RobMcCaffery

Tina, don't worry. It takes passion to achieve something, especially in speedway. The knowledge will follow with experience.I'm very much of the school (a very old one) that believes if it's good speedway the title of the competition or its 'meaning' really isn't that relevant. Sadly we've seen the opposite attitude prevail in speedway for many years which in turn has come close to killing off anything that isn't league racing or the World Championship; challenges, individuals, pairs, four-team-tournaments and even second-half individual racing that did so much to bring on young talent. Enjoy Leicester. The old track was a special place, as was Hackney (crowbarring the discussion back on-topic ;-) ). Rob McCaffery.

Apologies then. The involvement of someone who cannot be mentioned on the BSF aroused my suspicions. Rob McCaffery.

You are of course quite right in most points but please cut Paul some slack over the use of 'Mickey Mouse'. Paul's one of the most genuine people I've met in the sport. I would disagree with him though about this view, but not lose one speck of respect for him. In many wauys this follows-on from my last posting and I apologise for leaving Leicester out of the list of 'nomad' teams, especially since their dream is now coming true. The problem is for every Hackney,, Dudley, or Rye House there was a Southampton - we were told in the latter case it was a serious attempt to get the sport back there but the jury is very much open on that one. It was easy for some promoters to put on challenges against lost teams just to make a few quid out of speedway-starved supporters. I'm sure in many cases the intentions were genuine to give fans 'another night'. Personally I'd have umpteen challenge matches against whatever named team, you like if it gave us back: Hackney, Cradley Heath Wimbledon Canterbury Ellesmere Port Oxford Reading Crayford (yes even them) and so many other tracks. I'd dare to include Rayleigh and I'm sure Paul would include Romford. Yes, it can be dismissed as dreaming but in several cases it's borne fruit as Leicester will find to their joy this year. A few challenge matches are a small price to pay, and anyway, if they're fun what's wrong with them? Rob McCaffery.

It's very simple. I've known Steve Ribbons for years and have been acting as a helpful ear over the phone for over ten years now. I was involved in the 99 Rye House revival and also with him at Wimbledon and Sittingbourne. I would have been helping out at Mildenhall where he wanted me to be the meeting presenter, an offer I hsad to decline simply through the distance involved. I did not get involved with Norwich/Swaffham because I didn't agree with the idea. As for my own credentials - forty years of following the sport, several years as a meeting presenter and announcer, including five years at Rye House, an occasional speedway journalist and for a frustratingly brief spell chief presenter and commentator on speedway for Britain's first dedicated sports TV channel. Yes there is plenty I don't know, and many others know far more than I but I think I've earned a right to be at least heard. Most of all, I've done my time on freezing cold terraces, hundreds of miles from home supporting my team and living speedway since I was first captivated by it in 1971. Of course I don't know everything that has gone with Steve over the years but I do know plenty, and far more than the vast majority of posters on this forum. When Steve came to me to tell me about Mildenhall I stressed to him the need for this one to work - that he needed capital and in turn the Fen Tigers desperately needed stability. Steve's finances now are very different from his days as a willing fan. It's very, very easy on a forum for hearsay and rumour to become 'facts' and indeed that has happened over Mildenhall this year. Now 25 Year Fan may have insight that I do not have but since he like most on this forum hide behind a false name how can I judge, except on what I read here. Make no mistake Rye House's revival was started by Steve, as was Wimbledon's. In the lattter case it is incredibly difficult to tell the story since an individual concerned has a hold over the BSF and has all comment about him banned. This posting may also be deleted for me just stating that. (I'm keeping a copy this time in case it is). It's hard to defend someone when the whole story can't be told. Steve has been harshly treated and yes his combative style has made important, influential enemies. There should be no confusion over an apparent conflict between my forum postings and my support of Steve. Both are based on my sincere beliefs. There is an old line of 'Give a dog a bad name..." Well I am furious that Steve wasn't given the chance to clear his and that the usual ill-informed judgemental rubbish keeps being repeated by those who really haven't got a clue. Now, this is about Hackney, not Steve, but short of transferring these postings to a separate thread I have no choice than to post here. In 1999 we were criticised for creating a nomad team in the form of Rye House, quite offensively and ignorantly by an individual in power within the NL. Well, I see the creation of Hackney as being a natural progression. Many others have been inspired by Steve's vision and supporters of Wimbledon, Redcar, Scuinthorpe, Weymouth and perhaps Dudley can be thankful that he bothered to do something, even though his reward has been so viciously undeserved. All of those were represented by 'nomad' teams following Steve's example. I look forward to seeing Hackney race on their own track again one day and it will be heighterned by the knowledge that I played my part in supporting a friend establish a principle - that someti8mes, if we dare to dream we CAN make a difference even if we get despised for doing so. Rob McCaffery.

Many thanks to you both. I just try to say honestly how I feel. It's very reassuring to know some are listening. I hope you both enjoy the season to come after this quite appalling winter. Rob McCaffery.

I trimmed the post after I'd woken-up.... Now I see that it and my original posting have both been deleted, presumably because I made a justifiably adverse comment about someone in Steve's past who has the BSF management running scared. I defend Steve because he is a friend and has earned my respect. By contrast I cannot respect someone who attacks another while hiding behind a pseudonym. 25 minute fan made a series of witless comments about Steve's past including an allegation that I had to refute: Bear in mind Steve recently had to take this poster to task: 'If the Rye House revival in 99 had to be rescued it was very well-hidden from everyone else involved, but then how would I know what was going on, I was only involved in it all? Yes further cqapital needed to be introduced to actually get the Rockets back to Rye House the following year but it didn't have to be performed the disgusting way it was.' If people prefer to believe the word of an anonymous critic against someone involved in what actually happened then good luck to them. My involvement in the sport is very limited these days and it is quite simply down to people like 25 Minute Fan, anonymous windbags talking what emerges from an ox's behind. The forum's full of them. Thankfully the sport isn't but the stench spreads. Some people try to achieve, others just to destroy. I know which side I'd rather be on. Rob McCaffery.

Firstly i am delighted to see the Fen Tigers saved, but I would think it very unfair to say that Steve was the only stumbling block to the original application, bearing in mind that reports from that meeting suggest that the objections were as much about Dave Coventry. Evidently those reports must have been inaccurate. Now that matters have been resolved I wouldn't want Steve to be the scapegoat yet again, principally for standing up to the same BSPA that so many others condemn and yet do nothing to back their words up. Incidentally the rightly praised link-up with Ipswich was part of the original plan. Time to draw a line under it. Steve has walked away from the sport and some of the Wimbledon people can claim some kind of satisfaction. The Fen Tigers have been saved and I am sure it will be far less of a fight to survive from now on. Rob McCaffery.

Derek, I of course mourn the closure of any track and Crayford's loss was of course far greater than Hacknety's but there WAS a loss for some at Hackney - they lost their team and found their track invaded by strangers, both in terms of management but also on the terraces. I can assure you that my wife wept no crocodile tears, she simply walked away from the sport and only attends very occasionally now to see old friends. As ever in these situations it's shades of grey, not black and white. In some ways my Rockets did the same thing when they moved into Rye House from Rayleigh and I'm sure there were those at Hoddesdon who mourned the previous amateur days. I miss Rayleigh every time I go to speedway. Every track I visit fails to be 'home', including Rye House, even after 37 years. The only track that comes close in terms of location and atmosphere is Swindon but in some ways that just emphasises the loss. For Hawks supporters like Jay the whole set-up had changed at Waterden Road - team name, colours, riders, management and even the circuit itself and the speedway she knew had closed to her every bit as much as London Road had to Kestrels' fans. I'm sure many others took a different view but I suspect some agreed. I didn't agree with her but I respect her opinion. In any case she's an Upton Park girl and they're not known for gentle persuasion ;-) It's all over a quarter of a century in the past now. Perhaps it's time to move on? If Hackney had survived and the Rockets not been revived in 1999 and Hackney were now launching a Rockets NL team I'd be overjoyed to see my team back, in whatever form. I hope Hackney's fans respond in the same way to the new Hawks and that Rye House and Lakeside fans get behind the team in addition to their own. Hackney hsad its tragic side but my memory will always be of some of the finest racing I've ever seen. I'm delighted to see the name return and if, IF, it starts something rolling, like we did with the Rockets in 99 and we see a new Hackney found a space in the post-Olympic East End then nobody will be more delighted than me. The Hawks were my Rockets' parent - the Kestrels were my Rockets' troublesome brother ;-) Rob McCaffery

Yes, you are operating on hearsay, as am I. On that basis I think it unwise to keep repeating, as you have in other threads that the reason Mildenhall was turned down was just Steve when you have no proof of this and have beebn told by two sources that matters were far more complex than that. I would suggest and politely request that you stop repeating this 'fact' on this forum. We constantly see rumour and hearsay repeated on this forum until it becomes 'fact'. I am not going to say for certain what happened at that meeting but I do have strong, credible suggestions that there was a greater problem than a dislike of Steve. Rob McCaffery.

I understand that Steve's role was not at the centre of the objections. As ever there appears to be far more to the situation than people are assuming. There have already been recriminations over the information that has emerged from the meeting so it would be unfair of me to elaborate further. The key point is that it was far from being all about Steve and it would be unfair for that to become a forum 'fact'. Rob McCaffery

I think the key difference for Rye House was that the relationship with Hackney Hawks was very different to that with Hackney Kestrels, although obviously many people supported both. In the case of the Hawks it really was a family link, with the Hawks the parent club, as they had been right from the Rockets' reopening at Rayleigh in 1968. Obviously Len cross-publicised both tracks and you could get to see the world of speedway outside your own division, later league by 'doubling-up'. Riders moved between both tracks and, apart from the occasional inter-league match-up there was no real rivalry. Many trackstaff worked at both tracks. That relationship changed in 1984 with the sale of Hackney to Terry Russell and the Kestrels moving-in. Crayford and Rye House by contrast were strong rivals and there was an edge between them. Hackney weren't now just rivals in the same league they were still 'budgies' to the Rockets fans. After an initial run of success for Crayford after their reopening in 1975, with a side mainly consisting of former Rayleigh Rockets to add insult to injury the tide had turned significantly with the Rockets building-up a formiddable record at London Road. From '84 onwards the Kestrels had the upper hand and attitudes naturally changed to the former 'parent' track. Mind you, Rye House and Hackney can live in relative peace, as my former Hackney Hawk wife would agree, well hopefully ;-) To her though Hackney died the day the Kestrels moved-in. Rob McCaffery

Tony kindly invited me to join the Backtrack team to strengthen the BL2/NL coverage Ian so I'm glad the increase in coverage is noted and hopefully enjoyed. I hope you enjoy the Richard Green piece - he had a great deal to say. Regards, Rob McCaffery.

First of all my sympathies lie with the Fen Tigers' fans here but I'm also very sorry that a good friend of mine in the form of Steve has been once more slapped in the face by the BSPA. Steve's an honest guy and a genuine enthusiast who cares for the sport so perhaps it's just as well that he isn't getting involved with the BSPA. Not for the first time on this forum iris123 and Blazeaway have made postings that are beneath contempt. There is a heck of a lot more to that Wimbledon story than they think they know and it's not printable here. Yes that first meeting at Plough Lane should have been called-off. The plan to lay and lift the track was a tried and proved concept but sadly didn't work on the opening night. Enthusiasm to get the place open overcame what should have been a postponed meeting. It was Steve getting up and forming the nomadic 1999 Rye House Rockets that not only saw Rye House Speedway re-open but also gave inspiration to similar moves at Middlesbrough, Scunthorpe and Weymouth. In the case of Wimbledon it was Steve who persauaded the GRA to allow speedway back in when many others had tried and failed. There was significant opposition to the Rye House revival and some quite offensive comments were reported to me as emanating from a key player in the current situation so I'm not really that surprised at the outcome of this year's plan. Blazeaway and iris123 need to consider that someone had the guts, determination and caring to get their beloved Dons reopened and not to make typically unhelpful, cynical and contemptible postings while cowardly hiding behind false names. Sadly the nature of the net allows anonymity which most people don't abuse. Sadly some do, to everybody's loss. I look forward to seeing Mildenhall speedway reopen and feel very sad that a chance has not been given for Steve to get a fair chance to show what he can bring to the sport. Speedway is going through a shocking period though and we have to hope that those responsible for it will go and inflict playing their unpleasant power games on a far less deserving sport. Rob McCaffery.

It's Christmas - original posting amended. Why not just try to give whoever it is your backing? If you get the Fen Tigers back then surely it's worth it? Sniping as you have in earlier postings before any promotion is even confirmed is surely not helping the Fen Tigers who you profess so much to love. Surely you don't want the promotion to fail even before it starts or is this about you and your opinions than the future of Mildenhall speedway? Of course it needs a stable promotion but undermining any incoming one doesn't exactly give it a fair chance does it? If not well perhaps it would be better for Mildenhall Speedway if you do walk away as you have threatened to do. Also, if you know the identity of an incoming promoter why do you have to make a rather clumsy cryptic comment. Surely it is better to state what you know or keep silent? Rob McCaffery.

I think you can guess who's been hired to do this

I can confirm that plans are in hand to develop the BL2/NL side of the magazine.

I think it's important that people uinderstand what's going on here. These online streams of speedway are far from official and usually in breach of copyright, which is a complex area of law, especially when it comes to the rights of people to watch programmes from other countries. Sopcast is one of many applications and websites that are used to stream these signals - it's not a TV channel in its own right. Soccer Live is a very informative website on how to find these speedway streams but it again is an unofficial site and I'm sure relies like this forum on the information it's given. In a case like this one the only definitive information is that given by the actual broadcaster whose signal is being hijacked by the streamers and as I say it has no mention of this meeting being transmitted. There may be a 'red button' service but I suspect not in this case/ Of course the schedule may change at the last minute but I think it's best not to raise false hopes. The whole subject of whether it is wise to discuss this streaming on public forums is an entirely different argument. I'm not trying to put people off but I do get concerned that some people don't understand how unofficial this all is. This whole topic is likely to be a very live one next year when in the UK Go-Speed will have the rights to broadcast Polish speedway in the UK and possibly will be doing this as a subscription streaming service. There could be something of a fight from next year.

In order for there to be a stream the meeting needs to be carried by a TV station. TVP had the rights to the original staging but have nothing listed on any of their channels on Saturday, and TVP Sport's schedule has already been updated once this week. http://www.tvp.pl/program-telewizyjny?offset=1 Obviously situations can change but right now it looks very unlikely that this will be available online.

Sky only bought Virgin's TV channels such as Virgin 1, Living and Bravo, not their cable service, in the same way that they didn't buy the airline or the train operator.

It's probably because broadcasters like Sky, and to a certain extent ITV and Five don't have enough faith in their audience to just let them enjoy the sport without getting their presenters to hype things up. Sky's marketing is all about being totally-obsessed with sport, or movies or 24, or Lost. It's just the way they do business and their audience on the whole seem to lap it up. It's all about making sure people stay for the ad breaks and don't go wandering-off. That hype is there to make sure that the easily-impressed stay with the programme. Naturally it will irritate those who actually understand what's going on. One of the joys of watching or listening to BBC coverage of sport is that if something's appalling the presenters have the freedom to say so - they don't have the commercial broadcasters' need to keep people watching the adverts. This is why it was so disturbing that even Sky's team starrted talking down the GPs last year, especially Keith Huewen - and that totally justfied criticism of the 2009 series was there again last night. That was a really excellent meeting last night and more like that will repair the GPs' reputation.

It was just a bit of humour, nothing serious. The wording was that "all races should be over four laps". Some wit then claimed that only Plough Lane staged races that were over (more than) four laps so it was the only legal track. A story floated round in the seventies that the extra bit of straight tacked onto the four laps brought the total race distance up to an F.I.M. minimum but it doesn't seem to have ever been backed-up and I suspect was just an attempt to try to find some logic in the situation. The argument earlier in this thread that it was to give riders at the start a decent run into the shortened track's first bend and to give riders a proper race up to the line off the last bend seems most plausible. Of course it could just have been a ploy to fool the opposition into shutting-off early. I can't remember ever seeing such an arrangement elswewhere but a track where the latter approach could have worked was Mildenhall in its early days where I remember many riders still had the back wheel out as they crossed the line on those tiny straights. As for Hyde Road it was quite simply the greatest speedway track that I ever had the pleasure of visiting, thankfully many times. It was a magical place and the sight of Ivan Mauger and Soren Sjosten showing the Leicester Lions home in my first First Division match in 1972 will live with me forever, as will the privilege of watching Chris Morton and Peter Collins turning speedway nearly into an art form in later years. Precious, precious memories. I hope that they can get that new track built and that it can be a worthy successor.

Just to correct the Birmingham confusion there have been two Perry Barr greyhound tracks and two Alexander stadia. The current stadium east of the Walsall Road was the old Alexander Stadium and housed athletics and the the Brummies until the big closure mid-season 1957. There was a brief revival later but that was it until the current revival. In the meantime the Birchfield Harriers had long since moved to a new Alexander Stadium further north. After a period of dereliction the old stadium was re-opened for greyhounds and eventually speedway so the current stadium is most definitely the track from the immediate post-war era. In the seventies and eighties the Brummies raced at the original Perry Barr Greyhound Stadium which was sited on the other west side of Walsall Road on the site of the present-day One Stop shopping centre. The story goes that Joe Thurley and John Berry had intended to enquire about the Alexander Stadium but contacted the dog track in error - a mistake that gave some great years in a stadium that was a credit to the sport and sadly-missed. I hope this clarifies.

I'd imagine it's where the track was once an athletics track and these tended to be quarter miles. Scunthorpe's Quibell Park was certainly an example of this, although it was still an active running track at the time, much to the Saints' inconvenience.

An interesting point Ian. Of course there is a subtle difference between the programme notes and the later championing of the Golden Double. Len's Hackney teams were never top-heavy, usually consisting of a good number one effectively supported by six second strings. As such they were always vulnerable to tactical substitions from a side with strong heat-leaders. Nonetheless I believe that his comments then were to enhance the sport, not just Hackney's cause. The Golden Double and subsequent Tactical Ride regulations had nothing to do with improving the sport - merely achieving cost savings by ultimately avoiding having to pay heat leaders for extra rides, although in the initial form one heat leader could have one extra ride. The irony is still very strong. Rob McCaffery.

Okay Mrs. Moderator Rob McCafffery