MattK

How are shared events shared? For example with the British Final, how much does the host club receive and how is the remainder shared amongst the other clubs?

Where does it say they accepted the stadium? The article states "the stadium was never signed off as it was not completed and fit for purpose" and that "it was agreed with MCC that the stadium would be occupied by BVA under licence agreement that was renewed monthly".

How much commentary does four blokes going round in circles really need? Personally, I think there is too much commentary when speedway is on TV, let alone live at a meeting. I'd like to see a track play music during the heats to see if that can add some atmosphere,

Correct, but it should have been done transparently and with the BV promotion in the loop. It should definitely not have been done behind the promotion's back.

I doubt we will. There are too many moving parts and conflicting accounts for us to ever find out the truth. The best we can hope for are articles like the above which gives a few snippets of information, but ultimately leave more questions than answers.

Interesting stuff. Do you know the context of this? It reads more like a memoir than an official account of events.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that a large portion of that crowd was in fact fans from other clubs who went as a one off because it was free.

If everything is true, then why would they face legal action?

I've been playing around with Grip. The problem is it's the same for all riders, so you need to come up with some kind of weighting. I'm still trying to get my head around that on paper! Track size is an interesting one, I hadn't thought of that. Likewise Confidence (or I called it Form!) is an arbitrary figure, but I haven't worked out how this effects for outcomes (yet).

Precisely. The mechanics of a race are actually quite simple to model. I put together something simple in a hour using Excel with each rider having six attributes: Gating Passing Speed Team riding Reliability Aggression The main challenge is getting the weighting of the attributes correct and how much randomness to introduce so that results are predictable, but not obvious.

How about riders having attributes each with a score. The value of the attributes (multiplied by a random number) determines who wins a race, rather than averages? Attributes also allow a manager to "train" riders, therefore creating a marketplace to buy and sell. The effects of training deteriorates with a rider's age until the point when it has no effect and a riders attributes start to fall.

This is exactly how I would do it. I would avoid guests by allowing squads and managers have to pick their seven and set tactics ahead of the scheduled meeting time. Then as you say, have a process which calculates results and displays then in an "updates" style. Only downside is that it does take away some of the real-time elements.

The solution to AI is multiplayer! This makes it a bit more of a role playing game, as fixtures have to be scheduled, but to me this is the way forward.

My question for a game like the one described by SCB is how much interaction is there for the player? For example,you don't pick a team, you have minimal ability to choose rider positions (if you follow the current rules) and there is also limited scope to drop and sign riders. If the outcome of races are decided on averages then largely the good riders will win (and get progressively better) and lower riders will lose.

How many from the Aus Championships go through to the GP qualifiers?

You are of course correct, but I don't think a salary cap is the answer. Some kind of revenue sharing between riders and clubs would be a much better arrangement in my opinion.

I think that is one of the downsides of having a manager who wants to be the riders mate, rather than their manager.

There are a number of restrictions in place from the planning permission: For example, meetings can be held on Wednesday, Friday and Saturdays only - 18:00 to 22:30 There shall be no more than 43 meetings during the main season of which no more than 25 meetings will be held on Fridays and no more than 18 meetings on Wednesdays or Saturday There shall be 7 hours of practice sessions 3 of which will be Sundays (main season) or Saturdays (out of season). The practice sessions shall start no later than 12:00 (midday) and finish no later than 18:00.

Nothing will ever "come out". When are the facts of the plethora of failed speedway promotions ever reported in the public domain?

It is likely that the agreement with the new promoters will be very different to what Gordon and Morton had. Instead of leasing the stadium from the council it is likely the new promoters will simply rent the tracks for the nights they require and the council will maintain overall control of the day-to-day operations. This will significantly reduce the costs, but also the potential income.

The limited companies as they are set up mean very little. It is likely any new promoter would set up a new limited company, negotiate a lease with MCC and do whatever is necessary with the BSPA. The limited company being run by Morton and Gordon would then be dissolved.

Interesting, thanks. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Do you have a link to the 1,000 seats bit, as I have looked through the planning permission and can find no reference to any seating in the stadium plans.

I'm not sure spending power is the determining factor here. There are 19 clubs in the top two leagues, if they clubbed together they could get one professional site built and they pretty much employ someone on a full time basis to maintain the sites and manage all the social media aspects.

That annoys me no end. Those sites are also awful on mobile devices.