MattK

MotoGp and F1 also have 50+ laps, so while the start is important it isn't as critical as in speedway. The tapes themselves aren't really a problem as the riders don't watch the tapes, they watch the mechanism attached to the gate. Given speedway's spit and sawdust approach I can't see transponders, lasers or any other tech as the solution. At the end of the day, two false starts in 23 heats seems like a reasonable outcome to me.

What happens when the two refs disagree?

My comment was was slightly tongue in cheek. However, this doesn't change the fact that one of the biggest problems facing British speedway is that they don't know who their target market is. The presentation IS passe, at Swindon they play AC/DC and Rockin Robin by the Jackson 5 every week. They then go into schools to try and attract youngsters. It is incredible difficult to have a product which appeals to all age ranges. In fact, very few products can manage this and it is mainly very high-end aspirational brand, something speedway is not. I don't understand why promoters don't recognise their main customer base is over 50 and market speedway to a wider audience of the same age range.

I'd hazard a guess that there are millions of people who could afford to go to speedway and are sat at home doing nothing on a Monday night. The problem is British speedway does nothing to try and reach out to these people. Similarly, old people are minted and would likely enjoy the passé presentation found at most tracks, yet most clubs go out to schools and try to promote speedway to little kids. It makes no sense.

All riders are available at the start of the season

Quite the opposite. We have three riders who have experienced large gains (Batchelor, Ellis and Wajtknecht), two who have experienced significant falls (Bellego and Morris) and we threw away 0.31 when we signed Smith for Davey.

Steve Worrall, Charles Wright, Tungate, Wells, Howarth. There was a glut of riders on around 6.5-ish at the start of the season. Either way, looking backwards gets us nowhere. We need to look forwards and unless Bellego is back and more importantly fit within the next few days, we are in for a tough couple of weeks.

The difference in averages between Doyle and Morris was 1.02. Bellego has dropped 1.27 from his average so far this season. Therefore RR2017 is right (with the power of hindsight) we could have signed Doyle instead of Morris and a better rider than Bellego.

No, but we have five meetings in the next two weeks. We can't afford r/r for those meetings, with only Ellis and the reserves able to take a ride. By the time Bellego is back we could be out of play-off contention, especially if it is reduce to just the top three.

We don't need a rider who is better than Bellego - anyone is better than R/R especially with Zak missing. Even when Zak is back it is a big ask for him to take up to three of Bellego's rides.

None of those options look very palatable. I'd rather bring on a short term replacement for Bellago, than rush into wholesale chances just to provide a quick fix to cover injuries. Someone like Barker, Bach or Auty (to keep Sidney happy) for Bellago and then reassess the situation in a few weeks.

Connor Mountain has been dropped by Ipswich.

Am I right in thinking only Ellis and the reserves can take an r/r ride?

You don't need outline AND detailed permission. It is one or the other. Outline permission comes with a set of more detailed reserved matters and conditions which have to be met before a certain activity can begin. If you look at the decision document (not sure you can link directly to individual documents) you can see the conditions listed. There are no conditions which prevent the demolition of the existing stadium, other than checking for bats!

There is an interesting footnote to the "new" plans to redevelop the existing stadium. The council asked GI for an extension to the consultation period which GI agreed to. This appears to be in response to Barrett's objection where they claim they will not have enough time to fully review the materials submitted before the deadline of the consultation. You have to wonder, if GI are genuinely motivated to re-develop the stadium, why they would agree to extend the consultation so that one party can further develop their objections?

I'm not sure what you mean. Permission was granted for the outline plan here: http://pa1.swindon.gov.uk/publicaccess/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=JIUY3APT0BP00 As I said, going from memory I cannot recall any conditions on the demolition of the stadium, which would therefore require further approval. There were plenty on the construction of the new stadium, none of which have been discharged and also plenty on the construction of the houses, which unsurprisingly have been gradually discharged over the past few years. I'm not seen anything about the demolition of the back stright stand being prevented though, so I may have missed something in my not very extensive trawl of the documents many years ago. Either way it is all academic. Stadia UK have got what they wanted, houses, and we all know they have no intention of ever re-developing the stadium. They will be perfectly happy when the new neighbours inevitably complain about the noise and will use that as an excuse to run down the activities at the stadium going forwards.

The planning application was for "The demolition of existing stadium and construction of a new stadium, racing building, training kennels, new stands, car parking and associated development including minor access works to western access and laying out of open space/linear park." This was granted back in 2007. From memory and without going back through the document, I cannot recall any reserved matters or conditions related to the demolition of the stadium.

As of today, there is planning permission approved for the stadium to be demolished. I presume solicitors deal in fact and therefore that is what homeowners would have been told.

You mean the stadium which was planned to be demolished. I wonder how many homeowners were told that by eager estate agents when they queried it?

No. There was a sharp and noticeable decline in the season after Leigh's retirement and the crowds have then continued to dropped steadily over time in line with the rest of the league. I am not claiming that big names are the panacea to British speedway's ills, but your claim that "big-name stars have proved not to attract UK fans" is completely without foundation.

No one. Because we have very few big names left in British speedway. Hence one of the reasons crowds are declining. Which is my point. Therefore, Way2Go's claim that "big-name stars have proved not to attract UK fans" is not supported by any evidence. In fact the evidence points to the opposite. There were more big names 10 years ago and they attracted bigger crowds to British league racing. Of course, it is mere speculation that attracting big names back to British speedway would translate into bigger crowds today, but we cannot say it wouldn't happen as we simply don't know.

What evidence do you have to back up that claim? The one indisputable fact is that as the top name riders have drifted away from British speedway, so have the fans. Now, you can claim this is merely correlation and does not prove causation, however as I have previously stated crowds at Swindon dropped markedly in the season after Leigh Adams' retirement, so I am tempted to draw the conclusion that the loss of big names is one of the direct causes of declining crowds.

Here's one of your comments from another thread: I can't believe so many people complain about how the tail to wags the dog, yet they seem to be proposing this as a solution. Therefore the tail wags the dog. Again. What you are proposing is exactly what you accuse the BSPA of doing. Short term, tactical fixes with no long term strategic views. If Rye House is allowed to revert to Saturday, why can't Belle Vue go back to Friday? Is it only clubs who throw their toys out of their prams who get their own way? Coupled with the knock-on effect as others have pointed out that teams visiting Rye House on a Saturday will be missing riders who they signed in good faith based on agreed fixed race nights. The other issue is that the above approach merely kicks the can down the road until next season. People seem to have short memories, as they clearly don't remember last season and teams turning out with three guests and R/R due to the endless clashes, which was the main driver for fixed race nights in the first place.

A semi-pro league would get you to no league faster than the current trajectory.

Again, it's Catch 22. If you do not promote your business (which costs money) you cannot expect that customers will miraculously appear waiting to give you their cash. It would be interesting to know if a Premiership #1 today gets paid more than an Elite League #1 from 2008? I'd imagine the pay scales are largely similar. The reason clubs are struggling to balance the books is not because of rider's demands, but because of falling revenues. Now, of course, you can attempt to balance the books by accepting falling revenues and cutting costs accordingly, but this will inevitably lead to oblivion.