Grand Central

So, just for clarity. Ford was interviewed by Wadley of the Sports department. Those comments were accurately included in the News Department report, in an abridged form. We are not yet sure of who interviewed Middleditch. It could have been the same journalist or someone else. But only his comments have been misquoted in the News Department report. I think he should take it further; bring this miscreant to justice and remove this stain on his character.

Ian Wadley's report in the Sport section gives a fuller account of Ford's views. But the snippets included in the News report are just shortened versions of the same that have been very accurately and fairly reprised. So why should we fear that the same reporter has been so unfair on Middleditch alone?

Could that not be a mis quote of Darcy as well? Or do they only occur in Poole newspapers and not google translations of Polish websites?

You're quite right, i wouldn't either. So, Matt Ford seems to be taking a hell of a risk giving such a long interview/press release to the same puveyor of untruths today. You'd think he would know better. Or is it only Mr Middleditch that offers opinions that we must beware of being misquoted?

This could be a very good negotiating position for Sky to take, I would have thought. The NZ GP is quite dislocated from the European series that starts several weeks later and can only be shown live at an ungodly hour in Europe; so it could be easily missed by Sky and no one in Isleworth would shed a tear. But I bet a deal would be done for the rest of the series at a rock bottom rate then. It would all depend whether there really were any serious rivals willing to pay anything at all. My guess is that the possible alternatives of Eurosport or BT would only be interested in Poundland deal.

Sky may well relish such an arrangement. But it would be a very strange negotiating stance on the part of BSI to let them cherry pick in that way. If Sky cannot agree a deal with BSI surely Mr Bellamy would want to be able to offer exclusive rights to the whole series to a rival operator. Not the other eleven minus the showpiece event.

You are quite right. Once again our resident marketing expert is found wanting.

Oh no, with no implements of any type to grind, it does just look poor. To think that it has been 'designed' so recently and 'sold' to such a new venture is so sad. .

Goodness, the 'good old days' are now being seen as recent as 2002 .... That makes me feel ancient! Surely the modern-day decline has it's origins further back than that.

Yes, as I've said before, there was a time or times in the past when the 'Night at the Speedway' just 'fitted' into people's lifestyles and entertainment expectations. I don't think there was anything Speedway actively did to make that 'fit' and equally I don't think that there is anything specifically that it has done to break it. The product that the sport offers today is just getting further and further away from what the overwhelming majority of the public will ever want for a night out. On the whole he sport is standing pretty still whilst they are just disappearing into the distance. This topic started as a discussion about 'The Start' of the decline, though. It is interesting to see that different people have such different opinions on just WHEN the current decline actually did start. We have assessments that seem to range from the mid-seventies for those who blame 4valves to the later nineties and beyond for those who make Sky and the most bizarre rules of recent times to be most at fault. I wonder just where the starting point actually is. My own feeling is sometime in the early to mid eighties. Up until then things felt to be fairly consistent. Since then there does seem to have been a general downward slide, not every year as some have offered hope of stabilisation. But there has never been a revival in that time, has there? A lot of things did change in that early eighties period but I don't think here was one internal or external cause, it was just the starting point. Do you know, it could just have been the switch from bobble hats to baseball caps all along!

Yes, I think this is the best assessment by far. It is all so easy to pick out each and everyone of the external and internal changes and, depending on your own bug-bear, make a case for each one. But oldace's critique holds most water. The saying that 'even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day' is quite apt for Speedway. Just a few times in it's existence it's been in the right place at the right time to be a bit of a success story. And for the rest it never really did get it right.

Henny Kroeze got a 21 point max from seven rides at The Shay in 1976. This followed a 20 point haul just a few weeks before.

Sorry, but I'm one of them. I cancelled Sky Sports at the end of the season as I just do not watch Sports other than Speedway enough to justify the expense. I would have considered reinstating in March if the GPs were covered. But the EL coverage for the last couple of years has been too poor on on it's own.

You may be right ... It doesn't really matter. Riders who were assets of clubs that fold revert to being assets of the BSPA, I believe. The BSPA would then want the fee before he rode for another team. To me, having someone as an 'asset' beyond the expiry of their contract on October 31st is just so close to 'ownership' as to be indistinguishable. When my contract ends with someone at work ... That is is it! I am not retained as an 'asset'. If someone wanted to retain an option on my future services they could have to pay me a fee and continue to maintain that with further fee payments into the future. My guess is that Greg has not been picking up such retainers. But in Speedway he will STILL be regarded as someone's asset and they would want a fee if he returned. It may not be technically ownership ... But it is pretty damn close.

Yes, WE all know that one cannot OWN another person ... But the asset system as operated currently often mimics this, doesn't it? Using Greg Hancock as an example. He will still be regarded as being the asset of one promotion. And if Greg were to return to Britain to ride for any other team you can be damned sure that that same promoter would want a loan or transfer fee before any new contact was registered. Whether or not that is technically 'ownership' seems to be just a semantic irrelevance.

So, to summarise your post in two sentences... The best racing is produced by tracks with more than one racing line, but that this is often difficult to achieve as there is no set formula. Ole Olsen favours slick tracks that do not provide more than one racing line but do allow close combat racing without much passing. I think that is all most people have been complaining about for years. And just a thought ... If Ole Olsen had been track curator at Hyde Road instead of Stan Ford or, later, Roy Carter ... Would it's reputation for producing great racing be higher or lower?

But, for about the fourth time now ... The change to the way the picks are given out is NOT changing ... Olsen was wrong. Yes, I think many people agree. I can well expect that there are others that share Mr Risings view on Ole Olsen. But if we take this thread down the route of talking about others great dislike of the man and his doings then it will just run on and on ....

But if he did score about the same as Chris Harris did his year (65), which you do expect, then that would probably put him in about 12th place, wouldn't it? Which still begs the question about those who he will push back to 13th, 14th and 15th? I don't think he would just have done well to get 12th spot. I think he would be celebrating a success beyond his wildest dreams

PHILIPRISING has already stated in post 27 that the only change is that the usual method of picking is to be done in the pits and not at the scoreboard. So we don't need to come up with alternative methods ourselves. My concern is that Ole Olsen is the sort of man that thinks that coming out as a top scorer after five races against all other competitors makes it UNFAIR for you to given first pick for the semis. Isn't it just a little bit weird to have someone with such a cockeyed view of fairness in his position?

How is it possible for someone with the job title of 'FIM Speedway Director of Sports' to go into an interview to announce a rule change to the World Championship ... And then get it so wrong? Is it any wonder that the people at the top of our Sport are held in such low regard by so many?

It actually looks as if they are trying to make it more likely that the best rider does not win. On this forum people constantly argue about the best way to get to a worthy winner of the Championship. Despite disagreements on how we think this is best acheived we generally agree that we want the most worthy winner. It does not look like the FIM share that view.

But the 'gate pick according to points scored' could be done without pomp or ceremony, even in an ad break. The randomised draw that Olsen is talking about would take just the same time. What is more troubling is that the FIM Director of Speedway actually believes that for the highest points scorers in the first twenty races to be given the pick is actually unfair. Whether he turns out to be right or wrong on what has been ratified the tragedy remains that Olsen is in a position of such power and yet so befuddled.

Is this a sign of dementia?

Georg Transpurger may have been inept. But he was certainly not Polish.