Humphrey Appleby

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.

The NFL and MLB Commissioners are not associated with any team, despite being appointed by the league members. So it can be done. The sticking point would be the ability of the BSPA to pay such a person.

If someone on the 'inside' with some reasonably positive ideas can't persuade the incumbents of the need to change, I feel there's little hope the fans can. That's assuming the fans can even agree on what they want, which judging from this forum is pretty unlikely. In reality, successful businesses don't really base their decisions on customer feedback. They judge what they think will sell, but respond quickly if things don't work out, and try something else. Speedway shouldn't be any different, but the problem is that it just doesn't have the capitalisation anymore to risk doing something different, even though its current trajectory is towards oblivion.

He got involved in speedway.

Except that England started winning the Ashes once he returned. Surprised you had to look up Boycott - one of the greatest batsman of any era. All sorts of cliques and favouritism in England circles in that era, and Boycott was also unfairly criticised at times, even though his runs, average and strike rate speak for themselves.

What has changed in the UK in recent years, is the focus on elite sport. Huge amounts of money being targeted at sports which have been identified as 'gold mines' for British teams. However, England has consistently underachieved in its main sport of football (although winning the World U20 Cup went almost unnoticed), and whilst it's been more successful in cricket, it still hasn't really achieved as much as the law of averages amongst just 10 countries would suggest. In the meantime, the grassroots of these sports is largely dying on its a*se, whilst public money is channelled into encouraging participation in sports that will never be mass participation due to the equipment and facilities required. Of course, the public isn't really interested whilst British teams clean-up in the likes of Olympics in the targeted sports, but you have to wonder where things are going in mainstream sports, and indeed the future of the recreational side of things after youth level. Scotland has self-inflicted problems in its sport, especially football. Not enough competitive teams, an insufficiently competitive structure, and too many competing bodies running parallel competitions that have created stagnation and aren't ensuring resources are going to the right places.

Rider Control only aimed to equalise team strengths in the same league (and I think then only in the BL). It wouldn't really help with an Inter-League competition, and I don't think it's desirable for the appeal of such a competition for the higher league teams to be missing their best riders who're likely to be the main drawcards. Far better to utilise some sort of handicap system - either on track or through a points (dis)advantage - to make things more competitive.

Not sure - I remember some quite well attended 4TTs when it was a more prestigious NL competition, although I seem to remember that riders started to be allowed to miss these rounds and spectator interest dropped away. I can imagine though, the 4TTs weren't popular with promoters because of the same problem of having to finance three away meetings from only one revenue generating home meeting. You can make a reasonable 3TT format with 4 rider teams, but the biggest flaw is one team is always sitting out of each heat. That's especially boring for home meetings, and also makes things like tactical subs/rides impractical. 3TTs are okayish as a novelty format, but shouldn't be used for anything serious even though I believe the Danish Open League did use that format for a season or maybe two. There was a huge disparity between the BL and NL in those days, so any inter-league competition was never going to be highly competitive. Might be different today where the 'Premiership' and 'Championship' are closer in strength, plus you might consider things like points handicaps to give the lower league teams more of a chance.

A 4TT format would be more suited to an Inter-League Cup - more chance of the lower league teams being competitive with small-side teams, plus multiple teams per meeting would maintain some interest if 1 or 2 of the teams were not competitive. 4TTs are more suited to club-based competitions where there's only a few teams, and where you want to reduce the volunteer effort needed to stage meetings.

Well the negative is that 1 in 4 meetings rather than 1 in 2 will be revenue generating for each team, and that's a big inherent problem to overcome to start with. Plus you'll need to pay for at least 16 and possibly 20 riders (if you include reserves) at each meeting, rather than the 14 needed for matches now, so that's more travelling expenses. And if that's not enough, you can't make a decent heat formula in less than 16 heats, so that's at least one more heat to find points money for, before you even consider the reserves who'll otherwise be sitting around. I won't even get into the difficulties of scheduling 4TT fixtures to ensure that every team gets the same number of home meetings and meets every other team in the league an equal number of times. Or the excessive repetition it causes if you're able to achieve this. So sorry to be Mr Negative, but a 4TT structure isn't going to revolutionise the sport for all the reasons above. Might work for a short duration tournament that's primarily funded for television and sponsorship, but that isn't going to happen in the current climate. I wasn't asked to suggest something positive - I was commenting on why a 4TT format isn't the answer. The problems with speedway are far deeper rooted than the format of the meetings, and it's now so utterly undercapitalised that it's probably doomed. However, my view which I've expressed many times on here is that it needs to be cheaper and offer better value in terms of the number and speed of running the heats, and teams need to be made-up of riders that turn-up every week. Nevertheless, plenty disagree and believe the sport should bankrupt itself to attract back the mercenaries, organising meetings when it suits them rather than the spectators during the summer months. Plenty also think British-based riders should be off riding in mickey mouse competitions masquerading as continental championships in order that a handful of half-decent riders can be selected for other tournaments that also don't provide any financial benefits to anyone other private speculators. Until these underlying issues are addressed, tinkering with the format is just moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.