brianbuck

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!

It seems that GA and myself are being "challenged" to respond to the earlier post, si can I say that I am not and never have been, involved in any way in the administration or the operation of the Birmingham forum. I am a regular poster on this, but nothing more. I have no problem at all with anyone having differing opinions to myself - or in them airing them! I do know the people who run the forum though.They are genuine, fair-minded people and have never banned anyone for their views - only when their comments are either offensive or personal - and this seems to be the norm with all club's supporters' forums. The Brummies performance last Wednesday was deplorable - it doesn't require an expect to recognise that, and it is also clear that much better performances will be required if the team is to make any impression at all this season. Having said this though, we have had, discounting the opening meeting with Wolverhampton, which none of us expected to win, two home meetings, both against what I feel are a couple of the League's stronger clubs, one of which produced a narrow defeat from what the majority of supporters agree was a creditable effort, and one pretty awful showing last Wednesday, so it is hardly fair to rubbish the whole team on the strength of just two matches? Personally, I think the make up of our team is very fragile and that we will need all seven of our team to at least ride to form if we are going to register a few wins, but I'm prepared to give all the riders a reasonable chance so whilst there will be a few ready to throw in the towel after two meetings, I hope the majority will do likewise.If that's "blinkered" or "towing the management line" then so be it!

Could Workington survive as a National League club? Eastbourne and Birmingham were able to keep afloat by doing this, but for Lakeside, it was a disaster. Workington's geographical position might make such a move more of a gamble, and supporters living in the vicinity can probably give a more accurate opinion about this than I can - but if Workington's average crowds last season were around the 500 mark, and they could maintain this kind of level, this would be perhaps, a feasible option?

Ian Jones at Wolverhampton shouts his way through the last lap of most of the races at Monmore - and it is really irritating. With the noise of the bikes and a very loud PA it is virtually impossible to make out what he is saying, so the whole operation is totally pointless. Peter York used to do something similar at Coventry, and even if it were audible, where is the sense in telling people in the crowd something that they can see perfectly well for themselves? If speedway tracks were a mile in circumference there might be a case for it, but not when the whole of the race is visible to everyone.

Most people on this site seem to be sympathising with the Birmingham management on this - which I think is reasonable. All the weather forecasts predicted heavy rain, (some said torrential), hail, thunder and lighting plus a sharp drop in temperature. All of this did come, but only in very short bursts, and in hindsight, conditions would have been quite decent had the meeting gone ahead. It isn't the first time that a meeting has been called off on the strength of a poor weather prediction which then proved to be inaccurate, and it won't be the last.

The potential banana skin is of course that whatever alternative land might be found, it will still have to secure planning permission which in a City the size of Birmingham is always going to be difficult.

Thank you for the kind compliment. All kinds of history has a fascination for me and the City of Birmingham has a remarkable speedway history with racing having taken place at six different venues in the City plus a one-off test trial at a seventh venue. Sadly, only two of these stadia (Perry Barr and Bordesley Green) are still in existence, with the much maligned Bordesley Green track now having a tarmac surface which seems to rule out speedway ever re-appearing there again in the future. Perry Barr seems safe from the developers until at least 2023 (I wouldn't bank on the safety of the covenant which I know from past experience, is not foolproof) but one of Tony Mole's last acts of his time in charge was to extract an undertaking from the City Council that if the stadium site was to be included in a future re-development programme, an alternative venue for speedway and greyhound racing would be provided. Where such an alternative venue would be, I have no idea - but the Council do own the Bordesley Green site and there is more than sufficient unused land there to construct a speedway circuit - so perhaps?

It's a nice thought, but back in the old days, Birchfield Harriers were always obstructive towards the speedway despite the Brummies being a major source of income for them. Speedway could and should have been back there from 1961 onwards but the Harriers put forward every conceivable reason to refuse to do a deal - even when the would be promoters Doug Ellis and Phil Hart offered to pay the rates for them (which the Harriers claimed had been tripled by the Council.) The new Alexander is a beautiful stadium, but I for one, wouldn't like to have to be beholden to Birchfield Harriers in the way that we were in the 1950's. One of their favourite tricks was to suddenly hold an athletics meeting on a Saturday afternoon (when the speedway race night was Saturdays) and then deliberately drag it out so that there was not enough time to prepare the track properly for speedway.

It's unfair to criticize the GRA over bar prices at Perry Barr. They also think that these are too high but they have no option but to charge what their London masters say that they have to charge. The GRA now only operates Belle Vue and Perry Barr as has been said, but they are not an independent organisation - they are owned by a larger London group called RCP, but as far as Perry Barr is concerned, the GRA management and staff have been more than helpful and co-operative towards the speedway club in every respect. Perry Barr Stadium is owned by the City Council but leased to the GRA. Part of the grandstand is a Grade 2 listed building and there is a covenant on the stadium which states that it must be used only as a sports venue. The stadium was a gift to the City made by Lord Alexander in 1888, and it's original name was The Alexander Stadium and was the domain of Birchfield Harriers Athletic Club until the late 1970's when the City Council constructed their present home - originally styled "The New Alexander Stadium." The Council planned to sell the old stadium to Sainsburys at the time, but were prevented from doing this because the Alexander family would not agree to lifting the covenant. The old stadium, then derelict, was leased to The Perry Barr Greyhound Club in 1985, and the Greyhound Club was sold to the GRA in 2002. The original speedway/Athletics track was 402 yards slightly shorter than Belle Vue (Hyde Road) and Norwich but very similar in shape to both of them. The new dog track constructed in 1986, covered the home straight and the two bends of the old speedway circuit, but extended further over what used to be concrete terracing on the back straight, and the new speedway track, laid in 2007, inside the dog track of course, was of a very similar shape to the original although with much shorter straights. For anyone with an interest in local history, at the high point of the rear of the central part of the grandstand can be seen the leaping deer emblem of Birchfield Harriers surmounted by the club's motto "Fleet and Free." Here endeth the history lesson!!!

I have never liked rider-replacement - but it is infinitely preferable to guest riders, and both have become easy options in a variety of circumstances which would never be tolerated in any other well-run professional sport. The excuse of "not enough riders" just doesn't wash - the promoters themselves have created this situation by allowing so many riders to ride for more than one team - a thoughtlessly pointless rule which has delivered no benefits whatsoever and has only created a scenario of some riders being able to double their earnings at the expense of fellow riders whom they have denied the chance to earn anything at all. So many riders now seem to consider it a God-given right that they can ride for two teams so there is absolutely no chance of this daft and embarrassing rule ever being rescinded - the riders just wouldn't stand for it. Apart from 30 or so riders being deprived of a team place because 30 of their colleagues MUST have two teams, the knock-on effect has been to force the better National League riders to stay in the National League instead of progressing upwards as should be the case. Understandably, many of them will take the view that why should they not pick up more cash from scoring a dozen or more points per meeting as a National League rider when the alternative is only scoring 2/3 and earning peanuts in a higher league and always being in danger of the chop at the same time? Perhaps one day (the day that will convince me that the age of miracles has not passed) speedway will re-structure itself with properly defined teams in each division, and one man-one-team, with promoters forced to develop their own extra riders for use when a team man in injured, with no guests and no rider-replacement. Every other sport does this - and supporters accept that injuries and loss of form are all part and parcel of their particular sport - so why should promoters think that speedway must be so different?

Can't see why people should be getting so paranoid about this. Birmingham's track was laid down from scratch in 8 days in 2007. Swindon only have one bend to re-shape so I can see no reason why the track shouldn't be ready and bedded in, for the start of the season.

Does anyone remember Swindon's experiment with an "Esso" shaped track in (I think) 1958? The track manager then was a former rider Alf Elliott who had a theory that a track should be "Esso" shaped to reflect a rider's natural racing line. There was a lot of publicity in the speedway press at the time but I never managed to get to see a meeting on the track, although I remember reading that several riders were unhappy with the new shape at the opening meeting on it, and the idea seemed to be quickly dropped as the track had reverted to its original shape well before the end of that season.

Very sad to hear of John Chaplin's passing. He was, like myself, a lifelong Birmingham supporter, but his reporting was always impartial and his many speedway books were always interesting reading. He and I both rode for the same Cycle Speedway club - Birmingham Lions (who in more recent years changed its name to Sandwell). I started riding in 1953 when I was 13 when John was one of the leading riders in the club, but as a beginner, I was in awe of the senior club members and didn't really get to know him then. Later on, through our mutual love of all things "Brummies" we became good friends. I knew that he was battling against a very painful illness, but didn't realise that the end was so close. John will be sorely missed by not just those who knew him personally, but by everyone connected with speedway. Rest in the peace of the Lord John - and thank you for your friendship.

It's clear from these comments that regardless of tracks, it's really the people who most matter. I've followed my beloved Brummies for the last 66 years and I know that speedway people are the best people in the world, so whichever team you decide to follow, enjoy a great season.

Have just noticed that the SCB have issued a notice to the effect that Rev Limiters will be mandatory on all speedway bikes from the start of the 2020 season. As a supporter with no mechanical knowledge whatsoever, I'd be grateful if someone who has, would explain what these are, and what effect they will have on the bikes. Thanks in anticipation!

The reduction in the points limit seems to be freezing more than a few of the top riders out of the National League (which was probably at least partly the objective!) But this will mean that many riders who were perhaps 6/7 point men last season, will become 8/9 point men after the first month of the new season, due to having had comparatively easier rides. If this happens, clubs will then be able to drop one of these riders and replace him with a 2018 8/9 pointer who will then in reality be a 10/11 point man. Difficult to put into words, but this could create problems and ill-feeling from clubs who aren't in a position to make such a change, so I hope that the BSPA have taken this possibility into account!

My belief is that the Mildenhall case is unique in that the objection was persued by an extremist who evidently had the financial means to go to the lengths he did (although it is true that the stock car activities did sometimes go on until the small hours, so there would certainly have been at least a degree of justification for complaining.) Whether anyone living in Perry Barr would want or have the means to go to these extremes is debatable, but no doubt there will be some who sense that by complaining they could get a council tax reduction. I would imagine that if the redevelopment plans include nicking some of the car parking area, then there will be a consultation with the stadium owners - who are not the GRA but are the City Council who lease the site to the GRA. The speedway promotion do have regular meetings with the GRA and have a very good relationship with them, so the matter of this redevelopment plan is certain to be raised.

Yes, the grandstand (or part of it), is a grade 2 listed building, and there is also a covenant stating that the land must be used for sport. There are of course though, ways and means of getting round these "obstacles" where there is a will to do so, so we can't totally rely on this for our future salvation. As things stand though, there is little or nothing that we can do but wait and see. As UK Martin lives pretty close to the stadium, perhaps he can give an indication of how the very close "locals" feel about the development?

I don't imagine that the developers are unaware of the presence of the speedway and will be prepared to undertake noise testing if the City Council believe that it is necessary. However, the speedway club have full planning permission subject to conditions which have all been complied with, has established a very good rapport with the Perry Barr Councillors, and there have been no complaints about noise made to either the Council, the local councillors or to the speedway promotion for the last five or six years. The stadium is sited on two of Birmingham's busiest roads, the A34 Walsall Road, and Aldridge Road which both have very high levels of traffic throughout the day. During the planning application process, extensive noise testing was conducted by the council (at the speedway promotion's expense!) and which they (the Council) were satisfied with (albeit after the introduction of the new silencers) the Environmental Services officer stating that it "met all three of their criteria." (We were never told what these criteria were). The University declined to send an observer to these tests preferring to conduct their own testing, and were caught red-handed doing this with their microphone sited on the pavement outside the stadium! As an experiment, we then conducted another test whilst a speedway match was in progress, with our microphones placed outside the closest entrance door of the University (as they wouldn't allow us inside!). We then repeated the test from the same spot at 2pm on the following afternoon and found that the latter test produced a noise level almost 10db higher than that of the previous evening. We made known this result to the Council and although it was never acknowledged by them, we think it was probably a major factor in us eventually getting a full planning consent. I agree though, that it is quite likely that sooner or later, the issue of noise will be raised but I am personally reasonably confident that this will not become a major problem especially since the City Council have gone on record as expressing a preference that Perry Barr should be retained as a Greyhound Racing venue at the expense of Hall Green "because it also stages speedway and other sporting events." This comment was made during the debate on whether or not a planning consent should be granted for demolishing Hall Green Stadium two years ago, and is shown in writing on the planning committee records.

Danyon Hume is a great capture for Leicester. Not only is he a real racer and spectacular crowd pleaser, but he is a very loyal clubman and a genuinely nice bloke. I'm sorry to have lost him at Birmingham and wish him all the very best for the future.

This is all the direct result of the BSPA's nonsensical ruling that riders be allowed to miss matches "for whatever reason." Why oh why do they not think these things out before adding such rules to the book? A child of five could have worked it out that a rule like this would be blatantly abused - and so it has been - and in this particular instance in a shameless and disgusting way. A swingeing penalty is clearly needed - but won't be forthcoming since it is the BSPA's rule that riders can miss meetings as and when they wish, so no rule has been broken or even bent!

This wasn't a meeting which supporters of any of the three teams would have been desperate to win! The general wish of Birmingham supporters was for another meeting if, as it turned out, we missed out on the play-off's, and the 3-team match was a popular suggestion. The teams needed to be reasonably well matched, bearing in mind the fact that a number of riders from all three were either out of action through injury, or for various reasons, not available on this particular night. All three teams tracked a 3-pointer as their fourth rider, and understandably, Birmingham would have wanted to use all of their rider who were available, and couldn't be expected to put all three 3-pointers in the same team. The Wolverhampton teams was the least representative since Nathan Greaves was out injured and none of their other men could be considered of National League standard (apart from perhaps Ashley Morris). Cradley had two more than decent top NL men in Kemp and Morley plus Joe Lawlor who had previous Cradley connections. Obviously there would have been more Heathens supporters at the meeting if their team had been stronger, but even so, there looked a fair number from both Cradley and Wolverhampton among what looked a quite good crowd for an end of season fixture filler. The 18-heat six-rides each meant that team managers' were not needed since all of the riders could only take their programmed rides. The fact that Wolves and Cradley teams did not wear their club colours was a pity, but if their clubs did not supply them, then the Birmingham promotion couldn't be expected to conjure them up out of mid-air. The meeting itself wasn't the best I have seen, but it was far from being the worst, and there was some pretty decent races, and after a bit of a slow start caused by a couple of early crashes, and a bit of leniency from the referee at the starts, the meeting ran through pretty well. After Joe Lawlor withdrew, Birmingham always looked comfortable winners, but things would have been a good deal closer if Lawlor had taken all his rides.

One big league is not going to happen at least in the immediate future. The BSPA made a terrible blunder when they allowed riders to race for more than one team, and the riders will now never give up what they regard as the divine right to sign for two teams, unless they are paid substantially more in prize money - which the promoters cannot afford! Doubling-up has become a monster out of control - and a five year old child could have forseen that this would happen. More likely I think, is the probability of Premiership clubs looking to drop down a division - and if this happens, then the top league would quickly become unviable.

Could have been even more ridiculous if Cradley had chosen to use rider-replacement for Kemp! Had Danny Ayres not been injured and Jordan Jenkins not been injured at Birmingham earlier in the season, there could well have been three riders riding for both teams!!!!

The problem with 3 point newcomers who are actually worth double or more, just highlights the fact that a better grading system is needed. We can all see that whichever club gets Dan Gilkes and another 3 pointer who is going to make a mockery of his average, is virtually being handed the league championship (as was the case with my team Birmingham, when we took on Jack Smith and Jack Parkinson-Blackburn as 3 pointers, and as has been the case with Mildenhall this season.) It surely wouldn't be too difficult to have a couple of independent assessors who could monitor the progress of up and coming under 15's and then give them an assessed average based on their obvious ability. This average could stay in place for say, the first month of the season, and then be re-assessed upwards or downwards as their performances merit?