BWitcher

That is absolutely nowhere near the real problem.

Your analogy is almost correct... except there are at least ten holes and all caused by something different.

In all honesty, this isn't even a case of opinion is it. You either try to win, or you don't. It's that simple.

Exactly. Hence Lambert needed help. What could have been lost? Absolutely nothing. What could have been gained, even if there was only 1% chance of it happening. A gold medal.

Around the country there isn't much change. We were spoiled at Monmore in the past... not the case anymore.

He's on about Waihekeaces. Falsely of course.

Don't need to go anywhere, you can't even answer a simple question. "Utter bollocks. I have said regularly on here, and it has been confirmed, that the windfall of TV money instead of being used to grow the sport, was in fact used to compete against each other when the riders, usually USA ones, decided they they should be rewarded with massive contracts and sign ons, and the promotors were forced to compete against each other for their services. " Your words. Sky were paying out for a long time, so again WHO were these USA riders that caused all the problems. It's a very simple question to answer. As it happens, if you'd just put 'leading riders' I'd agree with you... I'm just interested why you felt the need to single out USA riders.

I haven't implied anything that wasn't said. You quite clearly stated. USUALLY THE AMERICANS. I've asked you who these Americans were as I can only think of two, Hancock and Hamill.

You've hit on one of speedway's biggest problems here Dean and it's a mentality shared by many fans. A successful business identifies the way it wishes to operate then works out a way to overcome any hurdles. Speedway goes about it the opposite way and thinks of the hurdles first and immediately gives up.

I was trying to be polite. You're claiming that the riders.. and I quote.. usually the USA ones..decided they should be rewarded with massive contracts and signing on fees. Now as I've said.. there were only two USA riders of top quality by the time Sky came on board. Ermolenko wasn't at the level he once was. So was it really 'usually' the USA ones? Of course, it shouldn't be forgotten that it wasn't long before Hancock left the British scene and Hamill began to tail off in his effectiveness. So who were the 'usually the USA ones' for the next 10 years and more of the Sky coverage?

Masters wasn't having a good year till he moved to No 4. Schlein was flying at No 4, less so since he moved to a heat leader spot.

'Usually USA ones'. I forgot we were inundated with those. Hancock and Hamill I assume you mean? So that's your theory, all the fault of Hancock and Hamill?

You have stated that crowds pre sky are higher than now. You are wrong. Whatever sky have or have not done at 'grass roots level' is an entirely different argument.

No thanks. I prefer to look at the average attendances for a whole season rather than just one tv game. You should try it, might help you making stupid comments. Average crowds in 1987 in the top flight of Rugby League were less than 5000. They are now around 9000.

We shouldn't have signed Thorssell. Period. Lindgren was simply an option, if we couldn't afford him we should have gone elsewhere. You are right in your second sentence, but that's what happens when you mess up your team building, it only takes something else to go wrong and problems escalate quickly.

Stop bringing Lindgren into it. It's not relevant. What you need is riders to maintain their average as a minimum.. and improve them to be successful. When we sign a rider almost guaranteed to lower his average pressure is then put on other members of the team who have to increase theirs by more to compensate. Thorssell, Heeps and Howarth have been the positions letting us down. As stated, Thorssell himself hasn't been letting us down, the management let us down by putting him in that position. Howarth has been blighted by injuries which effected his performances... and Heeps I'm afraid has been woeful.

Let me get this straight. You expected Thorssell to add to his average at the start of the season. He has dropped a pt. Hence you think he is doing a decent job? Err yes... that's laughable! Thorssell's performances haven't been laughable. The club signing him as No 1 on the average he had was.

Nothing to do with the 'Poole' mentality. Over the years numerous riders have had to have a season away from the club due to their averages not fitting or being right for that particular season. Far bigger names than Thorssell.

Somehow thinking riding one point below your average is 'decent' is laughable. Although, I'll cut you some slack because in some respects it isn't bad... and I'll agree that he hasn't done too bad to keep his average from dropping by just a pt. What it highlights is what a terrible decision it was to pick him in the first place. If they couldn't afford Lindgren, they STILL shouldn't have signed Thorssell with the average he was saddled with. Not an attack on Thorssell, just the realities of the average system.

We've been agreeing on a little too much of late...

On a thread that is about the decline of Sports due to Sky's involvement.. you say Sky has thrown money at other sports and speak of how in decline they are it was logical to assume you were agreeing with the OP thesis as you gave no other reason for their decline. Now you've clarified it we seem pretty much in agreement, there are lots of factors involved, the digital age being a big one. How much certain sports have actually 'declined' is open to argument. 'Evolved' might be a better word in some cases.

Dropping 1pt from your average is not a decent job. It's under performing to the role you were employed for. If he wasn't expected to replace close to the level of Lindgren's scoring he shouldn't have been selected in the first place. Let's put it this way, if the whole team dropped almost 1pt each from their average, would the team also be doing a 'decent job'?

So you want clubs to make a profit without taking into account their income. The second part of your statement I agree with.. the rest you are wrong on.

Except there are. I've listed all the ones who made a profit in 2016/17. There were only 3 Premier League sides who didn't.

Two? Some of them are going ten minutes early.