Structure

[Kevin Meynell]

Part of my idea would be to run the euroleague in a four team tournament format

 

Again, I like the idea of a European League, but I feel that teams need to run it exclusively, or not at all. It comes back to my earlier point about how fans would perceive the different levels of competition.

 

With respect to the actual league format, 4TTs are fine for the odd cup competition, but they're unsuitable for an extended league programme. The fact that teams only ride 25% of their matches at home would be disasterous for cash flow, unless of course the leagues were funded through television or sponsorship.

[AndyM]

Why on earth is there this obsession with trying to break into markets that have no history of speedway (with the possible exception of Italy)? I'd rather focus efforts on raising the profile of the sport in its core markets, or at least the countries where there's some supporters to start with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The two are not mutually exclusive. If there is interest in other countries, it should be encouraged by the wider speedway fraternity. But it's still the job of the BSPA to get its own house in order in the UK, SVEMO in Sweden etc.

 

Or did you think the BSPA might move to expand its own territories by admitting clubs from elsewhere - how about Ireland, France and Italy so we can emulate RU!!

[Trees]

I wonder if SKY would be interested in televising a six match European Champions tournament between the winners of the three main leagues, of course the trouble starts when the same riders ride for each team! Would it capture the fans imaginations? Were the three teams equal in strength?

[TonyM]

The problem is that it's too few teams to form a viable league unless you have an unacceptable level of repetition. Some have suggested that some tracks run a handful of fixtures in an 'elite' league, and then make-up the rest of the fixtures in a lower-level league.

 

Unfortunately, I think such an approach would be disasterous because it would create a perceived inferior level of competition. Casual fans would simply focus on the 'elite' meetings and ignore the rest.

 

I don't think that tracks running multiple teams is a viable model in the long-term. If you run the majority of fixtures at a particular level, you create continuity and fans will tend to turn-up most weeks. As soon as you start running at different levels, fans will just start to pick and choose their meetings.

 

Whilst the commitment of some BEL and BPL tracks to running BCL teams should be applauded, I suspect it's financially disasterous in most cases. That's why so many tracks are dropping their second teams.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry Kevin but I didnt foresee any repetition for the top league - just 5 home league fixtures (and personally no cup competition either). This would allow those with 'other' committments to fully commit to this short but hopefully intense competition

 

Fair point about teams tracking two different grade sides but I would take the opposite view, a fan base is a fickle thing and I would suggest there are a number of tracks where 'casual' fans already 'pick and choose' their meetings particularly in the PL which has way too many fixtures. If there are fewer meetings at the higher level I would think a viable number would support the lower level (with lower cost base) side as well and the higher level would be the 'flagship' level to get casual fans into the sport

 

If the balance of the lower leagues is set right there should be just as much competitive racing down the structure for those less casual fans (dont want to open the whole EL vs PL vs CL debate but good speedway meetings tend to be more of a result of equally matched riders than of their respective grades)

[Kevin Meynell]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

I completely agree, but expansionist plans can be distracting and can divert resources from where they should be spent. These days, so many companies over-expand and end-up neglecting their core business.

 

Or did you think the BSPA might move to expand its own territories by admitting clubs from elsewhere - how about Ireland, France and Italy so we can emulate RU!!

 

If I were the BSPA, I'd form a European-wide body with the Polish and Swedish clubs (possibly also the Danish clubs) along the lines of the G14. This should initially coordinate the national league systems to avoid fixture clashes and double-booked riders, but it should also collectively promote speedway. In the longer-term, it could perhaps run its own competitions (e.g. a European League or Cup).

 

However, the main reason for forming such a body (let's call it the G3) would be to put pressure on the FIM. I don't necessarily advocate a split from the FIM, but the countries that employ most of the riders in the sport should have far more say over how it's run. I'd envisage a situation like F1 where the teams got almost total control over the World Championship, albeit nominally still under the banner of the FIA. In particular, it's somewhat scandalous how the SGP was practically given away to a private company, with the national leagues deriving little or no benefit from it.

 

I appreciate the national promoting bodies probably lack the wherewithal to actually run the SGP themselves, but that's what should be happening. BSI have something like an 18-year contract which complicates things, but if the G3 collectively refused to employ any SGP riders, the SGP would effectively cease to exist. If the FIM still failed to see reason, then the G3 should consider breaking away from the FIM and run their own world championship.

 

Incidentally, it's not just about the SGP, but also all the other mickey mouse competitions (e.g. European championships) that keep being created.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Kevin Meynell

[AndyM]

Wholly in favour. It would add interest to the domestic programme, which in the case of EL is verging on boring when you're up against the same teams and riders repeatedly, without excessive disruption. If successful, it couild be expanded and hopefully we'll eventually reach the stage where there is a genuine European superleague. As for the economic viability, with riders travelling around Europe already it wouldn't necessarily make that much difference - if organised effectively. Much more productive to have the leagues collaborating than in virtual competition and conflict, as we currently have.

[Kevin Meynell]

I would suggest there are a number of tracks where 'casual' fans already 'pick and choose' their meetings particularly in the PL which has way too many fixtures.

 

I'd agree there are far too many fixtures at BPL level. The CS was arguably a competition too far in the BEL as well, although it was good from Oxford's perspective!

 

I was looking at some old yearbooks, and National League tracks used to only ride about 30-34 meetings per season, whereas British League tracks rode close to 40-50 on average. Now it's almost the opposite!

 

If the balance of the lower leagues is set right there should be just as much competitive racing down the structure for those less casual fans

 

I completely agree, although I think three tiers would be more than enough. There are around 27-28 tracks now, so that's an average of 9 standalone teams per level. If you went the Euroleague route, I'd anticipate 4 or 5 British tracks riding in that, so a two-tier approach (2 x 12 teams) would be appropriate for the remaining teams.

 

I can also envisage an additional competition for second teams run in a second-half format, but I wouldn't really consider this to be a true fourth tier.

[AndyM]

Just thinking ahead - this might help force the UK to adopt squad system and more home grown riders in reserve positions. After all, it might be embarrassing for the system if a rider was scheduled to ride for two teams in the same competition, but we only had guest or RR facilities to substititute!

[Kevin Meynell]

Much more productive to have the leagues collaborating than in virtual competition and conflict, as we currently have.

 

Much historical context can be drawn from the conflicts between the major baseball leagues in the early-20th century. Their initial approach was to directly compete with each other for players, and against each other within cities. This proved to be ruinous all round, so they sensibly came-up with a cooperative agreement which still governs the sport (including the minor league system) today.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Kevin Meynell

[enotian]

Again, I like the idea of a European League, but I feel that teams need to run it exclusively, or not at all. It comes back to my earlier point about how fans would perceive the different levels of competition.

 

With respect to the actual league format, 4TTs are fine for the odd cup competition, but they're unsuitable for an extended league programme. The fact that teams only ride 25% of their matches at home would be disasterous for cash flow, unless of course the leagues were funded through television or sponsorship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How would it be disasterous for cash flow?

 

Say you're the euroleague promoter for Wolverhampton. You'd arrange to hire Monmore Green on 5 dates. You wouldn't need a season long lease with the landlord because you only want to run 5 meetings. (You might even only need to deal with the domestic league promoters depending on their lease)

 

Whoever you contract with it will be additional revenue for use of their asset so I'm sure they'd be willing to allow the lions share of the rent to be paid after each meeting.

 

Then you'd have ticket sales and race night payments being made at roughly the same time.

 

I'm confident those 3 main cash flows would be manageable.

 

I don't think there'd be any other major payments required.

 

It's just like running a club night. You agree to hire a club pay a deposit arrange for dj's who you pay on the night when you've received your money at the door then settle up with the venue owner. It's quite simple really, that's how bits of kids manage to do it all over the country. Of course you need to promote it aswell but speedway is really good at th....... nevermind.

 

 

e

[Kevin Meynell]

How would it be disasterous for cash flow?

 

Using a 4TT format, you'd have to pay your riders for all 20 meetings. You'd also have to pay travel and accommodation expenses for 15 of those, but you're only receiving gate money from 5 of them. You'd have expenditure with no income for 75% of the meetings, but with a regular match format, you'd receive gate money from 10 of those meetings.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Kevin Meynell

[enotian]

Using a 4TT format, you'd have to pay your riders for all 20 meetings. You'd also have to pay travel and accommodation expenses for 15 of those, but you're only receiving gate money from 5 of them. You'd have expenditure with no income for 75% of the meetings, but with a regular match format, you'd receive gate money from 10 of those meetings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No you wouldn't.

 

You'd only pay for the 5 meetings you promote. I think I'm right in saying in most instances speedway riders are on appearance and points money so they only get paid per meeting and the home promoter would cover that from gate receipts.

 

I think that would be workable. It's certainly not a problem that couldn't be resolved using a bit of common sense and a little compromise.

 

You can spend as long as you want uncovering reasons why things won't work and it's very useful to do so.

 

But you shouldn't lose sight of what you want to acheive. In this instance it's a format to bring speedway to a wider audience of spectators, sponsors and TV viewers by raising the bar in terms of the standards of on track action, facilities and presentation.

 

Yes you'll uncover problems but don't quit at the first sign of difficulty. If it's worth doing you find a way of doing it.