Humphrey Appleby

Which is what some said all along. In fairness it might have been done to persuade MCC and others to fund the scheme, but unless it's co-owned or co-run by the BSPA then there's nothing national about it at all.

The stadium is good by speedway standards, but that's pointless if it's financial unviable. Even worse is if bills go unpaid, as no local authority will ever be persuaded to trust the sport again, and may simply just convert the whole thing into a hockey stadium or whatever. After your previous assurances about the financial viability, you're now saying that it can't survive on speedway alone. Well maybe not, but how many women would really want their wedding at a speedway track? Wouldn't be relying on that a business plan. Of course MCC are pulling out all the stops. They've shelled out a lot of cash and want to recoup it.

You only have to look at the attendances, multiply by the admission fee and remove VAT to see they can't be raking it in. There might also be a bit of sponsorship coming in, but again you only have to look at the type of sponsors to see it's not going to be significant money. There might be the odd exception, but if a track turns a modest profit at the end of the year then it's probably doing pretty well. I'd imagine most promoters would have to have successful businesses elsewhere to be able to run speedway these days. So presumably any fancy motors are financed from their earnings there.

Ridiculous argument. Belle Vue would have known the deal when they signed-up for it, although a number on here pointed out the folly of the terms. You were pretty dismissive of the naysayers, but it seems they were correct. Football attracts thousands of spectators every year, even to West Ham, so the utility of building and funding a stadium for football is much higher. By comparison, speedway is these days a virtually unknown sport that attracts a few hundred spectators, and is frankly lucky that any council is interested in trying to support it at all. The fact that any council runs a significant risk of not being able to recoup their investment from the sport, is yet another reason why many would be dissuaded. The Olympic Stadium was built for a specific purpose, and was presumably financed on the basis of income from the Olympic Games and improvements to the surrounding infrastructure. It can either sit there and turn into an unused dilapidated ruin (as with many previous Olympic Stadia) or at least be used for a sport that people actually turn up to watch. Whether or not the deal with West Ham is right or wrong though, it has absolutely nothing to do with Manchester City Council or Belle Vue speedway.

We wait with bated breath for the full expose... For goodness sake, what has the Olympic Stadium got to do with Belle Vue?

Speedway must be the only sport where more riders are paid (at least to some extent) than those who do it for fun. It still amazes me that British speedway can sustain any full-time professionals on the crowds and limited other sources of revenue it's getting, but I'd be surprised if it's still the case 5 years from now.

The sport seems to be heading back towards a two tier structure. The National League seems to be more viable for many of teams what were in the former Premier League, whilst fewer-and-fewer teams are able to make a go of things in the top flight, resulting in that effectively becoming what was the Premier League. How soon before more 'Championship' teams drop to the National League, with the rest having to combine with the 'Premiership' run at a more realistic financial level.

Philippe wasn't much keen on the SGP either, at least until BSI made him Deputy Race Director...

Yes, because they opted to ride with a German licence as far as I remember. I'm not sure there were any New Zealand licenses when the likes of Mauger and Briggs were around.

Maybe they have been. The problem is that the previous bar is always set very low...

What was odd about it? At that time Australia and New Zealand didn't have independent federations, so Commonwealth riders rode under the ACU banner.

It's all been heard before, and then gone out the window the moment a team threatens to fold. It's also clearly ludicrous to force a team that wants to stay in the top flight to be relegated, whilst teams below don't want to be promoted. Until places in the top flight need to be rationed, the promotion and relegation will always be a non-starter.

Not really sure what people were expecting - the outcome of the AGM seems to have been just about as realistic and sensible as could have been hoped for in speedway. With the leagues down to just about bare minimum numbers and the Elite League at death's door, then there wasn't much choice but to just to divvy up the teams as equally as possible. What's more, the Premiership is now actually the top league as it should have been all along, and they'll be no more arguments about the Elite League not being 'elite''. Of course changing the names of things isn't going to solve the wider problems in the sport, and professional speedway is most probably doomed in Britain regardless, but I'm not sure what else could be done at this point in time. And it surely demonstrates that the former PL can't have been the healthy thriving competition that was claimed if it's struggling for numbers too.

If the EU isn't spending anywhere near as much as other countries then why are people complaining so much? Do they not think there are inefficient farmers there as well! I didn't call the UK farmers greedy, but it is astonishing how they expect handouts whilst continually complaining about their lot, yet are strong supporters of governments otherwise opposed to industrial subsidies. Of course I'm aware that farming is based around long term inflexible cycles, vagaries of the weather, and it's important to maintain the food supply (even if it results in overproduction), but the hypocrisy is still incredible. They'll be the first in the queue for handouts from the UK government when their CAP subsidies disappear - so much for spending it on the NHS.

He can presumably influence the vote though.

Whilst it's true dairy farming and some other farming sectors have gone through a rationalisation process in recent years, it's largely been down the fact there were too many smallish farms unable to benefit from economies of scale. I do know a couple of dairy farmers, and they were saying 20 years ago that you either had to buy out your neighbour or go to the wall. I suspect dairy farmers were propped up for years by having a guaranteed market, and whilst it's sad that many couldn't continue, I'm sure most didn't share the same sentiments when industrial workers were losing their jobs because the government refused to subsidise their industries. And given the apparent widespread support amongst farmers for Brexit despite benefitting from the CAP for years, I'm afraid they reap what they sow.

There's the promoter's bond which I think is carried over, but aren't there regular membership fees to pay the running costs of the BSPA etc..?

Sorry, but I've seen no more red tape from the EU than I have the UK government. It's just one of those mantras repeated ad-nauseum by the anti-EU brigade without any real evidence. There will be just as much bureaucracy in future, because a lot of EU compliance stuff was initiated by the UK government anyway. Plus if you want to export to the EU you'll be doing it anyway.

Seems a few people have a jaundiced view then. Not sure how you're qualified to judge my expertise as you gave up being a journalist long ago.

I don't really care about rights and wrongs of the Hancock situation, and it would not be unreasonable to report on Hancock's perspective regardless of whatever cobblers is used to justify pulling out of the meeting (and BTW, once the FIM Jury made a ruling, it was no longer 'alleged'). However, Burbridge's report was nothing more than a shill piece for Monster, and even Peter White seems to have been censored from discussing Hancock. Of course supposedly independent journalists can pass comment on events as they see them - they do it all the time in other sports. But even if you had to toe an uncritical party line, then that could be done by presenting the viewpoints of other observers. As it was, the 'brilliant' reporting wouldn't have disgraced Pravda.

Maybe so, but any employee is going to ask for what they think they can get. A speedway rider has no guarantee of employment from year-to-year, and could be injured tomorrow, and there will be little sentiment from their employer. The fault lies squarely with promoters who agree to unsustainable demands, and who for years have failed to control costs that could be under their control. Are people really still banging on about something that happened nearly 30 years ago? And are people forgetting that Commonwealth riders were always allowed in the NL as far as I remember. Where things went wrong was the introduction and maintenance of an asset system that meant British riders attracted a transfer fee, whilst foreign riders initially could be signed for free. You could probably also point to the demise of second halves and the introduction of 'professional' junior leagues that saw 30-year-old juniors taking team places. Then there was the opening up of Eastern Europe after the Cold War that created a available pool of (initially) cheap riders, combined with British promoters looking to cut costs. And finally, why shouldn't British resident riders have the right to compete at whatever level someone's willing to employ them? Rasmussen could presumably have just taken out a British passport and ridden as a Brit anyway. Again it ultimately comes back to promoters failing to control costs, not blaming those who were employed.

49% of the population thought they did, and they weren't anywhere near all in the South-East.

I don't believe a vote was inevitable at all. Cameron was just too weak to stand up to usual elements within his own party - something that Thatcher and even John Major managed. Simple demographics of old people dying and younger people joining the electorate would also diminish the 'inevitability'. Such a vote was never going to resolve anything because even if remain had won, it would never have been by enough to silence the Brexiteers. It needed strong leadership to make the case for staying in the EU, and if necessary enact changes by withholding funding and using the UK veto powers.

It seems the Ethiad has just been bought by the AFL, so maybe that's also a consideration?

I reserved judgement until I'd had a chance to read this week's Spar, but I have to say that the reporting of the GP was absolutely ridiculous biased waffle. I'd be embarrassed to put that out as a journalist. What are they actually paying though? BSI's reported revenue has been declining over the past few years, and there's been no increase in the amounts coming out North America. The sponsorship may be coming via a European subsidiary, but normally sponsors and organisers alike to trumpet how much they're investing.