brianbuck

Mr Gillias will have to declare an interest and withdraw. He won't have any choice but to do that, but he can be useful in making his views known to his colleagues. At the Perry Barr planning application, we initially obtained a three year temporary planning consent and before we applied for full planning we invited the members of the planning committee to come and watch a meeting. Only one of them accepted the invitation. She came, and she loved it, but the downside was that she then had to ask the chairman whether or not she needed to withdraw from the planning meeting. She was asked why she had accepted the invite to watch the speedway and replied that she wanted to see what it was all about before she made a decision. She was then asked whether or not she had given any indication of which way she intended to vote. She replied that no, she hadn't but that she had "jumped up and down all evening because it was so exciting." She was then told that she must withdraw but before she left the chamber she called out in a loud voice: "It was wonderful, wonderful." " I loved every moment of it." It was a very powerful influence on the other members of the committee, and was I grateful to her for this.

Like everyone else, I am shocked and appalled at the one-sidedness of the Planning Officer's report and recommendation, but the decision will be made by the Planning Committee and they do not always go along with their officer's recommendations. I was very involved with the battle to get planning a planning consent to bring speedway back to Perry Barr so I know this to be a fact. Birmingham's planning officer Alan Orr recommended refusual at every turn, but we eventually won the planning committee round by making them aware of the strength of feeling and the huge level of support we had, and the eventual decision to give us full planning permission achieved a 14-1 vote of support. Perhaps the Save Coventry Speedway Group have already contacted all of the Rugby Planning Committee members individually to make them fully aware of the situation, but if not, it would surely be worth them doing this, and if it would help, I have looked up the contact details of all of them. They won't reply to messages as they are not allowed by the rules to enter into correspondence or to give an indication of how they intend to vote, but it will at least put them in the picture and might even sway the issue for those members who do not appreciate the unfairness of the current position. These are the e-mail contact details for the committee members concerned: The political mix (if this is relevant) is: Conservatives 6, Labour 3, Lib-Dems 2. barbara.brown@rugby.gov.uk adam.daly@rugby.gov.uk peter.eccleston@rugby.gov.uk anthony.gillias@rugby.gov.uk eve.hassell@rugby.gov.uk bill.lewis@rugby.gov.uk becky.maoudis@rugby.gov.uk neil.sandison@rugby.gov.uk john.slinger@rugby.gov.uk tim.willis@rugby.gov.uk ramesh.srivastava@rugby.gov.uk If someone from the Save Coventry Speedway group can confirm that they think this worth a try, then I'll be pleased to e-mail these councillors myself, but I'll hold fire at the moment rather than interfere in something which might have already been done.

I for one, can see no reason for changing or "bending" the existing rule, which clearly puts the emphasis on the referee to decide which rider is at fault. If eclusion were to be made optional then it would be abused and there would probably be an increase in reckless riding. The exact same rule applies in Cycle Speedway but an increasing number of referees choose to ignore it and regularly take the easy option of calling back all four riders for a re-run - on occasions even after two or three laps of the original race have been completed - and it does crease considerably more controversy and ill-feeling.

The original intended date for staging this meeting in April, generated considerable interest from Coventry supporters, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a decent turnout for the restaging on Wednesday, but of course, anything Birmingham do or try to do, just produces scornful criticism from the select few! Just as a response to Lisa-Collette's comment, all of the named riders have a past connection with Coventry including the number 8 Freddie Hodder whose father also named Fred, rode for the Bees in 1964.

Sad to observe that Peterborough's team this his season "is the worst that the club has ever put out." when this time last year, Peterborough were team of the century, Just illustrates how quickly the "loyal" supporters choose to desert! As a neutral, last night's Wolverhampton/Peterborough was off to an inauspicious start with Wolves well on top in the early stages, but there were several very good races later on and I'd certainly say that definitely wasn't the poorest meeting i've seen this year. Harris began with two uncertain rides but was magnificent thereafter, and his efforts were much appreciated by a sporting crowd.

Interesting connection to OGT's post about Aston Villa Ladies plan to stage football matches at the Alexander Stadium. Aston Villa's reserve team used to play their home matches at the stadium which is now the home of the Brummies, in the late 1930's - which of course is the original Alexander Stadium - given to the City in perpetuity by Lord Alexander in 1877, conditional on it always being a sports venue, (although I rather doubt that the good Lord was thinking of Speedway and Greyhound Racing when he made this stipulation!) In the centre part of the rear of the main grandstand (which is the sole section of the ground which is listed) can still be seen the Leaping Deer emblem of Birchfield Harriers above the Harriers motto: "Fleet and Free."

Many present day speedway people seem to have distorted ideas about the history of Birmingham Speedway. The "blame" for the 21 year delay in bringing speedway back to the City cannot be attributed to the City Council, but rather to the intransigence of the then owners of not just the Brummoies current home venue, but that of the owners or controllers of the various alternative venues within the City which were explored. The then owner of Perry Barr Stadium, Maurice Buckland, made no bones about his attitude - he wou;d not have speedway back at his stadium at any price - and until he sold out to the GRA in 2004, he never wavered from this stance. Hall Green Stadium, also owned by the GRA until its demolition, were more accomodating, but casual enquiries convinced them that it would be impossible to secure planning permission due to the venue's close proximity to housing. Bordesley Green, not then owned by the Council although it was eventually taken over by the authority, also produced numerous excuses for rejecting approaches to restore speedway there, both on the original track and on a proposed new track on a different part of the site. In fact, the only involvement with the Council was an enquiry about the possibility of the speedway club using Salford Stadium, the City Council having had other offers which they felt were mpre appropriate. True, there was an initial difficulty in securing a planning consent for Perry Barr and it was at first refused on the casting vote of the Chairman of the Planning Committee, but a second application was emphatically approved. As far as the Alexander Stadium being a potential Grand Prix venue is concerned, the stadium is primarily an athletics site and is the headquarters of Birchfield Harriers, but is wholly owned by Birmingham City Council and it has been widely reported that the Council are anxious to justify the vast amount of money which they have spent on developing it, by finding more commercial uses for it. I don't believe that Birmingham City Council is in any way "anti-speedway" and it is my opinion that were a serious offer made to use it for a Grand Prix, the Council would certainly consider it. As the organisation of the Grand Prix meetings is outside the remit of the Speedway Control Bureau and the BSPL, any approach would have to come from those who now promote this competition, but the stadium is there, it has the capacity, and if they want it, they could go for it.

With respect to Mr Ford, his comment that he "only received Birmingham's team on Thursday pm," should be construed as the final team. He would have earlier received details of the anticipated team in line with the regulations, but which would have included the two riders who were injured in last Wednesday's meeting, Morris and Nielsen, and who were not certain of being fit enough to ride last night. Perhaps those who so gleefully predicted that "Birmingham would "struggle to reach 20" might feel a little more gracious this morning - although I rather doubt it! The reality was that despite all of the problems, Birmingham played a major role in providing the crowd with an entertaining meeting which included plenty of good cut and thrust racing which regardless of the final scoreline (distorted to a degree by Poole's three successive 5-1's from the last three races,) is what the punters wanted to watch. Those who so blandly listed the riders whom THEY would have used as Birmingham's guests, could have no idea of the complexity involved in booking guest riders - especially by promotions so down on their luck as Birmingham have been this season and who are frequently confronted by potential guests who either demand excessive payment for their services or don't particularly fancy the prospect of getting a low score against the strongest team in the Championship, so all credit to the riders who were prepared to accept the bookings offered to them at short notice - especially to those who must have known full well that they had little chance of making an impact in such a tough meeting. Finally, I should say that I have no issue with Poole not wanting to call off the match. To have done so at such short notice would obviously have been highly damaging to their business. Poole thoroughly deserved their win and I wish them and their supporters well for the remainder of the season.

Slightly deviating, there have also been a number of riders who raced under false names. There was George Snailsham whom rode for Ipswich under the name of Tich Read Birmingham also had a rider who for several years rode as Lionel Watling, although his real name was James Goldingay. Belle Vue's Louis Lawson was another who used an assumed name - I used to know what it was, but can't remember it now. Anyone think of others?

To quote a biblical phrase - "Man cannot live by bread alone." We all need housing and we all need food, but we all need a bit of leisure activity as well!!

No. The carpark which you mention is no longer accessible from Aldridge Road - only by entering the stadium, which is why it is listed as the VIP carpark. (VIP's include the track staff and the vehicles of second half riders etc.) The stadium carpark is accessed from Harrier Way, the short curved road between the A34 Walsall Road, and Aldridge Road. Parking is free of charge at the One Stop Shopping Centre on the far side of the Walsall Road (A34) and as has already been mentioned, the two hour parking restriction does NOT apply on Wednesday nights when there is a speedway meeting taking place.

Speedway at Birmingham Wheels was unsuccessful during the three seasons of its operations there. There were many reasons for this, most of them being out of the control of Birmingham Speedway. The place was in its complete infancy, getting there was difficult and not very safe with no entrance via the main Bordesley Green Road, only via a dark and dismal lengthy back street (Landor Street) and approached through an unlit railway tunnel. The spectator facilities there were non-existant and what little spectator comforts were minimal. Sharing the track with banger cars was a disaster. This is possible at some existing stadia I know, but at the Wheels Park, the banger cars used it daily so preparation of the track for speedway meetings was virtually impossible. Even so, despite the problems, the track was a very good shape and before the cars wrecked it, produced some very good racing, and for all it's primitiveness, spectator viewing was very good. The speedway venture ended when at the instigation of the new Wheels Park Manager, an application to extend planning permission to beyond those first three seasons, was arbitrarily withdrawn, so Tony Mole who had just purchased the speedway rights, wasn't able to continue even though he was prepared to do so. Later attempts to get back into the Wheels Park using a different, unused part of the site to constructed a new exclusive for speedway track, were blocked by the same Wheels Park Manager. Could speedway have re-established itself there? I think it could have. We could have had our own track and used it for training as well as public meetings, and now that there is the access to the site from the main road, we could have capitalised on the fact that it is now on several bus routes, and that Adderley Park Rail Station is close by. The Wheels Park is still located in one of the less glamourous parts of the City it is true, so it might have been a long slow haul to get the club back on it's feet, but I always thought the place had possibilities. Now it seems that the City Council are looking for ways of recovering some of the massive debts it has run up in its efforts to promote the Commonwealth Games, and are trying to reclaim and re-sell the land on which the Wheels Park is situated. All the hard work which has gone into building a popular and well used operation from very small beginnings, will be wasted if they succeed, and I wish the group who are challenging this truly outrageous plan, every possible success in their opposition, and will be happy to help in any way if I can.

What wonderful news for the Monarchs. My very best wishes for a hugely successful future for the club and especially to John Campbell - one of speedway's true and most genuine gentlemen.

The concrete/tarmac starting area was used in speedway from the early 1930's until 1956 when First Division clubs ditched them, with Second Division clubs doing likewise from the following season. The original grids had their critics and at some tracks there was a definite "jump" when the riders went over them. Many different materials were tried. individual blocks like housebricks, grooved tarmac, ridged concrete etc. All of them did wear out fairly quickly and had to be regularly replaced, and often one grid wore smooth much more quickly than the others - and riders using it were put at a distinct disadvantage. Personally, I prefered the concrete/tarmac to what we have at present. I thought the riders generally had more even starts and there was definitely none of the nonsensical too-ing and fro-ing and general time wasting at the start of the races that we have to endure now. There is, of course, the safety issue, and riders were more prone to rear at the start than they are now, but I think the danger is a bit over-stated. I'd like to see the two minute warning much more rigidly applied, and perhaps even reduced to one minute, with no reserve replacement for riders excluded for touching the tapes, and the old system of the riders lining up a metre behind the start line and then being called forward one by one by the start marshall - grid one first, then grid two etc, but of course this couldn't be done without the return of a much firmer base material at the start - perhaps some kind of very heavy rubber mat placed across the grids. I do have a material in mind and have shown it to a few promoters but none have displayed any interest in trying it.

Most supporters agree that the Guest Rider system has degenerated into an uncontrollable farce. Logically, speedway cannot really do without it, since if the sport is to be watchable, the teams have to be of reasonably equal strength - and in this current season, that isn't the case - so couldn't we restrict what clubs can do or can't do with their guest? How about saying that you guest cannot be nominated for heat 15 and couldn't be used as a tactical substitute? Again, when choosing a guest, the rule could limit a club's choice to a rider whose inclusion would not make their overall points average greater than that of their opponents? As an example, Poole's next away match is at Newcastle, a meeting they will expect a fairly comfortable win. Should Poole's top rider be out injured, they will probably book the best rider in the league as a guest, but with the restrictions I suggest, they would have to tailor their choice to the strength of Newcastle, which might even force them to bring in a number 8! I'm not having a pop at Poole. In such circumstances, they will do what the rules allow them to do, but some restriction which would apply to all clubs would surely be beneficial to the paying public as to speedway in general?

We can't get rid of doubling up/down, neither now nor in the future. The riders wouldn't stand for it, and they are the people who effectively control British Speedway. Allowing riders to ride for more than one team has been the most damaging so-called rule that the BSPA have come up with. The BSPL could easily introduce a rule limiting it to two double uppers per team, then reduce it to one per team a year later, and thenscrap it altogether - but they won't. Like I say, the riders just wouldn't wear it. How I detest this nonsensical rule.

When we first knew the make up of our 2022 team, I thought that we would have a reasonably successful season, but quite obviously, it has not turned out this way, and the Brummies campaign has been blighted by a succession of wet or cold Wednesday nights, plus the undeniable fact that there have been collectively, some consistently poor performances from several of the riders. The consortium has worked extremely hard to get things on an upward motion and in my opinion, have not deserved much of the criticism or blame which has been forthcoming. As far as the Adam Ellis situation is concerned, I have no more inside knowledge than anyone else, but my thinking is that his signing on the eve of the season was something of a "fingers crossed" operation for both club and rider, and most likely seen as a kind of insurance for Adam as an alternative should his Continental bookings dried up. When they didn't, his best option seemed to be to move on. The club would obviously have hoped that this wouldn't happen, but it did and there was little that they could do about it. This is just my own theory and is not intended as a criticism of Adam or the club. He is as entitled as any of us to look after his own interests and his own income. Of course I am disappointed by the way that the season has panned out so far, and fully realise that things are not looking too rosy for the Brummies just now, but ever the optimist, and am hoping for the best for the club which I have supported for the past 69 years, and hope that the hard core of our support will stick with it through admittedly difficult times.

Very sorry to learn of Edinburgh's situation, but just wondering whether Coatbridge could be an option for them (that's if Cliftonhill Stadium is still there). Been a long time since my last trip there! Good Luck to John Campbell in his efforts to find a suitable alternative venue.

Once again the speedway season is being blighted by the rampant and seemingly out of control use of guest riders, many of whom seem to be far superior to the riders that they are replacing. Perhaps it would be a useful idea to introduce a rule to the effect that: 1. A guest rider cannot be used as a tactical substitute. 2. A guest rider cannot be nominated for a heat 15 ride. Any thoughts on something like this?

Seems a sad way to end a brave Newcastle effort against very strong opponents.

I didn't think there was a serious risk of Birmingham letting this match slip away, the only risk probably being that Laurence would have been pilloried on this forum if things had gone awry, .and in my opinion, most Birmingham supporters were happy to see James given his fourth ride, given the level of entertainment he had provided in his previous rides. Undoubtedly, James deserved more than a single point for his efforts but was unfortunate in having to meet Simon Lambert in all four of his races. I'm not suggesting that Lambert did anything wrong - he didn't - but he is a big, powerful bloke and a lightweight like James inevitably found himself shunted out of the way despite his sharp gating and his willingness to get in amongst the pack. Not that he was complaining for I noticed that he and Lambert shook hands with each other warmly in the pits at the end of the meeting. As for the rather sneering comment that he "isn't a Birmingham asset" - well it is common knowledge that he is on loan from Belle Vue, but it is likely to be 3/4 years before he is ready to move up to Premiership level and as he gets on well with the Birmingham consortium and is extremely popular with the supporters, I see no reason why he wouldn't want to remain with the Brummies until Belle Vue eventually recall him, and in any case, how many British clubs in all three divisions track a team of their own riders? Not one of them does or it seems, is ever likely to do given the way that speedway has gone over the last few years..

Were you a "paying punter" at the Birmingham v Berwick match then?

Not a bad meeting at all. I watched it on the streaming and was quite impressed with the presentation ( although the commentator needs to curb his repeated use of the phrase "y'know) which he included in virtually every sentence!) Another smallish issue was the way when everything went totally quiet when there were breaks for the interval and track grading - but these are minor points and I don't doubt that the organisers will put these to rights as they go along. As a Birmingham supporter, I concede that Scunthorpe were the better team and thoroughly deserved their win - although I thought that the three 5-1 wins to them from the last four races, rather distorted the score a bit. I was well pleased with James Pearson's first race win in heat two, which I think underlines his undoubted potential. A couple of our riders didn't do so well, but overall, I thought both teams contributed to a good night's racing.

Clearly, there were a few annoying teething problems throughout this opening meeting and were the cause of innumerable delays, but surely people understand that this isn't uncommon, especially at a new venue? The promotion will recognise this and will doubtless work hard to put things right so please stick with them Kent fans. They surely deserve your backing.

I think the possibility of Birmingham City moving from Small Heath to Perry Barr must be improved by the City Council's desperation to have it used after the games have finished, but you are correct in describing the area of Perry Barr as Aston Villa territory! It is significent that when we have had speedway fixtures on the same evening that Aston Villa or West Btromwich Albion are playing, there has been a substantial dip in our attendances, but little or no difference if Birmingham City are playing. I did write to the City Council myself a couple of years back, to suggest that the Alexander Stadium would make an ideal Grand Prix venue. I got a flowery letter back saying that the Council would look carefully at all the options available, but I've heard nothing since, which doesn't surprise me.