Humphrey Appleby

The British authorities have obviously been losing the plot for years, otherwise the BSI would never have been allowed into the sport in the first place. In any case, I suspect they simply didn't have the money to pay the asking price, which was not especially high, but certainly too high for an organisation whose cupboard was bare. This notwithstanding, I'd still argue the SGP rights were never the FIM's to sell in the first place. The FIM had about 70 members at the time of the sell-off, yet in only about 5 of those countries (Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Poland and Germany) was any significant amount of professional speedway staged. Basically, every professional rider in the sport would have been making their living in those 5 countries, so why on earth should they have to buy back something that they ran and provided the riders for in the first place? I'm sure the FIM would argue it was all very democratic, with the 8 minor speedway nations who stage one meeting a year (plus Poland), outvoting 3 major speedway nations in favour of the SGP, and then having the decision ratified by 50+ nations that have never even staged a single speedway meeting. However, sometimes the democratic process (particularly in international sports bodies) can be a complete ass, and the professional speedway nations should never have stood for it.

Yes - the rot arguably set in with Norden because the Germans thought they were entitled to a World Final, and then we went to Amsterdam because the Dutch wanted one, and finally Vojens because it was run by Ole Olsen. Instead of putting the premier speedway event in worthy venues that were known to draw the crowds, a succession of speedway backwaters basically sucked the life out of it. This was still around the time that some World Finals were drawing up to 50,000 people (at Ullevi, Katowice and Munich), which is still better than Cardiff, and even as late as 1992 there was an capacity attendance of 30,000 at Wroclaw. I'd argue about Bradford being an inadequate venue. It held nearly 30,000 at the time of its World Finals, was in a major albeit unfashionable city (and close to another), and was a better stadium than all but four of the current GPs. And on that note, how many of the current GP venues are better than the World Final venues you mention? Krsko, Daugavpils, Lonigo and Malilla with all due respect are hardly 'adequate' by the standards you set, whilst Prague, Leszno and Bydgoszcz although adequate for the task, are hardly blue riband venues either. In any case, I'm not actually arguing for a return to the old World Final system. I don't have anything against a GP system in principle, but I do have a problem with the ownership (although I've nothing against the owners themselves), and manner in which it's run. I also don't actually think it's promoted as well as people popularly imagine either, but that's another story.

That's the world according to BSI. I certainly remember World Finals being held in the Munich Olympic Stadium, the Ullevi, and the Wroclaw Olympic Stadium during the last years of the one-off final. They went to Pocking and Vojens when the format was run into the ground to justify the introduction of the GP system. The problem is they (and the Poles and Swedes) didn't fight it enough.

Running a handful of events at the highest level of any sport is totally uncomparable with running sport on a week-to-week basis, particularly if you don't have to pay a living wage to the competitors. I still think BSI don't do such a great job given their privileged position, and only look good because the rest of the sport is so shambolic. Their big success was to secure television coverage, but beyond that I don't think the sport has advanced greatly under their stewardship.

Whatever you might call the team, it will still be Great Britain as long as the ACU/SCB represent Great Britain within the FIM. The rules are quite clear that it's one national team per federation, so Scotland can't enter until the Scottish ACU joins the FIM, and then only after it becomes an independent nation. The actual make-up of the national team is totally irrelevant as to what it's called, as it's about eligibility to ride rather than who actually rides. As I already said, the team put out on Monday night was practically Coventry, so really how representative was it of England as a whole anyway?

I don't think either England nor Scotland actually ever officially competed in the WTC, although World Pairs may have been a different story. They rode in a 'British Qualifier' with Australia and New Zealand for the right to represent Great Britain, and all FIM records relating to the WTC refer to Great Britain. They were all Coventry or ex-Coventry riders weren't they, so on that basis should actually have ridden as 'Coventry'.

The Welsh flag was only invented about 50 years ago, hence the reason why it's not incorporated in the Union Flag. In addition, Wales was legally the same country as England until the late-1960s.

Quite so. I suppose the British team managers never slag off the government either.

Is 'Team GB' really that desperate?.... I suppose they are I'm afraid I don't completely buy the argument that a manager can only work with what's he got. The manager has an important role in deciding the team make-up and then motivating those who are picked. It's not always about picking the best, but recognising those with uptapped ability, commitment, and interest in improving. Both Brian Clough and Martin O'Neill are examples of managers who could/can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The same with Guus Hiddink at international level.

How many riders does Malaysia have?

How would that make things interesting?

They have speedway in the US already.

I think it was ostensibly staged to celebrate the Golden Jubilee of the 'first' speedway meeting at West Maitland.

It would be, but I just don't think it's practical for more than a handful of countries, and then it isn't really a true World Cup anymore. I do think that you could continue to stage the SWC in its current format, but have the 5 or 6 'test nations' ride matches (or series) against each other over a longer period (say 2 years) for a test championship. It works that way in cricket. You have the World Cup which every country in the world has a chance of playing in, but the 10 test nations also all play each other over a 5-year period to determine the ICC Test Rankings.

Depends on the format you use. If you use a test match format, that would rule out all except the 8 or so countries which would be strong enough to track 7 or 8 riders, not to mention that the minor nations usually only have the budget to do one or two meetings. Furthermore, where would the US and Australia ride their home matches? That was already tried with previous editions of the BSI-organised SWC (albeit using a 4TT) and it wasn't a financial success. That's basically why the SWC reverted to staging the Semi-Finals in the countries of two of the Semi-Finalists. For all its faults, the current format at least gives more countries a chance to enter and be semi-competitive, and allows Australia and the US to take part. In addition, the 4TT formats usually means at least a couple of teams in each round are competitive, whereas a test match format would lead to a lot of one-sided hammerings.

I know there isn't, but even though Linkoeping is nearer to Motala, I'd have still flown direct to Stockholm and taken my chances driving the extra couple of hours. There are also more alternative options if something goes wrong, as it did. Far enough, the guy should be commended to deciding to ride for his team on Friday, but choosing to fly through Amsterdam with a short connection was unfortunate.

Well we're still waiting. Why on earth though, would BSI/IMG want assume the financial of risk a full-time circus when they can make a reasonable return from the subsidised GPs they run now? The other question is where are they going to find more mugs... erm local promoters to host them? After all, they had to drop their plans to increase the staging fee in order to get the venues they have now.

Out of interest, I just checked the schedule to Linkoeping... The connection time in Amsterdam is just 40 minutes, which I wouldn't risk if I were flying from Heathrow (assuming he did fly from Heathrow). A delay of 20+ minutes from Heathrow is not unusual, and flights from London often land on the most distant runway at Schiphol, which is a 15-minute taxi to the terminal. Even if you made the connection, there's a good chance your luggage wouldn't. Okay, so the average person wouldn't necessarily know this, but I'm afraid if time is critical, then you should always take a direct flight.

Not so much within EU, since the penalties are quite high. The obvious question though, is why take a flight where you have to connect in the first place? Flights are often delayed these days, so I wouldn't risk a connection if a direct flight existed. Checking the schedule, there was a direct flight out of Heathrow on a Saturday that arrives at 10.25 in Stockholm, leaving plenty of time to get to Motala.

I think there's probably more to this than is being said. I haven't heard of anyone being kicked-off a flight because of overbooking in years, and you simply can't rely on flights to arrive and depart on time these days either. I suspect things were cut too fine, and the connection was too short.

There is nothing wrong with the Millenium Stadium itself. In fact, it is ideal for staging the 'main' event of the SGP calendar. The problem is actually getting to it, and the attractiveness of the location in the minds of the casual fan.

The roof at Wembley only covers the seats, but is moveable to avoid the problems you get with other large stadiums where the stands block air and light to the pitch (although it doesn't seem to have been a total success at Wembley either).

I appreciate there are ways and means, but I don't really have the time or inclination to go through some sort of masonic ritual to find them. These days, I just want to get in the car, drive directly to where I want to be, and park there (or very close to there). That you can do at Wembley, at least for the smaller events.

Because I find some of the reactionary comments against the British GP possibly being moved away from Cardiff, quite extraordinary. Are people really content to be paying absolutely outrageous prices for accommodation, and experiencing difficulty getting there either with their own cars or with public transport? I have been to the British GP in the past, but I just can't be bothered jumping through hoops to get there anymore. Public transport is not a practical proposition, and parking in some remote part of town is a bit tedious. Plus, there's the Severn Bridge toll, the perpetual roadworks on the M4 in Wales, and the seemingly ever-present traffic jam at the Newport tunnels to be negotiated. Okay, I'm admittedly not particularly interested in GPs anyway, but I'm also the average casual fan who might go if it didn't require a major logistical planning exercise to get there. In this respect, Wembley would be far more attractive, even though I'd agree it doesn't have the 'downtown' location that the Millenium Stadium does when you eventually get there. But how many more might there be if it were at Wembley? There's a choice of five airports flying from every possible destination in Europe, the Eurostar, and of course it's closer to drive to London from the Continent as well.

Absolutely not, but my point was that Cardiff isn't all that it's cracked-up to be. The British GP has essentially become the social occasion for speedway fans, but that could equally be held anywhere. I actually have nothing against Cardiff itself, which indeed a fairly pleasant city, but London is a far more attractive destination for non-diehards, especially overseas visitors. I honestly can't see a GP being held in both locations either. I suspect all this talk is to cut a better deal with Cardiff, because doesn't the Welsh tourist board bung BSI/IMG some money to stage the British GP?