Halifaxtiger

Jack Holder (Plymouth) Nikolai Busk Jakobsen (Peterborough) Craig Cook (Belle Vue) George Wood (Eastbourne) Tom Bacon (Birmingham).

I'd say basic knowledge of speedway comes first. Odd mistakes can be forgiven, but knowing nothing about the sport cannot. The worst is that the presenter gives the impression that he is the star of the show. I'm pretty sure that none of them do, but nevertheless they can come across that way. In my opinion, Chris Popple falls into that trap. I am genuinely surprised that Isle of Wight have engaged him when they have excellent presenters like Bryn Williams and (if available) Tim Helm on their doorstep.

Since when has 'tossin off with the other' been an opinion ? No, he's not. He's stating an opinion. He doesn't like Popple and, in my experience, he's anything but alone. He's not said he's an expert and I doubt he's claiming to be one. As a paying customer, he is more than entitled to express his view as to anything that goes on at Leicester Speedway. In fact, your attitude is pretty much typical as to what you get if you are critical to a member of a promotion or their staff - hostility, aggression and abuse, when in fact his view should be listened to at the very least. One of the principle reasons why speedway is on its knees is because promotions - and their apologists - treat fans with such contempt. The oldest excuse in the book and the most valueless. Heard it dozens of times about presenters, promoters and riders and its not worth a light. I don't doubt he (and I would be the same) would admit that he'd make a crap presenter. Then again, we're not claiming to be one. As I have said before, as a paying customer he has every right to be critical.

Its very likely that those two are linked. You can't expect people to buy season tickets when they don't know what they will be getting.

Mildenhall are the same. The Fen Tigers doesn't refer to a big striped cat but a group of people from the area who fought against the draining of the Fens in the 17th century.

I agree. Last year seemed to me to be a successful season for the NL by all standards and I see no reason why this one shouldn't be the same.

By saying that its the 'elephant in the room' I think he means that its the only thing that the new IOW set up have made a mess of. It is, in my opinion, pretty awful and I think most share that view. Having said that, in the overall scheme of matters its absolutely tiny and its fair to say that in everything else - especially for me the move to Thursday Speedway - they have got it pretty much spot on Many thanks for your involvement here, its much appreciated.

Wouldn't surprise me. Hugely impressed with him last season.

Little bit too much doom and gloom here for me. Ok, Mason isn't exactly going to set everyone buzzing and a lot will depend on the boys at the bottom but I'd say that's the best heat leader trio in the league and should make the Kings reasonably competitive everywhere.

This is what Mike BV said: '..... And changing the rules which fundamentally impact the sport without firstly clearly explaining to its paying customers why the rules have changed, the rationale used for the changes and indeed the riders the changes impact is, I would suggest, also a bit 'thick'... (Even more so when your patrons have built up a less than generous view of your competence in decision making, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of your previous 'track record')...' I really don't see anything thin and petty in that. According to Gordon Pairman, the heat leader list was ready on 02/11/15. Speedway Star announced that it would publish the 'mysterious' heat leader list on 09/12/15 (apparently as a result of a leak) and it appeared on the BSPA website on 10/12/15. Doesn't the fact that it was sat on for 6 weeks and then made available when it was leaked to Speedway Star look just the slightest bit suspicious ? According to Gordon Pairman, at least one promoter was indeed unhappy about it. What makes you think you will get a sensible response to a question to Jon Cook about the heat leader list when he has already labelled at least one person who was critical 'thick and biased' ? First of all, thank you for taking the time and trouble to give your viewpoint here. Its greatly valued. I also have no issue with the fact that you have two promoters from the BSPA on the SCB panel. I do not see, however, that either of those promoters can be part of an adjudicating decision in relation to an issue that has arisen between tracks. Having an active promoter ruling on a dispute will almost inevitably provoke accusations of bias or prejudice. Had that been in 2015, for example, it is possible that Alex Harkess might have been called to rule on a matter that involved Glasgow or Somerset. Even if he acted with complete integrity, he should not be placed in a position where he might be accused of having an interest in any decision. In addition, in my experience SCB decisions do not name those who make the decision, do not give sufficient explanation for the decision and, according to Gary Patchett, are absolutely binding with no further recourse to the ACU. That, too, simply isn't good enough. E I Addio has very correctly suggested that there be a clear division between the SCB and the BSPA and I fully agree. It might be me being sceptical, but I believe the reason that the BSPA tolerate the SCB is because they have a form of control over it. In contrast, I have no doubt they would be violently and implacably opposed to an entirely independent adjudicator from outside the sport. If the SCB is as independent as you suggest, I'd ask why when any accusations of bias would clearly be nonsense. As to the necessity of having two promoters on the SCB, I am sure I do not need to remind you that the most significant legal decision in the sports history was made by Hartley Shawcross, a man with no knowledge of the sport whatsoever. His report enabled the unification of speedway in a way that no promoter had been able to achieve.

I think you are right here. I don't think it would be a disaster to have independent adjudication, but if there was clear water between the SCB and the BSPA that's precisely what we would get without the need for any further party becoming involved.

Perhaps you should ask Mr Cook both of these questions. After all, he won't engage in debate and when criticised or questioned apparently just resorts to insults. I don't think its served any purpose short of showing just how speedway fans feel about his comments. My view is that any member of the speedway establishment (for want of a better word) deserves all the abuse he gets when he treats the fan base of our sport with contempt and arrogance (because that's the way everyone has interpreted it) and I am sure that we can agree that there's a great deal of difference between the odd fan doing it on the pages of this forum and a promoter doing it on the pages of Speedway Star.

For the most part, I agree. I think, though, that one club complaining about terms offered by another but doing pretty much the same thing themselves at the same time as pleading poverty is worthy of comment.

I have heard something very similar. Certain (but by no means all) people from Edinburgh were very quick to attack Glasgow paying over the odds but it appears that it is OK where the Monarchs are concerned, despite the fact that they had the begging bowl out only a few weeks into the 2015 season. I got told that a team not too far away from me enquired about Wolbert last season but rejected him on the basis of 'outrageous' financial demands. What he wanted was apparently much, much higher than the clubs top rider, one of the (if not the) top performers in the PL last season.

Because most clubs are loss making, you can't have that. It is simply a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. However............ I'd completely agree here if members of the BSPA weren't also members of the SCB. The SCB simply isn't impartial. What it needs is someone from outside the sport - not to make the rules (as that must be the prerequisite of the BSPA) but to ensure that they are complied with and to make binding rulings when there is a dispute. In that way, we won't have a member of the BSPA management committee deciding whether his track can have a guest in place of a missing rider. Sadly, it'll never happen. There's far too many people at the heart of the sport who will insist that as well as the rulebook 'the interests of speedway' must apply, despite the fact that the two can be entirely incompatible. Put your finger right on it for me . 'We were all agreed on it so it must be fair' is anything but persuasive. Wasn't the draft system couched in similar terms ? I don't think anyone is more disadvantaged by it than the points limit rule, for example..........but that's not my beef. Reading the pages of this thread, the heat leader list was 'mysterious' until Speedway Star published it (apparently without BSPA permission). Belatedly, it was then made available for all to see. It would be easy to draw the conclusion that the BSPA's hand was forced by Speedway Star's action, so the intention was to cover it up for as long as possible. Further, no explanation has been made for those that are included and those that are not. To some, it appears to be entirely arbitrary and based upon 'feeling and opinion'. Is it to much to ask for an explanation as to why this has been chosen and why certain riders are on it and certain ones are not ? I'd say not, but Jon Cook clearly disagrees. In truth, it comes down to the same old thing : a determination to keep matters from the very people who keep the sport alive and that's something that I (and I am pretty sure I am not alone) find hard to accept. Precisely

As Humph has said, there's a huge difference between publishing the rules for a spectator sport and those for a financial institution that deals mostly with confidential information. Indeed so, but when two clubs asked about him in 2015 one was told a 5.00 average, the other that it hadn't been decided. That's directly contrary to the 2015 rule book. While I would accept the way I asked might have some effect on the response, what I ask should not. After all, I can always be told 'no comment' or something like that. I strongly believe that no fan should be lost to the sport or an individual team because of the attitude of a promotion. They can disagree with you, but that doesn't mean that you are not entitled to a civil response whatever you may ask. There are many examples on here where a paying customer has been treated appallingly and I am aware of at least half a dozen people who don't go to certain tracks any more because of the way they have been treated. And promoters are always squawking about falling gates and financial losses !! A few years ago, Spin King and I met up with ex Sheffield promoter Dave Hoggart at a time when the Tigers were struggling. He said we could ask any question we wanted, but he reserved the right to say 'I am not telling you that'. He was professional, as open as he could be, fair, reasonable and entirely civil. I have had similar experiences with King's Lynn team manager Dale Allitt, Mildenhall chairman Kevin Jolly, ex Mildenhall promoters Simon Barton and Ray Mascall and Plymouth promoter Ashley Taylor and its little wonder that I have a great deal of regard for these gentlemen. Yes, fans are entitled to know. You seem to believe that buying a ticket for a speedway meeting is like buying a loaf of bread. You buy it, you eat it (or watch it),end of story. That entirely overlooks the degree of involvement and interest that fans have in the sport. The pages of this forum have as a significant part of their content fans complaining (and occasionally praising) about riders, promoters, team managers and heaven knows who else - largely for one reason and one reason alone: they care about their team. Not publishing both a rule and its reasoning means that those people have no idea about something that will directly affect their teams chances of success or failure and leads to situations similar to that at Somerset at the beginning of 2015. To my mind, that treats the sports biggest sponsor with contempt and arrogance and comes very close to 'get what you are given and be grateful'. Its little wonder that people are angry. The season hasn't started but team building most certainly has and this rule is all about team building. It is nonsense to say that no-one is prejudiced as every single fan is because they know nothing about it. It is not good business sense to keep people informed in a spectator sport - because of the degree of interest, it should be standard procedure. Not to do so is bad (if not awful) business practice. Even when the rule book is published, it is often the case that rules are left out or promotions do not consider themselves bound by them. As an example, when Daniel Spiller signed for Eastbourne last season he was a British passport holder and had not ridden in the UK before. 5 minutes referral to SCB handbook will tell you that that is a 3.00 NL average, but it didn't stop Len Silver going on an ill tempered rant about it. Either Silver wasn't aware of that rule, or he believed that it should be entirely ignored. I am wondering whether 'what is a fan' is a trick question. Surely it is someone who has an interest in speedway (or anything else) ? True, there are a multitude on this forum that attend occasionally, rarely, or not at all. The point is not that they are not entitled to give an opinion, but how much validity and credibility you place on their comments and views. Someone who never goes can be mostly ignored, someone who goes regularly should be listened to. As to the Jon Cook abuse thread, he deserves every word of it. So, to answer the question fans are entitled for two reasons : they are the sports biggest sponsor - indeed, they are its life blood. Secondly, they care passionately about it. Yes, I believe it is secrecy and that there is a genuine desire to maintain that within the BSPA/SCB. The simple truth is it happens too often.

Little optimistic about Bailey - although he deserves a chance - otherwise I don't think you are too far out. Whatever the case, that's a young team with a lot of potential for improvement (Auty & Wilkinson perhaps aside) riding on the best track in the league. With that team, I think they'll make the play offs. If I were a Scunny supporter, I'd be very much looking forward to 2016.

Especially Redcar....................

Because they provide the funds that allows speedway to exist. If they are not entitled to be made aware of the rules of the sport and the reasoning behind it I am not quite sure who is. The alternative is the secrecy, backhander dealing and arbitrary decisions that we see all to frequently and which have undoubtedly led to some fans becoming so disillusioned that they simply stop going. We have already seen one such decision this winter : Bradley Wilson-Dean's PL average that is directly contrary to the rule book. And if someone did ask do you really think they would get a fair explanation ? We have already seen the response that is given to criticism. One final point : in 2016 there is one track that I definitely will not be going to. Its not because of the distance, the cost or the racing. Its the reaction I got from one of the promotion when I tried to have a reasonable chat about the track. Treating fans with contempt is one of the reasons why speedway is on its knees.

Not just your thoughts, I completely agree. There's far too many bigoted, biased, ignorant remarks made on here regarding which one of the leagues offers the best entertainment. I saw some cracking speedway (and some not so cracking speedway) in all the leagues last season. The only thing I would say is that most of the best racing tracks - Somerset, Plymouth, Peterborough, Scunthorpe - are in the PL. One final point: if the losses (and profits) made by EL and PL tracks combined are compared, I bet the PL loses more money per club.

Unquestionably true, but that doesn't give grounds to insult, criticise or abuse them.

Based upon Lakeside supporters opinions on here, I don't think that's true. They all seem to be defending, excusing or at least underplaying Cook's remarks and consequently its most unlikely they will stop going. As far as I can see (and I am sure that I have already said this) SCB was absolutely correct in his criticism of Cook's remarks but shouldn't have used the language that he did.

I agree, Mick. As you rightly say, a Brit being undisputed World Heavyweight Boxing Champion is unheard of so I'd say its the biggest achievement of the year. He might have made some stupid remarks but surely this is judged on his sporting prowess and his personal beliefs are irrelevant ? Given that no British rider has ever won the world title more than twice, if Tai wins again in 2016 and continues his fund raising activity it will be a sham if he is not nominated. As he himself said, precisely what does he have to do to get a place ?

Me too, Rob. I must admit I am surprised that Scunny are being tipped for the wooden spoon or near it. I think that's a good team.

If you count Kenny Carter's World Pairs win in 1983, he did it too. A debatable point for sure. As good as Collins and especially Olsen were, over 10 or 12 rounds I don't think they'd match Mauger. In 14 seasons between 1966 and 1979, Mauger qualified for every world final and only finished outside the top 4 once. In the British League, he averaged over 11 on 7 occasions.