Humphrey Appleby

I think it's a case of trying to economise, and focusing on the few countries where GPs will be reasonably financially successful. In the past, the business model was also to find local promoters willing to pay a substantial licence fee to BSI for the right to stage a GP (with the locals assuming the financial risk of course). However, not only do rumours suggest that the staging fees had to be scaled down, the number of GPs that BSI promote directly has been increasing, which suggests willing victims haven't been exactly forthcoming. I don't think that was ever a realistic proposition was it? The financial risk in staging it is just too great, especially in the current financial climate (BSI-wise and in the wider world. ) Well isn't that Ole's track, and presumably they needed to find a replacement for Gelsenkirchen at short notice. QUOTE (Robbie B @ Nov 14 2008, 11:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is it , that in this years GP series Poland, Sweden and now Denmark get two GP's, yet in Great Britain we always only have one ? Because the Cardiff GP is the showcase event that is used (or was used) to demonstrate how successful the product is, and to attract wider business (or put another way, to give the SGP a 'lift' ). If you stage two events in Britain, you're likely to water down the impact, not to mention the crowds. Does Britain really need two GPs anyway? For that matter, does any country?

You really are a bitter individual. Can you not take comments in the humour in which they were intended and which were aimed at no-one in particular, especially ones that are sort of agreeing you in the first place?

How many of those did we see in the 2008 SGP? Ah well, as long as the annual piss-up for British fans takes place.

You reap largely what you sow, and it could be argued that the closed shop nature of the SGP discourages potential new talent in the first place. Potential talent is usually in proportion to the opportunities available, as shown by the fact that there used to be enough riders to fill 18 BL teams, but now people are saying the BEL should be reduced to 8 teams because of a shortage of riders. The same principle undoubtedly applies to the SGP - why should riders bother when only a chosen few ever get in? To be practical, I think only the previous season's World Champion should automatically qualify for the SGP. I'd then take the top four riders by average from each of the British, Polish and Swedish Leagues, and then fill the four remaining places from the GP qualifier (with two starting at reserve for the first GP). If the same rider qualifies from more than one league, any spare places are filled from the GP qualifier.

Perhaps the uncertainty of the World Final system made things more interesting? I certainly had far more interest than I do in the current SGP. And as for the invitation system producing a better line-up, well perhaps, but it's predictable and at the moment duller-than-dull. Even one of the major sponsors seems to think so, and the whole ageing line-up desperately needs some new blood.

Yes, but that was great for Oxford and whoever-Tyrvainen-rode-for fans. I seem to remember, a young unknown Henka Gustafsson also qualified for the Final the next year and did pretty well.

You constantly pick out the Continental qualifiers, ignoring the fact that the Intercontinental section was very strong indeed. The fact that a load of numpties were included in World Finals up until the early-1990s was not a fault of the World Final itself, but the politics of the FIM. Similarly, the concept of the SGP itself might be fine if it were organised in a different fashion.

And I think shows how dull speedway is at the moment. Much the same riders year-after-year, but no-one can really point to anyone outside the SGP who'd do a better job. The World Final did at least provide shock qualifications, and allow new riders to break through, even if the same few riders tended to win the title. I'm beginning to think qualification for the SGP should be based on rider averages in the main speedway leagues (Britain, Poland and Sweden), with perhaps a handful of places available through the GP Challenge for riders outside of these. That at least would provide some unpredictably, whilst ensuring the top riders should still qualify.

In fairness to Easyjet, I've always found them pretty professional, and they offer a comparable service to some of the more established airlines these days. I think that TV show portrays them in a bad light, because I've never seen people shouting and screaming at their staff (and as you say, it's usually the fault of passenger anyway).

Of course I know where the planes are landing - that's why I don't use Ryanair unless I can help it. I think their fares are often a false economy, even if you're able to get the headline-grabbing ones by booking early enough. By the time you've added the fees for luggage, for paying by credit card, getting to and from the remote airport, and even things like checking in, the difference between them and other airlines is often minimal. For example, to fly Ryanair from Stansted to Weeze is about GBP 45, but you can fly with Air Berlin to Dusseldorf proper for only GBP 60. You can even fly from Heathrow with Lufthansa for about GBP 80 (if you're flexible with travel times), and with them you get food and usually get some sort of backup if their planes are delayed or cancelled. For me the hassle of Ryanair is rarely worth the bother unless they fly somewhere you really need to be. The attitude of their staff is also appalling, and they appear to think you should be grateful that they take you at all, just because they (claim to) offer low fares. I generally prefer small basic terminals, as it's quicker to get through them, and you don't need to fight your way through hordes of 'duty free' shops selling pointless rubbish. Airports should be about getting from A to B, not shopping centres.

Ryanair's attitude to customer stinks, and to be frank, always has. On the surface, their claims about weather not being their fault may be valid, but airlines know that flights are susceptible to weather, and they know if they fly to remote airfields, they may have lower-grade landing systems. If they rely on short turnarounds and don't build in any margin for delays, then they are at least partly culpable. To some extent I appreciate what budget airlines have done for travel, but Ryanair is just a bit too cheap for my liking, and often a false economy by the time you factor in getting from their distant landing strips to where you really want to be.

Don't all these discussions merely demonstrate the paucity of talent in world speedway at the moment? Most of agree that the selected line-up for next season's SGP is pretty tedious, but no-one can really come up with any better names.

I suspect the IMF is probably pre-occupied with the World financial crisis at the moment.

And maybe that provides an insight into why certain riders were chosen? We don't know who actually turned the SGP down.

I remember people saying it after Gothenburg, and yet people did go again.

Until 2021 apparently. The contract can also be terminated by BSI if television revenue is insufficient (amongst other things).

So why then, do some BPL tracks get as good or better crowds as BEL tracks? This notion that British speedway will fall apart if the overpaid stars leave, is just nonsense. As you pointed out, the presence of Crump made no different to the Belle Vue crowds. Regular race nights, continuity and balanced sides is a far greater contributory factor in crowd sizes. In any case, whatever the reality, tracks can't keep paying out money they don't have, and the BEL teams just don't have the money these days. Swindon might be one of the few tracks doing okay these days thanks to the largesse of the Beoranged One, but one team does not a league make. Furthermore, how much longer will Leigh Adams be riding for your lot anyway - another season or so at best?

So because Poole happen to have won the championship this year, that makes everything all right?

One would have thought so, although if Rye House can get FIM approval, then I think the regs must have been relaxed in recent years.

In recent years, I think it may only be Coventry, Peterborough and Poole. In the past, Eastbourne and Arena-Essex were certainly FIM approved, as were Belle Vue and King's Lynn at one time. The latter would probably need work to bring them up to standard, but in principle their dimensions should mean they could get it without wholesale changes. Thought Coventry was always FIM approved.

Crump is approaching the end of his career, and probably wants a quieter time. Possibly Belle Vue have also told him that the current economic climate (in speedway and in general) that he can't expect the same deal next season, so he's just thought the BEL isn't worth it anymore. Quitting to 'concentrate on the SGP' is undoubtedly an excuse, as that certainly can't be as rewarding as even the BEL. At the end of the day though, the BEL has to cut its cloth according to what it can afford. How on earth can it bend over any more for the SGP anyway, which itself doesn't appear to be as rosy as many seem to think.

Increasingly looks like a fire sale from BSI, so who really knows? Well in fact, I have nothing against a Aussie GP, as it doesn't affect the European season and would make the series more global. However, doing something that's unrealistic and stands a good chance of damaging the prospects of future stagings, is worse than doing nothing at all. The world is full of well meaning people, but being well meaning and misdirected is ultimately futile. The SGP does not appear to be healthy financially or competitive wise at the moment, and I'm sure the Gelsenkirchen fiasco can't have helped. I think IMG/BSI need to focus on getting their core business right - not going off on flights of fancy at this stage.

Very stirring, but would you bet your farm on it? F1 and the SGP are galaxies apart.

I'm not sure. Cricket has a test championship that is just bi-lateral series, and no-one would suggest that's not credible. Sure, but that was long time ago, and it was a one-off. I think a World Cup needs to be fairly inclusive as well, and there are simply only about 5 or 6 countries that could track competitive test sides these days (and that was probably always the case). Okay, you could perhaps stretch that to maybe 8 countries if you included a couple of whipping boys, but that would still exclude more than half the countries where speedway is raced. Obviously there does need to be a trade-off between inclusiveness, competitiveness and having a credible team competition, but it also needs to be financially viable as well. Much as a single venue competition between full test sides is desirable, it just isn't going to work in this day-and-age. In any case, the WTC was historically always held as a series of linked international meetings - it was only the short-lived BSI experiment where the finals were held in one country.

The suggested format has merit, but the fundamental problem is that meetings not featuring the home nation, are usually a financial disaster. I think the meetings would also need to staged at several different tracks as well, as seven meetings in row would be a bit of a logistical nightmare, not to mention stretching the coffers of the locals.