Grand Central

No Tsunami was reffering to the fact that none of the Division 1 tracks would not release a second heat leader from their 1994 squads to Boro which was needed to staff the 'promoted' Division Two sides for 1995 and give reasonably equal teams. Shane Parker was as good as they got and he was not a heat leader at Ipswich 1994, he was about 4th in their averages. He obviously became a heat leader and number 1 alongside the other two by default as they were just the top three in a very weak side. No where near the averages, or standard, of heat leaders of other sides in the expanded league of 1995.

Yes I understand that those would be the issues that require clarification. But not what the answers would need to be to change BT's mind on the price they would be prepared to pay My pondering was do BT Sport actually have any intention of offering any more money even if the Promoters 'pushed the boat out' ? And went for radical change ? Would they really put any more money on the table for half a dozen SGP riders being tempted? Would they prefer one big league, a 12 team top league or the same old same old 8/9 team Premiership, and avoid the Championship like the plague? {Again) Are they troubled by Guests ? Did they find the Promotion -Relegation charade a deal breaker, or deal-clincher ? Do they give a flying fig about doubling up, does the Joker really vex them ? Or do they not really give a toss about any of that as they just want to sign up for something that is very, very cost effective. But could be pretty much identical to 2017 for all THEY really care. As none of it affects viewing figures and revenue, one jot ? They just need something to fill Monday Nights with Live stuff that gets decent figures for minimum outlay. My thinking has always been that they know that they could get probably get a deal for next to nothing beyond the production costs. Considering the poor bargaining position of the BSPA. Take it leave it would work, surely?

And so will all of us.There are some choices they could make that will make a real difference to my attendances in 2018. Any ideas what sort of answer to those various questions would sway BT decisions ? In either direction ? Is there actually ANYTHING that the promoters could choose to do that would get them to part with some cash? Or is that a lost cause ?

I fail to see what legitimate criticism one could offer towards an invited guest expecting the courtesy of a 'plus one' . It is the norm in all walks of life and event/function I have attended. To not do so is just bad manners..

. Even to insinuate relevance in a comparison with the CEO of the Premiership is hilarious. .

It's ridiculous to have a ride-off meeting to determine the wildcards. The whole idea of having them is so that they can be determined by consideration of other factors, such as injury and to include in-form guys from outside the challenge or previous year's GP standings. I am all in favour of that. One would, of course, hope that those charged with that responsibility would use sensible, decent and justifiable criteria for their choices. But no one can force them to do it that way. I suppose they could behave very differently. And probably do. Those 'fence sitters' planted on the panel from the outside, with barely a passing interest in the SGP, could just sit on their hands, offer no opinion and just rubber stamp whatever choice was made by the SGP organisers. Meaning that a rider may end up getting the pick just because he knows the right people, had chummed up to the right folk or just has a face that fits. The truth is we really don't know what goes on. And never will. Which is why the freedom of speech to call them out when they make a 'Stinker' is all we have. And with all the options available, to my nose, Holder's pick stinks the place out like a wedge of over-ripe Gorgonzola. .

Great to read the PR opinion piece in this week's Star. An object lesson in how to write an article that at first glance looks to be sat strictly on the fence. But is in fact always firmly on one side of the debate. Very nicely done. It also neatly spares Mr Burford's puse-cheeked blushes by making no reference whatsoever to his hamfisted handling of the original article. I am pleased that no one, from the new or old promotion, wants to 'wash their dirty linen in public' as that would not be their style. The teaser at the end of the article though is quite mouth watering. It seems that Mr Gordon is off down to the The Star Public Laundry next week with as much 2016 dirty washing as he can find. Really quite stylish. I can't wait.

.It's funny where people get these daft ideas from isn't it? And then bandy them about in scurrilous magazines. It shouldn't be allowed. .

The old saying that you can judge someone by the company they keep. Cannot be more exemplified than to find that Ward has tweeted in support of Holder. And with such eloquence. Torben must be beeming at the PR possibilities. Each to their own.

My completed programme agrees with heat 3 and 5 exactly But Heat 9 has the Berwick riders finishing in the opposite order Heat 9: Richardson, Close, Wright, Bloxsome, 74.8

.They were never going to pick a novice, so not relevant either. They could have picked quite a few names and given them the massive opportunity it is. Some of them may have jumped at it and been real assets to the series. Perhaps even contenders. But they haven't done that. I don't believe they were ever going to, either. They've given to one if the 'in crowd' And just because He MAY make good with the pick. Still does not make it right that he got that 'freebie' now.

.Nobody said it WAS unprecedented. But the rest of the information given about previous years shows that it is far from the norm. So pretty irrelevant really.

Of course it's all about it being personal. About your face fitting. It's certainly nothing about performance on track. If we didn't know it before. Melbourne proved it.

It is something of a measure of him.And the attitude of the judging panel. That we could feel that is so likely to be connected. And that they would still have him back. And others - like Millik - have bust their balls to get into contention. Only to be crapped on from a monstrous height. Their whinging Mate was a shoe-in all the time. It really does sap ones enthusiasm for what should be a great series. But without integrity or fair sportsmanship. Why should we bother, or care ? They don't.

Pitiful. Shameful. But totally expected. The SGP panel must be at serious risk of diabetes. The amount of high-sugar drinks they must have consumed has affected them badly.

Interesting that just because of the extra emphasis placed on points scored in the final in the old system. This finishing order and the relative points difference down the list does 'feel' a bit more representative of the year.

You may be right on all those reasons for the reluctance t stage the SWC. But I have a feeling that the biggest reason will be the financial requirement for staging fees and the difficulty/impossibility of getting those covered out of the meeting revenue without local tourism/government money that has been available from some areas before. Whereas Gorzow and Leszno have been happy to do this. Outside Poland it will be very different. I Imagine a request for similar from Manchester City Council would be met with derisive laughter at the moment.

I think that is all pretty much spot for on. The great thing about the SWC is that everyone has always had the same number of rides as all other teams. Every race the score is seen as being the reality of where the competition stands. The programme just works. Pairs events are always all over the place in the programme and you never really get that tension from the race by race scoring that has been so apparent in the SWC.

I agree that the change was forced on One Sport.But the national teams event they ran for two years never really took off anyway, did it? I don't think there is any evidence that a pairs event would fail due to the lack of team riding ability. If that were the case then normal league racing in Poland and Sweden would be failing for the same reason. And it isn't. The real problem with Pairs meeting s that the public has never really got 'into' them. There is something about the format that is just not that fulfilling. They fall between a rock and a hard place; not individual nor team. They are neither Arthur or Martha. Whereas the TV audience feedback had always been very 'pro' the SWC most years. And the excitement on the BSF has always been quite vocal despite the Joker. Even though track attendances may not have held up for anything but the final. A one off pairs event may be a bit of a novelty, for some. But I do not see it filling that 'mid season' break in the SGP calendar. At least nowhere near as effectively as the SWC has done so well, so often.

Agree that it is in that state now. But when they started and for a couple of years they used national teams just as you suggest doing now. Still a damp squib for most folk.

Who cares if we just have one Aussie. That's plenty. Especially as he is World Champion. I wouldn't worry about Melbourne. If it does go there again there will be plenty of local 'fillers' drafted in by that time of year. Just like this year and before. Don't allow his buddies to make up a false excuse for keeping Holder in.

All of which I do appreciate. We have all lived through these times together. My concern is about the choices now being made for the future. I can see, yet again, the argument for pairs so that more countries can put together competitive 'teams'. And that the resulting meeting you envisage looks good. Equally I hear the reasons why reserves may be necessary to make the pairs viable at all. My problem remains that pairs events have never been that successful, really. They have not captured the imagination of speedway folk before, much. And specifically the three-man-pair version seems to have failed in the nineties when tried. And these last few years that One Sport have comeback with it seem to have been largely ignored by the fans. So, is it really worth another try, now?

True. Not because of Denmark's dominance. I agree. Which was provided in the format last used in 2000. For the years 2001-2017 this has never been re-introduced. It may have been better.

No they didn't. The World Pairs was merged with the WTC using the pairs format just for the years 1994 to 1998. The not-s0 dominat Denmark's last two wins were back in 1988 and 1991. The truth is that the Pairs had died on it's backside in the nineties, never recovering from the bonkers 6-man races of the late eighties. Yet another humdinger out of Geneva. By 1999 we were back to a four team WTC with the daft 'three-man-pair' version dropped. But this time they adopted the formula allowing two men per team per race. When BSI took over in 2001 it reverted to the one-man per team per race. For some reason

The shoddy journalism at play here has actually done everyone a diservice. The issues involved have been poorly covered and little light shone on them in real detail. I still believe that there were issues raised aboout ex-rider entry to meetings that need to be addressed differently than is currently being done. That has been lost in the cocophony. The managment at Belle Vue have been publicly maligned without any opportunity to respond. When they clearly have some very pertinant points to make on the way this has developed over the last couple of years. And Peter Collins, and his reputation have, subsequently, been sullied in equal measure. Only because of the article, and the way it was constructed, has he now been subjected to either public abuse, at a level that I hope people will live to regret. But also subtle references to his stroke, that have followed, have now potrayed him as some sort of broken man. This has, all round, been a sad episode. PR will need the Wisdom of Solomon to put together an article that will redress the damage done.