Halifaxtiger

Up to a point, I agree. In 1978 (when British speedway had a remarkable 38 teams) Tony Davey took to the press to state that to buy a new engine he had to sell his car. At the time, Davey was a 9.5 heat leader in the British League and an England international, so its fair to say he was a top rider if not in the world class category. To my knowledge, at the time he and his brother ran a garage.Tom Owen, the unquestioned NL star during the late 1970's, ran a plant hire business during his racing days. I could name 4 or 5 other similar examples here. How many current riders(NL excepted) have other employment during the season ? Truth is speedway has never been a full time occupation for the overwhelming majority of riders, with only the really top boys managing that. These days, however, it seems to me that that is precisely their expectation and it is why we have the blight on British Speedway called uncontrolled doubling up. It also seems to me that the only thing that is off the table when considering the future of the sport is riders wages. Given the proportion of overall expenses that that accounts for, it must surely be considered although it can reasonably be argued that that is as much the fault of promotions who pay far more than they can afford. Make no mistake, I have every sympathy for Kyle Bickley and make no criticism of his view. He stayed loyal to Workington, only to lose his team place with no hope in the short term of getting another. That, however, shouldn't be allowed to cloud an issue - ie riders making a living from speedway - that is, as you have said, right at the heart of the sport's problems.

Statement this morning that the Comets will not run in 2019. I am deeply saddened by this news. Although I did not attend every week I loved coming up on Saturdays - a terrific run, some tea and a couple in the Henry Bessemer, some great company and almost always a good meeting. A real shame, but I am not totally surprised as attendances simply weren't good enough.

I find that those who wish to knock the sport paint a picture of those who attempt to defend it as blind optimists, utterly refusing to accept its minority status and living in cloud cuckoo land regarding the deep problems that it has. It is no coincidence that many of those no longer attend and my suspicion is that they do so in an attempt to justify their own decision not to go any more. In actual fact - and I attend meetings right across the country regularly - nothing could be further from the truth and I know of no-one like that. Every single current fan accepts that speedway is minority and they are all deeply concerned about its future prospects for survival, its declining attendances and revenue creation and the appalling self interests at the heart of the sport. The scale and range of critical comment on this forum is evidence of that. Even in its hey day, speedway never got the media attention its size and attendances deserved. It would say that that was partly but not totally the fault of those within the sport. It would also be very wrong to insist that those who advocate Woffinden's inclusion do so simply because of their own bias towards speedway, rather than on an at least a partly balanced basis given other nominees. Truth is being a competitor in a minority sport - or an 'irrelevance' - has never been a handicap where the BBC's nominations are concerned. If it were, Lizzy Yarnold would surely not be there (as you said yourself, only 2 out of more than 60 recognised her and on University Challenge recently none did). Yet as the greatest ever British Winter Olympian her nomination, to me, is absolutely correct. By virtue of his three world titles, Woffinden can reasonably be stated to be the greatest British speedway rider of all time (or the most 'decorated' one, using the BBC's own term). As such, he isn't just a World Champion. I would say that their achievements are almost identical. Clearly, they both represent minority sports. My view, therefore, is that they should be treated equally. Your view (because you have stated no criticism of or opposition to her nomination) is that they should be treated entirely differently. Which one of us is biased ?

I think that it is more to do with how the media have been treated on occasion - Phil Rising has mentioned a few horror stories in his time. Having said that, I would say that even in its hey day speedway never attracted the media coverage that it deserved.

Perhaps the irony is that the choice of Lizzy Yarnold has not been criticised or opposed by anyone. As such, it seems to me that everyone is entirely in favour of nomination of a British sportsman whose achievement is unprecedented even if the sport is a tiny minority one (Me included, I would say). Unless that sport is called speedway, when it isn't even worth a mention

If Lizzy Yarnold does have more recognition it's not much more given that only 2 out of more than 60 knew of her, and that's with the benefit of mainstream media coverage that would dwarf Woffinden's. Is it an indictment of speedway or of the media coverage of it ? As I have pointed out, Woffinden isn't just a World Champion he's the only British rider ever to achieve 3 titles and it's therefore a matter of unprecedented success. While I take Sydney's point, it is fair argument that he is the greatest exponent of a sport that Britain has ever produced (ironically, Lizzy Yarnold is the same). I actually think that is worth more than a mere mention.

Its possible that there have been many British World Champions, gold medallists or other record breakers in 2018. Woffinden isn't just a World Champion, though. By virtue of his three titles, he can be said to be the greatest British speedway rider of all time. Certainly his achievement is unique. With the possible exception of the truly remarkable Lizzy Yarnold - whose inclusion shows getting within the chosen names is absolutely nothing to do with the size of the sport you represent - none of the other nominees and few other sportsmen could claim that. To me, that means that the complaints of undeniably biased speedway fans that he did not even get a mention are entirely justified.

No. His first meeting - as has been pointed out - was for the Colts at Cradley. I was there and remember texting a few people about him afterwards.

I am not quite sure what that has to do with your continual - and utterly unvarying - criticism of speedway. Bewitcher, Tsunami (who I count as a very good friend) and I have crossed swords on this forum several times. They are, however, at least worth arguing with because they attend meetings and retain a passionate interest in modern day speedway. They, like me, recognise the many faults that the sport has and have been extremely critical on occasion. However, they also recognise that four blokes on bikes without brakes can be as good as its ever been - indeed, on occasion, its better. They give credit where credit is due. You don't. Period. By your own admission, you don't go, have no interest and wouldn't attend even if it was free. As such, Bewitcher's EastEnders post - in your case - is just about bang on.

'Was' being the operative word. Absolutely no interest now other than to be critical.

Not too sure about that but they were fancied.....And Workington were only thought decent !

Sheffield Leicester Berwick Eastbourne (based upon rumoured signings) Sheffield are the stand out team but otherwise its pretty tight.

The problem is that the BBC are (and it might be argued, have to be) politically correct. That means if by far and away the 5 greatest sporting achievements were made by white males one of them at least would be dropped to accommodate a female and someone from an ethnic minority. It also means that the awards will never have the credibility that they should, even if the allegations of vote rigging are untrue. The sadness of that is it damages the achievements of female and black sportsmen, because they don't know if they are there because of what they achieved or because they are female and black. While you might - and I think you have a point - object to netball, I would say that skeleton racing is far more of a minority sport in terms of UK participants and spectators. I nevertheless suspect that there would be few who would deny Lizzy Yarnold her nomination as Britain's greatest ever winter Olympian. For me, and in terms of achievement, I would say that hers has been the biggest of all. You'd think, though, that others who were the greatest ever Briton in their field - even if that is a minority sport - might at least have been mentioned. Humph is spot on, though. Just don't watch it.

That hasn't worked and it should have been obvious that that would be the case. In fact, we are seeing developing riders forced out and NL professionals getting places. In addition, it is entirely possible that the intention in forcing riders up was to lower costs in the Championship - in other words, the motivation was selfishness. There's a surprise No rider in the NL is a full time professional and as for paying silly money I would have thought that representatives of the Championship and Premiership would be the last to lecture about that. In terms of finances, I have no doubt that the NL is in better shape than either of the other leagues.

Given that with 10 teams in 2018 promoters apparently wanted a raise in the limit, it is ridiculous that with 8 teams it is lowered and inevitably there will be riders unable to gain a team place even if they are most deserving of one. I think you are probably right - part of the motivation for Birmingham and Eastbourne moving up was the low points limit. It should also be remembered that the rumoured limit was to be even lower. My understanding is that the limit was set low to force riders up into the Championship but I believe that to be stupidly flawed. For a start, the best young riders don't need to be forced, they will do it as a matter of ambition. Secondly, it hasn't stopped NL sides from filling their line ups with 'journeyman' NL riders (Ayres, Wallinger, Perry, Wilson, Campos etc -hat isn't a criticism of the riders or the clubs, just of how the policy has failed). Finally, young riders deserving of a place are already being left out (Smith and Lawlor come to mind, but there will be others). Simple truth is that NL clubs did not want a reduction and the apparent motivation for it is nonsense.

Flint will be 16 at the start of the season and is one of British Speedway's best prospects, averaging 8.5 in his first year. Given also he is based in Berwick (and hence the other nearest NLtrack would be almost 100 miles away) it is pretty much a no brainer for both him and Belle Vue to sign for the Colts and I suspect many (if not most) Belle Vue supporters would prefer him to Smith. 2019 will be Phillips' 8th season of NL racing, his average last year was 6.75 and under 2.00 for Scunthorpe. He'll be 23 during the season. It will be Smith's 4th season, his average was 8.41 and 2.88 for Sheffield. He'll be 20. No question about whom is more deserving of a place in the NL and it is ridiculous that a rider of that age and potential is forced out of the NL by the points limit (and it is most unlikely that he will be the only one). While there can be an argument made that due to the reduction for new riders from 3.00 to 2.00 means that the limit remains the same, that is dependent upon all teams finding two such riders - or 16 altogether. Are there 16 ?

That's the stupid points limit rather than Belle Vue. It is entirely probable that a lot of the high averaging young riders will be forced out of the NL. Had it been the same as last year, they could have Smith rather than Phillips (Smith is younger, less experienced and is deeply connected with Belle Vue). Decent Aces side and a most attractive Colts one. Monday night racing is not for me, though.

Completely agree ……..with one issue. Young riders of their level shouldn't be frozen out so they can be accommodated. That, however, is more of a matter of the points limit. No-one in their right mind would say that having Jon Armstrong (now well into his 40's) in the NL is a bad thing. I don't recall you objecting to Mark Baseby and when Ellis joined Eastbourne he was way beyond NL level - evidenced by a final finishing tally of 10.98 and the fact that at one point he was topping Poole's averages.

That's my understanding of it. It is an indictment of the BSPA that they have forced a decision on the NL against the wishes of everyone in that league, a league in which they have no financial stake. What's worse, its entirely possible that that decision was made for their own selfish interests. I was very impressed with the Colts team last night but, as I have pointed out on that thread, had the points limit remained the same they could have had Smith rather than Phillips. A younger, less experienced, seriously Belle Vue connected rider has been dumped in favour of someone older, more experienced and with little - if any - connection to the club.

Had the points limit remained the same, the Colts could have had Jack Smith instead of Danny Phillips. Smith is younger, has less experience and of course has the Belle Vue connection through riding for the Aces and Colts and his father. Its still a cracking line up any way.

I think you are absolutely right. Riders at NL level in particular (and especially the NL professionals) do it because they love competing in speedway. Having said that, there's also the matter of ambition. Many of the youngsters believe they have the talent to go further, so while they might love it they also race because of the possibility of fame and fortune. I'd also say that if there was no payment at NL level some (again, the NL professionals) would quit. Moreover the standard would drop, as funds were not available to meet the high costs of equipment in the way that UTB has said.

I don't think anyone actually hates Glasgow. Some are jealous, certainly - I can remember a particularly vicious piece in an Edinburgh programme shortly after the Facenna's took over the club. I don't think it really matters that much what others think, either. But this forum would be a very dull (and mostly empty) place without those thoughts.

Teaboy said in a post recently that Buxton had failed to move on. I think he has a point. It seems to me that many seem to forget that an NL speedway club is a business. As such, they need to pull in enough revenue to meet their expenses which, aside from rider costs (a big chunk, admittedly) are no different from any other track. Rent, ambulance cover, insurance, BSPA fees, track preparation costs - they are the same (or so) regardless. In order to get that revenue, they have to a product that is attractive enough to entice paying customers and, through that, sponsorship, Otherwise they are history. When Rob Godfrey ran a very weak NL side a couple of seasons ago, every single home meeting was a double header with the PL team with a couple of quid banged on the entry price. Its not difficult to work out why he did that : run them as stand alones, and they would attract a handful of fans only. It would be slightly different for the likes of Kent, Mildenhall, Plymouth etc, but there's no doubt a weakened product would affect attendances and, through that sponsorship and, from that, the very existence of the team. Its why I have no problem with the so called NL professionals. Looking through last years starting line ups, most teams had just 1 or at the most 2, and they were nearly all 7.00 or above riders. None of those would take a 2point youngsters place. The way I see it, the NL has done an excellent job of compromising between development and viability. Make no mistake, a low point limit is more likely to put clubs out of business than a high one, which is probably why Mark Phillips has stated that they were all against the reduction in points this season.

Looks like my source was right after all...……….

Certainly in my case - and I suspect many others - its not a case of 'bitterness' at all. I suspect that some fans might be a little envious of the financial resources that Glasgow have but, as you rightly say, they would all want the same for their teams. However, it sticks a little in my craw that in one minute you have the Glasgow owners spouting about 6 figure losses season on season and the possibility that 2019 might be the last one for the Tigers and then throwing huge sums of money about - and I don't think there's any doubt of that whatsoever - in building a team for the forthcoming year. That, to me, seems to me to be the very point that many are making, and that's not 'bitterness', its merely condemning hypocrisy and irresponsibility.