brianbuck

Not that I know anything, but could this be another case of a rider opting out from racing at a track which doesn't suit him? Another rule introduced with the best of intentions, but so wide open to being abused.

As far as I can make out (from what Stanley Unwin has written in the rule book!) this move has always been legit. The only difficulty being that Carr's changed average was issued last Thursday but doesn't take effect until today. Therefore, as I see it, the BSPA MC could (and apparently did) approve it, but it would not be effective until this morning. I really can't see why people should feel the need to challenge this. If a club loses a rider through a long-term injury such as Birmingham have in this instance, then why on earth should they be denied the opportunity of taking on a replacement when there is the opportunity to do so?

The points limit based on averages was a good idea in principle but long experience has shown that it isn't working. A better option would be a grading system but this would need totally independent graders to operate it and they should have the authority to re-grade any rider whose grade is obviously wrong. Personally, I can't see this ever being acceptable to many promoters so we are pretty much stuck with the present system.

Well done Stoke on a hard earned win with only4 race winners! They took their chances whilst we missed ours so they deserved it. By all reports a very good match - just sorry I couldn't be there.

Mr Red and Yellow is confusing himself! The rider Tom Perry recommended was Danyon Hume - not Jack Smith. Jack and JPB were the first two riders that Birmingham signed for the 2016 season. Not that this is likely to make any difference to someone who seems more interested in slandering a promoter whom he obviously doesn't like!

Bear in mind the fact that this meeting was due to start at 3pm - not in the evening. As the sun is now shining (at 1.45pm) perhaps it might have been a hasty decision but we have to rely on the opinions of the people on the spot (ie the track curator etc) and the weather forecast which has often proved to be wrong on previous occasions. Plus the fact that the track staff are not able to work on the track on the previous day when there is greyhound racing taking place. This fixture has been heavily advertised so no one would have wanted it to be called off and with this being the third Perry Barr meeting to fall foul of the weather this season, it has been an unlucky start for the Brummies.

After a quick check of the current teams, I make it that of the 56 members of the 8 Premiership Clubs, 28 also race for other teams i.e. 50% - and it is just madness! Just imagine the scenario should the promotion/relegation play-off happen to feature Wolverhampton and Edinburgh. Two Wolves riders will be missing from their team - because they will be riding for the opposition, and anyone buying a programme will see the names of these two riders listed in both teams! How on earth can this be explained to the people who have never seen speedway before and whom we might be trying to persuade to come down and give it a try? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please!

These latest changes mean that Wolverhampton's "team" now includes five riders who belong to and also race for other clubs. Where is the sense in having rules that allow riders to race for two or even three different teams? Just what benefits has this nonsensical rule brought for speedway? No other serious sport would allow anything like this so it's no wonder that the outside world laughs at speedway. Do these riders who continually bleat the parrot cry that they can't make racing pay unless they race for two teams ever stop to consider the unfortunate fellow riders who because of this, don't have places in any team? This rule is now completely out of hand and though I detest it, I accept that for the time being at least, we can't do without it, but for pity's sake let's work towards getting shut of it instead of trying to expand it still further!

Cannot see why anyone should complain about an exclusion for encroaching the centre green. The rule has been in force for over a year and makes sense safetywise. Agree that Leicester lost it through some inexplicable team manager's decisions near the end, but I was much impressed with Riss who looked fast and sharp. Didn't think Leicester had assembled a very good team - but I take that back!

My first visit to Rye House since 1958 - and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience! Clearly the stadium is a "work in progress" but I was impressed by what had been done - and the standard of racing was excellent. I arrived very early so didn't experience any of the congestion that others have mentioned, but don't doubt that the promotion will be aware of these and will take steps to put them to rights. Very pleased to see such a big crowd - which the promotion well deserved for their enterprise. I wish the club every success for the future.

Anyone planning a trip to Perry Barr this season should note that free carparking is available in the One Stop Shopping Centre Carpark in Walsall Road (opposite the stadium). There are signs in the car park stating that parking is limited to two hours, but by arrangement with the site owners, this DOES NOT apply to people attending the speedway, so there is no need to be concerned about getting a parking ticket.

Hall Green Stadium IS an "Asset of the community" but this hasn't prevented Birmingham City Council from approving an application to demolish it and put 200 houses on the site - and in a particularly devious and deceitful way too - after the planning committee had originally voted 9-2 in favour of rejecting the application! The fact that the stadium was a community Asset counted for nothing.

When the Provincial League was formed in 1960 everyone said at the time that there wouldn't be enough riders to staff 10 new teams, but as things turned out, none of the clubs had any problems in filling their sides. Accepted there were some very wide differentials in the strength of the clubs - Northern clubs tended to go for the riders who had been second halfers at Belle Vue or Bradford (and quite a few of them were in their mid 30's or even older) whilst Southern clubs went for many of the ex riders who had retired because the top league was too tough for them. The bottom line though, was that the riders were there when needed.

When I first began following speedway in 1953, at Birmingham, the riders had one bike each and the club provided a track spare. There was also a fully fitted workshop located within the stadium and the club employed a professional mechanic who looked after the bikes of all the Birmingham riders and kept the track spare in top condition. Nothing at all wrong with a system like that and no reason at all why it shouldn't be re-introduced.

This "can't make it pay if I have only one team" call is just a parrot cry by the riders. Every week we see National League riders roll into the pits in vans big enough to live in and start unloading three bikes or more from them. A dose of reality is needed here - none of this is necessary and the riders need to start looking at living within their means if they are not to eventually price themselves out altogether!

Couldn't agree more with the last poster. Doubling-up has done nothing at all for British Speedway - it has just created the shortage of riders that promoters are now griping about - yet instead of moving towards phasing it out altogether, the talk is always about extending it even more. No rider should be allowed to ride for more than one team - much less be allowed to ride for 3! Now we have this nonsensical situation of several riders having no team to ride for whilst others have two or even three!

Yes the system is definitely unfairly biased in favour of big business - Every time Barratt's were refused planning consent to build houses on the Dudley Wood site, they knew that they could just apply again and again until they finally got the decision they wanted, but on the other hand, once the planning inspector had over-ruled Dudley Council and approved the application, there was no scope for a counter-appeal. I suggested this in a letter of complaint I sent to the planning inspector and he was much affronted by the suggestion that big business could pull strings!

I know that there are a good number of people working very hard to get speedway back to Oxford and I really do wish them every success in their efforts which seem to me to be very professional. The biggest problem seems to be the intransigence of the stadium owners but in my opinion, all the stick that the GRA have been getting isn't wholly justified. The GRA are very pro speedway and greyhound racing but they are a subsidiary of a bigger company and have no choice but to do as their "masters" tell them. The "Oxford" situation is replicated at Hall Green Stadium in Birmingham where the venue which has operated successfully for 90 years is now facing closure and demolition despite the strong opposition of local people. The "Save Hall Green" group succeeded in having the stadium declared a Community Asset, but this did not stop the City Council's Chief Planning Officer over-ruling the Planning Committee's 9-2 vote to refuse permission to demolish the stadium just three weeks after it had been made. (This decision is currently being challenged through the Ombudsman, but everyone is well aware that even if this battle is won, there is nothing to stop the owners from re-submitting their planning application and the planning committee then being "leaned on" to pass it. In Oxford's case though, they do seem to have considerable support from their City Council so their chances are much improved, so my advice to them is to stick with it. The very best of good luck to them. It will be worth it in the end!

When I was working in Cardiff (would be around 1965/66), there was an athletics venue in the City called the Maindy Stadium which looked quite suitable for speedway when I went and had a look at it. Is this stadium still there I wonder? Speaking about speedway with the people I was working with, the general view was that Cardiff Speedway was a "good night out" but they all thought that the old Penarth Road track was too far out of the City and not very well served by bus routes (although it didn't seem to be too far to me when I walked to it from my hotel near the railway station.) I did locate the Penarth Road site and the place was in a very sorry state with the grass head high and just a couple of surviving huts with their roof's collapsed in, and the only visible relic was the concrete starting grid.

Can I add my word of sympathy to the suffering Coventry supporters now that this not unexpected news has finally broken? I know all too well the heartache of losing my club through the sheer greed of people who care nothing for the sport or for the club. At Birmingham we were extraordinary lucky to have Tony Mole in the wings and who was prepared to invest in bringing the club back to life after the Phillips fiasco. The long term hope now can only be that Rugby Council remain steadfast in their declaration that they will not grant planning consent for housing on the site and that there is some way that this decision will eventually filter through to Brandon Estates and that they will finally accept this gracefully and allow the stadium to revert back to ownership of genuine speedway, stock car and greyhound people. This might well mean a couple of years at least, out in the wilderness, but I send the Bees fans every good wish for the future.

All of the Bank Holiday Monday meetings at Perry Barr will start at 3pm but the Good Friday fixture remains at 7.30pm start time.

As one of the "old outdated people" still on the supporters' club committee, can I respond to redandyellow's comment. The two genuine "oldies" on the committee are myself, who has been a Birmingham supporter since 1953 and Brian Bott (the chairman) who has been a supporter since 1946. We are well aware of the fact that the club needs new and younger committee members with fresh and modern ideas, but redandyellow is quite wrong if he thinks we are both for some reason, clinging to office - both of us are quite willing to stand down and make way for younger replacements without rancour or any kind of resentment, and the sole reason why we have not done so is the fact that no one has been prepared to come forward as our potential successors. We did what we felt best for the good of the club (the speedway club not the supporters' club) in respect of the fighting fund and I feel that our intentions were well publicised at the time. Mr Redandyellow has every right to be critical of us if he wishes - and we respect that right, but if he had some suggestions to make, it would surely have been better to have raised them at the time and not two years later? I have never objected to being criticised and I do not take it personally when I am. The Supporters' Club is in the process of being reorganised and will hopefully have a bigger role to play in the coming season - starting with a bid to bring the membership back to what it was a few years ago.

I'm sure every speedway enthusiast will wish the Coventry supporters all the best in their efforts to keep their club afloat and I'd urge all those who have negative views to put them to one side and keep backing their club. I have been an ardent supporter of Birmingham for 64 years and well know that it is much easier to lose your club than it is to bring it back from the dead - so let's not allow this to happen to Coventry.

Tony Mole budgets in advance for every season - that's his style of operating! He employs someone knowledgeable to run his tracks, gives them a budget and then lets them get on with it. This has worked very well for him at all the tracks where he has promoted. The planning consent only permits one meeting per week between March 1st and October 31st, and the City Council have let it be known in the past that they would be unwilling to change this, and even if this wasn't the case, it would take the best part of 12 months to bring an application for an extension to the planning committee.

I have had the privilege of working with Tony Mole for over 30 years and can confirm all the good things which have been written and said about this quiet, modest man. He loves his speedway and has invested his money in saving numerous numerous tracks from closure even though he could have made much more profit by spending it elsewhere. His style is to employ someone trustworthy to run his tracks and let them do so without interference. I have had the pleasure of writing programme copy for him at Birmingham and he has never once changed a single word I have written whether he agrees with it or not. I wish him a long and happy retirement and thank him from the bottom of my heart for what he has done for us at Birmingham.