RobMcCaffery

Have to give time for Discovery to do their deals with the third world. Their arguments for getting the SGP circus are similar to getting British Speedway - wonderful new opportunities, millions of new viewers, and of course the key aspect - money, loads of it. Easy talk. Let's see if they deliver. Transmitting the programmes in full and at the right time would be a good start.

Either way, they tend to get what they want, and it doesn't usually match the words.

Manchester wasn't built by Gaming International. Check the latter's record of false promises and abject failure to deliver on promises, especiually in Reading and Milton Keynes. The NSS was a totally different case - backing from the city council plus Manchester City through their local sport initiative is a rather different scenario to a company with a record of fine words and zero action in far too many cases. They've even spread into football with Torquay United. They own the club and immediately promised to demolish Plainmoor and move the club to a new stadium. They promised, they promised.....then said it wasn't going to happen. https://www.devonlive.com/sport/football/football-news/torquay-united-scrap-plans-new-3412818 I'd love them to build the new stadium but it would be foolish not to keep a very close eye on these people given their shocking record under various names.

I let live sport get a head start and then start watching after about 15 minutes. Then I can just f/f the ads. At one time ITV was allowed six minutes of ads per hour. Now a one hour programme on a commercial channel indeed is about 40-45 of actual programme with the rest ads and programme promos. When it comes to sport channels it's sheer greed to sell advertising on top of charging viewers extortionate monthly fees.

Agreed. As someone involved in the dawn of satellite TV I know we were out to broaden choice and offer specialised programming that the existing networks couldn't or wouldn't show. Then along came Murdoch and we are swimming in endless American TV, especially drama, to the point where some people seem unable to realise they don't live in America ;-) As has been proved by Discovery/Eurosport both in Britain and internationally, money counts. It would be comforting to know that the money will filter through to benefit the sport and not just a handful of competitors. Past experience does suggest otherwise....

For commercial reasons. BT would prefer you to watch their channels on their own service. So, by restricting what they give Sky and Virgin they hope to get people to switch to them for the full service. Sky do the same, restricting UHD and not allowing Virgin to show Sky Atlantic. Again they hope viewers will switch to Sky for the full service. On Virgin we get all the BT Sport channels but not access to their app, player or catch-up service. Again, they want us to get their TV, and more crucially broadband internet from them. When you pay Sky, a proportion of what you pay then has to be paid on by Sky to the owners of channels that are not owned by Sky, such as Eurosport. Part of your payment goes to Discovery, Eurosport's owners. This is why many people think Eurosport in the UK is free - you don't have to pay a separate charge, but it's there in the monthly package fee. BT decided not to do such a deal with Sky. They instead decided to sell subscriptions direct, so if you paid £30 a month to Sky you'd need to pay a separate £30 to BT direct instead of £60 to Sky. The channels would be on the Sky satellites but not in Sky's own package. Since they started their multichannel service in 1989 Sky have always been happy to let people think they own all the channels. They don't and never have done. As we know, Discovery own a large number, as does UKTV (Dave, Gold etc) anf Viacom (MTV etc). They all get their cut out of Sky's monthly charges. Until now BT did their own 'thing'.

Talk is cheap. Believing what you hear can be quite expensive. Discovery are making some pretty wide promises. Of course the question has to be whether they realise why these new territories haven't been tried or in the case of the Middle East and USA tried and failed at the level required? It all seems so much like the promises made to the BSPA for British coverage - many more potential viewers, new opportunities to attract sponsors. Eurosport is pay-TV in some countries, not in others. In Britain it's included in most basic pay-TV deals so many don't realise they are actually paying to watch it. The argument that switching from premium pay-TV such as BT Sport, NSport+ or C-More to Eurosport will give higher audiences is questionable. There is a much larger potential audience but the reality in Britain is that BT Sport gets a much higher audience than the cheaper Eurosport and even beats sister channel Quest which is a free TV channel. Hopefully that potential can be realised but I do fear that after after the fine promises we'll still be seeing meeting coverage starting with just a few heats to go, or banished to Eurosport Player. Maybe, maybe in the case of SGP with Discovery running the events as well as the TV coverage there might be a better approach - but their record so far is very unimpressive. It does look like a whole new level so we have to hope it works out. Ten years is a long time to regret a mistake.....

Unlike with British Speedway the switch to Eurosport for the GPs does not take effect until 2022. The next two seasons will still be on BT Sport.

I know the site well and it would be perfect for a speedway stadium. Yes, there would be ample space for a Metro station. It won't be a terminus - that will be in Brierley Hill so should only be a basic station like the rest of the tram stops - a couple of lines and a couple of platforms with cover and ticket machines. The BCLM doesn't have the best of reputations for co-operaton though. The site's at the junction of two major roads out of town, right by the zoo and Dudley Castle and only a short walk from he town centre and bus station. There is no railway station in the town centre. Taking all of that into account there can only be one explanation why the Heathens aren't already racing there....

Rest in Peace, Heathens. as a former resident of Dudley Metropolitan Borough (and briefly employee) I find it staggering that none of the many disused industrial brownfield sites in that borough, or indeed neighbouring areas were considered suitable for a speedway stadium by the council who have obviously decided that professional sport is for others. Indeed Dudley must be the only borough in the old West Midlands county with no professional sport at all. Shame on them. Well done for surviving for 10 years without a home of your own. Only a special speedway club could achieve that. You could say that the killing of Cradley Heath Speedway over 20 years ago would be unlikely to have been allowed for most other sports where authorities bend over backwards to save sporting teams. Cradley was a rarity - a genuine part of the local sporting fabric. No question of "Oh, is it still goingt" when I lived in the area, Speedway needs Cradley needs speedway!

They probably thought speedway related to car racing, as in America.

Among the prejudices we face is the mistaken idea that we were American-style car racing with the track used daily for hours on end with cars belching out petrol fumes is a major problem. As Brian Buck points out, only face to face education can solve this. People get scared and then start believing more and more rubbish that reinforces that. Many years ago attempts were made to introduce speedway to Southend Stadium (ironically designed as a speedway track) met with two objections apart from noise. "We don't want those hyell's angels here" "We don't want all those programmes thrown into our gardens" Ignorance supported by fear is a heck of an opponent.

Farewell, Mangotsfield United of speedway.

They would say "As long as it doesn't affect my house value who cares?"

The new system for the Championship is based on how all American professional team sports work bar MLS. The leagues are split into conferences and a team's results, while including games against teams from other conferences the league is split into several sections and a team only competes with the teams in its own conference for play-off spots. There's nothing to say in the AGM report that the following is due to happen which is worrying, but if not they are iin trouble.. So we have 12 teams, including either Newcastle or Plymouth. These are split into two conferences/sub-divisions. All 12 race 32 matches, 20 against their fellow conference members and 12 against sides from the other conference. Here's the key - you run two league tables, one for each conference and the top three from each qualify for the play-offs. Now, if we only had an odd number of teams it still works. Say if we have five in the north and six in the south the northern teams ride 28 times, 16 against fellow northerners and still 12 against the southerners, making 28. The southerners will still race 20 times against their fellow conference members, but only 10 against the northerners, making 30 matches. So, at season's end, five northern teams will have ridden 28 matches but the southerners 30. If there was just one table that would be ridiculous but if all five teams competing for the three play-off places are only compared with each other it doesn't matter if the third placed team qualifies with fewer points than the fourth placed team in the south it's probably due to the latter having ridden more matches. Run two league tables, one for teams that ride 28 times and one for those who ride 30 matches and take the top three from each. Whether the north division races 30, 32 or 132 matches, as long as in league terms they're only competing with teams that have ridden the same matches it'll be academic. Running one league table is where the problems start. And you thought the match points system was complex..... The logic of Edinburgh travelling twice to Glasgow but only once to Kent is obvious. The alternative is to run a one home, one away league plus a pair of early season regional leagues as we have before - and what was the verdict? Dismissed as 'meaningless. Realistically the only way to prove the point is to run the season, let people realise that it's only the teams in their own half of the country that they're initially competing with in league terms - until the essential play-offs. One thing that gets avoided here is, say we run with 12 tracks in 2020 then by some miracle we get an application from a revived Rye House, or Oxford or even a better funded and planned Plymouth bid for 2021 they wouldn't have to be rejected for fear of running a league with odd numbers! As far as the supporters are concerned until the play-offs they are competing in a five or six team league with extra competitive league matches to give a 14 or 16 match home schedule which is a damn sight better than the paltry 10 in 2019!

It's the age-old argument that's based on the false assumption that we use petrol. So it's vital to get the methanol response ready. In reality though, it's a case of people clutching at any straw to save their property's value.

Sometimes it's best not to 'peek behind the curtain'.

Rarely are on newspaper websites. More loonies than certain corners of the BSF ;-)

I've made the same mistake too often. Don't be discouraged, you talk sense and make very relevant posts. Too many here just out to tear others down rather than help speedway. Egos can be terrible things.

Who did and have the authorities caught them yet?

In the mid-80s I had to compile a weekly speedway news programme. It was hard enough to get scorers from meetings, let alone news. Today...........

You're assuming that all participants can read and write......;-)

Crewe was built around a cricket pitch, albeit the LMS/BR Sports Ground rather than a county venue. If anything it was too large and had to be shortened during its brief life.

Oh for 100% digital subscriptions eh Philip? One day.......

No problem Geoff. I watched every match in that league this year online so it was a bit of an advantage ;-)