Humphrey Appleby

Philippe will tell you the bridge is too expensive for the fans coming from Jutland. Perhaps more likely is that Copenhagen Tourism pulled the plug on the GP subsidy, presumably because of limited returns.

Yes, but the technical issues were not sorted out, and what could have been a triumph has turned into a disastrous setback for the sport. The damage done by Warsaw is much worse than Riga, Gelsenkirchen, Tampere and the other fiascos that have gone before. That's not to say those events have not done damage either - the poor crowd at Tampere was surely a reflection on the poor racing last year, whilst the Latvians aren't even bothering with Riga again.

Often raced in karting with the sun going down. Tinted visors work perfectly fine in my experience, although become problematic when the light starts fading.

I'm not sure that's how I read the regulation. However, the catch-all is normally 'rider withholding their services'..

Somewhere where I can see proper racing. I've been as much to tracks in the back of beyond as much as I have to Paris. BSI should sort out the GPs they currently run. What's the point in attracting a good crowd to watch a fiasco? It does more damage than good. There's far more of speedway tradition and active racing in those countries than France. I think there's occasional speedway racing at Marmande, but that's down in the south-west of France, a long way from Paris.

Can't find a shred of evidence this is actually an EU ruling, and it doesn't sound like something that would be within its competence to have a ruling on anyway. There are European standards for swimming pools and diving boards, but that's a separate body and nothing to do with the EU. There are also similar standards issued in the US and Australia amongst other countries.

Like Poland? Well that was because of a women's basketball tournament wasn't it? I assume you're happy with the garbage being served up so far? Tampere is hardly a big city, or a big stadium.

I doubt they're that astute. Probably just didn't understand the proposal.

Surely that's covered by Reg. 16.5.2 that allows the BSPA Management Committee to grant a 28-day facility at its discretion? Sheffield might be idiots in signing a rider that knew potentially couldn't do the whole season, but idiocy has never prevented the granting of a facility before.

Fraud's suggestion as it stands is pure nonsense, and of course motivated by self-interest. The only way of doing it sensibly, as others have pointed out, is to take the performances when actually riding as second-string, and then assess the particular strengths of the heats they rode in. However, it then doesn't produce an average but a rating. Where does it all end though? I could be argued that No. 11 in cricket scoring 10 runs is a better performance than a No. 1 scoring 10 runs because they usually have less time to do it, and on a more worn pitch. Equally though, they normally don't have to face the new ball, or opening bowlers when they're fresh. 10 runs still count the same towards match score though, whoever scores them, and both players are still credited with 10 runs...

It's of course very nice the SGP is doing so much for tourism and European harmony (no doubt much to the chagrin of Mr Ploppy), but it still doesn't change the fact that the proceeds go largely to a US-based corporation and speedway benefits little. Does it encourage speedway fans to attend their local tracks in any great numbers, or has it brought any significant returns in terms of sponsorship or other revenues? It might be argued that it helped British speedway get a television deal, but I think the truth of the matter is that could have been obtained regardless in the era of satellite/cable looking for cheap content. It's maybe true that the SGP has kept interest in the sport alive longer than might otherwise be the case, but that's all the more reason for it to be supporting the underlying grassroots.

At least until the new Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method was introduced... Well yes and no. The reserve is actually scoring more points (assuming the same number of rides) so is performing better in terms of the match situation, but the heat leader has harder rides so might be considered to be performing better in relation to the reserve. However, unless you award different points for different heats (e.g. Heat 15 is worth with than Heat 2), then you can't truly compare performances other than on the basis of what points riders actually contribute to the match score. Getting back to averages, I think the problem is that when you start tinkering with the relatively straightforward way in which averages get calculated, then it's actually no longer an average but a rider rating or something similar. That's fine for the purposes of the points limit which does not directly correspond with match scores anyway, but calling it an average just introduces confusion because it doesn't directly reflect a rider's scoring across the matches they've ridden in.

It's not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things, but if you add in the amount paid to the FIM (minus the prize monies) plus the royalties that IMG charge BSI, then it would probably be closer to £3 million. There's most likely also a profit margin in the costs charged by other IMG companies to BSI for work undertaken on their behalf, so that could reasonably be another half million or so (although this is an estimate), and staff costs look very high as well. So that's at £3.5 million or so that could be going into speedway. Divide that (for argument's sake) five ways between Britain, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and the other speedway countries, and it's 700K more per year than the BSPA currently receives.

About 1.5 million pounds per year.

Going back in his time capsule, he'd be able to retract all his former denouncements of the GP system and tell the Star readership what a wonderful idea it was...

The Millennium Stadium wasn't built before BSI took over the SGP, neither was Parken or Stockholm, so it's a pointless comparison. Bradford and Coventry were certainly also as good as some of the current GP venues.

Oxford, I'd imagine.

It's not for BSI or even the FIM to fix the issues in British speedway, and certainly British speedway is largely the architect of its own demise. However, the SGP did affect the British leagues much more than other national leagues because it took away several prime weekend race nights on which the more economically successful tracks generally rode. No-one would suggest it was the sole reason for the sport that was already in decline, but it certainly didn't help. Getting back to the issue at hand though, the sport's premier event should be run for the benefit of that sport, as it is with most other professional sports. IMG have a reputation for going after sports with low barriers to entry and little in the way of obligations, and whilst you can't blame them for seeking those opportunities, speedway stupidly continues to allow itself to be sold short to an organisation that cares little for the sport or its future. Ultimately yes, the FIM are to blame for not extracting better commercial value, although I suspect they were just happy to off-load the running of an unfashionable discipline in return for a few shekels. I'm sure the money they receive (aside from what they pay out as prize money) does go towards the furtherance of motor sport (after all the wining and dining of officials has been taken care of), but the extent to which it benefits professional speedway is questionable. What really is to be gained by running U21 World Finals halfway round the world or staging meetings in countries where there's little or no organised speedway - the money would be far better spent on facilitating local practice circuits and junior competitions. The promoters running professional speedway (i.e. in Britain, Poland, Sweden and Denmark) are also to blame for allowing the FIM to sell a product that they provide the substantive ingredients for (the riders and their wages), without negotiating any percentage of the returns. They're even more foolish for not doing exactly what IMG/BSI are doing in the first place, but instead running the SGP for their own benefit. It's not rocket science, even if they're incapable of organising 12 meetings a season and getting them on television, there's plenty of sports management organisations out there that would have done it for them for a cut of the profits. If womens' netball can get several millions to be on television every week, then it really does put into perspective what a poor effort speedway makes. Instead, we get the endless repeated mantra of how BSI have 'raised the bar' etc.. etc.. despite the fact that the bar was on the ground to start with and it's only been raised a few inches in 15 years. Even worse, is how many fans unquestioningly buy into this myth, to the point of becoming apologists for what is in reality a not especially well run competition, nor one that much benefits the wider sport.

He does business with them. I think the reality is that the SGP doesn't really make substantial amounts of money, and even if it was run for the benefit of speedway rather than a US corporation, you'd still have to distribute that money around a number of countries. I don't think it would be realistic for the BSPA to expect more than half-a-million a year at best.

There are no domestic leagues in F1, MotoGP and WSB, and in general, the competitors are able to make a living exclusively from those series. There is no way that speedway riders can make a living from the SGP, and indeed the domestic leagues effectively subsidise it. If it were possible for the riders to bugger off and solely ride in the SGP, then I wouldn't care less whether there were 20 rounds a season. The SGP though, has failed to leverage sufficient income to support this after 20 years, so really it should be working around the domestic competitions who pay a living wage, not the other way around. Eight rounds would be more than enough, although more rounds could be held out of season.

We're not talking about one specific week over the next. The period from about mid-May to the end of August though, is when the weather tends to be better, the nights are lighter, and people take their holidays. I'm sure most promoters will tell you this is the optimal period to be running as many meetings as possible, but instead teams are forced into the less optimal months of April, September and god forbid March and October. And regardless of whether there may be 18 spare weekends (in fact I make it 20 as the British season is about 33 weeks long and you also have to deduct a week for the SWC), having frequent off-weeks during the summer is far from ideal for continuity. Even if teams only run home or away on a weekly basis, they could go more than a month without having a home meeting. And if speedway is playing second fiddle to stocks and dogs nowadays, then perhaps this is reason.

Yes, but on 12 of the prime race days on the prime weekends of the season. It's of course the strategy of spreading responsibility as widely as possible and then blaming the other parties for it. If the riders all went on strike then it would be resolved very quickly as the FIM/BSI get the competitors very cheap in comparison to other sports, but one would guess they can only be happy with their returns. It was an odd thing for a re-insurance company to invest in, as sports event organisation is a risky and often unprofitable business. One wonders whether John Postlethwaite was owed a favour or a payoff, especially as Benfield seem to have subsequently written off their investment.

Not suggesting it can't be done, but maybe most of the potential riders didn't think the recompense was worthwhile, or had other riding commitments that didn't allow a trip to Esbjerg time-wise. I doubt that many people watching it on Eurosport would know or care, and for those that do know anything about speedway, realise the sport has long made things up as it goes along. It's like when I watch ski jumping on Eurosport - I don't care about the nuances and politics of the sport.

The more things change, the more they stay the same... The World Pairs used to involve all of these countries and more besides, including when it masqueraded as the World Team Cup. You don't need a B division - most countries can put together a half-competitive 'pair' - and you can run qualifying rounds to weed out the weaker sides before the top nations enter. The World Pairs was quite an interesting competition - I remember Norway finishing third one year - but turning it into a 'World Team Cup' with threesomes was a utter farce. It was allegedly done (along with the abolition of the pointless FIM Champions' Cup) to make space in the calendar for the SGP, but given how all sorts of dubious European Championships have subsequently proliferated, it does seem an odd justification.

Haha - well they certainly need one, or maybe they've finally fired someone. I wonder if my application would be taken seriously...