Elephantman

If you read my post again you will see that I am saying that if you are allocated two weak or poorly funded riders it could cost your team victories on the track; what they are doing in other leagues is not relevant to this proposal. How are you going to feel if your team are losing meeting by a couple of points and its down to the novices not performing? Who you going to blame? Are you going to keep paying your £15 or whatever every week? If the NL riders end up only racing each other it is unfair on the paying public and the top five; if they end up racing against the top five it is unfair on them and the paying public. This is a no win situation for the public and the riders.

With respect, I think it does; he doesn't say the BSPA have introduced this. It is an Elite League initiative. He states, "I am looking forward to going into more details of the season ahead at our fans’ forum". That is details of the season ahead not details on this initiative. I don't know what they do in Sweden or Poland but are we saying that they take (what are fundamentally) junior riders and throw them in to compete with the big boys? I hold the view that this is an ill thought out but money saving scheme. I hate to think what the TV executives will make of it!

http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.23260 I think this makes it clear; it is an Elite League idea and a particularly stupid one at that. It has the potential to be a farce; can you imagine be allocated two young riders who can't afford top equipment; seeing them get beaten every week and your team beaten because of their poor scores? It is an ill judged, ill thought out decision by an Elite league who are bereft of ideas. It would be interesting to know what the NL & PL teams think about it?

So it seems to me if it is as Phillips claims (he didn't convince me on the radio by the way); then he has been attempting to keep Drury; Morriss and McLaughlin happy. As Morris was complementary about Drury, the process of elimination says the problem (rightly or wrongly) is McLaughlin and it is always dangerous to assume anything; but are there any other candidates for the abusing of Morriss on live TV? Any member of management abusing another should be disciplined; doing it in public and on live TV would be seen as gross misconduct by most people I suggest? Yet nothing appears to have happened; hence this fall out; very poor management by Phillips!

How does it look when the business owner claims he doesn't have a clue as to what is happening in his business? These quotes from Phillips are not good at all.

I thought that there were three different AGM's the EL, PL & NL. When people say the "BSPA" who exactly do they mean?

Morris came across as straight, professional; Phillips didn't impress. It seems there is someone on the management team that appears to be a bit of a loose cannon. Riders upset over sponsorship on race jackets; riders not paid on time; Morris annoyed about the timing of the Civic Reception and been abused/sworn at while conducting a TV interview by a member of Birmingham's management team! If this is what has become public I hate to think what has really gone on? Does anyone know who swore at Morris; it clearly wasn't Drury or Phillips? All in all not good; I wouldn't want to have to be selling this package to potential sponsors; still that's McLaughlin job, unless he's going to quit as well?

Is Joe Mclaughlin still with Birmingham or has he left; with no website I can't tell?

I wonder who that could be?

Great interview by Tai!

I don't know you; you are probably a great chap or lady. I don't like some of your posts!

Why don't you just telephone him? You know who he is and how to get hold of him and thanks to one of the posters on here last winter, he must know exactly who you are. It shouldn't be too difficult a conversation should it? Or you could ask me, or anyone else really, or you could ask Neil Machin as its his business and he's doing the selling!

And it wasn't an Iceberg that sunk the Titanic; it was these two in their trackside gantry...... Bring back hanging!

That is all fair enough but you failed to mention them causing Harringay Racers to close down!

Thanks; a fairly unclear statement! Does this mean that the BSPA have terminated the contract with Go Speed i.e. have withdrawn the licencing rights or, as people appear to be assuming Sky have terminated the contract with Go Speed/BSPA but does that necessarily mean that Sky will not renew; depending on what you are assuming, and bearing in mind we don't necessarily know who is in bed with who, this can mean many things.

Having done an internet search (and trust me I'm fairly adept at that sort of thing) I cannot see that Sky have made any comment on the viewing figures or the likelihood of stopping speedway coverage. The BSPA haven't commented; Nigel Pearson doesn't appear to have said anything; so where does this received wisdom come from? Well on count back it seems to emanate from the BSF! So the BSF had run a number of threads based on no facts stating that the Sky deal is ending; call me simple but would it not be better to wait until Sky make a statement before increasing the CO2 emissions through keyboard overload? After all if a deal is ending that doesn't mean it is not renewing or does it?

Unfortunately at the best of times we British are parochial; when it comes to sport quite tribal. The obvious solution is for all sports that have an interest in this site getting together and as this is at the design stage designing a true multi use Community Stadium. If West Ham F.C. can retrofit retractable seating to the Olympic Stadium then it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out how to do this over a speedway track/dog track or whatever in a new build. However it does require the people with an interest to also have the money; it is clear that the plan for Wimbledon AFC is to flog off some of the land for housing to pay for the stadium; more sport less room for housing. Perhaps that what they mean by community stadium; people live there!

Why is that the price you pay? Is it because we have become such an objectionable nation in terms of our attitude to people in the public eye? Why should anyone in the public eye have to put up with vitriolic and unnecessary comments? Criticism is fine; plain nastiness is not! The reality is the great unwashed keyboard warrior will often post things that they would never dream of saying to the person face to face; if you wouldn't say it you shouldn't post it.

Viewers are fully within their rights to criticise; but its not what you say its how you say it that causes the issue. Many of the post I read are about Nigel Pearson are quite vitriolic and personal in their attack; the post that started this thread is an example; it uses emotive language to attack the individual rather than attacking the individuals point of view. Rather like some describing a post as "awful" without justifying why it is awful and then suggesting the poster may be more at home in North Korea without justifying the statement either!

Having followed Speedway for nearly fifty years I can only recall one major TV channel that has committed itself to covering the sport properly. Who knows what they may choose to do next year but one thing for certain is that if coverage does continue I hope it is with Nigel Pearson. The fact that he is highly regarded within his industry; is good at his job and is clearly a speedway enthusiast is just part of the reason. The other part is that I would truly miss the confirmation that a minority of members of this forum are totally incapable of any rational thought process. I know that is true because if they were capable of actually thinking that would allow them to understand that their ill-judged, ill-informed diatribes against Sky and in particular Nigel Pearson do not enhance the reputation of the sport or add to the likelihood of any other significant TV coverage in the future. That's all!

never have put money in to speedway; the ROI just does not justify it!

No it isn't; you just want it to be; makes life a bit easier if people do not have to justify what they are doing

You are such a wit! I don't need to prove anything it is not me that is forcing what is an expensive and in some cases may be an unnecessary change on British Speedway. This is where people such as you miss the point. If air fences improve safety at a venue then they must be considered; if they provide the same level of safety or reduce the level of safety then they should not be a mandatory requirement. Without evidence and research your guess is as good as mine as to locations where they are or are not an improvement. All tracks are different shapes and sizes; may have different banking; may or may not be suitable for the installation of one type of fence or another. One size does not fit all; why do so many people assume it does when it comes to such a fundamental safety device? I don't mess about with safety I expect it to be properly researched and properly implemented; Air fences appear no to be in this category! I thought it was a reasonable question but many on here don't want it asked. I don't understand why?

Taken from earlier comments on this thread by a number of posters. You have read all the posts have you? If you have you will know that there are no statistics available only opinion and hearsay which is exactly my point. You show me your evidence and I won't show you mine; but if you really want to be so distasteful as to run down a list of riders who have suffered life changing injuries that's up to you.

Point me to the sarcastic post? All I've done is ask very simple basic questions; if you see that as sarcastic then it is you that have a problem. I am not questioning the Deanmachine's right to hold the view he does; I'm questioning if that view is right for all situations. There is no evidence that it is. Now there is an argument that one life saved is worth the cost of these fences; however if the result is that many other riders suffer serious life changing injury then the decision becomes a trade off between what on balance is best. This is where evidence is required from testing and research. This evidence is clearly not available. So that begs the question why is this technology being forced on British Speedway when there is no evidence that it is better than some of the current solutions? By the way I'm not suggesting that a brick wall is better without an air fence in front of it; it clearly isn't. But many of the traditional fences that collapse around a rider when they hit it have got to be better than an air/polyfoam fence with an Armco barrier or solid wall behind it!