TonyM

Thanks Trees, I had called my Mum and after lots of do,do,do do-do-do do do ing we got the tune and the memories flooding back but alas no title to seach Youtube for, not a dry eye in either of our houses tonight but thanks again

Appreciate what you are saying about how football clubs and councils can stucture a deal whereby the football club is in effect 'subsidised' through other use or peppercorn rents but it is far easier to run a 'football in the community' scheme than one for speedway (even given the good work Lynn have done with their study centre) I would be amazed if speedway could meet the Sport England criteria in the way more traditional sports can in terms of participation / equality etc I think we both agree on mixed use, I just dont see how a speedway club could lead such a venture, even if you take out the fact that the sport is on its knees financially other sports have access to so many other funding streams that speedway because of the way it is governed (for want of a better term) does not. IMO a speedway club would nearly always be better going in as a 'second partner' or whatever term you wanted to use. Interesting that at the end of your article you use the example of Exeter Rugby club and their new stadium, not sure if you knew but they used to be landlords for the speedway but when they moved no provision for speedway was included - perhaps if speedway was seen as a key partner in the use of the stadium rather than something they were happy to leave behind we could get the facility upgrade we think is long overdue for speedway (also ask the question why the speedway didnt lead the move and have the rugby club as tenants and why Exeter speedway rather than building from scratch is now working with the local racecourse)

LS, thanks for emailing the article, interesting reading If anything I would take the exact opposite view in that for the sport to survive and prosper it must generate good returns for co-operative landlords rather than look to become the owners themselves. Essentially I cant see that the speedway community would be able to raise the initial finance either internally or externally to create their own stadiums, many of the examples you quote would I guess have had a fairly substantial element of funding from the Football Trust or similar such orgainisation as well as possible proceeds from the sale of existing facilities, and even if the returns from the 'extras' surrounding the track were cash generators why would lenders include a vast (in relative terms) area that was used for such a specialist and loss making (if EL promoters are to be believed) activity as speedway Even in its current state there are very few tracks where speedway is 'profitable' and many where facilities are subsidised by other activities be it greyhounds, stock cars or whatever so perhaps we should look to how the sport can be developed to start being an attractive (both physically and financially) tenant before we get ahead of ourselves and look to pour money the sport doesnt have into new stadia

I appreciate the idea of expanding the 'pyramid' at the bottom which should mean that there would be more quality coming through to the higher (pro) levels of the sport but two major problems: 1. taking the highlighted text out of context - speedway is viewed as a noisy sport and thus locations where it is welcomed are few and far between 2. as it currently stands speedway is an expensive sport to participate in with specialist machinery which seems to need constant (read costly) love and attention, added to the cost of creating and maintaining a safe racing area and the sums dont add up Rather than a DIY approach there should be more of an initiative taken by the BSPA (with its governing body hat on) to develop some form of coherent development policy within its existing structure

Great post, particularly highlighted bit. With speedway lurching from crisis to crisis the conference this year could do well to use this criteria as to whether to adopt / adapt any rule

Big problem is what is in it for the 'squad' riders, to take your points in turn Looking at your draft Poole team you've raided half the PL to get the squad so who would be left to ride for the PL teams? Equally CL riders get plenty of chance to ride against PL opposition with guest appearances covering for PL reserves, with what can only be described as 'mixed' success. Why would PL teams want to race these extra fixtures in what is a fairly full fixture schedule at PL level anyway? Who in your list doesnt get 'regular' racing, the bottom end of your draft team would end up with less meetings than they had this year for their respective teams - which members of the squad are you refering to? Would this by Kyle riding for his PL club against an EL B team or for the EL B team (getting limited meetings) against a weakened PL? Possibly, although there would still be potential fixture problems but accept there would be more scope for flexibility But what would the 'squad' members ask for, possibly less per meeting than GP riders but would they really want to be 'cover' riding only 'B' meetings, I'm guessing what you save on one hand you would lose on the other as these riders (if they exist) would probably want fairly hefty signing on fees to mitigate for fewer meetings There is your main problem, speedway as it currently stands places a large financial risk on its competitors by way of equipment costs and having large squads means large equipment costs to be funded. Giving each rider potentially less meetings to recoup that outlay means higher up front payments and/or higher costs per meeting unless they can earn elsewhere from that equipment when not active in the squad, sorry but I cant see how the above would be attractive to either promoters or riders

Self interest, easier and cheaper to buy in a ready made / part way there foreigners than spend the time, effort and money developing talent in house. Obviously this is a generalisation and I'm sure there are pockets of good practice out there but fundamentally the system is structured in such a way that long term development of riders is almost pointless from a financial / practical point of view. The annual merry-go-round of rider changes each post season to fit the latest average points limit is hardly an incentive either Whilst this is undoubtably part of the problem it could also be part of the solution if clubs saw any potential benefit in developing their own riders they may take look more favourably on coaching, however so many are living a hand to mouth financial existance at present its going to be a pretty hard sell to talk about 'investment' in future riders Not sure how this would work, % of licence fees which riders can then 'spend' at tracks to get track time / finance equipment / coaching? Who would administer who received the money and how much and measure what sort of return was received for the investment A more radical option (pipe dream) would be to restructure UK speedway along the lines of major league baseball in the US with 'major' teams (effectively the EL however it is made up post conference this year) and attached 'minor' teams (anything below EL level and including the CL). Riders would be signed to an EL side from the start of their careers which would hopefully encourage the top clubs to take an interest in what was going on lower down the ladder, PL and CL clubs would hopefully benefit from being part of a larger (more financially stable) organisation with a focus on bringing riders through to the EL side The other thing that would make 'coaching' a greater priority would be to standardise the equipment used in the CL thus linking success more closely with trackcraft than the ability to raise finance to fund 'better' equipment

I would guess the major problem would be with cost both in terms of venues big enough (cant think somewhere like the NEC or O2 arena comes cheap) and the insistence on trying to lay a shale track as is done in Brighton (not to everyones taste) If an alternative surface could be found that could be more easily laid and removed and perhaps look at less powerful bikes it may be possible but would still think that the venue cost would make it a fairly big gamble based on what the maximum attendance could be

Agree with every word

Fair dues to Jonathon for a long press release accepting there have been cons as well as pros for the super7even this year, yes its a bit self congratulatory but the guy is a promoter, when was the last time you heard Don King come out and 'say that boxing match was a complete mismatch and even my grannie could have knocked the loser out' - wont happen Shame there is a lot of 'I's in there as I would have hoped that there was more than one promoter keen to be involved with these events (wasnt Matt Fords name mentioned when the series was announced?) I am sure changes will be made for next season and perhap the 'depth of feeling' on here will give more power to JCs at the conference if he thinks qualifiers are the way to go for the 4TT next year, as SL has said he got many things wrong at Lynn when he first started (mainly through youthful inexperience) but has listened and changed things where necessary, also nice to see a press release that appears to have been spell checked!

Thanks Kevin, I was just trying to clarify what you were proposing. I was hoping this thread could be more about what the sport would/should look like and come to some consensus (well you, Andy and me!) view rather than putting forward suggestions (however valid) without having a framework in which to assess them Yes a mechanism for rewarding loyalty sounds a good idea as it fits in with the framework for fans in having rider continuity over time but ideas cant be viewed in isolation so we need a workable framework first (some ideas may work for one group but not for another - fans may want weekly speedway for £1 per meeting but riders want to be paid and clubs want to make money so there will always be an element of compromise with some proposals)

The point of the thread is to try and look at the sport as a whole rather than individual club issues, clubs may come and go for all sorts of reasons but unless there is some pretty radical change and soon then I fear it will be reach a point where even the 'good' clubs will struggle to carry on What do you think clubs need / want from speedway? As an aside I'm not a great fan of incremental changes as they often have the effect of giving the illusion of change whilst side stepping the 'big' issues

Looking from the professional end of the riders spectrum; 1) you think they should be able to make a living from the UK alone and that it should be a 'full time' commitment? 2) the chance of 'progressing' to SGP level but if that is achieved they would have to relinquish their UK riding place? From a club position - only UK based riders could be contracted (obviously this would allow overseas riders to come over and then be based here for the season but not flying in on a meeting by meeting basis) Didnt want to get into too much detail as regards how teams are assembled / regulations that should be in place but essentially looking for clubs to have a more stable team membership (within the confines of team equalisation) with a commitment to develop their riders

Lots of threads since the start of the season about the demise of speedway (particularly the top flight) in this country and various possible remedies to get speedway out of the downward spiral from those that think it is in one Two frustrating things for me from these type of threads are 1)the narrow range in which many of us speedway fans ideas are constrained by - ie ‘drop the points limit to 40 and all will be well’ type postings; and 2)the continual ‘my club has been wronged’ / ‘nothing wrong at my club so stop complaining’ type posts – this is exactly how I imagine the BSPA conferences to be and would like to think that we as a group could look a little further than our own clubs present situation to come up with ideas that are good for the sport as a whole Rather than finding answers (which we don’t seem to be able to agree on anyway) perhaps we could take a step back and come up with the right questions. So from my point of view there are a number of groups to be considered and accommodated in any changes and would like some thoughts on whether the assumptions of their needs are realistic, this is not a thread about how the needs of a particular group can be met rather a discussion of what each group is looking for from the sport in the future Promotions (aka clubs) – financially viable (difficult for many sporting organisations) maybe partially offset by higher profile for owner, may also be linked to sponsors requirements Sponsors – fall into a couple of categories, those that support a rider / club as it is their ‘hobby’ and those that do it as a commercial business decision – these are likely to be putting more in but will rightly want more out in terms of exposure be it national, regional or local media coverage and association with a successful club in a successful higher profile sport TV/Media – exciting matches, variety of teams, ‘personalities’, credible league competition, certainty of scheduling and fixture taking place Fans – as for TV but bias towards successful home team, sensible meeting schedule, good facilities at stadiums, continuity of riders over a period of time Riders – again I would split these between the ‘professional’ and the semi-pro / amateur. Professional wants to maximise earnings but also balance that against financial risk so a more stable earnings pattern would perhaps be a better way of putting it, I am guessing both groups would want sensible fixture scheduling although perhaps even more important for the semi pro / amateur. Good practice and coaching opportunities and chance to move up the earnings scale with sufficient ability

Unfortunately they are in a no win situation (not sticking up for JC who has made some mistakes along with all the positives surrounding the Super7). You could make a strong arguement that given the timescale between now and the restaging date they could recalculate the lineup 30 days before the meeting as per the original qualifying criteria - response from the fans who went in the rain and whose club is no longer in the tournament would probably be less than complementary and thats without the financial hit of reprinting all the programmes from scratch Equally keeping the original lineup (or the revisied original lineup) leads to its own can of worms as far as Sheffield and Redcar goes and heaven forbid if Sheffield were in the top seven averages come early June and the BSPA go back to the original original line up Personally I would go for a recalculation (Super7 tickets are redeemable at any of the other events so the PL pairs may see some cashed in there, equally an offer of a refund to any fans who wished to would not do any harm in the PR stakes) but think it is the less likely of the two options