arthur cross

Even those early-season 2014 crowd figures show that all 8 sides are still comfortably averaging over 1,500 with the prospect of any last-day regular-season qualifying-deciders and then the play-offs themselves boosting those figures a bit further. Back in our Elite League, how many teams are struggling to even break the 1,000 barrier ? !! Birmingham were certainly well short ... of the remaining 9, how many of Lakeside, Swindon, Eastbourne or Belle Vue are averaging 1,000 ? ... surely none of them are anywhere near Vargarna's current 1,681 !! Remember that's an average of 1,681 so you're probably looking at being guaranteed at least 1,300 turning up on a rain-threatened evening against low-key opposition while making the most of 2,000 enjoying a glorious evening against superstar visitors. I'd reckon that leaves only 5 of our Elite clubs in with a fair chance of drawing crowds to match the smallest Swedish-Elit average. Over to any Coventry, King's Lynn, Leicester, Poole or Wolves fans for your realistic assessments of where your club's current crowds would fit into those mid-season Swedish stats ... is your team at least matching Vargarna's 1,681 or, better still, within reach of that middle-order pack of Swedish clubs just above 2,500 ? By the way, Vargarna's admission prices are as follows (£1 = 11.7 Swedish kroner) so they're charging a little beneath our Elite prices rather than inflating their crowd-figures with dirt-cheap tickets ... adults 170 (£14.50) ... seniors 120 (£10.25) ... children up to 15-year-olds 50 (£4.25) ... under-12's free.

As I roughly explained several pages ago, the following scenario is totally possible ... Firstly, make sure the fighting fund's never made available to the busted speedway company so it never becomes an asset of that busted company ... Then, if the fighting fund's organizers feel catching-up the track-rent is the top priority towards any resumption of the Brummies, try to strike a private deal with the GRA to use part/all of that fighting fund to settle what they're owed by the busted company so that the GRA withdraw entirely from any list of creditors awaiting any degree of payment from the dregs of the busted company when it's finally wound up ... If the GRA choose not to feature on the eventual list of creditors sharing out those dregs, there's not much the rest of the creditors can do about it beyond moaning that they feel hard done by. Yes, there's also the downside for the fighting fund organizers that such a policy will probably alienate at least some of those remaining creditors from then supporting any revival of the Brummies ... hence, ultimately, it's a question of fully ranking the whole list of creditors in a brutal order of who's the most important for the future to settle-up with and then seeing how far down the order of that list the fighting fund will cover (or, if it can be done, striking separate deals to satisfy each creditor as far along working through that list as possible). Admittedly, in the Brummies' specific case, they don't just need to square up financially with the GRA to make proper progress ... they also need the GRA's goodwill to welcome aboard any new speedway promotion for 2015 and that aspect of the repair-work between the Brummies and the GRA could be even tougher than stumping up whatever rent's already owed.

All these offers from other clubs to honour Birmingham season-tickets are very welcome when there was no automatic need for such offers to be made. But given there's a much lower take-up of season-tickets in speedway compared particularly to football (especially as the speedway season cuts across more holiday-dates than any autumn/winter/spring-based sports), how many Brummie fans are actually eligible to benefit from this offer ? Perhaps 100 ... surely 200 at the absolute most given it was clear in mid-winter to prospective Birmingham season-ticket buyers that the 2014 team wouldn't hit the 2013 heights even if the horrendous nosedive wasn't so obvious at that stage. So ultimately these are kind offers from elsewhere that won't make much actual difference.

It's called "speculating to accumulate" and if you (or anyone else at the Bees) can't recognize one of the most obvious circumstances speedway could encounter of this simple economic principle, then you're well and truly in the dinosaur age down at Brandon. Less than 20 miles away from Brandon, despite what were clearly dwindling attendances at Perry Barr, there are still several hundred "weekly paying" Brummie fans who suddenly in mid-season have no team of their own to follow but might be a bit more tempted to (at least temporarily) switch their support to Coventry if the mildest of sweeteners were pushed their way by the Bees. All Starman2006 was suggesting (and has explained further since) was "some sort of offer" ... for example, how about nominating one Coventry home meeting in a few weeks' time where anyone who brings along 3 different Brummie programmes from this season gets £2 off admission along with that night's programme free of charge. Ok, on that night some Coventry regulars might be able to save a few quid off what they'd normally give you if they can cobble together the required Brummie programmes without having been to Perry Barr themselves. But surely that modest downside is worth risking for the PR-upside of the Bees being seen to have considered all of Birmingham's supporters (not just the relatively modest number of season-ticket holders because speedway doesn't have the same season-ticket culture attached to football in particular), the financial upside of still getting significant gate receipts from the Brummie fans who take up that offer ... and, most of all given the Brummies look most likely to settle for Premier League status if any revival happens at all, encouraging the current Brummie fans to make future visits to Coventry if their own team's once again in a different league to Coventry from 2015 onwards. And I doubt many of Coventry's "weekly payers" will complain about still having to pay full price that night compared to Birmingham's "weekly payers" if it's properly explained in advance that this is a one-off marketing gesture reflecting the horrible situation at Perry Barr. Your reaction to all of this so far ... confusion ... then bemusement. Better stick to chatting with your pterodactyl and stegosaurus pals, hadn't you ? !!

But if you re-read the first of Starman2006's posts about "weekly payers", there was never any suggestion that this category should also be let in to Brandon free of charge ... instead, just the phrase "some sort of offer" was used as a way of pointing out that maybe it's in Coventry's interest to encourage all of Birmingham's supporters along to the Bees' meetings. All Neil Watson then did was admit confusion and ask for an explanation of the "weekly paying" reference ... if someone in his position within speedway needs any explanation or clear-up of so basic a reference, I stand by my earlier comment that it's staggering ignorance on his part.

Truly frightening that as experienced a club administrator as yourself needs to ask (having admitted confusion) for an explanation of what a "weekly paying" Brummie fan means, especially when the poster who made the original reference conceded it was a more awkward situation to sort out than Coventry's kind offer towards Brummie season-ticket holders ... surely that was enough of a clue or explanation in itself !! If your confusion about as basic a concept of "weekly paying" is common among your fellow speedway administrators, no wonder plenty of clubs are struggling for supporters ... at most clubs, at least 70% (and often well over 80%) are "weekly payers" rather than having season-tickets so they'll all be delighted to know you struggle to understand how they pay to show their support for their club. Staggering ignorance from yourself on this occasion.

No chance whatsoever of houses being built anytime soon at Perry Barr ... it's the only one of the Greyhound Racing Association's four remaining tracks (not including currently defunct Oxford) whose operations are done in partnership with the local city council whereas the GRA's freeholds of Belle Vue and Hall Green (south-east Birmingham) have both been sold to private businesses in recent months and the future of Wimbledon remains a battle between a 21st-century greyhound redevelopment and AFC Wimbledon's arrival in their home town more than 20 years after Wimbledon FC left their ground further along Plough Lane for their ground-share with Crystal Palace. That's an extra level of sadness within the Brummies' plight (or extra level of anger towards the Phillips regime) ... all this wretched saga has happened at a stadium that's NOT in danger of redevelopment. What a (hopefully only temporary) waste of an unthreatened facility !!

When even the person who claims to have appointed those "joint administrators" chooses not to identify them in his statement, how can the outside world seriously believe such appointments were ever made ? !! It strikes me as another version of Charles Phillips claiming the Brummies were owed 5 lots of "points money" from their away meetings without ever admitting how up-to-date they were with sending any similar points money to the clubs who'd ridden this season at Perry Barr. You can't seriously expect to pick up much sympathy from your sob-stories if you're not going to be fully accurate about what you've done at your end of those sob-stories !! - - - - - - - - - While today's closure is clearly a particularly horrible part of this awful saga, I'm glad in one respect because it's saved the nightmare scenario of a hefty chunk of the generous donations to the fighting fund being used up hurriedly in what always looked a near-impossible task of salvaging this season's fixtures. Much better to use the extra-time leading into the 2015 season for both more fundraising and the more accurate allocation of the money that's already come in. Correct in the sense that if Birmingham Brummies Ltd have gone bust, that company couldn't pick and choose the degree to which they paid off their different creditors from any sale of their assets. But if the organizers of any fighting fund choose not to give any of that money to Birmingham Brummies Ltd during any busted sell-off, then once that busted sell-off's done and dusted there's nothing to stop those fund organizers choosing to direct their money towards any particular debt that was never tidied up by the old company's collapse but which needs to be soothed in order for a newly-formed company to resume a similar style business. A situation like that would clearly be another kick in the teeth for the reputation of the old company's management ... but given how low that reputation's sunk already and when the use of the Perry Barr track from the GRA (as stadium landlord) is such a crucial part of any revival of Birmingham speedway, carrying out the situation I've just described is about as good a solution as both the GRA and Brummie fans are going to get !!

Ultimately, is there much difference between stay away fans voting with their feet and individuals getting out in good time like Phil Morris or Graham Drury, rescuers being reluctant to come back in like Tony Mole, prospective new investors never actually being identified (before proving reluctant as well) and the GRA never making any public comment as the Brummies' stadium landlord in the 3 weeks since Alan Phillips wanted out. Instead, what they've got in common is that none of them have been willing to prop-up the Phillips regime as its nosedive became ever more obvious. On that BBC-WM programme a couple of Saturdays ago, two things stood out for me that highlighted just how steep that nosedive must have become. Firstly, given the general nature of the British climate, it was laughable for either Alan or Charles Phillips to want to use a couple of abandonments or wash-outs as one of the excuses for their struggles ... any realistic promoter factors in the expenses of at least "1-in-8" bad-weather meetings (and ideally, "1-in-6") into their overall budget so that a couple of rain-offs in quick succession are just an awkward problem rather than a dreadful crisis. Secondly, when told live on-air by BBC-WM that the BSPA had declined to appear on the programme due to concerns over Alan Phillips's health, neither Alan nor Charles made any effort to counter that unusual reasoning from the BSPA ... no attempt even to bluster out something along the lines of "how dare they start having a go at my health, never mind having a go at how I'm running the Brummies" ... instead, the programme moved into its next phase with that BSPA reasoning being left totally unchallenged. If someone can't even defend something as basic and fundamental as his own health when it's challenged in public in such an unusual way, no wonder nobody else wants be on-board behind-the-scenes with that person or his family ... and, in turn, how much blame can you really put onto stay-away fans carrying out their own version of dissociating themselves from a regime so dreadfully out of its depth.

But the difference with the GRA compared to just about any other obstacle in this financial saga is that money alone probably isn't going to repair the damage of the Phillips regime and allow a resumption of the Brummies. Gett Handbag is absolutely right to recall the GRA's attitude elsewhere that once speedway becomes any sort of awkward problem at any of their tracks, they find it all too easy to wash their hands of the sport at that particular track rather than battle through such problems. Has there been any official comment from the GRA over the past fortnight to confirm either their initial change in attitude (seemingly refusing any speedway access to Perry Barr) that seems to have prompted Alan Phillips to want out or any news from their end of any subsequent negotiations to find a solution ? ... I haven't seen a single word from their side with any media reports only going as far as mentioning the BSPA would be having talks with the GRA to resolve the current track-rent debt. I don't think it's been really mentioned on this thread so far but, from my perspective, it looks incredibly useful that when the BSPA guaranteed those 2 Brummies away fixtures at the end of June, they didn't just safeguard the meeting on the day Alan Phillips wanted out (Poole - Wed 25th) but also the only remaining away fixture for the Brummies on a GRA-owned track (Belle Vue - Mon 30th) as Birmingham had already been to Belle Vue in mid-May. That means if any way can be found to complete this season for the Brummies, even if it takes them borrowing other clubs' tracks to hold their 11 remaining home meetings while sorting out their Perry Barr debt to the GRA, they don't need any further access to the away-pits of any other GRA-owned track. But I can only repeat that while it's bad to let a track-rent debt grow out-of-control with any stadium-landlord, it's downright suicidal if the stadium happens to be run by the GRA ... I fear many hopeful and well-meaning Brummie fans are still struggling to come to terms with this terrible angle of their club's problems.

Robert Lambert's case for doubling-up/down is a freakish one because he didn't turn 16 (early-April) until this season was already underway and, therefore, can't fulfil the usual doubling-up/down requirement to have a calculated average (Elite or Premier) from the previous year simply because he wasn't old enough to ride in either of those leagues at any stage of the 2013 season !! Don't forget as well that neither of the last two British "teenage superstars" wanted to fill-up their 16-year-old schedules with double team-places because Lewis Bridger made a big thing of going straight to the Elite League at that age while Tai Woffinden happily settled for just a Premier place at Rye House ... fairly obvious by now which one of them made the right or wrong career-building decision there !! So in this era of much more common double team-places, there's no real previous example of what to do with someone as young as 16 who appears keen to take on double commitments (and is clearly talented enough to be a good attraction at Premier League tracks) with only his youthfulness causing a problem with the rulebook. The chances are that old chestnut "for the good of speedway" will be trotted out if a Premier club is able to fit Lambert into their 1-to-7 on an average reflecting what he's already achieving in the Elite League ... Newcastle's attempt to sign him back in May required not only that chestnut but also counting him as a 3-point newcomer at Premier level when he was already in the main body of an Elite team !! As for future team changes ,,, Ty Proctor's average becomes 6.40 for the rest of July from tomorrow onwards (a week after his 4th qualifying home meeting covering both his short Plymouth-2013 spell before injury as well as his current time at Sheffield) so he's still listed at 9.22 for tonight's rearranged trip to Scunthorpe. Once he's officially 6.40 that leaves Sheffield 3.06 under the 42.50 limit, so their available points for dropping any of the current side (3.06 plus each rider's July average) would be 10.13 for Leigh Lanham ... 8.18 for Andre Compton ... 6.87 for Simon Nielsen ... 6.81 for Taylor Poole ... and 6.64 for Josh Bates. Meanwhile (just briefly as this is Sheffield's thread but it's already been mentioned above), over at Newcastle, all of Stuart Robson, Ludvig Lindgren and Lewis Kerr have increased their averages since Danny King was squeezed-in on his 11.18 converted-average in mid-May so the whole Diamonds lineup now totals 44.77 and that means even a proper Premier average of only 8.91 for King after next Thursday's trip to Sheffield (his 4th qualifying away meeting) would still put the Diamonds on the total limit of 42.50, thus preventing any strengthening elsewhere in their lineup despite the change in King's status.

All credit to the Monarchs for staying unbeaten this long but I've reckoned for a while (without it being mentioned much elsewhere) that the controversial postponement at Peterborough in early-May did this remarkable run a big favour at the time ... and the re-staging on Sun-20-July will almost certainly be the toughest threat to it judging by Peterborough's recent results. And while I fully understand the reason for Paulco starting this thread to compare 2014-Edinburgh with 1991-Arena Essex, I think I might take the astonishingly strong-in-depth 2004-Hull lineup against either of them !! ... towards the end of that season (admittedly with bonus points included at that time), all those Vikings were listed with 6-point averages or better !!

Twice in that BBC-WM interview, following-on from his statement earlier in the week, Charles Phillips claimed that the Brummies are still awaiting their "away money" from the clubs who hosted Birmingham's last 5 away meetings. I don't blame BBC-WM's Mark Regan for not asking the vital questions in response to such a claim ... he can't be expected as a radio presenter to know the nitty-gritty of speedway finances. But until the Phillips family confirm whether they're up-to-date with sending the away money to all their opponents who've visited Perry Barr, this claim that they're owed 5 lots of away money is an obvious sob story (especially to non-speedway fans) that needs proper scrutiny, especially if it's actually the case that Birmingham owe any particular club more away money than they're claiming is being owed to themselves by that same club. So it's up to either Alan or Charles Phillips to answer these simple questions ... where, in relation to the overall debts the Brummies have run up, does the club stand regarding any outstanding away money to teams who've visited Perry Barr ? !! ... and if there is outstanding away money like that, once it's factored into this claim of being owed from the Brummies' last 5 away trips, how many clubs then still owe the Brummies ? !! Only if the first answer is correctly "the Brummies don't owe any away money to other clubs", thus rendering the second question unnecessary, does this claim by Charles Phillips about being owed the last 5 away monies deserve any credibility at all. I think you've been confused as to the various strands of why Tony Mole was on the BBC-WM programme. He is the Honorary President of the BSPA, not as you put it "the Chairman" (that's Edinburgh's Alex Harkess). All it amounts to is a ceremonial title bestowed on Tony Mole by the BSPA a few years ago as a type of "lifetime recognition" award for his vital work behind-the-scenes at a number of clubs, among which happen to be both the 1980's and current versions of the Brummies ... such a ceremonial title doesn't carry either a waqe from the BSPA or the need to attend any of their business. It was his close ties in the past to the Brummies plus potential future ties as well that led to him appearing on BBC-WM rather than in any official BSPA role ... however, the fact of that Honorary President's role undoubtedly gives him a particular perspective on what's going on at the BSPA and that was brought into today's programme. And as I've explained earlier in this post, any claim from Birmingham that they're owed 5 lots of away money requires as much scrutiny at Birmingham's end as it does at the BSPA's end.

Yes I've listened, not just to the BBC-WM interview, but also to various angles of this awful situation who've taken the trouble to get in touch with me following some of my other posts on this thread in recent days. And you're perfectly entitled to state your own personal opinion like you've just done above. But chucking a potentially libellous statement arond like "it's because the BSPA didn't want to keep it open" when, sure enough, you've confirmed you lack any knowledge to back it up and swiftly admitted it's just your personal opinion utterly deserves what you feel to be aggressive contempt. No-one with any well-respected speedway knowledge or clout has made any effort whatsoever to defend either Alan or Charles Phillips since this story exploded 10 days ago ... surely if they'd been badly treated by the BSPA or anyone else, someone would step forward to be quoted in their defence ? !! Don't hold your breath waiting for anyone to do so.

I don't easily leap to the BSPA's defence as a rule but, on this occasion, you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. All the BSPA have done so far by annulling any licences held by the Phillips family is make it clear, in the wake of the chronic debts that have been run up, that they don't want the Phillips family involved in speedway anymore whether that's still with the Brummies in their current plight or at any other club in the future. That clears the way for it to be worked out what's the way forward by a combination of the BSPA, the Brummies' fund-raising supporters and anyone interested in financially propping up Birmingham. Clearly, the way the Brummies have been run lately in the Elite has gone horribly wrong to the extent they currently don't seem to have access to anything to do with speedway at their home track ... such chaos isn't going to be magically solved in a flash, not even with shedloads of money thrown at it, because a hell of a lot of goodwill needs repairing as well ... it also needs to be established what's a realistic level for the Brummies to tick-along safely in the future without tumbling back into another round of this current trouble. Ask anyone at Plymouth in autumn-2012 how hard, and it proved successfully, Alex Harkess battled to find a solution to "life beyond Mike Bowden" for the Devils ... the BSPA hate seeing any club close. If you're going to start chucking round a comment like "it's because the BSPA didn't want to keep it open", perhaps you'd like to explain in more detail your reason(s) behind making such a statement. I doubt you've either the knowledge or the guts to do that ... go on, prove me wrong !!

If the one big league is achievable, you're either going to have to settle for 6-man teams or several fewer teams than currently ride in the Elite and Premier Leagues. Why ? ... because there are no so many riders either double-teaming or even (in the case of a few of the fast-track reserves) triple-teaming. Merge the Elite and Premier into one big league and, hey presto. a lot of those doubling-up riders can only have one team space in the new big league instead of the two they currently occupy. Depending on Birmingham's future, there are currently 22 or 23 teams in either the Elite or Premier so one big league for them, keeping 7-man teams, is going to need 154 or 161 separate riders who, in an ideal world, would be fairly well matched against each other. Hold on a minute ... because of all the current doubles and triples, the entire lineups of every Elite, Premier and National League 1-to-7 at the moment only covers about 180 names filling the 224 team places ... and that includes any 15-year-olds allowed to ride at National level only !! So if you want one big league with 7-man teams you're going to have go much further down the National League averages than the fast-track reserves currently go to help British riders, or bring in more middle-average relatively-affordable foreigners to keep the action more competitive ... which of those options do you prefer ?

In short, if Birmingham's results disappear, not a great deal !! I did a "with and without" table plenty of pages ago on this thread ... the main headline was that Swindon haven't completed any meetings against the Brummies (both the ones they started were washed-out no-results) so the teams in the few places above the Robins are all dragged much closer within their reach. Leicester haven't met the Brummies at all while I'm fairly certain King's Lynn can afford to lose the 10-points from their 3 wins over Birmingham without being scared of losing top-seed for the play-offs. The full deductions from any expunging of the Brummies would be ... Wolves 2-meetings 4-points ... Eastbourne 2-m 3-p ... Lakeside 2-m 7-p ... Coventry 2-m 3-p ... King's Lynn 3-m 10-p ... Poole 2-m 5-p ... Belle Vue 3-m 6-p

Several points to sort out here in separate chunks ... The new Sky deal that started this year isn't as generous to the Elite clubs in lump-sum money as used to be the case in the 2009-2013 deal ... and given that the Sky money from that previous deal used to be vital for financially propping up quite a few of the clubs, it's hard to see how the lesser money that's maybe still to arrive from any new Sky deal can be set aside, ready to pay back the "going halves" investor, while everything else (turnstile-money, sponsorship, etc) is enough to keep the day-to-day bills of a next-to-bottom club ticking along (even allowing for the reduced riders' wages compared to previous seasons by having the fast-track reserves). Is there going to be a schedule of dates/amounts on which Charles is required to match whatever's been added to the fighting fund since the last matching-point (for example, once a month or every £5,000) ? ... having steered the Brummies into their current dire situation, surely he's got to understand he's got to show he's keeping pace with the fundraising rather than just promising to match it eventually. Following Tim Stone's sudden death in 2008 grinding Newport's season to a halt, the BSPA will not allow Charles (or anyone else) to be a sole promoter of any club ... there have to be a minimum-of-2 and a maximum-of-3 co-promoters accepted by the BSPA so if someone with promoting experience is being brought in to look after the day-to-day running of the club, that person will have to be an official co-promoter rather than just Charles's useful assistant. Almost certainly the most important part of Charles's overall statement, except it misses one vital aspect ... are Birmingham up-to-date with sending the "away money" from their home meetings to the clubs who've visited them ? !! ... if not, are those away monies included in the £50,000 total debt quoted or, much worse, are they the type of debt lurking in the background that yet's to emerge ? For those not familiar with the "away money" rule, within a couple of weeks after each meeting the home side must send the away team a payment that reflects how many points (tacticals not included) the away team's scored with graded amounts per point for heat-leaders, second-strings and reserves ... the rule is particularly important for each club's cashflow when a pair of meetings between two clubs are several weeks apart because otherwise, for example, a team that's done its away fixture in April would be waiting until the home fixture in June for the turnstile money that's got to pay its riders for both the April away wages as well as the June home wages. Often, if two teams have a pair of fixtures against each other just a few days apart, they'll agree to tally-up the away monies once those meetings have both been done and then there's just one smaller payment that needs to be made by the lower-scoring club over the two meetings ... for example, if there's a 52-38 home win followed by a 48-42 home win, rather than 38 away-points being paid in one direction and 42 away-points being sent the other way, all that's needed is for the loser of the 2nd-meeting to send the small amount that correctly reflects it's got the bigger away-bill. And if you're a next-to-bottom team like Birmingham, you're not going to have many situations where someone else needs to send you the bigger away-bill from a pair of meetings ... instead, it's normally going to be you tidying-up that bigger away bill while the other club can justify it's already paid you even if it's not actually sent any money by confirming it's simply awaiting your tidy-up. So Charles's claim that 5 away tracks haven't yet contributed to the Brummies needs to be put alongside further info from him about how up-to-date Birmingham are with their away contributions from the meetings at Perry Barr !! Good that he's accepted there's a lack of trust in him but that situation's only going to improve if he puts something positive in front of all the dismayed Brummie fans like as early as possible a match-up from his own money to go alongside any initial fighting fund donations. But he's got a long way to go if he can't see the irony of the same paragraph saying he accepts there's a lack of trust in him but that the "going halves" investor needs to be assured the fans will still turn up to meetings despite the bloke they understandably don't trust still being half-involved !!

I wouldn't be wasting my time wondering whether he's "telling the truth or more half truths". If Charles Phillips has listened to an offer like that and been so impressed by it that he wants to make it public knowledge, then Charles Phillips should never have been allowed any financial responsibility beyond continuing to store a few coins in his childhood piggy-bank !! How the hell is a loss-making next-to-bottom team for the past 3-&-a-bit months (and currently out-of-favour with its stadium-landlord) going to make £25,000 profit in the next 3-&-a-bit months so that the "going halves" new investor can have his rescue money returned to him on time ? !! I've seen plenty of financial cluelessness with speedway but that might well be the new number-1

My previous post has clearly zoomed way over your head. I'm not suggesting you "wait weeks to think about it" ... instead, I've recommended you use these early weeks working hard but in a different way that's all about finding out as much as possible about how much money you're going to need and, only once the figurework's clearer, then collect the money. In the meantime, let people enjoy their hoildays (if they're able to afford them) ... if they care that much about the Brummies, they'll still donate in the autumn (after they've paid for that holiday) the same money they'd donate now. Of course, you "want our team back" ... that won't happen unless anything that needs tidying-up with the GRA is carefully done rather than rushed .... that won't happen unless the BSPA-AGM in November accepts a new Brummies promotion and accepts it into a league place ... and, unless there's a fairytale rescue that permits a resumption of this season's fixtures, no-one's going to actually see "our team back" in action until March ... so, I repeat, while working hard behind-the-scenes, why the mad rush to get the money on board now ? !!

Tonight's Coventry line-up but using their Premier League averages where those already exist ... 1. Simon Lambert (G) - 3.00 at Workington 2. Lasse Bjerre (G) - 8.00 at Peterborough 3. Cameron Heeps (G) - 4.78 at Ipswich 4. Kenneth Hansen - only rides Elite on a 5.85 average that converts to 9.36 Premier 5. Chris Harris - only rides Elite on a 6.78 average that converts to 10.85 Premier 6. Jason Garrity - 6.34 at Rye House 7. James Sarjeant - not in a Premier 1-to-7 so can be a 3.00 "National League guest" at that level 3.00 + 8.00 + 4.78 + 9.36 + 10.85 + 6.34 + 3.00 = 45.33 Season-starting team-building Premier limit is 42.50 Meanwhile, as you'd expect from an unbeaten team this season, Edinburgh's 1-to-7 (still intact from being under the limit pre-season) has a set of July averages with a total nicely beyond that original limit. In fact, Craig Cook 10.62, Sam Masters 6.92, Max Fricke 6.90, Steve Worrall 6.76, Justin Sedgmen 5.82, Derek Sneddon 5.31 and Aaron Fox 3.33 give the Monarchs a current total of 45.66 In other words, Edinburgh's Premier 1-to-7 is a third-of-a-point stronger than the Premier-calculated Coventry lineup that's currently trying to avoid getting thrashed at the Elite League leaders !!

A great aim in theory to hand the money back if the Brummies don't come to the tapes and I hope it doesn't get to that stage. But while the full wreckage of the Phillips regime remains to be unfolded, surely there are going to be some modest costs along the way while anyone else finds out whether Birmingham can resume in 2015 ... then, if it's not going to work out, you can't live up to that pledge to give everyone their money back because some of that money's been spent in good faith but, ultimately, in vain. Increasingly I reckon everyone trying to drum up any sort of Brummies fighting fund probably needs to take a deep breath for a couple of weeks to let more details of the existing debts emerge. There's been nothing to suggest the Brummies have any hope of resuming their 2014 fixtures so why the rush to gather up that fighting fund in double-quick time ? !! ... Monday's meeting at Belle Vue by all accounts had the current lineup's farewell written all over it, the BSPA have already been quoted about when that lineup will become free agents, Belle Vue have already been parachuted into Birmingham's trip to Leicester on Saturday and even Tony Mole has decided an immediate rescue's not for him. Given there's 4 months to the BSPA annual general meeting setting up the 2015 season and then another 4 months to that season actually starting, it must be far better to spend the next few weeks finding out the depths of the current debt, starting the negotiations needed to bring goodwill back towards the Brummies and, most importantly of all, establishing a much more accurate view of how much money's needed so that the fundraising can be far more efficient than the current desperate scramble. Yes, there's a lot of hard work ahead for the Brummies fans ... but well-thought-out hard work is usually much more successful and enjoyable than hastily-thrown-together hard work.

Very surprised someone who's usually among the most realistic and sensible posters on this forum has come up with so much utopian rubbish on this occasion. It's often hard enough at the moment finding a suitable guest, especially to cope with an injury one night requiring a guest booking the next night ... now you're restricting clubs to only being able to use guests/replacememts from clubs to which they're already linked. All you're going to do (on a far too regular basis) is force a team manager to book a guest several points under-strength because that was the only guest left that ticked the club-tie-up box ... hey presto, that guest proves dreadfully uncompetitive just when nearly everyone on this forum is crying out for evenly-matched line-ups !! Clearly there are some semi-official tie-ups already in existence ... one you'll be well aware about already is a prime example with King's Lynn as a Wednesday-Elite track having both its reserves in Newcastle's 1-to-7 using Sundays in the Premier. But good luck telling either Rob Lyon or George English that their options are restricted within that useful link when they need to find a guest !! ... and what happens (especially with rescheduled fixtures once the weather's taken its toll) when linked clubs are all racing on the same night ? !! The whole concept of "guests allowed or no guests at all" is another debate entirely but if you're going to keep the concept of guests, forget any club-linked loyalty ... the vast majority of fans will gladly accept a guest as "one of ours", even if it's only for that night, the moment he wins a race for them or unexpectedly beats a much higher-rated opppnent ... similarly, I've seen plenty of guests clearly wanting to do well when riding for that club for the first time ever, mainly because they wouldn't mind the same phone call again if it needs making in the future !! And as for having a spare pool of Elite number-1-standard riders willing to be on some sort of standby for the odd guest booking ... how on earth are you going to fund that, either by all the teams collectively persuading a couple of riders like Nicki Pedersen or Andreas Jonsson to have a couple of bikes handy somewhere in the UK ready for them to fly in at short-notice when they're needed somewhere or, alternatively, each team putting a dent in its cashflow by paying its occasional superstar a retainer to guarantee he'll keep a stack of dates in his diary clear in case that emergency call comes.

A very realistic view of getting the right balance between well-meaning fundraising and actually solving the problem. While I repeat it's wonderful to hear about so many heartfelt offers of help, not only does there need to be a properly-assessed target of what amount of money's required but also a fair target of what this fund's trying to achieve. Is this fund simply aiming to wipe out the Brummies' existing debts so that a fresh promotion can spend the next few months working out the best way to make a debt-free fresh start for the 2015 season ? Or is this fund also aiming to prop up being able to complete the remaining 2014 fixtures which have little chance of breaking-even or being profitable on their own given how few riders are available in the short-term to strengthen a lineup currently in the bottom two of the Elite League (admittedly while not yet having had a chance to race any of its 4 meetings against bottom-club Leicester that might make the Brummies' overall record look a bit better) ? A couple of days ago, I posted on this thread how vital it's going to be to accurately target in the right order where any funds need to be spent. Personally, if the initial fundraising target's £10,000, then (and I make no apologies if anyone thinks this sounds harsh) that might barely be enough to get the GRA's extra padlocks off any speedway areas at Perry Barr and square up a few other vital off-track bills, never mind bringing into view next year's fresh start or the rest of this year's fixture-list. Just 3 weeks of outstanding stadium-rent plus the latest month of doctor/ambulance bills would probably eat up well over £7,000 ... make it 4 weeks of stadium-rent and May's medical bill as well and then the whole 10-grand's gone straight away without paying anything that might be owed to the riders or other clubs or the Brummies' matchday staff. Then there's the one massive item that can't be priced up in all of this ... the GRA's willingness to let anyone else promote speedway at Perry Barr and risk another rent debt piling up even if the previous debt's settled for now. Perhaps the biggest clue as to just how deep the Brummies' debts may be is that it took just 5 days (last Wednesday to yesterday) to go from the whole story exploding in the first place to both Nigel Pearson and Alex Harkess either tweeting or being quoted along the lines of last night looking like it would be the club's final meeting with a timescale to make the riders free-agents already in place ... if significant folk like that can reach such a glum conclusion so quickly rather than battling hard to salvage the situation, I dread to think how much debt's already stacked up. Therefore, as a modest estimate, I'd reckon it's going to take well over £30,000 just to square up what's already happened this season before abandoning the rest of it to concentrate on that 2015 fresh start ... and you can easily double that figure to guarantee propping-up the rest of this season's fixtures. It wouldn't surprise me if even £100,000 (and yes, I have put the right number of noughts on that figure) rather than £10,000 could prove a more accurate fundraising figure to really rescue Birmingham. Absolutely fantastic if 100-grand is collectable to save the Brummies ... but don't complain if smaller targets early in this fundraising process get swallowed up even faster than they're pledged. Maybe it's become all to easy for some Elite League clubs to get into the habit of using the early part of the next season's Sky money to round-off the previous season's bills. This is the first season of the new Sky deal that almost certainly makes that habit tougher to continue. But if the previous season's bills still need rounding off ... ?

Maybe because, relative to the size of its local population, speedway often does better where it's one of a fairly small number of sporting or leisure entertainments on offer ... but once it's up against a bigger city's wider range of alternatives, some of those alternatives prove much more attractive. I appreciate there are notable exceptions to that rule like Coventry and Wolverhampton which can clearly combine sizeable populations with above-average speedway crowds and have done so for many years. But if towns like Berwick and Workington can attract speedway crowds to rival the local football or rugby teams, then Glasgow and Newcastle ought to be attracting five-figure speedway crowds given how many football fans turn up every week at Ibrox, Celtic Park or St James' Park. You're a King's Lynn fan and while I'm well aware how hard the Chapmans have worked to build up the whole motorsport business of their venue, they've always had the incentive that they didn't have much local competition to overtake on the way to being that area's top sports attraction with all the marketing benefits that then open up from being the local number-1. One of greyhound racing's unashamed marketing strategies is to appeal to those wanting a lively night out by offering a fairly cheap "6-pack" deal of food, drink and betting tokens to get their customers' spending habits for the rest of the night easily underway ... the subconscious idea of those 6-pack tokens is that it gets even complete newcomers quickly aware of where they need to go for the rest of the night to spend more of their money on further bets and booze. Greyhound racing purists can argue it reduces the sport they love to simply being "a night out where the dog racing happens to go by" ... arguably though, it's a necessary evil for the dog track management to ensure there's still enough overall income to keep making their racing profitable. But speedway seems stuck with overwhelmingly a purists' fan base that simply turns up to watch the racing with any general social aspect of the night out a much lower priority ... in marketing terms, speedway has a very low "secondary spend" from its crowd while the action's going on, especially if you include buying a programme as part of the "primary spend" of getting into the stadium in the first place. Sheffield have made an even bigger effort than usual this year to plug their carvery meals at every opportunity as a bid to bolster their crowd's secondary spend but that still appears to be an exception rather than the rule. Sadly, very few of our speedway tracks benefit much from the secondary spend unless they have a cut from it written into their rental agreement with the stadium lanadlord and I also appreciate it's much harder to market the boozier side of a good night out at speedway unless it's at a Friday/Saturday track enabling most of the fans to sleep off any hangover the next morning ... the examples of Berwick and Workington I mentioned a few paragraphs ago are both Saturday-night speedway tracks where the after-racing social side has always been a significant part of the whole night out. Generally, 21st century leisure nights out are increasingly about "an occasional good night out at different places where something specific happens to be going on once you're there" rather than the more simplistic 20th century version of "going to the same place for the same night out at the same time each week" whether that meant a pub-quiz, a bingo hall or a speedway-track ... in that regard, on a wider level than just the Brummies' current woes, speedway must face up to that change to avoid falling further and further behind.