Humphrey Appleby

There would be very few countries able to compete then. You need a minimum of 6 or 7 riders per team if you want to use a straightforward match format, and there are probably only 6 or so countries that would be able to put out a competitive side on that basis.

I didn't suggest that I agreed with the joker rule, but I think it's a minor issue compared to the rest of the things that are wrong with speedway. I'd prefer to see tactical subs in the SWC, and unlike league competition, I can't imagine it would cost any more as the prize money is pre-determined.

No, SCB is right. DRS is available during a race and gives a potential advantage to a car behind another. It can only be used when a trailing car is a certain distance behind, but it's somewhat analogous to the joker in speedway.

I suppose it comes down to how one defines what speedway actually is, and even then, it seems highly probable that blokes riding in circles on a dirt surface must have come soon after the invention of the motorcycle...

Australia is listed as being affiliated to the FIM in 1975, so presumably they were a team in their own right then. New Zealand is a bit of grey area as they had their own federation which was an affiliate of the ACU (as for example, is the Scottish ACU). However, the MNZ website says itself that Kiwis rode as British riders until 1983, so presumably their WTC win was technically as the 'British' team.

I believe they actually were, at least according to the FIM records. In the WTC, it would seem the qualifying round involving England, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand was to determine the ACU representative (although Australia became affiliated to the FIM in their own right around 1976, although NZ not until 1984). In the World Pairs, it's true that both England and Scotland appeared in at least one World Final together, but one assumes they were considered GB 1 and GB 2. A number of countries entered multiple pairs over the years, so it's not an unreasonable assumption. Certainly the records I've seen listed 'England' as Great Britain, and then Scotland separately. Of course, this being speedway, the rules were probably made up as they went along and trying to make sense of it now is probably futile...

Can't swear to it, but I seem to remember hearing that BSI were discussing a GP in Las Vegas some years ago.

Simmo really provides the highlight of the magazine (I do hope his column isn't ghostwritten ). I actually didn't know a lot about Don Godden, but I thought his tribute piece was excellent.

It's already been tried in the WTC, circa 2000 and 2001. I personally thought it was a better format because it allowed for team riding, but it seems it was perceived to be open to manipulation. The current format isn't too bad, although I'd prefer 4 rider teams + 1 reserve as it would probably make for more competitive racing earlier in the competition.

To be precise, Northern Ireland technically isn't included under 'Great Britain' in speedway terms as the whole of Ireland is separately affiliated to the FIM. In years gone by, the ACU also covered much of the Commonwealth, hence why Australian and New Zealanders rode for 'Great Britain'.

Because even if you could persuade the MCG to lay a track on their hallowed turf, you wouldn't get anything close to 90,000 people...

As with all these sorts of bodies, some delegates will be clueful and even hard-working, whilst others will just be in it for the jollies. I guess the main problem with the FIM though, is that track racing falls a long way down the list of priorities; behind the likes of MotoGP and Superbikes Only compared to the rest of the sport, which does not set the bar very high. The SGP and SWC still seem to have failed to capitalise on the corporate market in the way that other motorsport disciplines have. For example, the list of sponsors remains distinctly minor league, and whilst we'll no doubt be told they're actually paying loads of money, it doesn't really matter if they are as little of it accrues to speedway itself. The FIM sold the golden (or at least the bronze) goose for a relative handful of beans, and the sport itself doesn't even get any of those.

I seem to recall Carl Blackbird having a bit of a hoodoo over Hans Nielsen for a while, for some bizarre reason.

I believe it was actually because the ACU covered most of the Commonwealth in those days. Australia didn't get its own federation until about 1976 and New Zealand not until 1984. The British Final was therefore really the Commonwealth Final.

Yes quite. It seems to be fashionable amongst modern commentators to shout and generally get over excitable, but with television in particular, it's unnecessary as viewers can see for themselves what's happening. And yes, being informed does help as well.. As for the flowery descriptions of earlier commentators, that also seems to be something of their time. A bit like Blowers and his 'plump succulent pigeons on the outfield'..

It was a reasonably entertaining meeting, although it's a bit concerning if some are describing it as spectacular. Equally though, the quality of the line-up wasn't a particular issue from my perspective as a casual viewer, although charging 20 quid seemed a bit excessive for what wasn't much more than a glorified open meeting. How far has this competition fallen though? There can't have been many more than 1,000 people there, and that was on pretty pleasant early-summer evening... BTW - perhaps I'm going blind, but I had no idea the meeting was sponsored by Buildbase. Not mentioned in the programme, and no banners around the track...

My first meeting for a long time. There was some decent racing early on, but the track got very slick and dusty by about halfway through and rather spoiled things.

Hmmm.. small envelopes thrust into big hands was how I think Brian Glanville described the stealing of the FIFA Presidency in 1974, which set the scene for the current crooks in charge. Not sure that BSI or even the FIM are anything close to that league, although they possibly wish they were...

Doesn't matter to IMG/BSI, provided they cough up the rights fees. Not sure what the exact arrangement is in Italy, but GPs at the smaller venues are usually subsidised by the clubs, local authorities and/or tourist boards. That said, doesn't Terenzano stage fairly regular speedway, so it's not like they're having to build a track for just one event.

I actually have a bit of sympathy with respect to the problems of track preparation. With the best will in the world, BSI are dependent on the quality of materials and pre-existing preparation when they front up for a GP. Sure given enough time and expertise they could produce a decent surface, but a couple of days isn't enough if the groundwork hasn't been done, and undoubtedly it's logistically impractical if not cost prohibitive for a curator to turn up much more in advance. In an ideal world they'd boot the poorly performing tracks off the circuit, but equally they'd need to find a replacement track/promoter to front up the money...

It's not about sharing the GPs around, but who's willing to stage them. AFAIK, Daugavpils and Krsko relied heavily on local authority support and have 'done their wedge' which is why they're now off the calendar. Russia is simply a nightmare to organise anything in, and as Mr. Rising pointed out a few weeks ago, promoters there have the unfortunate tendency to be assassinated...

Sounds like an Old Firm Derby.. Bila Hora I believe it's called in Czech...

I think he wanted to...

Anything else...

Depends entirely where you go, and much of the States is safer than the UK. I suspect there's also more to that Sarasota story than meets the eye - two young lads without a car turning up in a ghetto well away from where they were staying. Very strange... No money in it for them...