brianbuck

I'm not suggesting that Laurence or anyone else was wrong or right. A Team Manager has to make a decision about changes on the spur of the moment and under pressure, and is not able to wait 24 hours like we do. I've been a Team Manager for my Cycle Speedway club on occasions, and although things aren't so intense at that level, it is still a pressure job. On the one hand, you will have a rider who has just gone out and done his best, and thinks he is hard done by if he is being replaced, and he will be backed up by his parents or his mates, and there will also be times when the rider you want to bring in doesn't particularly want an extra ride and needs to be geed up to going out, plus the usual few people in the pits who want to chip in and tell you to do something different. You do try to be fair and reasonable to everyone, but inevitably there are times when you later wish you had done something else when it's too late. When you get it wrong you get pilloried, and when you get it right people will say "well anyone would have done that." It isn't the cushy job that some think it is.

If Laurence had made the change that you think he should have, then we would not have been able to use Garrity as a tactical substitute in the following race in which we scored the first of the two successive 5-1's which put us into the lead!

I know people say that we only get 15 minutes of action for our admission money - but is this so very different from other sports. Take away all the tip-tapping and back passing and the hold-ups in a football match and we probably just about get 15 minutes of genuine action in a 90 minute football match.

I'm all in favour of Topsoil's suggestion that ALL clubs should have a Junior Team - but this should be comprised of riders who are exclusive members of each club - not two or three different clubs all using the same riders! "Doubling-up" (in the main leagues) has become a monster totally out of control (a child of five could have seen this coming!!) - and it needs to be phased out as soon as possible whether the riders like it or not. Phasing it out though, seems to be and impossible dream - every season it is further extended. Whoever dreamed up this idea should be put up against a wall!!!!

Although I think cutting down to five-man teams might be a bit too drastic, I'd take this if it meant an end to all this doubling-up farce. I also rather like the idea of a fixed "prize fund" instead of riders being paid points money, but there would need to be a fair and transparent way of paying it in order to prevent the greedy top few from cornering the bulk of it - such as all riders being paid from a central point rather than by their own promoters. All in all though, we all have to accept that there is no magic formula which will bring back the crowds overnight - it has to be a slow and steady process.

I don't believe anyone disagrees with the fact that there have to be major changes if speedway is to start turning the corner, but in the light of the current financial climate, any changes which will increase costs for promoters would have no chance of being accepted. I would suggest that the BSPA considers reducing the number of riders per team from seven to six (hopefully, this would only be temporary, and we would in time, be able to return to seven man teams). A race formula used in 1959 (when each match was followed by a 5-heat Reserve League match) featured 6-man teams racing over 15 heats with each rider having five rides. This format did not include a nominated riders' race which I would think was beneficial costwise, and helped to avoid clubs going for top-heavy teams which in effect, in the race formula currently used, give these clubs virtually a "free" 5-1 and usually means that heats 13 and 15 are duplicated and more predictable. With the suggested format, the home club would be required to provide an "emergency 7th rider" who would receive no programmed rides but who could be utilised by either team should the need arise. (I realise that on occasions, this might mean that the Emergency Reserve might have to ride for both teams which isn't desirable but would be no more of a farce than some of the nonsense that we are witnessing all too often these days.) With all 12 riders in each match receiving five rides, this would realise additional income for the riders without increasing costs for the promoters. A redistribution of riders and a genuine equalisation of team strengths would be an essential requirement of any "new deal" and I would suggest scrapping the points limit in favour of a grading system which would be administered by a small "Grading Committee." The Grading Committee members would have to be independent, and would need to be thick skinned since they would inevitably find themselves under pressure from all sides, but there must be three or four people not involved with a particular track or promoter, whom all parties could trust and who would be willing to take on what would probably be a thankless task. (I'd volunteer!!!) The grading need not be complicated or extensive - perhaps with riders graded as "A" "B" and "C" with clubs being allowed no more than two riders from each grade, and being allowed to retain the six riders they have chosen, for say, cycles of three years. The Grading Committee would have to have the power to regrade a rider making either exceptional progress or completely losing form should the need arise, and would also need to have the authority to prevent a club from using its financial clout to get themselves the best rider from each grade. A rider's average would clearly have to be used to determine his grade, but this could be weighted by other considerations such as his age, his experience, whether he is regarded as "on the way up" or a bit "past his best" etc. Not an easy job, and the Committee would get a few wrong, but that's inevitable - and they would at least have the authority to correct any serious howlers! The "Emergency Reserves" would be regarded as "D" grade riders, but any who advanced enough to gain a place in a club's top six would immediately be upgraded to "C" status. Inevitably, Guest Riders and Rider-Replacement would have to continue at least for the time being, but I feel that the return of the Tactical Substitute rule this season has been helpful, although I would like to see the rule as it used to be - when a team could make a tactical change whenever they were six points in arrears, and not limited to a single occasion as the rule now stipulates. Changes like these would be difficult to get enough support I know, but this wouldn't be impossible, and whilst it obviously will not cure all of speedway's ills, it could be a suggestion worth examining. I'd welcome the thoughts of other posters, even if they want to shoot down my suggestions. We are care for our sport and want to see it back on an even keel.

Report is that Aarnio has broken a rib.

Not a very satisfactory situation I agree - but the BSPA can't allow a situation where certain riders can opt out of their club's fixtures at will. If they do this, then their club has to suffer, and it was unfortunate that in this instance, the Brummies had two more riders out of action through injury - producing a wholly uncompetitive team. Redcar were in the same situation with Erik Riss opting to ride elsewhere and having to be similarly replaced by a National League reserve, and with Jordan Stewart also missing, the Bears paid the price - losing their home match against Scunthorpe.

Thought that was the case. We had a five minute chat on the first bend terracing before the start. Well done to your team on a deserved win. I don't think our team is strong enough to seriously challenge you when we come up to Glasgow this weekend, but I just hope that we can give you a decent match. Best wishes.

Were you the lady leaving the minibus with the red+white check flag?

2nd turn used to be quite a good viewing spot, but the view there is now obstructed by the air fence, so there is little point in trying to do anything about it. One of the planning conditions is that there must be an unobstructed passage for driving an ambulance to all parts of the stadium, so that precludes constructing terracing there. The GRA have always been very co-operative, but they won't allow any structure that might interfere with the greyhound racing programme. That's why there is no roof on part of the first bend terracing - if we restore the roof, part of the dog track cannot be seen from one of the executive boxes. The flat area along the home straight doesn't make for good viewing but it has to stay like this for the bookies, but the view from inside the grandstand/bar is superb and it can accomodate more than 800 all with a first class view. I'm not complaining about the restrictions though - just pointing out the reasons for those who wonder why!

Many thanks for the kind words Dorothy. Glasgow deserved their win and their supporters were a credit to the club. I saw a group of them coming out of their mini-bus and boy were they sweltering! They will always be welcome visitors to Perry Barr. Good Luck for the rest of the season.

As Workington fans, despite all their frustrations, still seem to have a good sense of humour, perhaps they will enjoy this little tale which was related to me by Tony Mole himself: When Tony obtained a planning consent to bring speedway back to Workington, it was granted much against the wishes of the Council's Head of Environmental Services who had strongly recommended refusal. The Council man was so miffed by the decision to ignore his recommendation that he took to walking round knocking on doors to encourage people to complain. On knocking at one door, it was answered by an elderly lady. "Can you hear the speedway from here" asked the Council man - "Oh yes, I can hear it from here" came the answer. "Well that is disgraceful, you shouldn't have to put up with this at your time of life" said the Council man - "Would you like to send a letter of complaint to the Council?" "Oh well, I'm not very good at writing letters" says the old lady. "Well don't you worry about that my dear" replies the Council man - "I will send a lady from my office round to see you on Saturday and she'll be able to help you write one." "All right" says the old lady - "only tell her not to come on Saturday as I'll be at the speedway - I go there every week!"

At some tracks the curfew is a voluntary one, and at others it is compulsory. Wolverhampton have a voluntary curfew which they will occasionally extend if there is just the odd race left to run, but at Birmingham, the 10pm curfew is a condition of the planning permission, as also is the ban on the use of air horns.

In general, tracks constructed around football or rugby pitches tend to be squarish and on the narrow side, so really it depends on the amount of room available between the edges of the football pitch and the spectator area. Birmingham's track at Perry Barr (the original 402 yarder) was an athletics track and the infield was used for a while in the 1930's by Aston Villa's reserve team for their home matches, but the track was big and wide with sweeping bends and produced some terrific racing. The current track which was constructed inside the greyhound circuit (greyhound racing having been introduced at the stadium in 1987) is of similar shape although with shorter straights. This was possible because all of the terracing on the back straight had been removed, enabling a much wider centre green, and the modern track also produces excellent racing (although I have to admit that outside viewing in most of the stadium is very poor due to the original home straight terracing having been replaced by a flat area for the bookmakers). Generalising though, I have always found that tracks with no greyhound circuit usually provide better racing.

Don't see why this situation should be described as a "joke." If a club has only two fit/available riders then it can't track a four-man team - and mercifully, guest riders aren't allowed in this competition.

Very sorry to hear this news. Shane was a fine rider, a great character and a genuine speedway lover. I send him and his family my best regards and wish him well with his recovery.

Telephone number for Perry Barr Travelodge is 0333 014 6269. Cost for a twin bedroom is £69 but there are often deals available. I think this is a different hotel to the one mentioned earlier as the address is given as Aldridge Road, Perry Barr - which is the same road that the stadium is in. This place is about 400 yards from the speedway. Hope this is useful.

There is also a small hotel only a matter of about 200 yards from the stadium, the Park Hotel. There is a car park at the stadium run by the GRA who make a charge of £2.50, but free parking is available at the One Stop shopping centre opposite the stadium. Parking there is normally limited to 3 hours, but this restriction is waived on speedway nights from 7pm onwards. Hope you enjoy your visit.

"Imperial Echoes" wasn't the original March-on music at Coventry. I made my first ever visit to Brandon in 1956 for the Final of the Midland Riders' Championship, and music played then was called "The King's Guard" which was a very stirring march. After Birmingham closed down in July 1957, I became a regular at Brandon and the "King's Guard" continued to be the introductory march for about a another season when so I was told, there was a break-in at the stadium, the record was broken and a replacement couldn't be obtained, so "Imperial Echoes" took its place. In those days, all tracks had a distinctive introductory march - there was "Entry of the Gladiators" at Wembley (which a lot of other tracks tried to copy), and "Marching Along Together" at New Cross, and my all-time favourite "We're on our Way" at Perry Barr. Birmingham's march-on was magnificent - all of the staff wore pristine white coats and marched in step with arms swinging, and at the end of the meetings the staff lined up and marched off just as smartly - a far cry from the way the staff come shambling out from the pits these days. Too many people seem to think that it doesn't matter these days, which is a great pity I think.

Very entertaining meeting last night, and full credit to both teams for making it so. As a lifelong Birmingham man, I have to admit to a degree of sympathy for the Sheffield supporters - this was a match which neither team deserved to lose, and I certainly found the Sheffield supporters to be fair-minded and gracious in their defeat - I admit too, that for most of the meeting I thought the Tigers had it in the bag! I was quite impressed with Sheffield's new Australian. The heat two crash knocked him back a bit, but he had plenty of speed and I reckon he will do well as the season progresses. No doubt at all who was Birmingham's match winner. Ashley Morris rode out of his skin and deserved every one of his points. Well done both teams! More matches like this will bring the crowds back.

Have looked up the programme for the Birmingham v Olching meeting. The result was 51-27 to the Brummies and points scorers were: Birmingham: Mike Gardner 10+1, Terry Shearer 10+1, Pete Bailey 8+2, Malcolm Corradine 7+1, George Major 6+2, Cliff Emms 6, Mick Hines 4+3. Olching: Josef Angermuller 11, Otto Barth 7, Hubert Kullmann 6, Dieter Dauderer 1+1, Georg Gilgenreiner 1, Otto Weiss 1, Alois Muller 0. Birmingham produced a souvenir programme for the match - upping the price from 6p to 10p! Arthur Browning was missing from the Birmingham team having been booked to ride in the Scottish Six Day Trial at Fort William in Scotland, and Archie Wilkinson was also absent through injury - but - (present day promoters please note!) used their own second halfers rather than bring in a guest!

Olching also raced at Birmingham that season (at the old greyhound stadium across the road from the present Birmingham venue) and did only slightly better. Their team consisted of mainly unknown German riders who seemed to be well into their 30's, and they were completely baffled by the track which was very small and very tight. In many of the races, one Olching rider would knock another one off and the Birmingham riders just took things easy and were able to pass without breaking sweat when the Olching riders veered out to the fence. One of the Olching riders was named Muller and we were led to believe that it was Egon Muller, and only found out that it wasn't when he went on track! The match took place a day after the Boston debacle, and Joe Thurley moved heaven and earth to keep that result dark. The Olching riders all seemed really friendly blokes and I did strike up a friendship with their photographer, Herbert Retzer. We corresponded for a few years and spoke on the phone once or twice, but then we lost touch and I never knew what became of him. Martin Smolinski did try to locate him for me, but had no success.

The difference is that Eastbourne consulted Sheffield and the two clubs agreed the postponement and a re-staging date. Mildenhall called off their match on the day of the meeting with the opposition left to like it or lump it. At least, that's my understanding of the situation, but if I'm wrong, I stand to be corrected.

Now that the dust seems to have settled a bit on this business, I'd like to put forward some of my own observations. I'm not trying to blame anyone and nor am I trying to defend anyone - just giving my own thoughts on an unfortunate matter which I agree, has been damaging for speedway as well as for Birmingham. Speedway is not like football in which a club can field a seriously weakened team and still get a draw or even fluke a win by packing their defence and playing in a negative way. Speedway matches have to be competitive and for this to be the case, the competing teams need to be reasonably balanced. If the meeting had gone ahead last Wednesday, then Birmingham would have been obliged to track a team which had no chance of making a competitive match of it, so to postpone it made economic sense. Those who suggest that the BSPA should take "action" should realise that matches are postponed and re-arranged quite frequently (albeit usually with a bit more notice than this one!) - and that Birmingham and Eastbourne had agreed a re-staging date BEFORE the announcement of the cancellation was made, so no rules were broken in that respect. I agree that to come up with a fictitious reason for the postponement was unwise, and is probably now regretted, but I don't think this was done with the intention of hoodwinking the supporters who are well able to put two and two together - more as a wish to provide the media with a plausible reason. This situation is not unique - it has been done before and it will be done again. I'm not saying I like it - I don't, but to a point I can understand the reasoning. Last season, Poole postponed one of their home matches in exactly the same circumstances, and made no secret of their reason for doing this. They did it "honestly" as some have suggested, and likewise, they and their opponents had agreed an alternative staging date before the call-off was announced, but this did not prevent or lessen the volley of internet criticism which came their way. The rules say that a guest or rider-replacement cannot be used for a missing rider if he has not previously ridden for you. This is fair enough and would have been applied in this instance (although by splitting hairs) it could be argued that Adam Ellis HAS previously ridden for Birmingham, and the question has been asked (but not answered) as to why this rule was not applied to Wolverhampton who have been missing Nick Morris all season and who has never yet ridden in their colours? Birmingham have had a rough time of it so far this season and most will agree that the team has looked fragile, so if there is to be a case of turning a blind eye to the rule to help out a struggling club in a meeting which to all intents and purposes is a dead rubber, then surely this should have been the one? I don't expect many to agree with me on this, and I really don't mind that - but I thought I'd set down my two-pennorth!