AndyJ

I can't believe that this 'discussion' is still ongoing! There has also been a very clear statement that the site would happily accept CL/NL data if somebody else would like to collate it for them. Before they put their site together the only apparent statistics in existence were either kept privately by various statisticians or published in books that people would need to purchase if wanting the information. Taking a selfless approach those behind the history site shared FOR FREE their efforts and you're still critical of the fact that, in addition to this, they didn't spend more of THEIR FREE TIME adding CL/NL. Personally I'd love the site to be a complete picture too but I recognise the fact that it isn't presently on their agenda and nobody is apparently volunteering their own free time to address this. Would you say that your continued criticisms are more or less likely to encourage them to add it? Hardly a productive way of tackling the problem!

Perhaps, rightly or wrongly, your age is counting against you in this? Many see 21 as an age where a person is at the beginning of their career and therefore lacking sufficient experience. In my line of work (IT/Sales) I've worked with many extremely capable and articulate people in their early twenties but, when it comes to dealing with decision makers they face an uphill battle from the start to overcome age-related prejudice. Your ideas may well have a lot of merit but I suspect that a typical Speedway promoter would listen as much as most of us do when a cold-calling sales person says "H.." (before the door is shut or the phone is put down)

This has already been proven to be false I'm afraid Greg. Please see previous page. Craig disputed the article in his Twitter feed and seemingly, as of right now, he may have deals in place but he hasn't actually signed for Edinburgh or Belle Vue. There is still a worry that the deal is with another team....

Hmm... Does this means he's changed clubs in both EL and PL. Gutted to see him depart the Aces if that's the case...

For reference... http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/speedway/monarchs-ace-craig-cook-signs-a-new-deal-1-3208670

As per Wikipedia: In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. I would argue that some of your comments such as "Is there anymore more stupid a thing than this so-called 'history' site" and "The completely ridiculous, bigotted views of one individual who , completely laughably, believes the third division to be 'junior racing'" could be construed as (admittedly in a relatively mild form) trolling. Surely you could have pointed out the omission or asked the question without starting the thread by insulting the efforts of those behind the history site? In my book the unsolicited insult is trolling and completely unnecessary.

Irrespective of what you'd like to see there, isn't the point that the line has already been drawn by those who update the site? Frigbo has made it quite clear that EL and PL are the focus of the site. Considering it his HIS free time, HIS site and quite frankly HIS choice, isn't this all rather irrelevant? To me this is akin to knocking on a strangers door, being invited in for a brew and then criticizing the fact that they don't offer you Earl Grey. If you want Earl Grey go home and make your own! Serious question: Are Gustix and Parsloes two alter-egos of the same person trolling for kicks?

Where does it say that it is supposed to be comprehensive? http://wwosbackup.proboards.com/thread/2931/introduction It would be reasonable to comment or ask along the lines of; "it's a shame it doesn't also include Conference League", "do you have any plans to add Conference League?" or "would you like me to collate the Conference League data and contribute to your site?" but criticism is surely unwarranted. It is quite clear that the site, as it stands right now, is an extremely useful resource even if it isn't a complete picture. I'd suggest that any vilification is a direct result of the critical nature of yours/Parsloes posts and unreasonable expectations/demands you (appear to) have for other peoples free time.

Surely it is THEIR choice as to what information they decide to spend time inputting?! If it is insufficient there is always the option of either not looking at it or putting your own money, time and effort towards devising a more complete picture. If those behind the site hadn't decided to donate their time towards the project, the only way to view such information would be via buying a book or painstakingly researching it yourself. Maybe some would indeed like to see Conference League information added but this clearly takes additional time and effort to collate. Are you offering to do this for them? So many people expect/demand things for free without considering the time and effort that somebody else spends to deliver it.

You may have asked a simple question but you prefixed this by insulting their efforts. Perhaps it is harder to consistently acquire the information? maybe the existing information is already taking as long to collate as they are willing to devote? Every bit of information that they display on their site takes time and effort to find and record. If you look at the small number of names posting information and compare this to the number of pages in the site, it's quite clear that the project has taken a helluva lot of time over the years. We should be thankful that they've done this and kindly shared it with us.

Given the fact that those who update the site have to painstakingly copy/paste (if lucky) or type each meeting result and summary, I think that they deserve a medal for the time and effort they have devoted so as to share everything that they presently collate. Considering they do this for free and don't need to share it with the rest of us, perhaps it'd be more beneficial if you offered your services to them rather than being critical of their efforts? Personally I've found the site useful quite a few times over the years - although it's a shame it isn't database driven and 'fed' by Speedway Updates so as to eradicate the duplicated effort and to drive alternative analysis.

Really do hope you're right about that . Cancelling a full Sky package, subscribing to BT and their YouView TV and BT Infinity was a decision I made once Sky dropped the GP coverage and seemingly were ceasing EL too. Despite being very happy with BT I would have re-subscribed to Sky if a new contract had been signed. Shan't be doing this and will be rather chuffed if you're accurate!

Given the fact that most promoters are looking to cut costs, and that the likes of Bjerre or Andersen probably expect higher rates of pay than the points difference they represent, I suspect that Cook will be #1 or #2 for Belle Vue in 2014.

Given up on Richie Worrall riding for us? Or are you thinking that he might somehow fit into the new #6 and #7 positions?

Isn't Crump99's point that, prior to the AGM, the announcement made by the club suggested that the losses clearly weren't crippling and the outlook for 2014 looked to be positive. After the AGM the story is very different...

It varies but Belle Vue for example were £16.50 (£11.50 concession) in 2013. http://www.bellevueaces.co/stadium.aspx Programme an additional £3.00 Parking (£2.50 I think. Paid to the GRA. Many either risk the main road or park on the local cinema for free) Poole were £17.00 (£14.00 concession). http://www.poolepirates.co/ticketoffice Eastbourne were £17.00 (£15 concession). http://www.eastbourneeagles.co/index.php/information/track-details

Presumably that is based upon; @ home: paying rent, insurance, medical, referee, own team's points money/travel costs in full and standard points money for opponents. @ away: paying the variance between standard points money and contractually agreed rates for own team plus travel costs. If 1000 full-fee paying adults attended the home match, @ £17 each, that only yields £13,600 in net gate receipts. Considering the proportion of matches with less than 1000 supporters, and Tsunami's suggestion that 37% of paying customers are concessions, it shows just how critical sponsorship and TV money are in making up the financial shortfall.

What I meant by this is that, ignoring the TV money, £17 entrance money would yield a certain amount of gate receipts. (1000 x £17 = £17,000. Ignoring VAT) Dropping entry to £10 and actively trying to draw in more fans is a risk and may result in lower gate receipts (1500 x £10 = £15,000) An element of the TV money could perhaps be used as an insurance to mitigate these potential losses. This is basically what I hoped would happen when Sky first got involved - that promoters would primarily focus on growing the fan base.

Several people still suggest a North/South split. Look at where the clubs are located. I can't see how such a split could be fairly accomplished.

Personally I think a sizeable chunk of TV money should be used to try and drive up attendance levels. Advertising/marketing/promotions. An insurance to subsidize more realistic entry prices. Sitting in an empty stadium numbs the sensation of even the most exciting racing. Sport needs atmosphere.

The "just a few weeks" bit of that post suggests that some promising news is soon incoming. Really do hope that this is the case! Even the most blinkered of optimist must surely be fearing the worst with regards to this long-running saga. Combined with the likely cessation of the TV funds and the widespread reported losses I honestly expected the next news to be the announced closure of Belle Vue. Fingers firmly crossed that you're correct on this....

Surprised there isn't an added incentive to take out the 52 weeks subscription. With both 26 and 52 weeks costing the same per issue it makes more sense to me to pay for the smaller one.

I was hoping that this would be one reason why Sky might figure it worthwhile to continue paying the relatively modest sums to retain Speedway coverage. If BT, for example, decided to step in there is a risk that Sky could lose (a) money for Sports, ( b ) money for full package as some fans drop Sky in favour of BT and ( c ) subscribers as those who shift to BT consider it a better deal to take the broadband package in addition. Whilst we represent a fairly insignificant number of subscribers in the grand scheme of things (10.5M TV customers and 5M broadband), we surely represent more potential value than it costs Sky for the existing contract.

If knowing what a club can afford to spend forms part of the decision making process, how is it that many clubs seemingly overspend by tens of £thousands? Is it simply that promoters expect to lose money and deem tens of £thousands to be an acceptable loss? Or are their forecasts detached from reality?

Doesn't that 138 riders include those who, without the Sky money, would be deemed to be too expensive for British Speedway? If so I guess another 7-10 may need dropping from the 138...