SPEEDY69

The additional experience of different teams and tracks will do no harm to him and glad you have realistic expectations. Some of these young Brits need time to develop, some more than others and I just wish teams were more stable to allow that to happen and for the fans to get to know their team. It really is now getting to be just a bunch of individuals and not really a team and that turns me off.

I don't think the tracks are the problem. People need to be attracted to the sport in the first place - and I don't mean the odd friend or two of an existing fan.

Mountain has struggled at CL so I don't expect will score all that well at PL. Must admit I don't like teams making all these changes, makes a mockery of the winter team building and engenders no loyalty from riders. Oh for the days when teams stayed almost the same throughout the season.

Pity, I was going to this meeting with my daughter. Never mind me or the other fans though.

How far are you going back for 'normally' - they lost home and away in 2017 as well. Perhaps it wasn't Godfrey's choice, perhaps it wasn't the reduced travelling costs either, perhaps it was a plain old draw - but given the record of the BSPA and previous 'draws' e.g. British semi finals it's easy to see why conspiracies are thought of. I still can't get over the Rye debacle and promoters circling like vultures around their riders.

Really? You'd rather take on a team that have beaten you home and away this season than a team who you mullered at home 54-36????

Thanks for the explanation. I really don't see the point myself, or why it's not shown alongside the actual old-school table but why not take it further - by taking into account what teams have been raced against and how good they are, factor in the line-ups and track conditions as well so that a real analysis of form can be made............

I can't be the only one who doesn't really understand that. When I look at the Championship table, it shows: 1 Peterborough 13 7 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 607 563 32 2 Lakeside 11 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 549 437 25 3 Glasgow 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 467.5 431.5 19 4 Berwick 12 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 537 541 19 5 Workington 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 408.5 399.5 17 So how Workington are actually top is beyond me.

I'm also almost certain of the fact that Scunthorpe have avoided the league's top two teams in the Shield semis is nothing to do with Godfrey.

That's the mystery of perception. Maybe if I was a Belle Vue fan I'd have a different opinion but as a neutral I want to see competitive action where you never know what might happen. It was all to predictable for me e.g. Smith made the start in one race but it was obvious he'd be passed. The couple where Batchelor was in front were ok and Bewley is good to watch at NSS. It was a shame Swindon, and Morris in particular, were poor.

You know the answer to that. The sheep mentality is alive and well. Now I see that everyone does a practice start and then has to have their chain tension checked before actually going to the start - why, because they saw someone else do it. The chains do stretch but they're not that bad, especially if the same one you used all season. Does fiddling around with clutch cable adjustment at the start line make any difference - no, but riders do it because someone else did. One which has surprised me though is that Greg H appears to have lower seat height (like in the Eighties) and makes great starts - I'm surprised no other rider has decided to copy that. There's even amateurs and people yet to learn to ride who get sign written vans and top kit then can't even slide. The only way to halt this is to stop paying them/providing them with so much - four helmets, as you highlight is to me complete extravagance and shows they are paid too much.

At less than 300 metres, Gustrow provided some great action at the weekend.

It's all a bit of a lottery - I was there for the Swindon meeting and that wasn't that great. Was also at Peterborough recently (another track cited as good) to see almost 15 heats of follow the leader. I didn't think the Leicester meeting was too bad - hoping tonight is better though.

Do you mean Scunthorpe and Godfrey?

Some good ideas here but who would agree to fixtures on nights where half of the team are missing - and who would want to run a fixture where the opposition are decimated? I agree that promoters need to be able to maximise their income and minimise their outgoings and the rules framework should allow that.

This weeks S Star hits the nails on the head in the opening few pages - well done, let's hope it inspires results......

Finally, the SS is starting to raise the awkward questions and their opening piece this week is excellent, some great suggestions for people to ask for help. I am also astonished the BSPA kicked out Rye House given they had a package to carry on and pay off all debts - smacks of a conspiracy to me.

it was confirmed early in the winter he could ride championship but they had an unwritten rule about gp riders i think. Plus, he also had a Champs average, which was why Nicholls was discriminated against, nothing to do with averages.

I think the frustration he has is that Swindon were outvoted and the FRN went from Thursday to Wednesday, to suit Ipswich & Sheffield.

Who's that?

Couldn't agree more with this or the sentiment of disappointment/being aghast. T*T$ up is the right phrase I think. shame because it's a great sport and I loved being a part of it. Oh for a Barry Hearn type figure. By the way, shame about SS and WH Smith, it's where I get mine as they're at the train station.

I am not and I would have nothing but respect for a promoter who says we tried to get this rider but I'm not prepared to meet their demands. It does need all of them to operate a similar stance otherwise they will migrate to those who pay more but if points limits and replacements are found then the opportunities for those with big demands dry up. I accept there will always be differences but they should never go beyond what they can afford in order to make a profit.

I agree completely, especially the bit I've highlighted. Riders have been running the sport for too long now - it was never that way. Even some in the third tier make a nice tidy sum out of the sport. The business model has to work and if wages are too high then lower them - if that means you don't get so an so in the team then so what. Promoters should be able to make money - if it was my business that would be my goal. You could even make their payments linked to crowd size/revenue generated - some may want to then spend more time engaging fans to try and get more through the turnstiles.

I've not seen any evidence to suggest riders haven't been paid - this is also not mentioned in Nicholls' interview in the Star this week. If they had a proposal to continue this year then the BSPA should have taken that seriously, not dismiss out of hand. It's a shame their statement is not punctuated correctly because it could be read that they were forced out of the league or just had the meeting against Swindon cancelled by the BSPA. I am pleased to see that they state their intent to continue with speedway for both this year and into 2019 but without BSPA support it's difficult to see how that can happen. They previously forced Sittingbourne (Iwade) to close and place so many restrictions upon amateur clubs which forces them into either not complying with rules or being unable to operate due to costs being too high. To me they do their best to protect their own self interest rather than take a more strategic approach and outsider/new people to join their club never get a glorious welcome.

I agree with this but £10k each meeting is a huge sum, if true. The BSPA release also said BMR notified them of the troubles, as well as riders. As they are the leaseholders, did they sub-let to the promotors and charge a rent? BSPA release doesn't make it sound like the promoters are BMR.