Vince

Yet two promotions, the very people who you feel would be worst affected as they would be holding meetings at their track clearly felt that wouldn't be the case. Perhaps the chance of a guaranteed income rather than 'minimising losses' was actually an attractive proposition. No Promoter who felt that way would be forced to hire their track out so I think we are still to find a genuine problem. Whisperer says that nobody consulted with the SCB or BSPA. Do we know for a fact that nobody in a senior position within one or other of those organisations was consulted? I know it was posted earlier but can anybody say that with certainty.

I would like to know why some people, apparently including some at the BSPA, are so against this. For the life of me I can't see how it could do the sport any harm. It has been said that if these meetings were a success then they would want to run many more in the future. However for that to happen they would firstly be doing something very right in order to get enough people through the gate to make them want to do many more. Secondly as they have to hire the tracks current promoters can have complete control over how many meetings are run. All the stuff about insurance and regulations is nonsense as they are quite capable of covering all of that. If the only dispute is that they didn't go to the SCB/ BSPA first then it seems a bit petty to deprive 6 tracks and about 30 riders of some additional income. It's also not certain that is the case, they may well have spoken to people within the BSPA and not expected it to be an issue. Clearly the two members who agreed to hire the track out didn't foresee it becoming a problem. So what is the problem? What harm do people think these meetings can do? Whether this series gets to run this year or not I think trying to stop it could open a very large can of worms. The history of motorcycle sport is littered with examples of the ACU turning molehills into mountains only for it all to backfire in the not so distant future.

It is terrible that people PAY Speedway promoters to use their tracks, money which they can use to help subsidise Speedway meetings. So far on this thread we've seen people who pay to use Speedway facilities called both parasites and leeches, can't understand why the promoters involved can't see how they are being abused

Bunch of amateurs who have Red Bull as one of their series title sponsors, run events at the prestigous O2, Odyssey, LG and Echo arenas and even have guaranteed TV coverage for their Minibike Championships in 2013. Perhaps the professionals at the BSPA should pay attention to these 'amateurs' as they seem to do some things very well and be growing quickly, remind me just how fast Speedway is growing at the moment. Usually I tend to side with the promoters when they are being knocked on the forum but this time I really believe they could have made a very big mistake by not working with these people rather than against them.

For years it was in black and white that ACU riders would have their licence revoked if they competed under another organisation, then it was challenged, found to be illegal and changed. Similar thing with tracks. Many things are accepted as unchangeable until somebody challenges them. I just can't understand why the BSPA / ACU would run the risk of toppling their house of cards because somebody wants to put a couple of extra on top. Here was an opportunity for something slightly different to be tried at no risk or cost to themselves. If the series didn't do well they could say 'told you so' and if it succeeded they could pinch the ideas they/ the public liked and use them for their own events. I think they really need to hope that the MCF don't think the issue is worth butting heads over because having given up the opportunity to work alongside them the last thing Speedway needs is division.

Nothing like getting carried away is there! it's half a dozen meetings over a whole season, not a replacement league and it would have to be run with the agreement and assistance of the current promoters whose tracks were being used. Quite clearly despite the SCB's stance there are people within the BSPA who think the series a good idea. Parasite: derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return - not somebody who pays for the use of a stadium then.

The SCB must be mad, what have they to gain by stopping or trying to stop this series? As things stand the promoters had stated that they would be doing everything to avoid clashing with SCB events and it would be six meetings as an addition to the season, replacing nothing. Tracks get a bit more income as do riders, the ACU, BSPA, SCB lose nothing at all but would rather try to stop something because they aren't getting a slice. Now I guess the options are to change the name (is Speedway really trademarked/ copyrighted as a word?), carry on and call their bluff, after all if 6 tracks sign up are the BSPA really going to try and shut them down? Finally if the MCF feel strongly enough it could turn into a legal battle (quite possible, the ACU really like to spend their members money without considering whether it's what their members want) in which case the MCF will win as there are many precedents with the ACU trying to revoke riders licences. As for all the nonsense about insurance and liabilities I bet the MCF provide a much better option than the ACU, that's why these alternative organisations exist and so many clubs leave the ACU to affiliate to them. Riders can hold both MCF and ACU licences which entitles them to ride in ACU and FIM Championships, many of the countries top MX riders do this as the MCF authorised Red Bull series runs very succesfully alongside the ACU's British Championships with no problems between the two. In my opinion the SCB/ BSPA would be far better employed going along to watch the series and see if there are any ideas they could pinch to improve their own meetings.

No, they could run independantly or under any of ACU, AMCA, BSMA, YMSA, and probably some others I haven't thought of and that would apply whether it was a permanent or temporary track. Clubs sometimes switch their affiliation from one governing body to another.

Surely the whole point of alternative organisations to the ACU is their ability to provide insurance and organisational backup to organising clubs, usually at a better rate given the ACU is like a government department when it comes to finding ways to spend it's members money. There is no reason the MCF can't provide insurance for a meeting held on a Speedway track, the flattrack series is running with them this year. There are a large number of sancioning bodies throughout motorcycle sport these days, no reason why Speedway should be different. In fact if I want to run a meeting or practice on a Speedway track or anywhere else I can go directly to the insurance company and get cover, even from the same insurers that the ACU use. The licence issue should be no problem as it must be well over 20 years ago that the AMCA and ACU were at loggerheads and it was eventually settled in court that the ACU could not revoke riders licences for competing in events not sanctioned by themselves. I don't know how the SCB will feel about it but it's difficult to see how they could legally be any different. The only exception would be if they competed in one of these events and missed a BSPA meeting which they will automatically be expected to attend by signing for a team. Hence the Tuesday meetings I would imagine. Many years ago the FIM stopped an alternative Road Race World Championship by threatening to not use tracks that held the alternative meetings. Can't see that Speedway would be willing to risk half a dozen tracks by trying the same thing which would very likely be illegal anyway.

Do the heat shields need to be approved or can you fit anything suitable? I noticed on Ebay it says they are suitable for approved silencers which could be a different thing.

According to Hansards average wage for a manual worker was £3 9s in 1939 so round it up to £3.50 and you are talking over 25 times that. Struggled to find a recent average wage for manual workers but the overall average is £26k so if we assume 20 which is near as £400 week as makes no difference that would make the rate today well over £10,000 week riding for one team who supplied a mechanic to look after your bike in their workshop. Apparently that is nearly as much as some NL riders!!

You just gotta love the whingers on this forum, they don't even need to know what is happening before they start knocking it.

You say that as if it's a bad thing!

I have to say one thing for robert72, he doesn't give up........................................ever!

For me this is the biggest flaw of the asset system. It actually encourages promoters to bring in untried foreign riders and give the a long run in the team to try to get them to a point where they have some financial value. There is no point in their helping a young Brtitish lad make his way in a higher league because there is no long term benefit for their club. Much better if British lads could not become assets until they had ridden 10 or 12 meetings for the club that wants to sign them. A fee could be applicable to be paid to NL clubs if the lad then qualifies to become an asset in the higher league.

Might be the way to make Speedway accessible in more places for youngsters/ beginners........before they move on to proper bikes. Needn't be slow, sure I saw that electric bikes are lapping the Isle of mann TT course at or near to 100mph average.

There was a long running dispute between the ACU and the AMCA many years ago about the ACU not letting their riders compete in other events. The outcome was that it was judged illegal and that riders could not have their licences withdrawn for competing with a different federation.

Welcome to the Leicester 2013 thread, the current under 5's playground of the BSF :-)

For the biggest current club in British Speedway to report a financial loss when they have previously been proud to announce that they are one of the few financially viable clubs has to be some of the most worrying news of the winter. Put it alongside the possible loss of Sky or a lesser deal from them at the end of the year and it would appear there will need to be some really drastic changes in the very near future. Could be the end of the professional sport as we know it or just maybe the opportunity to restructure and improve.

I find it hard to believe that so many people cite the introduction of 4v engines as being so harmful to Speedway. Jap 2v engines were no more reliable and how reliable do you think a 2v Jawa would be with another 30 years development so it would also be revving to the same levels? The only extra cost of these engines is literally for the items needed to run 2 valves and that is minimal in the overall picture. Neither did the 4v or laydowns introduce slick tracks, they evolved because they worked better on the slick tracks that were becoming the normal. When I first went to Speedway in the mid to late 60's I used to hear all the old folks moaning about how much better it was when they used Jap's, they should never have allowed the Eso or Jawa, Cinders produced much better racing and on and on. Some meetings were brilliant, the majority OK, some poor (for the younger members I have to say that not every race in the 60's produced 25 passes!) All I used to see was 4 blokes tearing round a track risking life and limb and thought it was the most exciting sport I've ever seen. Now I am one of the old blokes and I hear basically the same complaints referring to days I can remember but still all I see is 4 blokes tearing round a track risking life and limb in the most exciting sport I've ever seen.The only real difference is that the crowd is very much smaller and that inevitably takes something away from the excitement.

When they stopped calling Speedway dangerous and started with the 'family sport' image building. It was a family sport anyway but in the 60's many of the kids annuals and comics would have something about Speedway and it always emphasised the risk. That also applied to the newspapers. My memory is not good enough to say whether their coverage decreased in line with the spectators but I have a feeling the sport fell out of popularity with the press before it did with the public. To my way of thinking the idea of promoting Speedway as a family sport was very much 'selling coals to Newcastle' what teenager wants to like the same things their parents do unless they can say they do so for different reasons? There is a lot more competition for peoples money anyway so I think spectator numbers would have declined no matter what but the marketing has been poor. For me the racing is at least as good as I have ever seen (I believe better) and rose tinted glasses bear a lot of responsibility for people knocking the sport.

Because under the current system they can make money in future transfers or loan fees if they pay the right price

Since riders are self employed and not paid a year round salary or retainer it is difficult to see how the asset system can possibly stand up legally. For me the biggest problem with the system is that British youngsters cost clubs money in loans fees so are either not given the opportunities or only given a very short time to achieve their average when they step up a league. An untried foreign rider could be bought in for similar money but will become a club asset and therefore is worth giving a long run in the hope he will come good as he would then be financially beneficial to the club. I can see how the asset system can benefit the clubs but it is a nonsense that youngsters can become assets of a club they have never ridden for and who have done nothing for them training wise.

No but how many riders from the midlands have benefitted from their efforts and is that worth jeopardising to whinge about one rider who, if the only poster to know anything about him is right, is unlikely to get a NL place anyway? I would be suprised if your posts on here haven't cost your boy a lot more rides than this lad ever will.