Humphrey Appleby

It's difficult to determine how profitable the SWC is compared to the SGP, but the one thing for certain is that it's not the riders who're profiting the most. BSI appear to pay the FIM just over GBP 1.4 million per year for the SGP and SWC rights. The FIM are responsible for paying the prize money which presumably comes out of this, but this amounted to just over USD 1 million per year for the SGP and SWC combined, which converts to about GBP 650K at the current exchange rate. Not sure whether the FIM pays some of the expenses of the officials (accommodation has to be covered by the event organisers), but it's probably not unreasonable to say the FIM are profiting to the tune of GBP 700K per year. BSI themselves recorded a profit of GBP 1.6 million in 2009, and a similar amount the year before. Profitability seemed to have been patchy in the preceding years though, although some of those losses may have been down to high staff costs and other ventures. The profitability also has to be put in the context of the parent company IMG(UK) losing GBP 15 million on other activities. With respect to the SWC, the winning team receives USD 25K (GBP 15.4K) with the lowest placed team receiving USD 8.5K (GBP 5.2K) from which all expenses have to be paid. Divide that between the 5 riders and the team manager, and you can see you're not going to get rich unless you can supplement that with sponsorship.

Croatia is hardly the back of beyond and enough people speak English that you can get around easily enough. I'd do it myself.

Thought this was a good issue. The article on team management was particularly good, and simply reinforces my belief that team racing is 'real speedway' rather than the one-dimensional individual stuff that seems to be in vogue nowadays.

If you fulfil the qualifying criteria (i.e. obtain a FIA Super Licence) then you almost certainly would find a drive. The requirements for entering your own F1 team are also laid down, even if they are quite stringent (and expensive). I might just pay a visit to the Speedway Star archive in the loft though, to dig out the editorials railing against a closed GP system...

I'd imagine the attempted re-opening of Norwich (Swaffham) a few years back possibly put the backs up of certain members of the BSPA. [Without passing comment on the rights and wrongs of that.]

I'm not a fan of recurring subscriptions, but I don't think it unreasonable to charge a one-off for something that's taken time, effort and undoubtedly has required the purchase of a programming environment to develop. At the end of the day, no-one is forcing anyone to buy it, and 2.99 is cheaper than a paper programme.

There are multiple GPs in Poland because they sell out and the locals are prepared to pay IMG/BSI their asking price. Sweden is an interesting one, but there were rumours going around a few years ago that they were awarded two GPs to resolve some sort of legal issue. With Denmark, one wonders if the award of a GP to Vojens was part of the deal to retire Olsen as SGP Race Director.

If you can't sell out one GP, why would you stage a second that would double your costs and may well split the crowd? The Cardiff GP is undoubtedly also the showcase round of the SGP, and another British GP would potentially dilute its impact.

I suspect another problem at the time, was the declared intention to take GPs to major venues. Of course, there's since been a bit of a backtracking on that score, but Gillman would be a bit of a struggle under any circumstances.

It was probably not just the travel costs. Stadium Australia is unlikely to have come cheap and was always going to be vastly too big for the GP, plus there was the track construction for a one-off event, and so on and so forth... What would be interesting to know though, is whether the World Pairs Final at Liverpool back in 1982 made money. The track is now long gone of course, but I've never seen any discussion about the costs of staging the event there. That was an ambitious year for speedway, what with the World Individual Final being held outside of Europe as well.

Whilst I do think BSI were/are overrated, I certainly have no objection to them (as an enterprise) making as much money as they can, nor going to where they can make that money. Good luck to them for taking the opportunities afforded them. Looking at the bigger picture though, the setup does little for the rest of the sport. Okay, it provides an annual get together for the 40,000 or so remaining British fans, and having the SGP on television might keep the sport in the public consciousness more than otherwise. Equally though, approximately GBP 3 million quid per year is disappearing into the ether, both to the FIM and the IMG shareholders (even if the parent company then contrive to lose it on other ventures). Yes, why didn't the existing promoters do what BSI have done? Indeed we may ask, but if you look at the way the domestic media rights have been sold to a company who don't appear to be able to design even a rudimentary website properly, then the words 'clueless' and 'amateurs' comes to mind... Other sports grasped the opportunities offered by satellite/cable television and leveraging corporate sponsorship, and with the odd exception made sure the benefits accrued to themselves (although they were often then wasted). Unfortunately though, speedway seems to have never moved beyond its used-car salesman mentality and allowed its premier product to be virtually given away.

Riga is in Latvia though..

I wouldn't disagree that being on television, possibly keeps speedway in the public eye and possibly has prevented a greater decline that otherwise might have been the case. However, all this could equally have been done by the speedway powers-that-be, and they'd also have 1.5 million in their pockets as well.

But how is this money actually benefitting speedway?

It's supposedly confidential, but a rumour of GBP 50K per GP was doing the rounds a few years ago. Last year though, the Polish media published leaked details of the deal done by Gorzow City Council to host the SWC (see http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=51366). The fee was reputedly GBP 300K, although it wasn't clear whether this was just for the SWC or included the GPs from 2011 until 2015. IMG/BSI owns and sells the television rights around the world and therefore the money accrues to them. They also receive the sponsorship money, although a couple of local sponsors are apparently permitted at each GP. You get the 16 riders plus necessary (and no doubt some unnecessary) officials turning up. The local promoter takes the financial risk on the GP, so it's up to them to ensure they'll generate enough money at the gate to cover their outgoings. This said, local councils and tourist boards have underwritten these costs on the grounds that it gets people to stay and spend money in their cities. A handful of GPs (the showcase ones) are seemingly promoted by BSI themselves, so presumably they take the financial risk on these themselves, although one would think they don't charge themselves a staging fee. I don't see why an Australian GP would command more money, even if the events were sold separately. Outside of Britain and Poland, I imagine the series is sold as generic filler material and might as well be held in Ulan Bator for all the audience cares. For some strange reason, I watch ski jumping a fair bit and the classic event is Holmenkollen, but how many people who watch Eurosport on a dreary Saturday afternoon would know that, far less care?

That's how F1 and MotoGP work, and Bernie Ecclestone and Carmelo Ezpeleta would claim that staging a GP should generate more income than the very large fees paid to their companies to bring it to town. IMG/BSI is merely trying to emulate the big boys in this sense, although aren't in the same league. IMG/BSI are in the game to make money for their shareholders. It doesn't really matter to them whether the GPs are in Australia or Timbuktu provided someone stumps up the cash to host them. They mostly make their money through television and sponsorship, rather than who comes through the turnstiles.

The FIM have nothing to do with it anymore. They've long since sold off the promoting rights to IMG/BSI, so it's up to that company to make it happen. There are plenty of stadiums in Australia that could host a major speedway meeting if the will were there, but the simple issue is cost. The financial risks are too high for the potential returns, and until that changes it just isn't going to happen. Even if the FIM were a charity, it would be grossly irresponsible for a governing body to risk losing so much money. Governing bodies are not in that business - that's why promoters exist...

Latvia was where the Soviet Baltic fleet was stationed, so it received more Russian immigrants than the other Baltic states after they were occupied, although in reality, Latvia had long been within the Russian sphere of influence except for a short period between WWI and WWII. Something like 40 to 50% of the population is ethnic Russian, which is an ongoing issue in Latvia because they claim the Latvias are withholding Latvian citizenship from them. In turn, the Latvians claim the Russians refuse to learn Latvian and don't integrate into their society. Needless to say though, there's little love lost between ethnic Latvians and Russians, largely because of what happened when Latvia was invaded by the Soviet Union. However, Daugavpils where Latvia's only speedway track is situated is the centre of the Russian population in the country, and the track largely seems to be run by Russian speakers. The Baltic states are also a bit different to most of the other countries in Eastern Europe because they're not ethnically Slavic. Their languages and culture are historically completely different, although of course having been within the Russian sphere of influence for so long, there's obviously some assimilation whether or not anyone will admit to it. Most of Eastern Europe has never been part of Russia, and the Baltic states haven't been part of Russia since before WWI (and even then I don't think they were actually considered Russia 'proper'). When Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were part of the Soviet Union they were separate socialist republics. Only through the Grace of God has Australia stayed together as country. Western Australia voted to secede from the the country and revert to being a British colony, but the UK didn't want them back... Well Poland seems to have drifted westwards over time. It started out somewhere in what is now Ukraine, and is currently somewhere that used to be Germany..

You cannot live on sentiment, and ultimately who pays the most will call the shots in any professional sport. In any case, the British and Australia speedway authorities largely only have themselves to blame for their declining influence on world speedway, along with disadvantageous economics. I'm sure there would be a GP in Australia (and NZ) if it was cost effective, but that's the bottom line whilst the SGP is controlled by a profit-oriented third party. Even if it wasn't though, you still have to pay the bills. As for the 'inventors' of the sport, riding motorcycles around a dirt track probably goes back to the invention of the internal combustion engine. I don't think there's any firm evidence the sport was invented in Australia, contrary to the popular myth.

It would actually end up costing the teams more because you'd still be paying out for the same number of points, and the likelihood is that the higher paid riders would be taking extra rides. The travel costs for one junior rider are insignificant compared to what the average heat-leader is paid for a single point. If you want continuity or what would effectively be a higher points limit, then you could equally do it with seven riders. The problem though, is that strong lineups are unaffordable whether with six or seven riders, which is why there's all the discussions about reducing the point limit. There's plenty of scope in the current heat format for team riding, it's just that it's not done. Whilst I agree that ways need to be sought to give fans more value for money than simply 15 heats, the international format is too repetitive week-in-and-week out and actually needs 7 or 8 riders because it uses non-programmed reserves. Moreover, adding three heats with just six riders would greatly increase costs for the reasons outlined above. If you go to 18 heats, it would actually be cheaper to have 7 or 8 rider teams because the extra riders could be lower paid juniors, and the higher paid riders could take fewer rides. I personally quite like the idea of 6 rider teams, but because they allow for a better balanced heat format (either 15 or 16 heats) rather than because they'd save money.

I'd think the main issue is the mixture of standalone and second teams in the NL. You can't really decide the NL competition formats until you know how many fixtures the second teams can stage, and that won't be known until the BEL and BPL is settled. The BEL and BPL decisions can be made together because teams either ride in one league or the other, not both.

Because it's the third level of the sport, and decisions that affect the BEL and BPL can determine which teams may or may not be riding in the BL. No-one would suggest the BSPA runs things well, but the individual leagues can't simply go off and do their own thing. That happened in the late-70s and coincided with the downturn in the sport.

Such is the way it goes. In the top flight of any sport, the difference between winning and losing is small margins, but true champions have a way of making luck go their way. I think the problem was actually that the cricketing authorities weren't making tonnes of money when they should have been. They were not exploiting commercial opportunities, particularly with respect to television rights which were cosily handed for peppercorn sums to public broadcasters. The difference with cricket compared to many other sports is that it takes a lot of time to play, and international players are touring during the close season. Except for England, top flight cricketers generally got paid pitiful sums of money and were either forced to have other jobs or hawk their wares around club cricket.

Maybe South Africa or Rhodesia, and wasn't there speedway in Brazil and Mexico at some point?

I was never a Bruce Penhall fan, and I think going to CHiPS was a mistake and cheapened his legacy. However, whatever the actual reasons for doing it, everyone is entitled to lose interest in what they're doing and go off and do something else. I think the ongoing bitterness and blame from some quarters is a bit excessive nearly 30 years down the line. Presumably people become wealthy in the first place by cutting good deals for themselves. Even if you are wealthy, that doesn't mean you shouldn't seek to be paid what you think you're worth. I'd sure the Cradley promotion were in it for the money as well. Probably a good time to get out I'd think!