MattK

I don't understand this kind of attitude. Fans say they want riders who are loyal to Britain speedway yet these very same riders should not expect to make a decent living from the sport. I would rather see riders who are loyal to Britain and double-up to make a living, than limiting doubling-up and forcing riders to race aboard in order to make it pay.

At the moment Worrall has 64 meetings, 28 in the Premiership and 36 in the Championship (assuming no clashes), plus play-offs and assorted shared events.

You wouldn't need one big league AND fixed race nights. It is either/or. I can understand Worrall's point, riders would effectively lose half their income with one big league, which isn't a consideration which should be ignored.

In theory, Friday should be more accessible than Thursday due to the majority of people not having to go to work/school the following day. Do you think the declines compared to Thursdays is purely habit or are there other reasons?

Polish fans don't seem to mind. Maybe they prefer quality over quantity?

The whole point of fixed race nights is that fewer riders are missing due to doubling-up and other race commitments. Of course, there will be always be injuries, but this will be a much smaller volumes than we have today.

How do you work that out? Fixed race nights would allow younger riders to double-up without the clashes experienced today - therefore riding in more meetings, not fewer?

So you think Aussie riders own us something for training them? I think that is fair. However, most are incredibly loyal to Britain, in fact the only riders who have thumbed their noses are Ryan Sullivan and Jack Holder. I don't think you can question the loyalty of Doyle, Holder, Schlein, Crump, Adams etc. Therefore I am confused about what point you're trying to make. Do you think they should rider here but not be allowed to voice any negative concerns? GP was nine rounds in 2005 and ten in 2006 when Adams and Richardson rode for Swindon. Either way, I'm not sure of your point. When have Aussie riders missed British league meetings to ride in the GPs. I can't recall any recently.

Alas, the incompetency at the BSPA knows no bounds, so it can never be guaranteed. A simple example is the Premiership Rider's Championship being arranged on the same night as three Championship league meetings.

It is interesting. 10 years ago some clubs had TWO GPs riders, I know Swindon did for a couple of seasons. I'd be interested to know with the benefit of hindsight whether the promoters felt speedway was more sustainable back in those days of higher costs, but higher crowds, compared to today, where the costs are lower, but the crowds are too.

The problem is, it isn't just a couple of greedy Aussies. If you look at the previous page you will see that most of the current crop of GP riders have ridden in Britain at some point. However, only three remain. Doyle has provided some insight into why so many of the top riders see the Britain league as merely a stepping stone on to larger things. You may say, "who cares" and that they should be allowed (or even encouraged) to leave, but the simply fact is that over the last decade the top riders have gradually moved away from British speedway and at the same time fan numbers have decreased across the board. You can say this is correlation rather than causation and of course there is a vast plethora of factors which impact numbers, but in my opinion the loss of the top riders is the single biggest factor in dwindling crowds.

I don't think doubling-up is an issue in itself. As I said before, how many Swindon fans think of Nick Morris as less of a Swindon rider because he is doubling-up for Berwick? The issues with doubling-up is riders missing meetings, which can be solved by better fixture planning and ultimately fixed race nights.

Someone had a stab here (albeit with 22 teams) The first thing that stands out is the obvious disparity between the strength of riders, with the likes of Doyle, Lindgren and Zagar at #1 and an NL 6-pointer at #7. This could be addressed by reverting to the old Draft-style heat format which protects the juniors. However, it doesn't address how the lower half of the existing Championship sides are supposed to afford to field competitive teams. The solution to this would be to jettison the top 20 or so Premiership riders, but then you're back in to the realms of needing weaker and weaker juniors or bringing in more foreign riders to make up the numbers. The solution could be six-man teams, but this approach would require a significant re-think of the heat format. On top of this, you still have the outstanding issues of doubling-up between the new league and NL, riders having significantly fewer meetings in Britain (compared to the plethora of DU that does on today) and the impact on crowds who are used to stronger teams.

That's not really an answer, it is? I am sure promoters would love to make a profit (or at least break even). However, in reality most accept they will make a small loss most seasons. They see this as the cost of running a speedway club. I doubt many would want to double the number of meetings, without any kind of evidence that their losses wouldn't significantly increase. You have also overlooked the fact that there is no evidence of fans wanting (or being able to afford) twice as many home meetings. In fact, most fans simply want regular racing with their team's riders. I've not read any fans saying their want twice as many fixtures. One big league is a great idea in theory, but I have yet to see anyone put together a comprehensive proposal which addresses the issues - other than for clubs, riders and fans to "suck up" the various short-comings.

There aren't enough weeks in the season to ride home and away twice with 18 teams. Most clubs lose money over the course of a season. They aren't going to want to ride twice as many meetings, thereby significantly increasing their loses.

One big league of 18 teams will mean each side races in 34 meetings. Currently a rider doubling-up between Premiership and Championship will ride in 64 meetings (minus clashes). This means that most double-uppers will ride in roughly half as many meetings.

It's 8-days and it applies to all riders except the home team #1

In theory, shared events take priority over league meetings.

Exactly. Why would you finance a track, which would easily run to seven figures and not want a return on your investment?

I have read Mr Robinson's passionate calls for other clubs to form Supporters Trusts, but I really can't understand why you have to pay 3 grand in order get a group of like minded fans together. I also have never been able to get a straight answer about who pays the losses in fan owned clubs. I think the real answer is that they all need a wealthy backer. As for the planning, what a shambles. How can you submit plans which are not valid - and even worse, how can you go to the media BEFORE the plans have been accepted by the planners? Have any indications been given as to whom might be paying for this development?

Does anyone have a link to the actual application? I can't find anything on the Sandwell planning web sites.

I don't understand why Riss or Bates couldn't guest in his place?

For me it has to be Robert Lambert. Being a top rider at your home track is one thing, but Lambert has significantly upped his game and is now going around Europe winning at an international level.

Do you have a link to where that is stated in the planning documents?

The stadium is already surrounded by houses. They demolished the away pits and built a house in its place. Having the stadium there doesn't seem to have deterred people from buying the houses, which will obviously be the main concern of the developers. There are still several phases of development unstarted, so I think they will run the stadium until those phases are complete. I'd say probably three years before the stadium is closed.