MattK

Common sense would suggest that moving the track away from the housing as much as possible would be the best approach, but no, they are bringing in the first and second bends.

On average teams will score 90 points, 45 at home and 45 away (not including bonus points). Remember, you have to pay the points money for both meetings out of one home meeting's income. That means 1,500 full paying adults, just to pay the wages.

I agree about promoting speedway to kids. It is a waste of time. Speedway has nothing to offer youngsters. The target market is over 40 and that's who clubs should be trying to attract. As for the product being the problem, I don't agree. Could it be better, of course. However when I watch meetings from the 70s and 80s there is no more passing or closer racing than you see today. Yes there are the occasional shocker meetings (Swindon's TV meeting against Leicester) but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything is rosy, I just don't believe that one big league is the solution. It will be seen as a major weakening for Premiership teams, which is the approach tried for the last decade (with inevitable consequences) and I believe will result in a cost increase for Championship teams. Frankly, I don't think tinkering with the league structure will do anything to attract fans. For me, the problem is the way in which the sport is promoted. Clubs seem to rely on a combination of BT Sport, local media, social media and word of mouth. The problem with the first three is that you are largely preaching to the converted. The only people who will watch speedway on BT Sport, read about it in the local news and follow speedway related social media are people who already have a passing interest in the sport. The problem with word of mouth is that I don't believe it is persuasive enough to get people to part with £17 to "try out" speedway. I think clubs need to try a lot harder to get speedway in front of people so they can experience it first hand. The approach I would take is to appoint speedway ambassadors who work at major local employers or who have some other access to large numbers of potential customers. Each ambassador has twenty free tickets per meeting to offer to people who don't regularly attend speedway. The tickets would include entry, a pre-meeting pit walk, the chance to watch a couple of heats from the centre green and a discount voucher for the next meeting. If 10 ambassadors bring 20 newbies each meeting and just half return for the discounted meeting (say £9 entry) and 10% return longer term this would create 300 new fans per season and generate almost £50k in additional revenue. The cost to the clubs is minimal as the people being offered free tickets wouldn't be attending without them.

Do clubs pay more than they have to today? I don't believe they do. Swindon pays Nick Morris what they do because they presumably thing he is the best rider available at that average and price. If there was a better rider available for less money, then surely Swindon would sign them? The idea of promoters sticking together is fine, but it completely ignores the fact that speedway is a competitive sport and clubs want to win. Clearly, making a loss is an acceptable price for putting together a competitive team because if it wasn't clubs wouldn't do it.

I agree six man teams are a possible solution, but I am sure that isn't without it's problems. If this is an option I would like to see some meetings run with six man teams in order to try and iron out the problems. I don't think Swindon will up rider's earnings, simply pay the same in 2019 as 2018. It appears as if clubs built a model which revolves around making the play-offs or even the finals in order to break even. You can say that they should cut their cloth accordingly, but there is nothing to stop them doing this today and it seem clear that tracking a competitive team is more important and balancing the books.

Swindon would have to adjust the strength of their team, but they wouldn't need to adjust what they pay, as they have a business model in place which allows them to pay Premiership wages. The fact that you've lowered the standard of the league doesn't reduce a club's spending power. It wouldn't reduce a rider's option. There are around 40 riders currently doubling-up. In one big league this would mean 20 spaces which need to be filled. On top of that you have riders opting out as they cannot commit to racing on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday due to Polish, GP, SEC, U21s and other commitments. One big league would make it a riders market.

Why would Swindon have to scale down? They have a business model predicated on Premiership costs? Why would Morris find his options reduced? One big league would mean more clubs and fewer riders. I agree times are hard, but I don't see how this would help clubs survive. It would increase costs as I have described and history has shown reducing the quality of the league reduces attendances. If as you say it is a small number of Premiership clubs resisting the idea, then they will surely be voted down at the AGM as it is one club one vote?

The tail wagging the dog argument is equally applicable today, yet clubs still build teams to be competitive, rather than to break even. This is the problem, speedway is a competitive sport. Every club starts the season wanting to win on the track, rather than in the accountant's office.

Costs would increase because currently the points money paid by Championship clubs are subsidised by riders doubling-up at Premiership level. Therefore with one league, Championship clubs would have to compete with Premiership clubs for the signature of the same rider. For example, take Nick Morris. He rode for Swindon in the Premiership and let's say he received £100 a point. He also rode in the Championship for Lakeside and received £75 a point. Who would Nick Morris ride for in one big league? The answer is simple, the team who pays him the most. Therefore, Swindon already have a business model allowing them to pay a rider like Nick Morris £100 a point. If Lakeside want to secure the services of Nick Morris they will have to pay 25% more in 2019 than they did in 2018 in order to compete with Swindon for his signature. Couple this with the fact that one big league means there are potentially 19 clubs chasing the signatures of heatleaders and a reduction in the number of riders firstly due to the removal of doubling-up and secondly riders who can't commit to Friday, Saturday and Sunday racing in Britain dropping out. Whether more variety would boost attendances remains to be seen. What we know for a fact, as we have seen it happen over the last decade, is that if you reduce the strength of the league fewer people attend.

Why would Championship teams agree to one big league, as it would result in an increase in their costs with no increase in revenues?

The problem is not all clubs are financially equal and it only takes one promoter to offer more cash and they get the pick of the riders.

Guests are more damaging from a credibility point of view in my opinion, however at this stage the primary focus must be on a sustainable business model, so guests and doubling-up are a necessary evil. Either way, this does not address the underlying point which is why would Championship clubs agree to form into one big league with the Premiership if it going to mean increased costs with no equivalent increase in revenues?

How does scrapping the play-offs mean meaningful matches for all teams up to the end of September? Without the play-offs if you are not within touching distance of the top of the league your season is over and you are merely going through the motions to fulfil your fixtures. The play-offs keep the season alive for the majority of teams, as qualifying for the play-offs is mathematically possible until the very end of the regular season.

Why? I'm not aware of anyone who has stopped going to Swindon because Swindon's captain Nick Morris also rides for Lakeside. Granted, it is not an ideal situation, but the fact is that doubling-up reduces costs for teams in both leagues.

Even if the averages were set at Championship levels, most Championship clubs would see their costs rise as they would no longer benefit from sharing the cost of riders who are doubling-up.

The Championship have a league with similar entrance fees to the Premiership, but significantly lower running costs. Why would they want to double their costs without increasing their income by joining a league as you describe?

It is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it. Given that I find it hard to believe there is a club in British speedway which hasn't made a loss over the last five years, the value of every club is zero. You are effectively buying an expensive hobby.

No one buying a club would look at the balance sheets assets as an indication of value. The only meanful way to value a club is to look at the last five years profit/loss, work out the average loss iver that period and then decide how much you are prepared to bankroll the club from your own pocket.

It will continue until residents in the new houses start to complain. I don't know if you've been to Swindon recently, but they knocked down the away pits and have literally built a house there. That's now close the new homes are to the existing stadium. It wouldn't surprise me if the stadium owners don't encourage the residents to complain, as that would be just the excuse they need to close the stadium and turn it into housing. I think there is a maximum of three years of speedway left at the current stadium.

Fantastic video from 2006! I'm surprised to hear Peterborough is up for sale. I always equated the club somewhat to Swindon, similar sized town, demographic, what have you. When they were running their three meetings against Lakeside did they do anything to try and attract fans such as a fanzone, ex-riders etc.?

My sauce tells me that Swindon countered with an offer of Doyle, Stefan Nielsen and a £20 Southbrook Inn voucher for Lambert.

I'm sure the CEO of Domino's will have more ideas about how to market speedway than the current incumbents at the BSPA. When Barry Hearn became chairman of the PDC did he change the value of a bull's eye to 75 and introduce a rule where if a player is 100 points down his next three darts count double? Of course not. He was looking at the bigger picture, how to revolutionise the presentation of darts, engaging with sponsors who can bring credibility to the sport and negotiating a multi-million pound TV deal. This is the problem with the BSPA. They think they can turn around speedway's fortunes by endless tinkering with the rules, league structures and names. If anything the BSPA are too close to speedway. How often do the likes of the FA, RFU and so on introduce the types of rule changes we see every year in speedway. What the BPSA as the governing body should be doing is looking at the bigger picture not arguing over rule changes every year.

And yet you were singing Barry Hearn's praises. What does he know about speedway?

If they have the answers to speedway's problems, why haven't they spoken up sooner?