waiheke1

But clearly they are. Otherwise the hotels would be empty on gp week, and they would drop their prices the next year, or closer to the event.Why would u think it ok to raise prices for rugby and not speedway? I remember having to pay about 120 qiid for a b&b when I went to watch the all blacks around 13 years ago.

Maybe he needs to change sponsors if red bull aren't paying him enough to compete with the monster boys.Or maybe his club need to pay him more, if the likes of Doyle can earn enough to compete successfully. Either way, seems like he must need a new agent, who can negotiate deals which will allow him to compete...

But the fan who has stopped going because of the tr does so because its "unfair." But went for 30 years with the ts rule, which was used more often and with greater advantage to the losing team,meaning it altered far more results. I suspect orions point is that if someone is using such irrational logic, it is hard to argue that promoters take that view seriously.

It's quite a disparity.A 10 pt pl rider would come into the el on a 6. But a 6 pt el rider would go into the pl on a mere 8.4.

Good postI think it shows that speedway still has a good core product, what is needed is an improvement of the presentation and marketing, to make it 90 minutes of entertainment. Your post also shows that " mood" is contagious. U and your mate went along to have a good time and did. If you'd spent the two hours going on about how ridiculous the number if guests were and what a farce the TAC ride is, your mate would probably have thought " if someone who goes every week think the rules and sport are a joke, they probably are." They're not likely to enjoy it if you're moaning the whole time. If you describe the TAC sub as being comparable to a losing team in a game of football having goals count double they may laugh. If you instead explain that it's a way of keeping meetings close, partly due to the heavy home advantage in speedway, they'll likely think no more of it and accept it as a quirky rule, most sports have their own quirks.

Exactly. Which is the opposite of what you posted earlier.

That's the point though. Speedway has been superseded by a range of alternative leisure time options that do cater to the wants of modern consumers, and what is left is the "hard core" a lot of whom just want things to be the way they always were. Speedway has barely changed, and the result is the empty spaces in the stands and terraces.

Why is it absurd? You could be ranked number one in tennis or golf without winning a major. Win forMula one championship without winning a gp.What would actually be absurd is a points system where it wasn't possible to be world champ without winning a gp, as it would mean an incredible amount of points being awarded for winning a gp rather than coming second. The points system is the best it has ever been

Would you still buy a Kodak camera? A vhs? A blackberry? How would u say Nokia's failure to reactbto the I phone went? Consumer demand changes, and successful businesses do not remain successful by doing what they did 40, or even 4, years ago. Bwitchers is spot on. It is speedways failure to adapt that is the issue

Collins loram and Jan o I would say were worse gaters. Ermolenko on a par? Notably all single world champs.Natural talents - kelly Moran is a good comparison, though I'd suggest ward is far more professional. S Moran, sigalos, jansson, Emil (so far), Knudsen went without world titles. Lee and Collins won only one each.

You are right of course mark246, my mistake. There were still far more fatalities in 70s/80s than in modern speedway

On so many levels this wouldn't work. Riders wouldn't get an off season, riders would be rusty riding only GPS, stadium availability would be an issue, crowds would be less likely to attend in winter even with a roof etc.

So it was an illegal guest after all?I presume scb spotted the czezh meeting somewhere?

the thing is though tWK is that you've said the reason you don't like the tactical ride is that it's unfair/fiddling etc Yet (and GC put it very well imho), despite the fact that most of us dislike the TR, it is a lot fairer than its predecessor the tac sub. It's therefore hard for us to comprehend that you would quit the sport because of a rule, that is less bad (from the perspective of fairness, which you've said repeatedly is your sole concern) than one you tolerated for 20+ years previously. To me, it seems your like a wife who leaves her husband becuase he leaves the toilet seat up. Yes, it may well be that it genuinely annoys her. And she may even fool herself that that's the reason she's leaving. But in actual fact, while that may be the "last straw", if she was still i love, and everything else was fine, she'd be able to tolerate the toilet seat thing. I think you're that wife TWK, the toilet seat (TR) was the last straw for you, but you fell out of love some time ago.

TBH in 2014 he was averaging roughly the same as Hancock/KK etc before they were injured. So even if they hadn't been injured he was in with a great chance. Of course the fact they did get injured could have handed him the title. In 2013, i think he was probably behind only Emil and Tai in points per meeting? so, without any injuries i imagine he'd have a couple of bronze medals. With injuries (but without a ban) he'd probably have one gold.

The four you named were arguably multiple world champs BECAUSE they didn't have bad injuries. Look at any era, the multiple world champs have very few major injuries over their career. But I believe far less riders have their careers ended by injury nowadays. If I look to stars from the 80s, I canoff the top of my head name Gundersen, Jonsson, Sigalos, S Moran, Joe Owen, Jan O Pedersen whose careers were ended by major injuries. you could possibly add peter collins to that list. others such as knudsen and ermolenko recovered from major injuries, while i can remember plenty of other spending lengthy times on the sideline on multiple occasion (Carter, Evitts, Smith etc.). I can't think of too many modern era stars whose careers have been ended by injury? and then of course were the fatalities, the likes of Hewlet, Aldertson, Pyeatt, Craig Featherby, Leif Wahlmann and others dies on trak in the 80s. In the 70s you had Jansson and Peterson off the top of my head. Apart from the tragic loss of Rico, I struggle to think of any other fatalities in the current decade? guests weren't so prevalent in the 60s/70s as you didn't have the added complications of double uppers andriders missing due to european league commitments, often local juniors or number 8s would cover absences etc. Not sure why you think there being more teams in the league should make injuries more prolific? Unless you mean riders rode more meetings, but i don't think that's true as most EL riders are riding in at least one other league. that's true (re airfeances), and possibly (re the bikes) However the claim was that the top riders of yesteryear were seriously injured less often, and that's clearly not the case

Is he good enought to? Yes. Would I like him to? Yes - much as I disapprove of a lot of what he's done, he (along with EMil) is probably the most exciting rider in the world to watch - it would be a hude ahme if he wastes the talent. Will he- who know, but I think he will. Spot on. In most generations, the most talented rider is not the one who wins the most ttitles. Peter Collins was porbably more talented than Mauger/Olsen. Lee and K Moran arguably more talented than Hans and Erik. Gollob more talented than Hancock. Ward is probably more talented than Tai, but I think he will win less titles. I'd suggest that what those examples show is that gating is more important than ability from the back when it comes to winning world titles. And that professionalism, dedication and remaining injury free (look at say Sigalos/Knudsen) are arguably as important as talent (though obviously talent is also a pre-requisite) I think those examples also show that when we call someone "naturally talented" we tend to mean they "brilliant from the back" wheras good starters are often dismissed as "gating tarts." Not sure that's true. He would have likely finished on the podium in 2013 but for injury, and arguably would have been world champ last year but for his ban. He averages over 11 in GPS which puts him in pretty elite company. I agree re: the gating though. Worth noting that you clearly explain your reasons here why you don't think he'll be world champ, yet Sidney has subsequently asked repreatedly why you don't think he'll be champ?

Wasn't that meeting the day after the el meeting he missed?

Or you improve the product so people will pay 20 quid, or so more people will pay 10 quid.

Ok. So the rule book is wrong and they are right?

Surely the season is 6- 7 months though a single round comp with 8 teams would just be the 7 home leafuemeetings I would imagine for many cost per season is as important as cost per meeting. Suggest clubs could also run a pl or nl side as well if they thought there was sufficient demand.

So one major incident a season? Must be plenty of riders with worse records than that? I thought the old time riders like jack millen were meant to be way dirtier? Of course Nicki has had his whole career in the erw of televised speedway so every hard/reckless/dirty move has been captured.No angel sure, but this season the likes of Doyle and killer have been involved in far more incidents.

Yeah but Ipswich is the most central speedway track that is in Suffolk, begins with I and has camping facilities nearby, so I think you are all wrong and gustix is right

Two threads where you are making things up and ignoring the rule book...

Can u explain why you think it works this way? And why you think the rule book which sets out how it works should be ignored in favour of your made up version? Except that it's fictitious nonsense that ignores the rule book?