Humphrey Appleby

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.

And I think not even the UK - just Great Britain.

I'm glad you know what government policy will be. I thought the 8 billion was going to be spend on the NHS. And you really think importing less won't have any impact on the UK economy? It doesn't - it's 1% of government spending. Interest payments on the national debt alone are 5 times that.

There may be a decline in purchasing German cars anyway, if the pound declines any more against the euro. The demand for many if not most imported goods is elastic, so if you start whacking tariffs on them, the effect is simply that people buy less or just don't buy them at all. So not only don't you raise the revenues from tariffs you expect, but you also reduce opportunities for the local supply chains (e.g. the dealers, delivery system and the likes of Phloppy). It'll not in any way help the UK to get into a trade war with the EU.

It's only been a few months since the vote, Article 50 has not been invoked yet, and no-one knows the terms of leaving. Companies have not had the chance to really do anything yet, far less actually move. However, whether you want to believe it or not, I do know organisations that are actively making plans to move from the UK. They're relatively small and not high profile companies so aren't going to make a big song-and-dance about it, but will just quietly move out over the next couple of years. It's not even particularly relevant whether all is not good with the rest of the EU. They have to be based in the EU and single market - end of story.

Well perhaps the UK government can also provide incentives to Tata to keep the steelworks in Port Talbot, because according to the Brexiteers it was all the fault of the EU that Tata were going to pull out. The irony of a Tory government having to subsidise private industry though...

For every positive news story clutched at by the Brexiteers, you can find a counter negative one. The fact remains though, that the UK has not yet left the EU and no-one knows on which terms it will do so. Until then, it's all hot air. Companies can say all sorts of things, and often do, but there's actually nothing to prevent them changing their minds if they decide the business environment in the UK is no longer conducive to their wider interests. Even if companies do stay, then you still don't know what it'll mean for their employees given the Tory government's stated intention to tear up employee protection legislation. It'll be several years before the consequences really become apparent.