Humphrey Appleby

It isn't just about the racing. The whole SGP format has become tired, repetitive and lacks imagination, and its owners don't really seem that interested in it either. Are the wrong people running the show, or it simply that the SGP format or even the sport itself is inherently limited? I really don't know.

How much are the sponsors putting in though? Sponsorship revenue seems to have been declining over the past few years, and now largely down to tourist boards and media 'partners'. Interestingly, I note BSI has now vanished from the Companies register, to be replaced by a new company 'Benfield Sports Limited'. Their website has also gone offline with the message "Benfield Sports Limited has undergone a full group restructure". Read into that what you will..

I can't think running slick tracks is completely about the sponsors' logos, because the SGP seems to have hardly any these days. I think it's more to do with Olsen's belief that hard, slick tracks produce closer racing. The fact that it's a total bore for everyone else, and that people are turning off as a result, doesn't seem to register. Ole is always right.

Except to get even worse. As someone pointed out on the 'other' forum, he's now 16th in the standings, and one of the riders above him has only done one round..

The SGP seems to have few decent sponsors these days. It looks to be mostly tourist boards and media companies. Once again, one wonders how long IMG are going to tolerate this failing series?

I think the fact we're discussing whether he's the 8th or 9th best rider in the world, largely sums up the question.

I think I'm beginning to see the problem..

Okay, let's call it bigotry then.

Strikes me this is little more than thinly disguised racism. I'm no fan of Nicholls, but I've no idea whether he's an idiot, stubborn or arrogant, and wouldn't presume anyone is based on their nationality.

Yes he would. However, if there was an open qualification process, the likelihood is that he'd have missed out on some GP series. The SGP isn't really about the top 15 riders in the world though - it's whether your face fits.

He's only in because Britain is a major speedway nation and hosts the showcase GP. As the best British rider, there's no other choice but to seed him. If he were from a minor speedway nation, does anyone really believe he'd have been seeded back in the number of times he has?

It seems to have become fashionable to have vast entourages in the expectation that it'll help you win things, but things will swing back in the other direction in time. Frankly most of the top competitors in any discipline would probably still be as successful without all the hangers-on.

What high standards we set.

Who do they need to take around with them? A couple of reliable mechanics at most I'd guess. Speedway also doesn't have the rewards of golf, and the SGP certainly doesn't have the highest rewards even within speedway. How much can you ultimately justify on spending to try to win the World Championship?

I suspect they can't afford very much these days...

The World Pairs was a good competition. In fact, the World Pairs actually became the WTC when one team competition had to make way for the SGP, but it just wasn't very credible to claim that 3 riders (one of which was reserve) constituted a national team. I think the four team format returned after a few years.

I know it's only an example, but something isn't right with the suggested format. Four teams of four riders with every pair riding every other pair would produce 24 heats. You could scale the number of heats up or down (at the expense of having pairs meeting different numbers of times or not at all), but only in blocks of 6 heats if you want to ensure every team has the same number of rides. So your choice is a 18, 24 or 30 heat meeting.

Well a four-term format is used for good reasons. Firstly, only about five or six nations could track full test sides, and small sided teams allow more countries to be competitive. Secondly, it's not practical for all nations (e.g. USA and Australia) to ride home meetings in the SWC, and neither are meetings at neutral venues a financial success. The four-team format also means that fewer venues need to be found, and fewer meetings need to be staged to complete the competition which is important for most federations. As to why teams don't ride in pairs. Well there is a reasonable 4-team, 24-heat format where teammates compete in pairs, and this was actually used in the old WTC for a couple of years around 2000. However, because every team doesn't ride in every heat, there was too much scope for contrived results, and it also complicated working out things like tactical rides and tactical substitutions. The classic 4TT format has probably endured because of familiarity. It's been around for decades, and is actually very similar to the classic individual format. It probably also better suits the majority of countries that only have individual racing. A SWC between full test sides (i.e. 2 teams of 7 or 8 riders) sounds good in theory, but would actually be totally impractical the way international speedway is these days.

I don't have a massive problem with that. People need to allow more time to get to the airport, and take into account there might be delays. There's nothing more frustrating than being held up on a plane waiting for other passengers after you've managed to get there in good time. People should read the terms and conditions as it's all explained. I thought Airline showed EasyJet in an unfairly negative light, as I've used them many times, and never had a problem.

Not in my experience, I'm afraid. Ryanair seem to employ the most dimwitted people imaginable. Ermm.. what (non loss making) airline doesn't?

There are lots of hidden things with Ryanair as well, like charging for checking in which I consider a pretty basic service. Yes, EasyJet is generally a bit more expensive, but they fly to major airports and their customer service isn't cut price either (at least in my experience). And by the time you've factored in the time and cost of getting from whichever remote landing strip Ryanair have left you, you're unlikely to have saved anything.

It was inevitable as there was far too much capacity until recently. Ryanair might also want to ask whether they're just a bit too cheap, as if it were a choice between them and EasyJet, I know who I'd choose.

You can't have two chefs in the kitchen. Either he's being lined up with a view to replacing Olsen next year, or he'll quickly get frustrated and leave.

I can't imagine Ole Olsen wanting to share his duties..

I wish I could think of a business model where the employees are prepared to lose money to come and work for me...