Humphrey Appleby

I'm sure lessons will be learned...

I've got some correspondence from him on this subject, and whilst I don't have it immediately to hand, my recollection was he considered keeping matches close more important than 'fairness', especially for away teams. It also keep fans involved in the meeting through speculation of what changes might be made, although I think there was acknowledgement the rule tended to favour top heavy teams which was apparently a bugbear of Len Silver in particular. However, he certainly seemed to favour some sort of tactical option, although stated a preference for tactical subs over double points. I can well imagine that the tactical sub rule had a bigger impact on results than tactical rides because you could bring in a better rider in place of another at any time (if 6 points down of course) whereas you have to rely on the heat formula falling your way with the tactical ride. In most circumstances you'd want to have your best or at least second best rider taking the tactical ride, but they're not necessarily going to be programmed in the next heat. This said, a tactical substitute still has to score points the same way as everyone else, so I think ultimately has more credibility than double points. For me, I think tactical substitutes should only be allowed when a team is at least 8 points down as there's too much advantage when only 6 behind, but I don't have any problem with the basic premise.

He approached me quite some years ago for some reference information, around the time he was thinking about writing his first book. After that we interacted for some years, until one day I received an abrupt and close to abusive email. To this day, I've no idea what prompted it as it was certainly nothing I'd said to or about him, although it seems to have been a familiar pattern from what others have told me, plus what you can read in his books. This does not change the fact that he had some very good ideas about how to run speedway, and in fact sport in general. Views that I happen to mostly agree with, but it's one thing to believe in a certain way of doing things, but another to be able to persuade everyone over to your viewpoint and then keep them convinced. And that isn't going to happen if you're falling out with your constituents over trivial things. I did ask him whether he thought he could turn British speedway around (and bear in mind this was over a decade ago), but I think he felt it was on an irrevocable decline regardless of what was done. Maybe had things been done differently in the 1980s, but of course he had the sense to get out of the business then.

You have to work with people in a collaborative organisation (which the BSPA ostensibly is) regardless of whether you think (or know) they're wrong. It's not a question of whether his views and methods were right, but how long he'd have kept the other promoters onside. Not sure what you mean by being on the gravy train - there wasn't much gravy in speedway administration - then or now. And that is the tragedy.

John Berry was a very astute promoter and a deep thinker about speedway, but I think he would have made a poor supremo. Whilst that sort of position needs leadership and some toughness, the incumbent first-and-foremost needs to be diplomatic because it just won't work if you haven't got most of the promoters backing you. You only have to look at all the fallings out with various people down the years, sometimes for the most trivial of reasons, to see that it probably wouldn't have lasted long. Very good promoter and undoubtedly many good ideas for how to run the sport, but unfortunately a supremo-type position needs a different skill set.

I'd rather have a speedway in my neighbourhood than another housing estate. The destruction of Coventry is an utter disgrace.

ABC1s would not be seen dead anywhere near a speedway stadium, even if it registered in their plane of existence in the first place. It's all very well saying the sport needs to be marketed, but there's so much that would need to be put right to attract a higher paying demographic, and where is the money coming from to pay for that? Speedway barely struggles along from year-to-year as is, and is unlikely to find any wealthy benefactor who'd be willing to invest in it for precisely the reason there's little chance of any return on investment.

Who uses the telephone nowadays? It's all video chat, Internet messaging and social media these days, isn't it?

Rugby teams are owned by multi-millionaires and are generally followed by people with higher incomes, which is also why the sport gets better sponsorship and media coverage. The marketing is also better because people are already familiar with the sport, and the sport can also afford it. None of this applies in speedway and never has, even during the heyday of speedway and when top-flight rugby was played out with lagered-up players in front of a few hundred fans at best.

I'd acknowledge that speedway is a hard sell outside of 3 or 4 countries, and even within those countries these days. The sport is quite regional in its popularity, has a difficult demographic to market, and as result almost zero mainstream exposure. However, the SGP just seems to burn its bridges everywhere it goes. BSI seem far more interested in collecting their staging fees wherever they can, and don't seem to make a lot of effort to promote these GPs or ensure they provide a good experience for the people who do turn up. Inappropriate or insufficiently inspected stadiums, and poor quality tracks ensure that even if people turn up out of interest once, they don't bother again. The legacy of GPs outside of Britain and Poland has been an initial surge of interest in the first GP staged there, but then a decline until the GP gets dropped with ridiculous excuses being given. How many times have we had Philippe on here bigging up a new GP, only to be making excuses post-GP about the various problems experienced (lessons will be learned etc.. etc..), and finally to blame the local promoters when the GP inevitably falls off the calendar? Fair enough, you can't expect every venue to work out, but it's all become a very predictable pattern. At some point you have to ask why there's seemingly little requirement for local promotion or quality control of the GPs.

I'm sure the local FAs, Rugby Unions and Cricket Boards are highly grateful to FIFA, UEFA, World Rugby and the ICC when they bring their World Cups to their shores because they're giving everyone a great day out. I'm sure they don't expect any money in return for hosting in their territories.

Teterow is obviously on the calendar because BSI needed to fulfil a certain number of GPs, and Finland wasn't working out. Get somewhere that's as cheap as possible, preferably in an area where there's some sort of pre-existing support, and don't worry too much about the location and facilities. In Britain the situation hasn't arisen because there's already a good venue being used, and the Welsh government is willing to subsidise the GP. The question though, is whether second GP at a much smaller and more poorly appointed venue would add anything? With Coventry out of the equation now, there's really no decent mid-sized venues capable of hosting a GP. The Poles can't make Warsaw pay? Astonishing... I also thought there was a requirement for covered stadiums if possible? Wroclaw is hardly a step forward in that direction.

I don't think it's in the interests of BSI to have two GPs in Britain. The Cardiff GP is promoted by them and the flagship GP of the series, so there would be risk of diluting that effect if there were another GP. And where to hold it? Belle Vue is a reasonable enough speedway facility, but it's no Millennium Stadium.

Yes, but there's now this new-fangled thing called the Internet where you can receive stuff more than three times per day, and where it's delivered almost instantaneously. If postal delivery of the Spar is unreliable then an electronic version is available and that always arrives on time. If you read it on an A4-sized tablet it's not much different from having the magazine in your hands, and the old copies don't clutter up your loft.

You don't always need to be able to vote. You should still be able to influence things if you're sitting in the room, or more particularly in the bar afterwards. If they can't even persuade the ACU rep sitting in the CCP to represent their interests, then that's truly woeful.

There's only one recognised national federation per country/territory (which is the ACU for Great Britain), but other motorcycling industry bodies or promoters can be associate members. The BSPA is listed as an Associate Member on the FIM website http://www.fim-live.com/en/fim/the-federation/associate-members/

Yes, but the FIM would have had nothing if the BSPA and other professional leagues didn't allow their contracted riders to be used for free. As with F1, those actually at the coal-face should have insisted on a cut of the money brought in. And as far as I know, the BSPA are still associate members of the FIM.

The point is that it increasingly appears that feet are being dragging on building the replacement stadium at Swindon.

Not so much in this case. A number of observers on here were questioning the arrangements with the council long before the stadium was built, and some of the problems were entirely predictable given the way the project management was set-up. It's quite sad that something that should have been a rare triumph for speedway has ended in disaster for the promoters, but hopefully the sport will still be able reap the benefits. However, you can't overlook some of the serious mistakes that proved costly.

The difference is this is speedway, which exists in something of a parallel dimension to everything else. Other construction projects might use reputable builders and project managers, and should something go badly wrong, the client can afford to sue for damages. In speedway though, everything seems to have to be done in a cheap and dodgy way - whether it's contractors getting some erstwhile fly-tippers to come round, or storing shale under a scientifically controlled old tarpaulin...

Great for the sport, assuming the damage of a crowd turning up to a new stadium only for the meeting to be called off isn't long lasting. Not so great for those who put their money into the venture, and have lost their shirts. Heart can't rule the head unless it's money you can afford to lose, and whilst we don't know the full detail of the financial and contractual arrangements, they don't seem to have been on terms that I'd find acceptable. Why would the council object to speedway people asking to inspect a critical component of the whole venture, and one the council would certainly have no experience of building? Even if the promotion only had an advisory role, it might have flagged up the shortcuts that were being taken.

If my car is defective then I take it to dealer to be fixed, or sent it back. It'll probably not affect the running of my business, and even if were critical to it, I know I can hire another car quickly. Building a speedway track is more akin to someone building a house for you. Yes, I can and did inspect every significant stage of the construction personally, starting with the foundations. One of my neighbours did not, and subsequently had problems with his cavity walls and roof. Constructors cut corners all the time if they can get away with it, and I would absolutely insist on checking their work if I had any investment staked on the quality of their work. It would be part of the agreement, and if I was refused then the deal would be off.

Walked away. I wouldn't risk my financial future on the say-so of disinterested third parties.

It comes back to supervision of the track construction, which the leaked papers indicate was not done by the promotion. It doesn't really matter who was ultimately responsible, failures of others can bring down your business, and for something as critical to running speedway as a track, I'd have insisted on being involved.

I'd be amazed if there was a substantial return for most speedway sponsors, which is no doubt why the sport has been without a major title sponsor for 20-odd years. Would have thought much of the sponsorship is more akin to being charitable donations.