you don't ask them to do it again, simple as. I have made the same point about the 'terrible' track surface at Rye House for the NLRC on Saturday. It should not just be a question of who bids the most (as it seems to be) but who is most qualified. Agree with your first 4 points and I suspect that virtually everyone else would, too. However.............Yes, he does deserve to be congratulated because it is still a fair achievement to win a meeting with so many top riders in it. The sadness of it is that is devalued by the fact that others have decided to hold it on his home circuit, a track with a pronounced home bias.

A little strong, Rob, but you have a very good point. I think its reasonable to suggest that had the meeting been on a neutral track (or another PL one) most of us would not have been surprised to see three of the four finalists there. Ward is the top PL rider;' Howe is in superb form; Proctor is one of the best young riders around. Ashworth would have been a surprise. As you have accurately said, it is not the supporters that tarnish his win but the organisers. I can appreciate the BSPA not holding the meeting on a neutral track if it is going to make a loss there, as it did at Swindon. But what's wrong with Birmingham ? As far as I am aware, they get bigger home gates than Sheffield, other tracks are closer, its still centrally located, the covered accommodation is at least as good and it has a reputation as a superb, very fair racing strip. The car parking is better, too. It should not be the case that this meeting is handed out in an auction with the prize going out to the highest bidder and nothing else being taken into account. Surely the supporters and their wishes should be considered ?

Hart's honesty is to be applauded and he is quite accurate when he said he would do it himself - ask Joe Haines.

Been tried - 2007 at Swindon. The gate was awful (albeit at least in part because of a traffic hold up). You can't really blame the BSPA for holding it at a track that will at least make a profit because all the home fans turn up rather than somewhere else where none of them will and hence the attendance is totally reliant upon people travelling. What I would say is hold it at a track where the home bias is considerably less pronounced - what's wrong with Birmingham ? It should be the case that the spectator comes first when a venue is chosen (taking into account the potential gate figure) not just be a matter of who is going to cough up the most to hold it. No-one, I believe, can make a reasonable argument that the fact that the meeting was at Sheffield does not undermine Ashworth's success, that he would have been among the favourites elsewhere or that both of you have a bit of a point in that this result does not serve speedway well.

Nice one that, Bob. Second only to my old mate Norwich Kev's dreadfully sexist but somewhat accurate and undoubtedly hilarious ' get in the kitchen and do the washing up' after one of several indifferent refereeing decisions. Rubbish. Have you seen Cook ride at PL level ? I watched him ride at Workington a couple of weeks ago and show his back wheel to several established second strings - pretty good for someone who a year ago had never been near a speedway bike. First of all, Sue, good to meet you. I have long regarded you as one of the best posters on here so I should have stayed for a chat. Apologies. I was on the first/second bend and I'd have excluded Cook without a doubt - I am not sure how you can have 'first bend bunching' when there were only two riders involved and the one off the inside gate (Cook)had his back wheel on the fence on the second turn, leaving the rider off the outside gate (Hart) with nowhere to go but into it. Not only that, I am pretty certain there was no contact. Cook caused the fall, he should have been out of the re-run. The track was (to use the words of one NL team manager) 'terrible'. It was like an ice rink to start with and the falls and lack of control were nothing to do with the riders themselves. After that, it was pretty much a gaters paradise with first out of the second bend, first home. In my view, absolutely no excuse for that whatsoever Added to the unusual length, the meeting was distinctly below par and the attendance wasn't much better. I agree with a lot of the comments about moving the meeting elsewhere. I'd say that the venue should not be who bids the most (and hence what suits the BSPA) but who will put on the best show (and hence whats suits the paying customer). The PLRC at Sheffield in 2004 (when, in full view of Sky cameras, the riders staged a strike because of the condition of the track) should have meant that Owlerton would not be chosen for future years based upon the simple reasoning that you don't employ someone to do a job again when its clear that they have done a crap one before. The careless and sloppy track preparation at Hoddesdon on Saturday should rule them out next year, too.

Well said, Robert Speaking as someone who was actually at the meeting, Hart actually had an EF in one race when he was well clear and rode the first corner in the final superbly to block Haines - it was that that left the Rye House man at the back (along with a couple of bumps). Everyone knew it was 20 heats a semi-final and a final so any whining about the format is completely unjustifiable. Newman rode extremely well - he also had a duck when he fell and was, for me, probably the most impressive there. Well done to the two Mildenhall lads - JJ would have got a semi-final place but for a disastrous first corner in his last ride, while Ollie's gating let him down a bit but he still managed to pull off a double pass - if memory serves me well, it was the only one of the night. No doubt he was hampered by the additional pit crew, who did little but get in the way. One other point - very good to see Kevin Doolan, Barrie Evans & Ty Proctor (and possibly others) in the pits and helping out.

Only you could say 'only' 12 pubs I might add that I was out on my feet at the end, while you were ready for a night in the disco (and that would have cleared the Island - your dancing is second in its awfulness only to your singing). There is actually a fair contingent coming from the Fens (at least a dozen, by my last count). PS One of those dozen is Norwichkev. He's definitely an undesirable, so alert all border guards.

About 6 feet away, I think For anyone that would be a pretty good move. For a lad of just 10 years old, it was quite incredible

I turn up for a quiet afternoon watching young Mr Kirby and having a couple of beers and you get me dragged off to join the track staff Some very impressive riding from some very young lads indeed. Good to see you as enthusiastic as ever mate, and see you on the Island in 3 weeks.

Not much I'll bet after the charming Mr Watters raided it.............. See you soon.

Looks OK to me. Drinks all round today Mr Rogers, isn't it ?

I am coming to this one as young Mr Kirby is riding. Mrs HalifaxTiger is coming too although that's just to go shopping in the town

Spot on

Sorry I missed you, Dave. I was there all right but I was doing my club duties (see the Mildenhall website, the caption contest and the chap resisting Barbara Horley's advances ) Nor did I get the chance to respond as the caravan in the compound at West Row (where I stay) doesn't have electric light, never mind the internet. Have a great time on the rest of your tour.

Very easy to say that. I can imagine there would be 100 reasons why the various countries authorities would be unwilling to organise such a series - not least of which would be riders getting injured in the first few weeks of the season. Could you see Tomasz Gollob, for example, riding in a test series against GB in Poland only weeks before the GP series starts ? No, neither can I. Its says everything that in the last 5 years or so the number of test matches can be counted on the fingers of one hand when, especially in this country, they would be a major money spinner. It is the way forward, I agree, but its just not going to happen so the SWC is the only option.

I have to be honest here and say that if Nicholls had ridden we would have qualified, because there's no doubt that even at half form he's better than King, Woffinden or Bridger. Having said that, I think Rob Lyon made the right decision to exclude him and run with the riders we had. For a start, the improvement in team spirit was commented by almost everyone and was there for all to see. That's at least in part down to Rob, but would have been severely damaged if a rider had been included who has a feud with another (as Nicholls and Harris apparently do). As any team player will tell you, team spirit moves mountains and the important point is that that team spirit will remain and, hopefully, grow. Its all very well to say that experience would be better gained in test matches, but against whom ? There simply isn't the scope for that, so if we are to blood our younger riders it has to be in the World Team Cup. That alone makes using picking Woffinden, Bridger, Kennett & King at the very least a sensible move. Last night was a bonus and that alone because none of us expected to get that close. The intention is not to challenge this year but in 2010 or, more likely 2011. Giving our younger riders a chance and creating a club atmosphere was started on Monday and continued last night and will almost certainly stand us in good stead for the future. To criticise Rob Lyon's selection as this stage is not only wrong, it completely misses the point. I share CTF's opinion; I too was very proud of our boys last night.

I had an example of this last season when I booked time off to watch Mildenhall on the Isle of Wight. Difference was I got a very fair explanation from Main Man as to why it happened and it wasn't reinstated. Completely understand your frustration.

Irrelevant. Who cares who brings them round if you have a superb meeting like that ? For once, the action on the track did the talking.

I didn't see that, SS. The ones round me were noisy, passionate and as good as gold. One thing. Did anyone notice the banner being replaced on the building on the final corner ? According to a chap near me, it was taken down by the speedway people but as it advertises a new development at the Showground the boss at EOES insisted it be replaced or he would cut the power off

Totally agree I thought the Polish supporters were an absolute credit to their team, their country and speedway in general. A superb meeting, with the highlight Miedzinski's incredible pass on Adams. Adams left him just enough room (fair play to the Aussie, he could have fenced him) but it was still an absolutely fearless, amazing move.

Hope to see you there, Dave. I'd be the first to admit it isn't the easiest to get to on public transport............

Can't believe you are in East Anglia and are going to miss out on a trip to the Fens, Dave