Dave the Mic

Sorry, but I repeat, I'm not missing anything. So you think it is "safe to assume" Berry was operating in the best interests of the sport, rather than try and keep his star asset at a pay rate below market level? Of course. As has been said since my post, we are talking an era where genuine speedway superstars raced in the UK, unlike today. The likes of Sanders, Penhall, Mauger, Olsen, Collins, Lee, Jessup, Michanek, Autrey to name a few were racers in that day who put bums on seats and any club would want one of these guys in their ranks. The kind of money the likes Olsen , Mauger, PC would have been on would have been stratospheric in comparison to what Billy was likely to be on and he was trying to better his deal. I think Grand Central and blupanther have hit the nail rather firmly on the head. In no way was Billy in the wrong for trying to get a better deal, but the way JB tried to stop it was wholly incorrect and I feel your assumption that he was doing it for the good of the sport is misguided at best. I can't believe Tony, you honestly believe what you're saying. Speedway promoters have never been graced with the best of reputations. Back stabbing each other, bending the rules, screwing each other over, trying to deals with riders behind the backs of the club that owns a riders contract. It's like it now and it was like I then. Two of the main reasons speedway in the UK is in the mess it's in (and there are lots, which would take a week to write about) are the fact that it is run - allegedly - by a group of individuals from member clubs, who, generally, rather than looking after the interests of the sport as a whole are more interested in their own end. And secondly, the greed of promoters in the past who, rather than invest in the future of the sport by looking at building their own stadiums or tracks, simply piggy backed off the back of stadia that already existed, therefore, money that could have been invested in the infrastructure of the sport for its future, went into the pockets of the GRA, rugby clubs, and football clubs, to name a few, whilst the promoters raked off tidy profits. That has now led to a situation where most tracks can only run on certain days in this country which has, in recent times caused another issue. The UK, once the centre of the universe for speedway, is now a poor relation. Poland and Sweden operate much more attractive league systems for increasingly mobile and busy racers, as they race on the same day every week and so riders can commit easily, whereas here the fixture list is all over the place, which is why we have fewer and fewer stars racing here, meaning less people through the turnstiles. The sport is in 2014, British promoters still thnk we are in the 70's when top line riders only raced here, not in every European country going and a 12 round GP.

Tony, with the greatest of respect, I'm not missing anything. What was attempted was a cartel. Whichever way you look at it, it stinks. John Berry wanted to keep,his star rider "in his place" and attempted to do so by trying to ensure no one else would offer him a better deal. At the time Bill was one of THE top men in speedway. Why would he not try to get a better deal? I agree that many lesser riders, particularly in the sport today, are trying to get paid more than their ability would suggest they are worth and that may well also have been the case then. However, Sanders was a star and genuine draw card and should not have been prevented from obtaining a deal commensurate with his status. I'm not suggesting that James or JB didn't do a lot for Billy, but preventing him from getting paid what he was worth was not to his benefit, regardless of how you may see it. Finally, the financial situation then in speedway was a "little" different to the situation now and based on your comment, riders should not have been able to negotiate a better deal if they could get it. Really? Was John Berry not saying in fact "i want to keep my star rider on what I want to pay him, as I want to keep him on my terms"? I doubt many, if any of the top line riders then, or now, would accept or have accepted this kind of going on, why should Billy?

Like pretty much everyone else on this forum, I love speedway and hate the place it's in at the moment. Like some others, I also quite like James, but his views, sadly, are reflective of the sports hierarchy in the UK today., who a prepared to take our money on the gate, but treat fans like plebs. Indeed, having worked for a few clubs in my time, some promoters and other officials refer to the fans as plebs, which is pretty derogatory, given how much fans plough into the sport year after year. James' view that fans can't have an opinion just because they don't happen to run a track is as crass as it is stupid. I pay on the gate when I go and in my view that entitles me to a view. Just because I don't run a club, doesn't mean I'm not entitled to a view. If I travel with James and I feel I want to comment on the service provided by his company. Then I am entitled to a view on that product, aren't I? Surely, I don't have to own a travel company to be able to comment? I don't recall any promoter, past or present being forced into taking up the reins at a track and if they bleat about losing money, I don't really see why, given that they either would have carried out the necessary research, in which case they would know what they were going into and if they didn't do their research, then bigger fool them. Regarding the issue with Sanders, why shouldn't a rider get the best deal he can? That is typical of the mindset of some promoters - my way or the highway. If Billy wanted to negotiate a better deal, then he should have been able to. I am happy in my job, but if I felt a change was in my interests and could get a similar position elsewhere with more pay, why should I not try to? And should my employer be able to control what other potential employers would offer me? And we wonder why speedway is in a mess. Honestly.

Hilarious series of posts. There are some brilliant people on this forum. Not everyone has brilliant spelling, literacy or grammar and you just accept that. Except the despairing literacy teacher who can't punctuate his sentence. And it's a surprise our literacy rate in this country is among the worst in Europe, is it? You couldn't write it, well not in a grammatically correct way, anyway! So it would seem.

Obviously, he's lying as he has so much to gain by doing so, hasn't he? 25 years on. Please.

.

Precisely, which is what I have been saying all along, that double points is ridiculous. You have been saying the "old TS" rule was a poor one, saying that there were daft rules in "PC's day"' - the rule you refer to is a modern day phenomena and had nothing to do with era in which PC raced or ran BV speedway, so what has it to do with him? So perhaps you should check your historic facts before you comment. You obviously don't watch that much football as away goals count double in all European cup competitions when the scores are tied after two legs.

Sorry, but this is a very silly post. Mauger won 6, Fundin 5, Briggo 4, Olsen 3, Gundo 3, Hans 3, Moore 2, Penhall 2, Craven 2, Young 2 etc Never mind the great riders who won a single title, PC, Lee, Janno to name three. All of whom were fully deserving of their titles. Even Szczakiel, (sorry Sidney) deserved his title. It wasn't a one off performance as many, including you, would like to believe and on the day, the man who was arguably the bests around at the time made a massive error, whilst Jerzy didn't. So who deserved it more? Analyse the best riders in the world over the one off period and the list of riders that won titles. They won't be much different. Do you think the likes of Olsen, Mauger, Briggo thought the way you do? As an example, I was at Munich in '89, which was the worst track in one off final history. There wasn't a single genuine overtake in 21 races. Who won? Nielsen. Why? Because he had a load of bites at the cherry over 10 rounds? No, because he needed to make five starts and did so. The only other rider that could arguably have had a chance at Munich was Gundersen and Hans wasted him. Lottery? No, Hans had to make five starts to win that day and he did that better than the other 15. Or as another example, take PC's win in '76. Lottery? Don't make me laugh. Do you think the gate positions mattered in heats 3 and 7, when he went past five riders for fun, including Louis and Simmo, arguably two of the best around at the time. No. He was just the best and gate positions meant nothing. And before you say they were both one off meetings. It matters not as Nielsen in '89 and PC in '76 were the best and demonstrated that all season, as the vast majority of winners of finals did too. I did enjoy the world finals and I enjoy the GP's too as it goes, both have flaws but I don't subscribe to the view that the current system is necessarily fairer. I don't see how it can be, when riders are handed a place in a championship rather than qualify. Incidentally, part of my enjoyment of the old system was the qualification system - I know it meant that some deserving riders fell by the wayside, including some of my favourites, which always disappointed me, but I still enjoyed it and the final, even though my favourite rider wasn't there. For me, that was part of the appeal. The GP is a closed shop as you say and also as you say, only a handful of riders in the GP, as in one off finals actually really have a chance of winning it. You may have read my other post about Jerzy. He may not have had the stellar career of Mauger or PC even, but he was no mug and he made Ivan look silly that day, simply by not budging. As such, I sort of feel he deserved it that day as Ivan made a massive mistake and Jerzy didn't. That said, I fully accept your view and that of countless others who have lamented his victory.

Football, both rugby codes, ice and field hockey, NFL. That enough? The point you can change your side at any time regardless of being in front or behind is exactly the point. So my point isn't void. In any case, you can bring a reserve in a any time in speedway, even if you are 20 in front. So the difference is? Regarding world finals, the point is, they had qualified on merit because they qualified. Im not saying the new system is incorrect, nor the old one, both are flawed, but your argument was that the new system was fairer. How can it be, when there is an arbitrary committee who decides some of the field? Much as i am delighted he won, Tai Woffinden would not have been in the 2013 series on merit. The no hopers you refer to I suspect are Eastern European riders. Mmmm, well that's an interesting one. Perhaps you just looked at a period of time in World Fianls when Eastern European riders didn't do so well, especially at Wembley, for example. However, when finals were staged in Eastern Europe, there were many riders from Europe whom outscored riders who had qualified from the west. Don't dismiss the point as invalid as you can't quote examples. Plenty of "more deserving riders" bombed out in world finals and indeed in the qualifiers. There is a qualification procedure for major championships in every sport and big names sometimes fall by the wayside during the process. Does it devalue the championship? No, it's part of the competition. What you advocate is a committee choosing the top 16 riders on the basis that they are the best. So no one else gets a chance. Brilliant. I don't remember anyone saying that the rule book has never had flaws, of course it has, but the rule changes we have seen in recent years have been more to do with promoters trying to shore up a failing system, in part, due to their own failings. The sport is a great one, the basic product the same. It just isn't run right these days and what PC is advocating is looking at the rule changes as they haven't halted the slide. Unless of course you can tell us differently.

Is it? How silly of me to think that in almost any team sport on the planet, you have the opportunity to make changes to your team to try and reduce a deficit and in many you can make tactical changes when winning too. they are all wrong are they? I'll let FIFA, UEFA, the FA and football league know, along with the governing bodies in ice hockey, both rugby codes and field hockey know, so they can amend the rules for you. And you think every speedway fan thinks the same do you? Really? How many of these have you asked? And regarding the qualification system for world finals, who said it was perfect? Not me, but at least many, many riders had the chance to QUALIFY, rather than now when most are hand picked and only a handful of riders have the opportunity to even attempt to qualify - and even then, only for the following year. Of course the GP is so much better, isn't it? I think he was a truly great rider, but how can it be right that when Mark Loram wins the world championship without winning a single GP. in addition, if you believe many on this forum, half the field in the GP series have no chance of winning the title, which makes them no hopers too. Perhaps if we just have 8 riders in the world championship, hand picked every year, that would be perfect. Based on your logic, Egon Muller, Jerzy Szczakiel and Tai Woffinden would not have won their world titles, all of which were deserved - and riders like Eddie Jancarz, Igor Plechanov, Antonin Woryna, Bernt Persson, Gordon Kennett and Tommy Knudsen to name a few, would never had reached the rostrum in World Finals, as they certainly wouldn't have been picked, but they did qualify and deserved their top three placing. Likewise, how about Grigori Chlynovski, who was controversially excluded in the farcical end to the '73 world final and Viktor Kuznetsov, who scored double figures at Katowice in '86, beating Gundersen, Nilsen and Morton among others.They raced through several rounds to get to the final and performed brilliantly. By your measure, they wouldn't even have been there. And there are others too. Further, only the hosts - not the holders anymore - are seeded to the football World Cup nowadays and every single athlete that gets to the Olympics has to go through a qualification procedure. No one is there by right, why should speedway be any different. What you suggest is that the two biggest sporting organisations on the planet, FIFA and the IOC have got it wrong too. Of course they have!

I did wonder Ray! No problem. And thanks. I always try to see more than just my own POV, sadly not everyone on here can say the same! Interesting what you say about the green helmet. I was under the impression it was for them to use it with "SkyBet" so the colours coordinated? Obviously not and thanks for your input.

Are you suggesting the tac sub rule where a team 6 points down could replace a rider with another in better form? I'm sure you aren't, perhaps I have misunderstood your posting. If, however, you are suggesting that rule was a laughing stock, then you can't be serious? A team member performing poorly, replaced by another on a like for like basis - doesn't that happen in the biggest sport in the world? Indeed i did. And there are those who have not only suggested he has nothing to offer (SCB wasnt one of them) but some on here also simply insulted one of the best speedway riders ever, which they should be ashamed of, regardless of his opinion being being good, bad or indifferent. Tsunami, most of the changes of a tactical nature were done simply to appease Sky, such as the green helmet cover and double points rules. The reserves plan is a good plan, but in Sweden and Poland, they are of a higher standard in most cases and many of these youngsters will trail round half a lap behind. Not that the principle isn't a good one, because clearly it is. I don't think anyone is angry with the sport as such, just the way it has been run into the ground by those in charge. I don't thnk anyone is advocating a return to some of the things you refer to per se, but the reality is, much of what was good about speedway then has disappeared from the sport today and it is on its knees in many ways. Coincidence? Possibly, possibly not, but the reality is, many of the changes made have not helped one bit. I'm not narrow minded, not at all. I have spoken to many outside the sport, that I have tried to introduce to it, but have lasted one meeting because some of the rules don't make any sense. I isn't about my opinion but common sense. Riders riding for two or three different teams a week for one team and against it in the same week and riders finishing second scoring more than those that win a race. Even in the GP's riders winning GP's but not scoring the most points. It's not my opinion, but those of neutral fans who haven't seen speedway and I have no argument against them, because THEY are right. And they won't go back. It won't stop me either. I love speedway and that is why these kind of issues are so vital. PC didn't suggest going back, but suggested that the steps "forward" we're anything but. I suspect if someone asked him for input for some new ideas he would proffer some. So having to qualify for the World Final was stupid? Of course. And replacing an out of form rider with another in better form was stupid too. Presumably substitutes of a similar nature in football and rugby, to name two other sports, are stupid too? The reasons for many of the changes made were to halt the slide in people coming through the turnstiles as it was felt something new was needed. Others were made due to the demands of Sky. The truth is, value for money has been eroded over time and we get 15 races for our £15+ now, rather than 20 plus. Perhaps if promoters actually promoted as they did many years ago and provided an evenings entertainment that represented decent value, rather than 30% less races and a watered down product at the top level, falsely called an Elite League, more people might turn up. A bit of advertising, promotion and trying to attract new fans, rather than preaching to the long converted might help a bit too.

You are quite right to suggest that not every ex rider necessarily makes a good promoter or administrator. Nobody is suggesting that. However, what you seem to ignore is the fact that he was responsible for saving one of the most famous clubs in speedway, errr, as a promoter. I don't think there is anyone who is suggesting that he has all the answers and I am sure he doesn't think he has them either, but the points he makes are entirely valid and some of the rules he refers to have been poor additions to the sport and make it a laughing stock, such as the double points rule, among others and I can't see anyone could question that. It has nothing to do with yearning for the past, much of the sport today, is as it has always been and it still has many fine qualities. The basic product is right, but there are too many ridiculous rules and too many of the sports administrators are interested only in their own end and not the sport as a whole. Speedway in the UK isn't in such rude health that the comments of one so well respected can be dismissed out of hand. It's not as if those in charge have done a great job in recent times, is it? Truth is, they need all the help they can muster.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mort, Rosco (not sure about Middlo TBH), or the two Louis' input or opinion isn't valid, are they. But to suggest the view of one of the most revered figures in speedway, someone who has done everything, spectator, rider and promoter and by the way, saved one of the most famous clubs in the world from extinction, doesn't have something to offer is as stupid as it is ignorant. To suggest his opinion isn't valid, that he is living in the past and that the points he raised are irrelevant is ridiculous. Speedway is in such a great position compared to 20, 30 and 40 years ago, isn't it? Clearly the promoters of today have got it absolutely right and someone like PC has nothing to offer. Right. Finally, to call one of the finest exponents of speedway, EVER, an old northern bloke who likes chips and gravy is a gross insult and that person should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Not sure who said it, but I would also happily pay the £17 to any track where he watches his speedway. The sport needs him like it needs most of the rules PC referred to.

I can't believe anyone on here thinks they actually know better than Phil in terms of the correct protocol having been followed regarding rider selection and nomination. He has said several times what the procedure was and the sequence of events that occurred, but of course those who have their own agenda (slating Harris, or promoting the virtue of their own favourite) will argue black is white that they weren't followed. Truth is, you have no idea and I would take his word over any body else's here any day of the week. And why does anyone think that the FIM should make us all privy to their rules and protocols? Do you understand or have access to all the rules the FIA have for say, F1? Probably not. Why is this any different? Good on Phil for being prepared to put the facts on here, because he isn't obliged to. Reality is, Harris was prepared to front up at Poole and stand and watch from the pits, regardless of getting a ride or not, when many, many others clearly weren't. Their problem (and some of yours), not his. Fair play to him for being prepared to turn up with potentially nothing to show for it apart from a long drive home after not racing. You can debate the issue as long as you like, but the riders you refer to (and many others) turned the position down in the first instance and then like many on here, bleated after the event. I don't see how any of them can complain if they turned it down because they didn't think they would get a place in the main meeting and then, when Zagar withdrew, they wanted a place. Now very genuine of them. Not one of you can criticise Harris in all honesty. He wanted to be there and was, when others couldn't be bothered to make the effort and good luck to him. I'll be cheering him on in Cardiff, even if he scores five last places. Just as I will all the other riders, because they all deserve our support, not our criticism. If you don't like the fact that he is included, blame the farce that is the wild card system in the first place. Riders should have to qualify for a place in the world championship in my view, not be handed a place because they have had some misfortune along the way. I have nothing against, say Chris Holder, who was a worthy champion and will probably be champion again, but injuries and the like are part of this great sport of ours and you have to take the rough with the smooth. It's called life. Did Ole Olsen get special treatment in 76, Peter Collins in 78, Hans Nielsen in 92, Gary Havelock in 94 along with many others who have fallen by the wayside in World Championship qualifying rounds over the years for a variety of reasons including injury, mechanical issues or whatever? No. You either qualified or you didn't and if you didn't you tried again the next year. I used to love the qualification rounds for the championship and attended many, many meetings of that ilk over the years and there was always a big name or two that failed to get through one round or another when you felt they were nailed on to qualify. It was part of the beauty of the competition and its a great shame it still isn't that way for my money, because you at least had 16 riders on the big night, ALL of whom had earns the right to be there. As it is, five of them, yes including Harris, if you like, have been handed their place rather than earning it.

This is great news, but I have a question:- I subscribe to the paper version, but would like to switch to the online version. Is there a way I can transfer my current subscription to the online version, or would I have to wait until my current year long subscription expires? Thanks

You're as blind as Iris. Read the posts before you spout off. And please don't call me stupid, you've never met me. The fact is, for some riders at the bottom end of our sport, it's an expensive hobby. I know because I have worked in the sport and sponsored riders too. If you knew anything about it, you would know that's the case. As it is, you obviously know naff all about it.

I have read every one. Can you please just stop manipulating my posts to suit your own end. I haven't said your opinion was offensive. Not once. It's your blatant lack of respect for these guys risking their lives that offends me.

Yes they are. But according to you, your opinion is absolutely correct & you couldn't possibly be wrong. So, as you would say, I'll explain it again, shall I? I didn't say they do what they do to entertain us. If you are going to have a pop, then get your facts straight. I simply said that they risk their necks to entertain us. If you aren't entertained, don't go & watch. Simple. In the main, the reason speedway is sometimes not entertaining has nothing to do with the riders, who in almost every case, put in 100% effort every time they go on track. Blame the track, the weather, the machinery, the promoter, but not the riders. They all compete & a bi-product of that is entertainment, even if you can't see that. Your entire reasoning is based on my saying that riders only race to entertain the likes of you & I, but at no point did I say that. Nor did I say it was one of their prime reasons for racing. Not once. Only you did to serve your point. None of that is offensive, not at all. But what is, is your belittling of the "old one" as you so quaintly put it, of riders being at risk every time they race. You call yourself a speedway fan, but you are happy to see these guys, some of whom are killed & seriously injured each year, slated by other so called speedway fans & then make light of the fact that I refer to it, because it assists you in trying to prove your point, because it seems so important to you to be in the right.

Sadly Phil, I think it's a waste of breath. Never let the facts get in the way of venting your spleen about a rider you don't like. Most people on here have slated Harris & also Lingren & Jonsson for that matter based on their inclusion in these meetings. There is no "fault" or blame to apportion, but many seem to think there is & the vitriol poured out on these guys is simply not necessary. I am in no way having a dig at you, but I think's Phil's comment about sour grapes is probably correct.

Yeah, yeah. All in your opinion. So in your view, it was all a conspiracy to get Harris in the GP. Of course. Especially as Cook was offered a place before him. And at no time did I say they were doing it all just to entertain us. I said, that they risk their necks to entertain us & indeed, they do. And the reason it isn't worth your answer is because your comments are offensive and you have no defence.

I wasn't going to reply to this, but the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to. I respect all views on here, we all have an opinion & are entitled to it. Your comments here though are laughable. The average scores are not relevant, not because they don't fit my thinking, but because they are not relevant in the process for qualification from the meeting in question. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it was Harris, Ricky Wells, Ludvig Lindgren or Ian Botham to be honest, but the point is due process was followed (see Phil Rising's post, he having checked with the FIM) & no one took up the vacancy in the meeting, so the FIM offered the place the British Authorities. The fact is, Harris wasn't the first rider to be offered the place, but when offered it, took it because he wanted to race, when others didn't. So how is it "illegal"? By what law? The White House, The European Parliament, ADAC, Judge Judy or yours? However, all this is insignificant really compared to your other comments. Entertainment is a subjective thing & it's very sad for you that you have been to meetings where you haven't been entertained. Personally, I am entertained at every meeting I see, because I marvel at the skill & bravery of the riders who go out on track in all conditions. Your comment about making money isn't especially valid. Do you think the lads in the NL & let's say PL reserves make money? Nope. And to say riders don't think about the fans is as ridiculous as it is inaccurate. It is doubtful that there is a sport where the riders interact with & are so involved with the fans as they are in speedway. I am the director of a business in the South West & we employ 8 people, myself included. We continued to employ those staff over the last 5 years during some of the most difficult economic times this country has ever seen & we sustained a six figure profit for all of that time, whilst still providing a high quality service. We aim to do business with every client we see. Of course, we don't ever achieve that & don't expect to, but does that make us a failure? Of course it doesn't. What you suggest is the essentially every rider is a failure if they don't entertain you & every rider that doesn't win every event they enter is a failure too. Is Nicki Pedersen a failure because he didn't win the GP this year? What about Jarek Hampel or Greg Hancock. And what about Edinburgh Monarchs? Are they failures too. The answer to this is no, of course they aren't. Not everyone achieves what they want to achieve all the time, but it doesn't make them a failure. And finally, the "old one" of risking their lives for our entertainment. Mmmm. They know the risks, I get that. I have followed speedway for long enough to understand that. But it doesn't lessen the fact that it's true & you pouring scorn on this fact does you no credit all, given that you are using it simply to try & push home your opinion. I have been present when riders have been killed, Tony Sanford died about 10 feet from me at Exeter & I was also 20 yards away from Garry Stead when he was paralysed at Somerset just a few years ago & perhaps you would like to ask Julie Richardson & her boys about riders risking their very being whenever they race & see if she thinks it's an "old chestnut". Your comments are, from a so called speedway fan, disappointing, disrespectful & to be honest, offensive. All I would hope for is that riders entertain us & they do so & that what I wish for is that riders are safe at the end of a nights racing, which sadly isn't always the case. Who wins & who loses doesn't really matter, I'm a bit old for favourites. I don't really care what you think about my opinion, but your throw away line about riders wellbeing is out of order.

You cannot honestly believe this to be true.

An average finishing position of between 9th and 10th over that period is not the performance of an average rider at world level. Andy Smith was never given a wild card. He either gained his place through the series or qualified through the challenge. Quite. Correct Phil on both counts and thanks also for confirming what I had said previously, which was that 1) The GPC and qualification is run and sanctioned by the FIM and is nothing to do with BSI and 2) That the correct procedure for Harris' inclusion at Poole was followed.

I don't remember saying he was more deserving of anything, just not deserving of the slating he was getting. I'm no fan of Lindgren, particularly, but he has won a GP as recently as last year, reached several finals and been on the rostrum and has raced and scored double figures in World Cup Finals for what has been a pretty strong Sweden team. Henhas also performed consistently in league racing for a number of years and not just in the UK, as you suggest. In 2013, his Swedish league average was almost identical to MJJ's. In addition, GP finishes of 10th, 9th, 11th, 8th, 9th, 11th in the last 6 years, hardly make him an average rider. I'm not defending him as a GP rider, his time in that regard may well have passed. The points I made were simply against those that were slating him so mercilessly. I suspect a good proportion of those doing so were also those cheering him at Cardiff that day and when he races for England. The rights and wrongs of him being offered a place at Poole can be argued as much as you like, but he cannot be criticised for accepting the place he was offered. It isn't his fault he was asked to race and given the chance, why would he decline?