500cc

I blame the BSPA. The ultimate "they couldn't organise a ..... in a brewery" !!!

We shouldn't forget that Sky have no influence on the way the EL is run !!!

It's good to see a proper fixture list. 2 Home and 2 Away. I'm sure though, very soon we'll hear from riders who object to that level of commitment. Fortunately the new points limit doesn't require a team to employ riders from the category where we will hear the discontent from. I'm a MASSIVE believer in getting more Brits into the EL, and have argued before you need to take one step back to take two steps forward in this area. But even I fear this has gone to the extreme. Depends what really happens, but it shouldn't be NL directly to EL. The fact it's a money cutting exercise under the guise of British development tells you everything you need to know. But at least the exercise involves British rider development. Hopefully all the mistakes in this process (there will be many as loopholes are encountered) actually turn out to enhance this for those youngsters.

Although a great opportunity for youngsters, that is quite a change to designate where a rider must ride. The US sports system basically dictates where a college sportsman plays his professional sport. Even in the US it isn't unheard for a player to refuse to go to the team that drafted him, instead (for example) playing in Europe and effectively forcing a trade. Not sure any of our UK professional sports force a player to go to a team they don't want to. Not sure if teenage speedway riders is necessarily the time to buck the trend !!! Therefore, I'd be surprised if it was a draft in the typical US style.

If it comes off then I absolutely agree that should happen. I think there probably will be a TV deal. For the BSPA to agree to it, I think the TV company will have to agree to cover all production costs which aren't inconsiderable. I very much doubt there will be any direct sponsorship. So that is a shortfall of £100,000 per team. Plus I expect each team will need to contribute money towards a fee to Terry Russell for brokering a TV deal. There is a heck of a lot of money the British Speedway must source from somewhere. We understand Peterborough were losing a £100,000 a season. We know that each extra fixture (we have 4 more this year) for a number of teams is just a further financial loss. Like you I'd love so see money going towards young British talent. I actually fear any money will be required to actually enable the season to finish with the same starting 10 teams.

You'd assume the the conference addressed the problem of Outgoing exceeding Income even with a million pound a year sponsorship. Then again maybe not !!!

Hasn't anybody realised why its NL riders? NL riders are British only. The BSPA believe that restricting reserve positions in a fully professional league is illegal. They've also tried to convince the Swedish authorities if the illegality. IT ISN'T ILLEGAL under EU rules. But the BSPA still don't understand this.

I doubt anybody is arguing that Ford isn't the leader by a mile when it comes to generating income for his team. As a negotiator he also does a great job. To get Holder and Ward (and credit to them) on cheaper contracts than many other riders in the league is quite a coup. I just don't think many of these other riders will ride in the UK if they were to earn at the same rate as Holder and Ward. Whilst those two are committed, I doubt many others are. Now if Ward and Holder continue to agree terms and ride that is fine. But at the same time I think the other teams should ditch their overpaid foreigners. I think they are a massive cost to the sport in this country, and many aren't worth that cost. It's time for them to build from the base upwards. Whilst Poole will dominate in the short term, going forward those teams can look to compete eventually. Costs though do need managing. As an entity, British Speedway can't afford the current set-up.

But Steve your so missing the point. The sport can't afford the riders. We are witnessing the final stages of self destruction by the self centered attitude of the majority of promoters. You are suggesting that if Holder and Ward don't ride at Poole its the fault of other clubs. Now I'm impressed that Matt Ford has an extra £100,000 worth of sponsorship available for next season, but can you expect many or any other teams to generate that kind of increase. I certainly don't see it.

The problem with that is its effectively the equivalent of only one riding in the UK. Surely it would be preferable if they were to both ride but for different teams. That has always been the case historically and there is nothing about he modern situation that should mean that's not applicable (with the exception of whether the UK can afford them in the first place. The other issue is that a job share would generally cover all dates. It doesn't resolve a Friday night at Lakeside the night before a GP. In fact, in terms of preferred meetings you'd assume they'd choose virtually identical meetings. And more generically what would other teams do in this situation, because I just don't think many of the top riders are interested full-stop. My view remains. Don't prevent Holder and Ward riding in the UK, but equally don't create a rule specifically to suit their needs, especially one the option to ride for different clubs in the UK exists. There are enough holes in the strategy of UK speedway. Don't make it worse by making some clubs stronger and others weaker in order to support individual riders who are probably out of the price range of British Speedway as a whole.

Just for clarity on my comment I do see some slack here: 1. I don't object to an otherwise unavailable rider attempting to participate in GP qualification rounds to try and keep alive next season's dream. 2. I also don't object to a rider returning from injury, or even working through an injury and choosing leagues he will and won't ride in. I do object to riders picking and choosing the country they ride in ad-hoc. This miss one, ride one syndrome is just taking advantage of the situation. You either sign yourself off the UK for a period or you ride. In the end it all returns to the attitude of riders. You could fairly easily compile a list of which riders would pick and choose the UK and which would be all in.

My perception (and maybe wrongly) is that Polish speedway is bank rolled with some huge payments to riders that are way out of kilter with the general costs of that country. You ofcourse could make a similar claim about the English Premier League. Sweden is interesting. I was paying £5 a pint in Stockholm is the 90's, so it feels like a much richer country. To me its a bit like where the UK was in terms of most top riders having a British team. The set-up (as you mention) is far more suited to riders. Now maybe the wages are nearer Polish one's than I realised, but I'd thought they were good rather than extraordinary. Poland rides once a week. I'd expect riders to look for other income that was worth their while. If the bubble burst in Poland would the riders still get enough income from their other leagues. Would Russia be an alternative? I don't know in fairness. I just get the feel at the moment the it is Poland where the big money is based (SEC also for example) and everything would change if that were no longer the case.

Not sure need is the correct word. Ideally it should be as you suggest, just not sure today that can still be the case. Aspire to. Absolutely. Prevent him. Absolutely not. The issue really goes back to my previous post (response to foreverblue). Ideally the likes of Chris Holder should be a boon to Speedway in the UK. But we may have (sadly) reached the point where what should be a benefit actually is having a negative impact. Matt Ford has himself (I believe) stated that Holder and Ward could have ridden their last meeting in the UK. Now, you have to assume if it were Ford's choice he would have both of them in his team. So we can only assume that is due to factors like less money in the sport or reduced point limits. Even with the latter, you'd assume one of them would still ride, because if that prevents it then there is no Tai Woffinden either. If it's financial, then if it's an issue to Poole, then you can only imagine what is happening at some of the other clubs. So to my mind, we seem to be borderline whether British speedway needs the likes of Holder. Technically it would be that the current structure is unable to accommodate him, but the fall out of that is that (currently) it would have to be assumed he isn't needed. Please understand I'm not trying to create a case the kick the likes of Holder out of the UK. I just fear we've reached the point where riders of his ilk have become a luxury we can no longer afford. A sad state of affairs, but ultimately it may be better to sort the sport out and create a platform that once again supports the best riders in the world riding in the UK.

I think that is undoubtedly true. The key though is whether the sport can afford it. Does the cost of the top riders outweigh the income they generate? Possibly, but not necessarily. Through sponsorship the additional costs may be offset. It's the second level of the debate that is a bigger issue. Are overall costs being pushed up by the presence of top riders? I would suggest almost certainly. We know for example that to cover Ward's injury last year required Poole to commit £20,000 non refundable. Now Poole can afford that as they are operating at profit. As a model of running a Speedway business, I don't think many disagree that the template is good. But what is happening to the rest of league. To be competitive, they to must invest. Now generally in sport, the aim should be to aspire to those teams setting the bar. But what's happening here, clubs are trying to compete by spending more, but in truth most do not have the financial muscle (and in fairness business skill) to achieve this. So what happens to those uncompetitive teams. Again we can take note from Poole. They postponed a match this season due to the impact on their business from running with a noncompetitive team. In practice we have teams running like this on a regular basis, the only real solution to spend more money to resolve it. In the business world, this is how companies succeed, they defeat the competition, often into destruction. That's more problematic in sport. But in a sport fighting for its survival it could be terminal. John Cook's excellent Speedway Star interview this week illustrated the mis-management in the sport. Basically it illustrated why sponsorship was simply propping up the sport. More fixtures meant diluting the amount of money. As he explained, with a sponsorship pot of £100,000, for 14 meetings that gives around £7,000 over and above the gate money to pay the bills. For 20 meetings you only have £5,000 for the shortfall. Now Cook is being really realistic here which I approve of. The problem is that any business or sport that is effectively prevented from expanding due entirely to the costs of that extra work (not the cost of expansion in its own right) is in serious, serious trouble. Which brings me back to the point of whether the sport can afford the top riders. I think not in the current climate. It is time to re-build the foundation. Make the sport affordable again to all, fans, promoters, riders. Stop hemorrhaging money to the wrong places, air fares, accomodation, engine tuners etc. Four guys on a bike is what we want. I have zero interest on who is riding the best tuned machine. I wouldn't ban top riders, but they need to fit into the new infrastructure running at a manageable cost base. If they don't want to, that's their choice. You can't run a sport where the top riders are more important than the sport itself. Whilst I wouldn't prevent the likes of Holder and Ward riding, equally I wouldn't go out of my way to enable them to. That's admittance that the sport can't do without them. Then imagine if you did all that and they said (quite reasonably) thanks for making the opportunity, but we won't be riding in the UK next year; well you've made the changes to enable them to ride because the sport can't do without and now they've gone; you've just admitted the sport is nearly finished !!!

You really shouldn't be saying that. The first part of the quote you responded to was perfectly reasonable and just a matter of debate. The end of that sentence was potentially fuel to a response, depending on a person's viewpoint. But you really shouldn't link it as (I'm presuming) you have.

rmc has touched on a very important point. Rider apathy. Granted Speedway is probably the most dangerous sport. But is there any sport in which the "players" have such an influence. I can understand where riding conditions are dangerous and why on those occasions riders may object to riding. Fine I get that. But in exchange for that you ride and put in the effort in all meetings. If for example the BSPA choose to run a competitive individual second half you ride. If not, stay away. If your injured, your injured, you don't pick and choose your countries to ride in. Most professional sport is effectively run in a dictatorial manner. Speedway riders are given a lot of slack due to the danger of the sport. In exchange you need to extra committed. This is especially an issue with top riders (not all). Riders need to take responsibility for these issues. Poland may look financially attractive. Somehow I don't think it will last. Not least if ultimately it's Poland or nothing for the big money.

Do you have any insight on the BSPA's strategy. To me there are to issues at play here. Television Coverage and Sponsorship. There is some correlation between the two, and currently of course they are totally entwined. Virtually all the sound bites from within the sport highlight the financial part. But is everything focused on a single egg in an old basket. If a deal can't be reached then what? If a deal is reached but simply for coverage (no sponsorship) then what? Yes BT Sport gets a mention, but again, if it isn't accompanied by sponsorship then what? It is quite likely possible Sky will offer coverage but at cost to the sport. Is TV coverage in its own right a target, or is the sport simply looking for money? If its coverage is a highlights package of interest or only live. I suspect its money that's what the sport wants (especially as clubs say they lose income when their matches are covered). To be honest that's the wrong way round. Building from the platform of media coverage should be the target, but I think the promoters are beyond that point. The very interesting interview with John Cook in todays Speedway Star touched on how promoters viewed an increase in meetings as just a further reduction in the amount of money per meeting from sponsorship. That is a very worrying trend for a business, let alone a sport. Very, very worrying. So are the BSPA actively looking for a new source of sponsorship, or is this a one trick pony; TV Coverage including sponsorship. I said in the past, Sky renewal may be the worst thing for the sport as they just seem to hemorrhage it. To have any chance of survival, speedway must build from the foundations. Another large influx of money without a coherent strategy to use it would be a disaster.

What worries me is I keep hearing about team plans based on a team without Sky and a team with Sky. Whilst there is some logic associated with that, I fear the key point may be being missed. Sky as a media outlet for the sport is obviously a good thing (if handled correctly). But I think the promoters are focusing on money. If Sky renew (which I doubt anyway), I'd be very surprised if it's more than just televising the sport. It's highly unlikely, I'd suggest, to include sponsorship (quite a coup to be honest if the sport pulled that off). Even worse, Sky may well go down the route they have previously with Basketball and Ice Hockey, and ask the sport itself to cover the production costs, whilst Sky air it for free. On a related topic. Who is heading up any negotiations (or at least the attempts) to renew with Sky? If this is the previous negotiator, are the BSPA clear of their clauses with him. Last time he received a percentage of the sponsorship money. If a deal is reached to show the sport, but without sponsorship, a middle man (if there is one this time) would still expect some form of recompense for brokering the deal. I trust the BSPA are fully focused on managing this situation. If not they can always chat at the imminent AGM !!!

But Matt Ford said a team wouldn't dream of signing Pawlicki on a 7. So that can't be true. Or is the aim to sign riders on a false average !!!

The best survey I've seen was run on this site by Speedy19902006 with 399 respondees. Some of the results were very revealing and I'd suggest of serious concern to the sport. Figures like: 67.1 % have followed the sport for over 25 years 69.3 % are aged over 40 50.8% have an average round trip over 25 miles 29.1% rarely or ever attend speedway anymore 70% have attended a GP I'm somebody who falls into all those categories due to my total disillusionment with the way the sport is run in this country. Whilst the two teams I followed shut down in 2005 and 2008, it's only the last two years I've got totally fed up. I never thought I would. I find those figures quite scary, and whilst you can never trust statistics, I think the illustrate a sport that is (an unstoppable?) decline. I think nationally and globally the authorities have been asleep on duty. Their inability to evolve in line with the massive changes in how the world operates staggers me. Social media is an enemy (I'm no fan but a business these days must embrace it), the amount of money top (and many not so top) riders earn especially in Poland, the exorbitant costs of machinery and especially engine tuning, the slow running of meetings (unsatisfactory start and back to the pits is a joke in modern times), the total disregard to fixtures (both planning and cancelling), the public arguments between promoters, as starters. The Grand Prix series has its issues, but there is a product that actually looks like it fits the new millennium. EDIT: "I'm somebody who falls into all those categories". For clarity, I fall into the first two categories historically (!!!), but the latter three are where I am at now. Our "rarely" now consists of Cardiff only. As a weekly spectator for years, it's not good if others have the same "viewing" profile as we do now. Those first three categories aren't the type of viewing profile any sport would appreciate. The distance one alone is less of an issue (and even a positive in the right circumstances), but combine it with the age profile and that is really bad news looking forward.

Not quite as promising as it may read. Merton have designated it must include provision for Sport. Whilst that means an application could be submitted for sport in its entirety (e.g. two back to back stadiums), financially that will never happen. There is little doubt that housing will form part of any application submitted. What Merton (currently) won't support is an application with no sporting content.

Why on earth would Peterborough have agreed to call that match off. Not a hope. They would have fought to keep that match on and the fallout if they'd been forced to cancel would have been huge.

Probably pulled down by the opposition as Villa are better supported than Spurs this season. Mind you Man City only got 2,500 more for their match against the current FA Cup Holders, virtually half their average. And Man Utd lost 10,000 off their average despite hosting arch rivals Liverpool. Cup crowds these days are low in football; I mean in Elite League Speedway the cup crowds dipped to zero this year !!!

Although from an Elite League standpoint its interesting. More than half of the top 30 rode in the UK this year and two thirds in the last two seasons.

That looks like Wembley could be losing its status then !!! I've suffered similar with copying text on to this site. Can go very small