Humphrey Appleby

Where else?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that if you reduce team sizes, you reduce opportunities and the pool of available riders will shrink. It might address a short-term shortage, but unless it goes hand-in-hand with developing new riders, then it just creates a downward spiral. It also doesn't reduce costs except removing the travel expenses of one rider, as the other riders have to take more rides to cover the heats, and I suspect it's likely that it won't solve the injury issue as the other riders are statistically then more likely to be get injured. In fact, it would then make things even worse as there's now one less rider per rider to take R/R rides etc...

As with anything in life, you're worth what revenue you generate for your employer, and what the industry can afford. Sure speedway is quite a dangerous profession, but there are plenty of others where people risk serious injury and worse. Riders know what they're getting into, and there's many amateur motor sport competitors that take similar risks for the love of doing the sport rather than reward. Speedway does differ from other motor sports in that takes place all week rather than at the weekend when spectators have time to go and watch, and when it would be easier for riders to combine riding with another job, but perhaps that's where it's been going wrong. The SGP isn't held in the middle of the week, is it? The only thing that will reduce salaries is when the sport either finally goes bust, or promoters finally agree to work collectively rather than trying to shaft each other. You could have a common pool of riders paid centrally, allocated to teams in accordance with an agreed mechanism that ensures reasonably competitive teams, and promoters then charged for their use. These are the sorts of solutions that need to be advocated by those in the speedway industry, not statements of the bleeding obvious.

The problems have been there for many years, and articles stating the obvious come sadly too late. I don't think many of the problems highlighted would be particularly difficult to solve if there was a collective will amongst the promoters. It would be very easy to work how many riders there are, and therefore how many there are to go around without having to double-up. Then you could quite easily come-out with ways to put these riders into competitive teams - whether in a single or two league setup. The issue of race nights could probably be resolved with some will and that might reduce fixtures clashes with other leagues, but ultimately you probably need to tell the riders to pick where they're going to ride and stick with those that can commit to a full fixture list. It's absolutely ridiculous to be having gaps in the fixture list during the prime months of the season. The difficult part is getting the fans back, but that's certainly not going to happen whilst the sport continues to be organised in a farcical manner.

A bit like a 2-week journalistic attack against someone who's clearly not compos mentis, but yet is apparently lapped up by the Speedway Star readership?

You can always find a baying pack to round on those that aren't quite normal. One article would have been more than enough to discredit the 'initiative' and it was over-laboured, especially considering the reticence of the Star to go public with real news when the subjects are competent to defend themselves.

'You', meant as in the Speedway Star.

It makes for amusing reading, but the bloke is obviously not all there and is probably more in need of help than derision. Given that you've shown that you actually can do investigative journalism when want to, perhaps you can make investigation of more serious subjects a regular feature in future?

Quite an amusing read, I'll agree. Wonder what prompted this unprecented investigative journalism from the Spar though?

According to the current regulations, the riders are decided by the SGP Commission which also includes the new FIM Sports Director (Fabio Muner)* and SGP Race Director (Phil Morris). * It might amuse you to know who was interviewed for this position.

Promotions don't own 'contracts', only the registration of the rider and that only applies within Britain. Quite aside that retain-and-transfer between EU countries was outlawed by the Bosman ruling, there's no regulation of cross-border registrations by the FIM or FIM Europe as far as I'm aware. If British rider contracts normally only run from March to October, then there's no reason why Poland or anywhere should respect 'ownership' of registration, far less pay anything if a rider isn't actually under contract. And even if a rider is under contract, it would have to specifically state that rider couldn't ride elsewhere without permission, which would be disincentive to sign it if said rider were good enough to ride in Poland anyway. Multi-year contracts are somewhat impractical in British speedway, given the hand-to-mouth existence of most promotions. Plus the fact that they're basically zero-hour contracts probably means you can't stop riders riding in another country, nor prevent them resigning in favour of a better contract elsewhere.

I'd think that's most likely illegal. It would effectively be paying an employer to sponsor a visa and could be construed as trafficking. It's wrong anyway. If you're wanted and needed by an employer, then they should be covering the costs, and if they want a longer term commitment then nothing is stopping them offering a longer contract. Every employer hiring an untried and untested employee runs the risk of them moving on to a better job - speedway is no different.

Why does it cost more to make a good track layout than a poor one? I could understand if it had to fit into an existing stadium or had other constraints, but it can't be that difficult to go and look at a few tracks considered 'good' and work out some ideal parameters.

The new Wembley is a much nicer stadium - amongst the best in the world IMO - and transport links are much improved. The surrounding environment is still in a state of transition, but once the plan is completed will make for a reasonable experience. I went to the old Wembley many times for all sorts of events, although unfortunately never for speedway. Whilst not the worst stadium compared to its counterparts, it was frankly getting pretty decrepit and inadequate. There was something about the twin towers and white walls that did create a certain aura from afar, but once you got close and realised it was surrounded by old warehouses and a concrete making plant, it largely spoiled the ambiance. By contrast, I think the Olympic Stadium is a bit of a disappointment. The Olympic Park looks very run down already, and doesn't really have many other facilities for the visitor, although the Westfield is just over the road which has plenty of bars and restaurants. But both venues are perfectly easy to get to - certainly no worse than Cardiff.

Undoubtedly, but I think the last point hits the nail on the head.

Well I wouldn't entirely agree with that, if you've been to either location recently. Admittedly they're not right in the centre of town, but they're only a short trip away on multiple transport links. Wasn't aware that Krsko, Daugavpils, Prague, Horsens, Malilla, Gorzow, Teterow and Torun had roofs either.

If the Welsh government dropped their support for Cardiff and made it less financially viable, I'm sure what the fans wanted wouldn't really come into it. They've never really been top of the list of priorities in the past. Similarly, if London fronted up a better subsidy package (as it did for West Ham), it would be amazing how the perceived problems with London would disappear. Indeed, had IMG(UK) been successful in obtaining the rights to the Olympic Stadium (instead of nearly bankrupting themselves), it may have all been different now.

West Ham reportedly pay GBP 2.5 million per season to rent the Olympic Stadium, so that works out at something like 110,000 per match. However, that's considered to be a heavily discounted cost. I've seen figures suggesting that it costs GBP 250-500k per day to rent Wembley, who also take 10% of gate receipts. So with the extra days needed to install the track, I'd think that would be pretty unaffordable on crowds of 40,000.

The Wembley roof doesn't cover the playing surface. It only retracts to allow more sunlight and air to reach the pitch. 30-40k is decent given current interest in speedway, but is still nowhere close to filling Cardiff. Going to an even bigger and presumably more expensive venue would therefore be a huge risk, even if the novelty of London drew a few more fans. And that's assuming one GP rather than London being a second GP which might dilute attendants. I don't think the problem is holding GP in London if a suitably-sized venue could be found. It's just everything is too big, unroofed, and quite possibly unaffordable as well. I think there are technical difficulties building an all-seater stadium above an 80,000 capacity. The roof has to be too big, and whilst I guess solutions could be found, the cost would be exorbitant. People often point to the Dallas Cowboys stadium which can get 108,000 inside, but that's for American football which has a narrower pitch, includes standing areas (not allowed in the UK), and I think requires the seats to be moved closer together.

Wembley Stadium has its own railway station with a direct connection to Central London and Birmingham, plus at least two Underground stations within walking distance. I don't think the parking is any worse at Wembley (and possibly better) than at Cardiff, and there are hotels and restaurants located right next to the stadium. The Olympic Stadium is also right next to one of the busiest railway stations in the country, as well as a big Westfield which is full of restaurants and bars. There are undoubtedly other reasons for not having a GP in London, but it's nonsense to use the argument about accessibility and facilities.

Cardiff doesn't get a seriously decent crowd, so why go to the undoubtedly extra expense and risk of an uncovered stadium elsewhere?

Wasn't Coventry purpose built for speedway? Not sure if that's considered defunct yet.

Those bodies wouldn't/don't have a regulatory or oversight role in the sport. Someone making rules on things affecting competition shouldn't really be the representative of a team in said competition.

Any track that has an FIM licence. Only problem is you'd have to restrict capacity.

I'd say those leagues are much closer to the BSPA model than the SCB. The SCB is more like the FA compared to the Premier League - it's an oversight body with some representatives being appointed by the Premier League, but others by other interests. MLB was formerly an oversight body for much of professional baseball, but merged into a single corporate entity some years ago. The Commissioner has always been elected by the major league clubs though.