Grand Central

Fair enough on your part. But I am not so sure the others were having fun at all. On the money side. A coverage fee for each meeting would do, fine and dandy. But is that on the cards?

Are the naysayers against this innovation being deliberately thick? It has been pointed out already many times that betting has been available online for individual races for quite a few years. And yes, in team matches on Sky. The whole Speedway world has not caved in. That will continue but there will now be an option to actually see the action on your ipad or computer from many more matches, all week. Obviously there will be no ability to bet on a race AFTER it has actually started at the track. The betting on the race will close as soon as the tapes go up and we watching at home will get the time delayed view of the race just that little bit later. This is not complicated. I think it just sounds like a great idea if it can be made to work well for the benefit of the Sport. As yet my only query just concerns how Speedway itself gets it's income stream flowing from this. At the moment the statements announcing this do not make that clear. .

That is my recollection too. It was Philip Rising, in the BSF thread on the AGM, who said the word 'protected' as he had 'heard' it.

Not that I can find. It was Jon Cook that said about an extra reserves race being included in the programme. And it was the ever-cryptic Philip Rising that said that he had 'heard' that the reserves would be 'protected' in the format. But no, I can't find anything that categorically states that reserves would definitely not be programmed against heat leaders at all. Not official anyway. Can anyone help as it seems a little wasteful to spend all this effort thinking of race formats that are not even working on the same wavelength as the people creating the real thing.

Yes, at 50p per heat as a minimum bet would be the sort of thing I would expect. But I would not be planning on spending 15x50p. The idea would be to WIN at least some of them! Arthur Cross makes some excellent points, as always. If it really is the case that this would operate WITHOUT Speedway getting ANY income then this would be madness. If all goes well I'll spend evenings at home idly putting the odd fiver on the right races at meetings all over the country. It will be great, if it works. .

My understanding of this thread was that it was not asking about 'Who do you hate?' But more about the riders who just have done nothing to excite or elicit much emotion, negative or positive. Despite their success and others idolising them, for no real reason they just do nothing for you. That would be Greg Hancock for me.

On the gee gees it's a 50p minimum to see a race. I've always watched them live on my netbook. And it works fine. I'm looking forward to this particular innovation more than most it would seem.

Just on the subject of the Munich 1989 attendance. Being there at the time I remember it as being quite a good crowd more as Humphrey has said. I don't know what the PR figure was, what the true figure was or whether it had been 'dressed'. This set of images I found pretty much show the whole arena. So someone who really cares can start counting! Munich .

Now then, Now then. The official figure released by the BSPA at the time was 26,418. Is there a suggestion that a BSPA Press Release may have been inaccurate? That would be a sensation. .

Who the hell do the BSPA get to write these statements? Such a tragically obsequious message is quite pitiful.

No interviews ... just purely races. It's getting to sound better and better.

This is a far more interesting story to me. It seems to be a much bigger deal than 25 meetings on Sky if EVERY EL and PL meeting is to going to be able to be watched Live in this way. I'll be holding back on my Sky renewal until I get to know lot more about this potentially far more exciting deal. PS I've already emailed ATR to make sure they are not going to have the grusome twosome of Webster and Ermolenko. .

I knew I would find a photo online somewhere.... http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7NH9B839yYU/UulRoKvo50I/AAAAAAAANok/bszRk3QkPRE/s1600/USA+Bruce+Penhall+(21).jpg

The lists referred to on here are clearly not exhaustive as they do not cover all the heats that took place every year. Bruce Penhall's appearance is not one that I remember watching personally either on TV, but it did happen as there are a variety in photographs available that show him with the T shirt at the event with the other participants. In addition being at Cradley that night to watch Kenny Carter win that was the reason given for him missing his first ride.

How right you are. Especially if you spend the Wednesday night in a Budget Hotel on the South Coast with a group of friends.

Bruce Penhall did appear in Superstars. Back in 1982 he missed his first ride in the Golden Hammer at Cradley because he was late arriving after filming his episode that afternoon.

BAAAH .... Now we know

Just realised which TV programme you meant. 'Run' was the one with Olivia Colman who covers up for the misdeads of her sons. I remember spotting the brief appearance of Speedway in that. I thought it looked like the graphics of a GRT media video, probably from Berwick. Which was particularly strange as the series was set on a hideous estate in inner London.

Yes it really is a pity that SCB made such a calamitous factual error relating to Darcy as it tends to undermine the rest of his, and others, points on the 'toothless' nature of the Star. As is so often the case with all threads that invite a small discussion on Speedway Star it so often gets bogged down into the usual Pro and Anti camps. The original specific question getting lost in a barrage of competing posturing from either 'side'. Just to get back to the question of the Star being toothless, or not, for a moment. I think on that one point there is quite a lot of agreement between just about all posters that this is true. Clearly all the people wanting to take a 'pop' at the old lady certainly feel that she isn't sufficiently challenging of authority and lacks an enquiring interest into the murkier areas of the Sport. But it is also true to say they most of the people who have posted in support of the Star have actually voiced their understanding and tacit agreement with the 'softer' stance as bring in the best interests of the both the Mag and Soeedway. Philip Rising himself also tends to agree that one or two molars may be missing from the old dears top set now when he points out that Richard Clark has a much less combative style to his own when he sat in the Editor's chair. I seem to remember quite a few battles that PR waged in his his youth and that 'edgier' stance did give the magazine a 'personality' and a bit if 'soul' that it has been lacking for quite a few years. The classic headline 'POCKING HELL' is certainly one could never imagine being considered today. That just feels like a real shame to me.

Surely not. I'm sure that BSI and OneSport will make every effort to cooperate on this and all matters for the benefit of Speedway as a whole.

999 numbers (less just the few taken) and HE has taken my favourite of 40 years. I have changed my favourite number. It clearly is not as 'lucky' as I thought.

Indeed we are. This illustrates one of the things that elevates Mr Rising's own contributions here above so many others. I don't think he has ever resorted to 'defending' the Star, or it's editorial stance, by reference to anything so demeaning as that we should 'just be grateful' for what we get. I find it amusing that others choose to do so. .

I think a pause for you to gain persepective may be needed. We are talking about a TV deal with Sky. Not all out-war with the Nazis. Chill pill for the man in Black and White. I feel.

Your answer is to confuse the role of a journalist in these matters It is not the job of Speedway Star to 'announce' anything. They can and will 'report' anything as important as an 'announcement' by the BSPA, GoSpeed or Sky. And they should investigate and question anything they wish concerning the background of any story. Whether the participants are ready to 'announce' or not. I think that the Belle Vue v Poole issue of 2013 is the one that festers with me the most. In years to come the de facto journal of record will show nothing at all untoward relating to that Monday of shame. No journalist should be happy with the Star's position on that night. Brian Burford can 'unearth' material on events of thirty plus years past. But wo betide anyone talking with candour about the present.

Thank you for adding a degree of levity to the thread which many feel to be boring. It is always amusing to be reminded of what SHOULD happen. And then to contrast it with what ACTUALLY happens.