G the Bee

Great meeting. Woffinden was superb. What a weekend for him. So good to see a British rider dominating a meeting in Poland like Woffinden did this afternoon. I've got to say, I'm very impressed with Tai's whole approach. He's phsically fit, has sorted himself out with fast motors and appears completely focused on his racing. A sign of his dedication was when he was able to speak in Polish to the TV interviewer during the meeting. He has clearly worked out that to be successful on the world stage, you have to be successful in Poland. Learning the language can only benefit him in dealing with potential sponsors, the Polish media and fans. Well done Tai!

Listen to how Nicki himself pronounces his surname.

Cheers

Does anyone have any idea if this is happening this year and, if so, what the dates are? It's usually some time in February. Cheers.

So all speedway promotions need do now is sign riders up on long term contracts instead. I have posted elsewhere that that would be a better idea. Unfortunately, too many clubs have invested significantly in the current system. I can't get around thinking though that the current system is more than workable providing it is managed consistently and respected by all parties. There are more than enough riders to go round. Sure some less asset-rich clubs may be at a disadvantage in terms of team building, but the simple answer to that is to build up your asset base over time. And if you can't afford to purchase 'X' rider then you have to look elsewhere and wait until riders become available. I absolutely think there is merit in the suggestion that a phased change in the way rider registrations/contracts (call them what you will) are handled in speedway should be implemented. However, in the mean time, I think promotions should respect the system as it stands at the moment and the BSPA should administer the system consistently.

If Darren Bent wanted to leave Aston Villa this January, would Villa be unfair asking for a transfer fee?

A little simplistic an answer. Sure some overseas riders become assets through default. However, tell that to Poole. They paid over £28,000 to sign Darcy Ward. How much money have Bees spent on Schlein, Kennett, Harris, Nicholls? A little more than nothing!

Perhaps I should have said 'through choice' which is what your preceding post was inferring - riders averages not fitting etc. As you can see, I have edited my post. All I know about the Peterborough situation is what I have read on riders twitter posts and the response by the Peterborough promotion in the press, I think the Panthers promotion raise a number of good points. Namely: Hans Andersen was offered terms twice but turned them down. Another club (Coventry) was prepared to purchase him and he turned them down too. Is it surprising they want a transfer fee for him? Swindon seem prepared to buy him and I suspect arbitration will be involved. Troy Batchelor is alleged to have made public statements about his desire not to return to Peterborough. Again, are the Panthers promotion being unfair asking for a transfer fee for a rider who, it would seem, does not want to ride for them? NKI has said he will ride for Kings Lynn or no one. Is it surprising they want a transfer fee for him? To be honest, I find the BSPA decision to allow Kings Lynn to loan him baffling and inconsistent as Iversen has also stated his desire not to ride for his parent club. In Bjerre, Andersen, NKI and Batchelor (don't forget they also have Ryan Sullivan) Panthers have a number of top-level assets, most of which I suspect they have purchased themselves at some point. If they do want to sell the ones that clearly wish to ride elsewhere, I can't say I blame them.

That's completely over the top. These riders, whoever they ride for, will be compensated very well for riding for their respective clubs.

This is what happens now. Riders not used by their parent club are always available on loan. Has the asset system ever prevented a rider riding in his chosen league or prevented teams who don't have assets putting teams together. I just can't see this. For example, do you honestly believe NKI, Andersen, Batchelor and Barker will not be lining up in the EL this season? I'm not saying it's perfect. And certainly I feel that when a rider signs a contract it should be for a set period rather than indefinately. However, I can also see the huge disadvantages (much more than short-term pain) abandoning the asset system will cause the more established clubs who have through longevity and investment a greater stake in the asset system than other clubs. Surely, for example, you are not suggesting that Poole should have the substantial fee they paid for Darcy Ward rendered obselete.

Perhaps not, but if they were starting this season with a ten point handicap they might. This is what tends to happen in football. And, of course, we can't assume a club defaulting on a payment will be bottom of the league. What if they are in contention for a play-off place?

I know this is a Swindon thread, but it seems the debate has moved on a little to discussion of the asset system as a whole. My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that it is not the asset system itself that is the problem. I agree it is not ideal, and some may question its legality, however the system has been in place years and, as long as its rules are understood by all promotions, adhered to and applied consistently, the system should work well. Essentially, a parent club has first option on a rider's services. If the parent club cannot use, or decides not to use that rider, the rider is free to go on loan. If the rider chooses to ride elsewhere when he is in the parent team's plans then, if the parent club does not wish to loan that rider, the rider must file a transfer request and the rider must be purchased by his new club. What is the problem is that the rules do not appear to be applied consistently. I have said a number of times,but as far as I can see this problem stretches back years. The Oxford and Greg Hancock situation from the winter of 2004/05 springs to mind when, and I will be happy to be corrected, as far as I can remember Coventry wanted to use Greg and offered him a place but he elected to go to Oxford. Oxford were then allowed to loan Hancock whilst Coventry were told they had to buy Scott Nicholls who had decided to leave Ipswich and join Coventry. Obviously some question the legality of the asset system (and I am no legal expert) but it strikes me that it will only work if all the promotions play by the rules and the rules are applied consistently. Assuming the posts on the Peterborough article linked to above are accurate, then: If Iversen has been offered a place at Peterborough, or has categorically stated he will only ride for a certain club, that club should have to purchase him. The same for Batchelor. Andersen has reportedly turned down offers from Peterborough and Coventry (who were prepared to purchase him). Therefore Swindon should have to purchase him too (and it appears they have offered to do so). If the two parties cannot agree a sum, it should go to arbitration. Furthermore, the Birmingham promotion should have to purchase Ben Barker simply because he is required by his parent club. In all cases, if two clubs cannot agree a fee, it should go to arbitration. There should also be strict penalties for clubs who default on payments when buying assets. For example, docking league points etc (a bit like in football when clubs are found to be in breach of certain regulations). Sure it does mean that asset rich clubs, which tend to be the more established clubs, call the shots to a certain extent but I actually don't see what is wrong with that. Any new promotion should understand they have to build their asset base up over time and, until they are more established or have made some inroads into the transfer market, will be forced to play a waiting game whilst other promotions sort their teams out. Graham Drury said when the Brummies promotion purchased Danny King last April: “We are acutely aware that our asset base is insufficient at Elite League level and we are taking steps to put that right." I assume he felt their asset base was insufficient because it meant Brummies would be playing a waiting game to put their teams together unless they had assets of their own and as a result would be at a competitive disadvantage.

Just watched the full replay and a couple (or three) of observations: 1) I was very impressed with the quality of the internet broadcast. This was a full multi-camera production and ran absolutely fine through my laptop connected to my tv through a HDMI lead. Even though my internet connection is not particularly quick (less than 4 MB/s) the picture quality was good and there was no jerking, buffering or sync problems. For anyone who was able to watch the internet feed of the ELRC from Swindon, this was a far superior offering. It was just like watching the tv. 2) The meeting itself was interesting and I enjoyed it. Out of the European riders, Lindback, Nicholls and Kennett showed up well and the 'top level' Americans (all of whom I expect are very familiar with the Industry Raceway) provided stiff opposition. Andersen was solid, if unspectacular. The only issue for me was there was a big gulf between the semi-finalists and the rest of the field (with the exception of Andersen). The Polish riders were disappointing and Lindgren also (though a heavy fall in an early ride may have affected his performance). A good amount of heats were spaced out with riders straightening up in the turns as they struggled to turn the bike as sharply as they needed to or picked up grip. Perhaps race-rustiness came into it. 3) The internet feed had no commentator as such simply because the track announcer is more of an 'MC'. He simply talked from the beginning to the end of the meeting, stopping only for rider interviews which were carried out after many races by another announcer with a radio mike. Both announcers were clearly passionate about their speedway. Going back to the internet feed, I certainly think, should a UK broadcaster not pick up the rights for the SGP, that this is the way for BSI to go as a temporary measure. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the broadcast. A big well done to all at Industry Speedway.

If I cancel Sky Sports I lose Elite League coverage too. So I won't be cancelling this year, but will next year if the EL contract is not renewed and they don't pick the GPs up again. Cancelling Sky altogether is a more difficult one. I subscribe to Premier Sports for Swedish league speedway and they have renewed for another two years. As far as I am aware, at the moment Premier Sports is only available through Sky. I was really hoping Premier Sports might pick the GPs up. Of course, this means more subscriptions for those who don't pick it up already, especially if those posters (and I suspect most will) wish to retain Sky Sports, for this season at least, for the Elite League coverage.

Well I decided to purchase this for $9.99. Only about £6.50 so thought it was worth a go. It was easy to set up through the streaming company's website (www.gfl.tv) which is linked to directly from the link posted above. Registering took two minutes and payment was through PayPal. Even better, it said on the Industry Racing website that the full show is uploaded to the streaming server after the live race and my purchase allows me to watch a re-broadcast with no additional charge. So I thought to myself, rather than get up at 3am I'd simply watch the re-broadcast 'as-live' when I got up in the morning. Everyone's a winner! So I get up this morning, log in and find that the event is nowhere to be seen on the streaming server. I assumed that the show would be available to watch straight after the event. It would seem this is not the case. I've just checked on the streaming server's website and it says videos are uploaded 24-48 hours after the event. So it seems I'll get to watch it... eventually. I think it's really forward thinking of Industry Racing to provide a live internet feed but I wish their website had been a little clearer about when the re-broadcast can be watched.

Personally speaking, I think it's a real shame that Poole only ran one of these off season meetings. It was by far the best off-season meeting I attended. A great line up, a well prepared track and (as far as I recall) a good crowd. I'm actually quite surprised this is being re-staged. Fair play for Somerset for having a go at putting an off-season meeting on (especially if what Pirate Nick says is true and no-one else wanted to run one). However I think the fact that they are forced to run Friday evening and that they have now missed the one Friday of the off season where many people are off work may work against them in terms of crowd numbers. Hopefully enough travelling fans will be able to go, and I'm sure the locals will turn out in force, so hopefully this will ensure the event is still a success for them.

I agree. Well done on the early call off but having the re-staging on a Friday evening when everyone is back at work seems like a strange decision. Is it the case that the OTA only has permission to run on Fridays because otherwise, in terms of crowd numbers, surely a weekend date would have been better? Either way, unfortunately there's no way I will be going to the re-staging. Belting it down to Somerset straight after work on a cold Friday evening for a fix of speedway simply has less appeal than taking a leisurely trip down there on a day off over the Christmas period or going during a weekend and making a bit of a day of it.

But Sky don't have the contract and it looks more likely it isn't going to be picked up by them either. I can't cancel Sky because of EL coverage. If it is pay to watch a website feed of the SGP or nothing then people would at least have the choice over what to do. I would pay.

One would hope that if BSI cannot sort out a uk host broadcaster for the SGP they will arrange for some kind of pay-per view streaming through their website for those who want to watch. It would be a travesty if BSI are not able to do something to ensure that the many British fans who have supported their product for so long are not able to watch the sport's premier competition.

That average cannot be correct unless more rule changing has gone on. Still, best of luck to Ryan. Perhaps this is the season he will kick on.

Well it's all hypothetical, but I would hazard a guess that even had Lynn come up at the beginning of 2010, rather than 2011 Ward may still have elected to go and ride with his mate Holder at Poole. In that scenario, I cannot believe that Lynn would have been happy with a loan deal for a rider they would, obviously, have wished to have used. Under your argument, they should have just let the rider go and ride where he wanted. All hypothetical, as I say, but surely you see where I am coming from. And I'm not sure some clubs hold all the cards. Coventry are loaning Szczepaniak. I presume he is a Kings Lynn asset. How much did he cost the Kings Lynn promotion? Unfortunately, you are forced to play a bit of a waiting game due to having limited top level riders as assets. The Lynn promotion themselves can't be anti the asset system because they are in the process of buying Rory Schlein from Coventry I believe.

I think what many on here are forgetting is it is not in Kings Lynn's interests to have the asset system challenged either. They have assets too, albeit few at the level of top EL riders due to the amount of time they spent in the PL. Over time they have been and will continue to be receiving loan fees and benefits from rider sales like any other clubs. I wonder if posters like GRW123 were anti the asset system a few years ago when Poole shelled out a fortune to buy Darcy Ward from Kings Lynn? Of course, under his suggestion, Poole could have loaned Darcy from Lynn for the 2010 and 2011 seasons and he would have been able to have been released from his Kings Lynn contract, and join Poole for free at the beginning of the 2012 season. The problem is, people are only thinking about the current situation with Iversen etc and not previous occasions where their clubs have benefited from the asset system.

I imagine it's Puk or no one for Lynn. So they will have to buy him. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that both Lynn and Birmingham need to build up their asset base at the top end of the team. It was fair enough them loaning top level riders whilst they became established in the EL but they are both entering their third season in the EL now. The only rider I can recall Birmingham purchasing in that time is Danny King (though I stand to be corrected). Kings Lynn I have no idea about. Whether we agree with it or not, the promoters run an asset system. I certainly think it is not unreasonable to suggest to any club that if you wish to retain the services of a rider for three consecutive seasons you should have to buy him if the owning club wishes.

I don't think that should come into it. There should be set rules about when an asset should be purchased and when they should not be. Rider averages, financial value or scope for improvement should have no bearing on whether the asset should be purchased or not, only what the purchase price, if necessary, should be. The problem is, the rules do not appear to be applied consistently. Here are some examples I can think of,although, I admit,, time may have clouded my accuracy. Nicholls wanted to come to Coventry, Ipswich wanted to keep him, Coventry had to buy Nicholls from Ipswich. Kennett wanted to come to Coventry, Eastbourne wanted to keep him, Coventry had to buy Kennett from Eastbourne. Hancock wanted to go to Oxford, Coventry wanted him to ride for them, Oxford got to loan him. Meidzinski wanted to go to Poole, Swindon wanted him to ride for them, Poole got to loan him. Sure there are plenty more. Was there a similar situation with Chrzanowski and Swindon and Poole?