E I Addio

Spot on. My views entirely. Add to that the fact that we are now rid of the ridiculous system of meeting some teams once and some teams twice, although none of the moaners have applauded that. In a perfect world I would rather not have NL reserves ride in EL teams but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where clubs like Eastbourne were losing over £9 on every punter that walked though the turnstiles. In Peterborough's case it was nearly £10 lost per customer per meeting. Several others, including 2 of the 4 play-off finalists were losing big money. We clearly couldn't go on like that. The starting point for me is the if we didn't get more regular league meetings the sport would die anyway . That issue has been addressed. Having increased the number of meetings , costs clearly had to be cut. If some clubs were losing unsustainable sums in 14 meetings there is no point in increasing the losses by increasing the number of meetings without cutting the cost per meeting, and that's what they have done. We are where we are not where we would like to be. This could be the start of the long road back to where we want to be, but I think we should at least wait and see what the team sheets look like and how the season starts to pan out before passing judgment.

Wrong. Every year the riders get fixed up in Poland first, Sweden second and UK third because that's where the money is and that's where the sponsorship is, and if you doubled the UK points it would still be the same because the money abroad d is so much better.

To put the t/r rule in its proper context and to give it the importance it deserves they should do away with the black and white helmet and the rider on the t/r should come out in a clowns outfit with a red nose and riding a unicycle. I f that doesnt' work just give up and abolish the rule completely.

Whats wrong with "Ethnic Minority Jacks and Jills" you bigoted misogynist?

Lees previous convictions are in the public domain. Most speedway fans know about them anyway and its highly unlikely that a non-speedway fan will be looking on here. The jury system is very robust and you can't stop others talking about a case. Nobody is suggesting he has any relevant previous history of similar offences/

Load of bunkum being posted by the barrack-room lawyers on here Nobody has posted any facts that prejudice the case. If they do the mods will remove them. Until then we have freedom of speech in this country and are entitled to discuss the fact that it is indeed an unhappy episode in his life, and there have been other unhappy episodes, none of which are relevant to this case and therefore discussing them doesn't prejudice it.

Good. Everybody's happy then. :approve: Better close the thread now before sidney turns up and starts rocking the boat

Yep, you have got it wrong. Their was no great speech involved, and never was. Having got to the stage of having come to virtual agreement with bigcatdiary, which is very rare for the two us, I guess that if me and bigcat agree on something we must be right so I'll have to leave others who have difficulty following the line of discussion on the thread to talk amongst yourselves. Post number 48 pretty much sums up the situation, as I have already said. If anyone disagrees with that post then I can't help them any further. Time to move on.

That post is so stupid it doesn't warrant a reply.

At the risk of repeating myself the SCB had it listed for discussion on 10th July, but that is the last thing the public were told, so we don't know what happened. Not sure if you are trying to draw a distinction between "discussion" and "inquiry" but Lakeside previously asked the SCB to hold an inquiry into the cheating allegations against Poole in 2009 and a fat lot of good that turned out to be. It didn't take a request for an inquiry when Poole were on the sharp end of a cancellation by Belle Vue. They had someone down there the same day and the whole thing was done and dusted in about two weeks. That really sums the whole thing up. When the SCB want to act can get it done on no time flat, when it suits them to do otherwise, nothing happens.

I don't know if it has escaped your notice, but my comment was about the cancellation of the Poole-v- Lakeside meeting, which was in 2013, the Cov/Peterboro walk out was in 2010. Bit difficult to discuss these things when you are confusing different dates. If you are talking about the 2013 AGM Cook has already said certain issues will be raised and for all you or I know Lakeside and Boro might be working together. it would certainly be in their joint interests to, as they have both been stitched up this year and Cook and Frost seem to get on very well these days. We shall have to wait and see Then the differences between our respective points of view now are so minimal it would be splitting hairs to continue arguing about it. So many clubs are losing big money they are going to have discuss things more important than helmet colours etc, because if they don't their will be a number of clubs not running next year, in all the leagues. I think this is the closest we have ever been to complete agreement on a topic, which is a nice change

Whatever you think or don't think about Lakesides behaviour (and lets face it without information none of know all the facts) the fact remains that its a symptom of an inherently faulty system). Belle Vue have a dodgy pipe burst and the SCB have someone down there immediately. Kings Lynn call a meeting off three days in advance on the basically implausible excuse that they didn't think that their electricians could change a fuse in three days and the SCB didn't bother to ask why. It beggars belief to think that they wouldn't have been able to fix it the same day if it was the SWC or GP challenge that was about to take place. Then we have Peterborough cancelling a match because, if the press release is to be believed Trevor Swales is so dumb he asked "someone from Sky" rather than the SCB to clarify if he could have a facility for Kenny Bjerre. Whoever it was he spoke to ( Terry Russell we have since been told) said it "should" be OK but the SCB said it wasn't so we have another unnecessary postponement. And all that is before we get to the shambles of who did or didn't use illegal riders, and riders not being paid by some clubs despite the SCB being told when the captains signed the team sheets off.. I realise it suits some peoples agenda ( and it certainly suits bigcatdiary's agenda) to hang everything on Lakeside but its clear that flippant cancellations go much deeper than Poole-v- Lakeside but what exactly are Lakeside supposed to have done? Write to the Daily Mail ? Remember that in 2009 it was Lakeside that asked the SCB to investigate the allegations of Poole cheating and that was a complete waste of time. e know the SCB were supposed to be looking into the matter on their meeting of 10th July but nothing has been heard since. How do you know know the stories about Poole being fined are not true ? The fact that unless you have some inside information yourself you know no more than the rest of us. That is the point. Once again complete silence from the SCB is the root of the problem. Peterborough have said very little about the Kings Lynn appeal leaking out on the crucial day of the Belle Vue Poole match, and very little about Swindon taking their assets. Is that because they took it lying down or is it possible that Rick Frost has learned a thing or two since 2010 and now knows there is more than one way to skin a cat ? Bottom line is that the SCB is the ruling body of the sport and as far as maladministration is concerned al roads lead back to them.

It was being run in a shambolic way before that. The point that Stuart Douglas was making in his Speedway Star interview just before the AGM was that the sport was being run on a poor business model and it is the business model that had to change, not cutting the number of meetings. He said, logically, in my view that if you halve the number of meetings you halve your losses but you still have a bad business model. Unforunately the majority of promoters, in their wisdom decided to save costs by cutting the number of meetings but to stick to the same old bad business model so they still have big losses. I can't recite all the ins and outs of a three page SS interview plus various programme notes but logically its no good cutting costs if you still have a format that is losing big money thus we still have clubs like Swindon Brum and Belle Vue struggling to pay the bills and Peterborough only surviving on the generosity of decent owner. Whether of not the winters changes will bring about a better business model remains to be seen but I'm not holding my breath.

Spot on.That's the point I was trying to make earlier and which Halifaxtiger has already touched on. Unless we get clear statements from The SCB given a few facts relevant to their decisions there will always be a mixture of fact, fiction, gossip and speculation being discussed and that leads top disharmony in the sport especially amongst the paying public and that ot not a good thing. According to them, money forced them. They said they couldn't sustain the costs likely to be incurred under the proposed higher points limit on the crowds they were getting in.

As said before we can argue for ever and a day and it won't change opinions now. Boro and Cov at that stage had financial support from their owners, BV and Eastie were (and still relatively are) at the budget end of the market. Nobody forced Cov or Boro to buy/sign riders before the rules were finalised at the AGM, but that's water under the Bridge now. The sport didn't get into its present state simply because of 2010. The point of the thread is that we have exactly the same situation today that was being complained of by the promoters in May 2009. If you and others are of the opinion that its all down to what happened in the winter of discontent, fair enough, but personally I think the sports problems are much wider and deeper than that, and that the buck stops with the SCB. The SCB didn't want to rock the boat over the Poole cheating claims in 2009 and don't want to rock the boat in 2013, once again in matters that seem to involve Poole. The big question is why is the SCB, the sports ruling body, so secretive and so inept.

Belle Vue and Eastbourne said they would go under if they had to build to a 45 point limit so if that measure was passed they would have to leave the league. You call those clubs mug promoters but they know better than you how their income stacks up against their outgoings. You have only got to look at the crowds Eastbourne and BV were getting at that time to see they would have difficulty building with quality riders to 45 points. They struggled enough at 42. Fair enough your opinion that its only those who sided against Cov and Peterborough are completely to blame, as you put it for the continued deterioration in the sport and the League but my view is that the SCB bear a massive responsibility as well. we will have to agree to differ on the SCB's culpability in all this.

That is the point. We don't know what they have done because we are not old. We were told via Speedway Star that the Poole -v- Lakeside cancellation was going to be discussed by the SCB on 10th July and since then we have been told nothing. We have not even been told if that actually discussed it as planned or adjourned to another date. Then we have the Kings Lynn -v Peterborough appeal seeping out on the day of the Bellevue-v- Poole meeting and people are bound to think the worst. The whole thing gives the impression of being a big stitch-up and conspiracy. I am not saying it is a stitch-up but that's how it looks from a distance. The SCB could kill all this speculation by a few press releases on their website keeping the fans informed, and it is that lack of information, more than anything else that is sending the sport downhill.

There were lots of issues swirling around at that time. Stuart Douglas set out his position in an interview with SS in November 2010 but a number of clubs didn't want to listen to his ideas for stopping spiralling costs and the result is clubs now making bigger losses so we look like losing a lot of top riders in 2014 which is the very thing Duggo was trying to avoid if you read the article. Also when Cook and Douglas were calling for an independent body in May 2010, 6 months before the AGM Trump and Frost never came out at that stage and said "Yeah, great idea", it was only when it suited their purpose they started on about it. We can argue until the cows come home on the rights and wrongs of the winter of discontent, but nobody is going to change their opinion on it at this late stage. I am not saying that Cook, Douglas or anyone else is whiter than white. The issue that collectively the promoters have the sport in exactly the same position that two of their number were complaining about nearly 4 years ago. There may or may not be reasons why their cannot be an independent body, but there is no reason why there should be the "wall of silence" from the SCB that was being complained about. This is what really annoys me. The SCB are the body delegated by the ACU to have authority over the sport. On vitually every issue the fans are treated with the "wall of silence". Nothing is every explained, nothing ever clarified.It leads to speculation, some it accurate, some not so accurate, and fans be kept in the dark are leaving the sport. It would cost no more money and no more effort for the SCB to be more forthcoming and it would do a lot of good, but it never happens. It just leads me to wonder, who is it at the SCB, or who has control over the SCB that is responsible for this wall of silence?

Difficult to disagree with that.

That may well be the case, but one of the other complaints was the "wall of silence" from the SCB. It seems to me that seems to be at the root of a lot of problems. The SCB, rather like the Royal Family adopt a policy of "don't complain, don't explain" so fans are left in the dark, the sport appears to carry on like a ship without a rudder, fans leave and now it seems that sky are on the way out. A more open policy from the SCB could make such a big difference but nothing ever changes.

Because they wanted a 45 point limit that would have pushed Belle Vue and Eastbourne out of the EL. Swindon and Poole were also in favour of a 45 point limit but they discussed it rationally without walking out and were bright enough to see the damage that would be done. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation walking out is not the way to do business. The root of it all was that animosity between Ford and Trump. They were washing their dirty linen in public well before the AGM and it was always going to blow up between them for one reason or another. Bottom line is that in over three years nothing but nothing has changed apart from more fans leaving.

And the other parties are ?

Interesting statement here from Jon Cook and Stuart Douglas, pointing out that the sport needs an independent body, complaining about a complete wall of silence from the SCB, promoters stretching the rule book to the extreme, and allegations of Poole cheating. http://londonbikers....ritish-speedway The interesting thing is that it is so relevant it could have been issued today but in fact it dates from May 2009. The fans are entitled to ask what has been happening over the last 3 and half years, why are we in the same position today as we were then, are the majority of the promoters happy with the status quo, if not who is blocking the changes and why do the claims of Poole cheating persist season after season?

The inimitable Peter Karlsson