Humphrey Appleby

Everything they try to change the tyres, the riders whinge.

The whole environment is different to the 50s. There's far more alternative forms of entertainment, working patterns have changed, and peoples' expectations about going to a sporting contest are different. Even the riders have other options, and the whole concept of team racing has been brought into question as a result. You only have to look at the SGP. You have 16 of arguably the world's best riders taking place in the best stadia the sport can offer (which admittedly is not saying much), and yet the series is still a poor relation in comparison to many other sports. If you can't make that a big success, then what hope a domestic meeting taking place on a dank cold October evening? For me, the tactical substitute concept was fine (although somewhat unique to speedway), but they should only have been allowed when a team was 8 or even 10 points down. In other words, when a team is at least two heats behind level pegging. I think the rule actually was 8 points for a couple of a seasons during the 'one big league' BPL, which I felt provided most of the most enjoyable speedway of my speedway watching career (albeit unsustainable for a number of tracks). The major flaw with the tactical ride is that you're somewhat restricted to using it in the heats where your best riders are programmed, whereas tactical subs could be introduced in any heat. However, a tactical sub could still only score regular points, so for me had more credibility as a 'keeping the scores close' contrivance. Maybe tactical substitutions should also have been limited to just one or two, but in practical terms you rarely saw more than that anyway unless there were injuries in the team.

Threatening to pull internationals could have been for any reason, and that they'd threaten to do it for a World Final once every few years doesn't seem entirely plausible, especially with other sports regularly using the pitch before we even get to Live Aid and other big rock concerts of the 80s. I also have a recollection the FA were involved in some dispute with Wembley's owners over the financial arrangements in that era, plus in the early 80s there was certainly a movement advocating that internationals should be played around the country. Having a World Final there each year would presumably have annoyed the FA even more. I suspect the real reasons are somewhat different to the explanation of not wanting the pitch messed up.

There's nothing precious about the pitch at Wembley these days. The FA are quite happy to hold concerts on it, and it's been relaid umpteen times. I'm not sure how conducive Wembley would be for putting a track in though, as there's not enough room around the pitch. If you can't lay a track over a disused pitch at a Finnish stadium, then little hope at football's premier venue. Olympic Stadium would be a better option. Has it ever really been prove that was the reason, given that the FA didn't actually own the old Wembley? Probably more a convenient excuse with respect to the cost of staging it there.

Of course I get it. There's a stadium there that's probably being rented relatively cheaply because the WRU are desperate to hold anything to reduce their losses on the place, the Welsh government throw money at it, and 40k fans are willing to stump up outrageous prices for the privilege of staying. No-one is suggesting it's not a good concept for the organisers, and if the still fans are happy, then I suppose even better. By contrast, Wembley would cost the organisers a fortune and there are already enough things going on in London that the local tourist board probably isn't going to pay to bring a low key event there. However, I'm sure you could create an atmosphere in the Olympic Park if the will was there, and there's much more alternative in terms of accommodation that you're not going to be held to ransom unless something like the Olympics itself is on. BTW - I go to London very often, and Cardiff once or twice per year. The point is not whether Cardiff is cheaper 353 days of the year, but the 2 when the GP is on.

Whilst I'm sure enquiries have been made about Wembley Stadium, would have thought the Olympic Stadium would be a far more realistic option, especially given IMG's attempts to get the management rights. London would be a far better location than Cardiff, roof issues aside. I've got nothing against Cardiff which has its charms, but it's a relatively inaccessible and grossly overpriced city for a GP, although I suppose not when compared to the likes of Krsko, Daugavpils and Malilla. I suppose next it'll be claimed the Danish GP has been moved to Horsens because there's nothing to do in Copenhagen, although I think it was down to the expense of the bridge wasn't it?

This of course is the revisionist myth that GP proponents have created. There was a capacity crowd of maybe 30K+ who watched Havelock win in Wroclaw (I was there), which is an attendance that exceeds anything that most GPs have managed. The following year the world Final went to Pocking which had a maximum capacity of 10K and is in the middle of nowhere, so was never going to pull a big crowd. Only a couple of years earlier, Munich pulled a very large crowd that was likely in excess of anything Cardiff has ever achieved, and Gothenburg was also not shabby. So basically crowds held up pretty well when World Finals were held in attractive locations. As for the unbalanced fields, that was simply down to the way the qualifiers were divided up, and was not inherently a failing of the one-off system. From 1991 onwards though, there were two 'open' Semi-Finals that allowed everyone to reach the World Final on merit, and the fields of latter day Finals had few weak riders. I'm not actually against the GP system, but I suspect had Cardiff and Warsaw been available in the 90s, a World Final there would have drawn as many if not more fans than the GP. I'd have said cancelling a GP in an indoor stadium of 55k fans looked very unprofessional, did not come over well on television, and was far from a great advert for the sport. Similarly with the borefests in places like Finland, and moving an entire GP to another track at a day's notice. Okay, that's not an inherent failure of the GP system, but could be hurled as a spurious argument against it.

Sounds like the track would be perfect for a GP then. LOL

So it's all just a coincidence then?

Let's hope the punters all come back next time.

Insurance, and particularly motor vehicle insurance, is practically criminal in how much companies try to con out of you. For a while I changed my insurance company every year because after an initial competitive price for the first year, they'd bang on an extra amount for renewal hoping you wouldn't notice. When you called to cancel, they'd then immediately drop the price and get miffed when you told them you'd be cancelling anyway for trying to rip you off, which I always did as a matter of principle. I did this several times until the insurance companies got the message, but it seems a strange business model to alienate your customers after getting their custom in the first place. The stupid thing is if they were less greedy and only added a modest increase then I might not be bothered to look elsewhere, but when they're adding 150 quid or more, then it's like a red flag. I think I'm paying somewhere just over 300 quid for fully comprehensive insurance on a 1600cc car, and that's with one claim where some old bloke walked out in front of Mrs Appleby. Quite aside from damaging our car (and then the police impounding it for 2 weeks because the vehicle inspector was on holiday, even though we were the innocent party), he then had the cheek to try to sue the insurance company for damages, despite the fact he was lucky she was only doing 30 mph in a 50 mph zone. Of course, the claim was rightly rejected, but this sort of nonsense is why insurance premiums are so high. I think my van insurance is only 250 quid, but then it's more than 20 years old.

There's not enough roofed stadiums in countries where speedway is popular enough to justify hiring them, and in Europe (with the exception of maybe Sweden) it'll be the football season anyway. New Zealand has already been tried for three years and wasn't a financial success, and it remains to be seen how Melbourne goes. Poland has just the one roofed stadium in Warsaw as far as I know, Copenhagen has obviously dropped off the circuit because of poor attendances, and whilst you might conceivably run in an open air stadium in Slovenia and Croatia, you certainly don't want to be going to Latvia in the winter. If there was any realistic chance of holding a GP in the US, it would have been done by now. Probably the same for Argentina too. IMG/BSI couldn't care less about British speedway, and Poland and Sweden are not greatly affected by the GPs either, so why would they support a switch to a winter season? British speedway should just forget about trying to work around the myriad of World and European Championships and stick with riders who can be guaranteed to turn up on race nights that offer the best chance of getting the crowds. It can't afford the top riders anyway.

Presumably he was paid for it, and I suspect fairly handsomely. And rather than going on a world tour, perhaps focusing on the organisation in the few countries where speedway is actually still popular might have been more fruitful. Warsaw was a disaster, but the inescapable fact is that the SGP is not growing.

I think when (at least) three longish serving people move on in a short space of time, particularly after a major fiasco, that's pretty telling. Most people get a bit jaded and even complacent after a few years doing the same thing, but 'wanting to spend more time with the family' is the oldest cliche in the book. The last thing I ever want to do as a professional is spend any more time than necessary with the family. As for rallycross being a bigger sport than speedway, well that really just shows how low the currency of speedway has fallen. It used to be a niche motor sport televised as cheap Saturday afternoon fodder.

Not really any surprise. Too many failures for it just to be bad luck.

Len Silver used to complain about them a lot. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he came up with the Tactical Ride rule.

What was that odd format used for the Mail? Wider than A4, but less tall from memory. Still got a lot of them up in the loft.

Which suggests that the Star could have been more vocal in his criticism. What was it that was raising the production costs? I'd have thought that the advent of DTP should have made things cheaper, at least once the initial investment had been made.

Well had to ride in the sense that NZ didn't have its own federation then, or at least not one that was FIM affiliated. It would have probably been more accurate to describe the British Final as a Commonwealth round.

When are four riders not on the track? Should hardly come as a surprise LOL.

I actually think both Norden and Pocking are okay as regular speedway venues go, but they should never have been World Final venues. Teterow just looks incredibly basic.

Whether or not the relationships were hands-off or otherwise, it's surely fairly obvious that a publication is unlikely to be very critical of those bankrolling it. For what it's worth, I think the Spar did generally improve as a publication in the Pinegen era, but it also became bland and uncritical at a key time when it could have had more influence than it does now. It's also unfortunate that the Speedway Mail disappeared around the same time, as whilst it production qualities were far lower, it didn't shy away from making critical comment (probably to its ultimate detriment).

Actually laying that out on the table would I think give some sense of realism, and the more sensible fans would realise how unsustainable speedway currently is, let alone with 'all the top riders'. Of course most promoters or riders aren't willing going to give any financial information - that's why you investigate these things. It's not particularly difficult to find out, or make reasonable guesstimates. Beyond that you could ask about the monies made from the SGP, and the portion that goes to the FIM. How is this spent, and what amount comes back to speedway directly or indirectly? What are the reasons why the sport struggles to attract major sponsors, could the BSPA get a better television deal with a different agent, and so on and so forth... I think these are perfectly questions for anyone to ask, but if you wanted to get really investigative, you could ask why a certain rights company went bust, whilst another incarnation continues to trade.

It's by no means the major factor, but sports journalism should be asking the questions about whether the sport is well run, and in cases advocate the answers. It was after all, journalism that blew open the FIFA scandal, which the average member of the sports watching public would otherwise have been completely unaware of. Alright, speedway isn't anywhere in the league of football, and the Spar despite its common origins, is no World Soccer. However, there plenty of issues beyond four blokes racing in circles to discuss.

What's more factual and truthful about it than anyone else's opinion? I notice Philippe didn't mention that James Easter has also been a shareholder.