Humphrey Appleby

I'd wager there are more Aussies coming in the other direction, but does it really matter? Riders in the SGP ride for themselves, not for any nation, so why people get hung up on this is beyond me. I just wish the best 16 riders were allowed to qualify for the SGP without all this nonsensical consideration as to whether a particular rider's nationality is right, or merely whether their face fits.

He didn't qualify for the GP Challenge Final, whereas another Brit whose face apparently no longer fits in the SGP did. He wouldn't qualify on the basis of his league averages as far as I can see either, so in what way do his on-track performances on the track justify selection? I realise the stale SGP desperately needs fresh faces, but perhaps if there was a more competitive qualification system as opposed to your face happening to fit, then more riders might be interested in entering the qualifying rounds, which in turn would improve the chances of different riders getting into the series.

Yes, but places should all be decided on track, one way or another.

The most popular karting class uses a sealed engine, which is done with some sort of plastic tag that breaks if the engine is dismantled. Engines can only be serviced by approved agent, who are supposed to use stock parts with no modifications. However, there are a number of problems with this approach. Firstly, with the best will in the world, all engines have small differences and you find the top drivers go around buying up several engines to source the best 'standard' components to put together in a higher performing engine. This is perfectly legitimate, but somewhat defeats the purposes of having standardised engines. Secondly, some sealed engines have been found to have tampered with, obviously by some agent who's prepared to bend the rules for a favoured client. The chances of being caught were (at least in the early days) slim because it was assumed sealed engines wouldn't need checking on a regular basis. I personally don't like the sealed approach because it not only precludes you from doing your own servicing/tuning, but it puts the agents in a powerful position to charge daft money for doing even the most basic things. This is in a sport with almost no prize money, so goodness knows what it would be like in a professional sport.

However one calls it, getting into the GP by virtue of finishing in the top 8 is still a form of seeding, as is the local wildcard.

It could equally be argued the old system had been run into the ground unnecessarily, as even in the latter years, it still drew crowds at the larger venues the SGP would envy. For example, Munich 1989 was something like 40,000, Bradford 1990 probably around 25,000, Gothenburg 1991 around 20-25,000 and Wroclaw 1992 was 25,000 or so. After that it went to Pocking and Vojens which are small venues in the middle of nowhere (albeit perfectly decent by domestic speedway standards), although even then I think they were capacity. The effect of the SGP is of course a matter of opinion, and I'd say in fairness that it perhaps slowed the overall decline in interest in the sport. Perhaps it indeed even attracted a new audience, although I suspect only in 'Eurosport' terms where people watch a minority sport because it happens to be on free-to-air television during a damp Saturday afternoon. I'd never dream of going to watch the likes of a Nordic skiing race live, and I suspect for others it's much the same with speedway as well. If you analyse the attendances at the GPs themselves, with one or two exceptions they're not significantly better than in the pre-BSI era, nor indeed particularly better than the latter World Finals. It's fair to acknowledge that Cardiff has been successful in terms of crowds, but equally what's to say that a World Final wouldn't have been successful there if the venue had been available then and the event properly promoted? With respect to the other venues, well the pre-BSI Polish GPs always drew decent crowds (as did the 1992 World Final), and the pre-BSI Prague GPs actually drew better crowds according to the published figures. Ullevi was brought back (twice), but never really improved on the last World Final there in 1992. Copenhagen was the other prestigious addition to the circuit, and is probably the one other 'success', but again the crowds are not significantly better than the latter World Finals at big venues. This said, whilst I actually had far more interest in the World Championship when there was a one-off World Final, I do think some sort of GP system is probably necessary in the modern era even if I have doubts about current setup. I'd prefer a more open qualification system than what occurs now, but in truth, the format and number of nominated riders would be relatively minor details if the GPs were actually interesting to watch. I finally gave up on them last season, and from what I read, things haven't improved this season either.

But is it not the case that FIM pays the GP prize money, so most of the commercial rights fees go towards this? To be honest, I find the various buck passing for the poor spectacle to be a little weak. If I were paying 1 million quid a year or so for the rights to something, I'd make damn sure the contract allowed me to do things the way I wanted, and I'd certainly not put myself in the position where I'd have to kowtow to committees and other third parties with respect to my core product. I find it a little surprising that any professional organisational company would seemingly agree to such terms, because I certainly wouldn't in my business.

Of course they are. They're a commercial company who are in it to make money (although one may question whether they're actually doing so) and I don't blame them for that for a moment. The real issue though, is why the speedway promoters in the professional speedway nations allowed their premier product to be sold off to a third party with barely a squeak of indignation. Of course, the old World Championship had been run into the ground by the previous incumbents, but it just demonstrates the lack of vision that generally exists in the sport. There's nothing to stop the BSPA, PZM and SVEMO doing exactly what BSI did, yet they're seemingly happy to allow a commercial company with no previous stake in the sport to come along and skim off the cream. Unfortunately, the riders are the last people you should be asking. I've learnt over the years that most competitors fail to grasp the economic and practical realities of running professional sports, and should have nothing more than advisory input into the decision making process. That said, I can see the benefits of a GP system in speedway if the number of rounds are somewhat limited, and that any revenue accrues to directly to those actually running the sport at various levels, rather than an US-based sports management company that doesn't. A trawl around the Internet provides some indicators as to why BSI might have been sold to IMG, such as the financial state of certain associated companies.

Could we request the Daugavpils and Krsko crowd figures for 2008 and 2009 please, so we can compare with previous published figures? The key question is which camp (FIM or BSI/IMG) the Race Director falls into. According to the FIM Regulations for the SGP (see http://www.fim-live.com/fileadmin/alfresco...AY_SGP_Eng.pdf), the Race Director has executive responsibility for a number of aspects of a GP, the pertinent issues being listed below 077.2.3 "The Race Director is responsible for the conduct and efficient running of the FIM Speedway World Championship Grand Prix (SGP)." 077.4.2 "Track Inspection - At each Grand Prix meeting, prior to any practice or racing taking place, the Race Director, accompanied by the Referee and the Clerk of the Course, must carry out a track inspection and if necessary, order any measure(s) to comply with every security provision for riders, officials and spectators." 077.4.4 "Stadium facilities inspection - The Race Director and the Speedway Grand Prix Promoter will carry out a stadium facilities inspection prior to the FIM Conference Meetings for final approval." Reg. 077.6 "The Race Director will decide on watering, grading etc. of the track according to the conditions." On this you have a valid point, but the SGP is supposed to be the pinnacle of the sport, and presumably has a relatively bigger budget for track preparation. To be honest, I suspect it's quite hard to prepare a good temporary track surface, but the general consensus on here seems to be that even normally quite good permanent racing circuits suffer from the GP treatment. Hmm... I suspect I shall have to pay a visit to the loft to dig out some out Speedway Stars...

The Westpac Stadium in Wellington was apparently previously in the frame, when BSI announced it as a venue for the 2003 series. One thing I did notice when I was in NZ last year, was that speedway seemed to have a fairly significant presence around the country, as well as in the local media. I realise speedway isn't just bikes in NZ, but I did see quite a few speedway bikes being towed around the countryside. Maybe a GP would work in New Zealand if the transport costs could be resolved (a big 'if' I'd think).

That rumour has been doing the rounds for a while.

Interesting that IMG has lost the rights to the IPL from next season.

That I think, is the fundamental problem with individual racing. It can only ever be an adjunct to team racing, and the powers-that-be shouldn't lose sight of that.

I suppose it depends on the size of the entourage, and whether you factor in wages and equipment costs. However, just to get a rider and mechanic there, and stay in a hotel for three nights, I wouldn't think you'd get much change out of a grand. AFAIK, the GPs except those in Cardiff, Copenhagen and Gothenburg are run by local promoters who assume responsibility for the staging costs. Presumably these are very dependent on what arrangements they have with the stadiums (in some cases, the staging clubs may even own the stadium), what sort of crowd they attract (which determines stewarding, policing and catering requirements), how much they have to pay staff or not (wages are presumably much higher in Denmark than Latvia), the licence fee to be paid to BSI, and then how expensive it is to transport the FIM officials etc.. The likes of Prague, Latvia and Slovenia don't get great crowds (and they're suspiciously round figures), but they've been on the circuit for a while so presumably their overheads are not huge and covered by the gate money or other fund raising. With respect to the other tracks, there were rumours going around that the staging fee had to be reduced to attract venues, from which you might draw conclusions if those rumours were correct.

Be fair, Ontario is involved as well...

Published rates are as follows, from which travel and hotel expenses must be paid: 1st US$ 11,000 2nd US$ 8,200 3rd US$ 6,900 4th US$ 6,000. 5th US$ 5,250 6th US$ 5,100 7th US$ 4,650 8th US$ 4,500 9th US$ 3,850 10th US$ 3,700 11th US$ 3,650 12th US$ 3,600 13th US$ 3,550 14th US$ 3,500 15th US$ 3,450 16th US$ 3,400 17th US$ 2,100 18th US$ 2,100 To put in perspective, the leading rider Jason Crump has earned a total of US$ 62,300 this season (an average of US$ 8,900 per GP), whilst Scott Nicholls (the lowest placed regular rider) has earned just US$ 24,250 (an average of US$ 3,464 per GP). There is/was the Super Prix cash as well, but that's apparently been scaled back this season.

What's happened with Russia, which was widely suggested for 2010?

There aren't 59 countries in Europe, by any definition... and even if they were, that's only half of 117... And what's the potential speedway viewing audience in the Vatican, Monaco and Liechtenstein?

I find that very hard to believe. I've never seen the SGP shown or even advertised outside of a handful of countries, let alone over half the countries in the world. Perhaps the SGP highlights can in theory be accessed (via satellite) in that many countries, but I doubt there's any sort of audience. Having extra rounds outside the European season sounds fine in theory, but I'm not sure the riders would really fancy racing an extended season, especially if they were twiddling their thumbs in-between rounds. If they're were on F1 wages perhaps, but not for a few dollars more. In addition, there would probably have to be a long gap between the last European round, and the first Asia-Pacific round as the seasons aren't really contiguous. This is all quite aside from the fact there are already too many rounds, and adding another four would be a complete snoozefest. I'd could certainly see some milege in replacing existing rounds with GPs on other continents, but again, how will it all be paid for?

It's one thing to wish for expanded series, quite another to find viable venues. No doubt expansion to Russia, Australia, New Zealand and Asia will be postulated again, but who's going to pay for it, and when will league racing be fitted in?

I think Backtrack has been a great publication, and I must admit I've quite enjoyed the past couple of issues. However, it's perhaps starting to take on a bit of fanzine feel, with slightly ad-hoc articles that don't obviously fit into the overall theme of a particular issue. It's not really a criticism as such, as I appreciate it must be difficult to constantly find interesting material, let alone find willing contributors, but one does wonder whether the best stuff has now mostly been covered... I would say that I think Malcolm Simmons could be a good addition, as I thought his autobiography was surprisingly good and was up there with the Berry tomes. Usually the books of sportspeople are deathly dull, but his was a rare and enjoyable exception.

I think the main problem would be fitting the fixtures into the existing overcrowded international schedule. I'm also not sure what format would be used, but a test match format would really only work for the five or six countries that would be competitive, and you'd still need to find at least 10 dates if everyone rides each other home and away. Having a 4TT would allow for smaller teams and potentially allow more nations to be competitive, but a 4TT isn't easy to work in a league format unless you have 7, 8 or 16 teams. Furthermore, each team only gets one home meeting every four meetings, so there's the potential cashflow to consider. Some sort of home-and-away test series over a couple of seasons might work though.

I'm afraid Twenty20 cricket would for me win out over speedway every time these days. Even though cricket is often tarnished with reactionism, you have to say that someone somewhere recognised the existing product was unattractive, and developed an appealing form of the sport that would keep it in business. I suspect the golden goose will eventually be killed through over saturation, but I'm sure speedway wouldn't mind having 93 million quid to spend on keeping marginal tracks in business. If the SGP is considered the pinnacle of the sport, then I truly fear for the future of speedway.

If I were actually interested in the SGP, I'd prefer to see a competitive process for deciding the lineup. Yes, you might get a Zorro or Tomicek in there, but that would be better than this nonsense of trying to second guess who 'might be good for the GP', and then just nominating Nicholls once again anyway. Furthermore, if the GP Challenge actually meant anything, some of the better riders might start putting more effort into it, and you wouldn't have the potential scenario of a Tomicek coming within a whisker of qualifying. In any case, such riders might even end up being a refreshing surprise, because at the moment the whole thing is duller than dishwater.

Too much of even the best product in the world becomes repetitive, and I think the trick is to find the right balance. Seeing the same 16 riders meeting-after-meeting (and even worse, year-after-year) lacks variety, even if the racing was up to much (although I can't really comment on that as I haven't watched a single GP this year). 6-8 rounds would be more than enough to make the World Championship a fair reflection of ability, but reduce the problems of one rider dominating proceedings for too long. However, no doubt BSI need to run a certain number of rounds to amortise their costs. Yes, but who will pay for it all? Despite the assertions that IMG are making a big investment in the SGP, it obviously isn't financially viable to run in certain venues, particularly outside Europe. The problem though, is what if one of the top riders gets injured early on in a GP and finishes in the bottom two? In fact, this happened in one of the early series when Tommy Knudsen got injured in the first GP, and ended-up at reserve for the next one, thus scuppering his chances before they'd even begun. Now it might be argued it was his own fault for having a silly solid disc in his front wheel which caused him to crash when it got sprayed with shale (wouldn't be a problem these days though ), but would you want to exclude someone like Nicki Pedersen for the rest of the reason for something that wasn't his fault?