If I Was In Charge

[easy_tiger]

Here is the following changes I would impliment.

 

1) Remove double-point rides, however one of your top riders (1/5) can come in for your middle order (2/3/4). One rider, once per meeting.

 

2) TV rights will be opened up, with 4 packages available: 1) Live Rights EL, 2) Delayed rights PL, 3) Delayed Rights CL, 4) Round-up programme. No one broadcaster can have more than 2.

 

3) Teams will be built to 45 points including bonus. No changes to dilute the product. This will be for 1-5 only.

 

4) Wages will be capped at an affordable level.

 

5) All teams will have at least 2 brits, at least one of these has to be from the nation you are riding in (ie scotland, england, wales etc).

 

6) All teams can have a maximum of 10 riders in thier squad, 2 of which can double up from lower leagues)

 

7) Guests to be allowed

 

8) Rider replacement allowed

 

9) Income from TV broadcasting to be shared on a proportional basis throughout the leagues. 50% between EL clubs split right down the middle, 30% to PL clubs, 20% to CL clubs.

 

10) Promotion and Relegation to be brought in, Windfall payments for those promoted, parachute payments for those teams relegated.

 

11) A percentage of gate receipts to be forwarded for the setting up of a slush fund, where teams in trouble can be financially supported.

 

12) Graded reserves will continue, with the grades being decided upon by the averages: 1-3 points, C. 3-5 Points B, 5+ A

 

13) Fines for promotors who are found to have "bent" rules to suit themselves.

[SCB]

Good job you're not in charge then really!

 

Where are Newport meant to find 2 decent Welsh riders who want to ride for Newport? I could get a call up. Thats just to begin.

[easy_tiger]

The idea behind that is that individual nations get stronger at speedway and Team GB will eventually not contain only English riders ;p

[HenryW]

I'm kinda with SCB on his initial statement, but I'll cover your points one by one...admittedly rather facetiously

 

1: Happy to see double rides going, not so sure about the next part. Is that at any point in the meeting, regardless of scores?

 

2: I think you would have to look at what that did for the price being offered for the packages. If Sky didn't have an exclusive, they may not be interested in paying nearly so much, and I can't see the other big channels throwing too much cash at the sport as they don't have the airtime to give speedway live coverage during midweek prime time.

 

3: 45 points for the top 5! That's 9 points each! Certainly no dilution in there, as you say.

 

4: Is that affordable for the riders, affordable for all clubs, or an average of what's affordable for all clubs? If I want to open a club in the EL will everyone else have to pay only what I can afford...if not, it's not really affordable, is it?

 

5: Despite this being the one that SCB picked on, it's possibly the one I have the least objection to....It only needs one Welsh rider to be found and two Scots...not too much of an ask, surely.

 

6: Is that to be used over the whole season? Or can you drop riders and add riders to the squad as the season goes? If just 10 for the whole season, what happens with a team that has a bad run of injuries or make poor choices at the start of the season? Do they just suffer all year?

 

7: Aaggghhhh! NOOO!! This would be the first thing to go if I was in charge. No wait, double points, then this.

 

8: Not a very clear rule. Just heatleaders, top 5, everyone? Who gets to take the rides? Still, in principle I'm not against this.

 

9: 50% split right down the middle? Is that 25% for Tel and 25% for the teams? Seriously, though, surely the teams actually being covered deserve a payment for the potential hit on their crowds, no? Not sure that CL and PL deserve such a high cut of the money. If you stick with the 4 packages suggested earlier, should they not just get "what they are worth"?

 

10: Not convinced by this one either. I guess it goes back to the question of what is affordable. If Edinburgh had been promoted a couple of years ago when they won the league, how much of a windfall would they have needed, or how low would the "affordable" have to have gone?

 

11: Ahhh..There's nothing like rewarding a badly run organisation and dragging everyone down to their level. Actually, maybe I'm liking these plans, the EL club that I can run affordably will also be supported financially by every other good promoter...

 

12: I would rather see grades strictly determined by age and experience, rather than average.

 

13: LMFAO...and just how would you determine what was a bend and what was a legitimate interpretation of a rule?

[SCB]

5: Despite this being the one that SCB picked on, it's possibly the one I have the least objection to....It only needs one Welsh rider to be found and two Scots...not too much of an ask, surely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1?

 

Welsh rider are.... Phil Morris (the day he rides for a Newport team that is promoted by Tim Stone is the day hell freezes over, I believe!), Tom Brown (pretty much the same), Jamie Westacott (about as reliable as the British weather), the Tuttons, Darren Hatton, Russell Barnett, Me, Tim Stone, Pinny.....

 

Ok we have the dubious Welshman Tony Atrkin and Glenn Cunnighams mum is from Newport BUT Glenn Cunningham? No thanks and it only takes one club with a grudge against Newport to offer Tony Atkin mad terms and Newport are left with no Welsh rider, dubious or not. We could sign Jamie Wesacott (who doesn't even know if he retiring or not!) and Matt Tutton (4.xx CL rider). Oh joy, I'd love to watch that pair at reserve!

Edited March 28, 2006 by SCB

[HenryW]

1?

He only asked for one of the reserves to be Welsh in a Welsh side...

Maybe there isn't anyone around at the moment that you rate, but such rules would encourage promoters to try and develop and invest in local young riders.

That's one of the reasons that I initially liked the graded reserves idea, before they started making a mess of it with the implementation...

[SCB]

It's still flawed. What makes a guy from Wrexham any more deserving of a team place at Newport than a guy from Bristol (which is closer).

 

Is Berwick England or Scotland? It's possible that a lad from 3 or 4 miles away who is the wrong side of the border losses out (and lets assume for a second they're English, are they?), so they sign Danny Warwick who has to drive from one end of England to the other.

 

Would be so much better to say every team had to have a rider who lived (or was born), within 30 miles of the track.

 

It would be a joke for someone who was born in Bristol to not be able to ride for Newport, some 15-20 miles away yet he can ride for Berwick, Workington and Newcastle, 100's of miles away!

[barrow boy]

Here is the following changes I would impliment.

 

1) Remove double-point rides, however one of your top riders (1/5) can come in for your middle order (2/3/4).  One rider, once per meeting.

 

2) TV rights will be opened up, with 4 packages available:  1) Live Rights EL, 2) Delayed rights PL, 3) Delayed Rights CL, 4) Round-up programme.  No one broadcaster can have more than 2.

 

3) Teams will be built to 45 points including bonus.  No changes to dilute the product.  This will be for 1-5 only.

 

4) Wages will be capped at an affordable level.

 

5) All teams will have at least 2 brits, at least one of these has to be from the nation you are riding in (ie scotland, england, wales etc).

 

6) All teams can have a maximum of 10 riders in thier squad, 2 of which can double up from lower leagues)

 

7) Guests to be allowed

 

8) Rider replacement allowed

 

9) Income from TV broadcasting to be shared on a proportional basis throughout the leagues.  50% between EL clubs split right down the middle, 30% to PL clubs, 20% to CL clubs.

 

10) Promotion and Relegation to be brought in, Windfall payments for those promoted, parachute payments for those teams relegated.

 

11) A percentage of gate receipts to be forwarded for the setting up of a slush fund, where teams in trouble can be financially supported.

 

12) Graded reserves will continue, with the grades being decided upon by the averages:  1-3 points, C.  3-5 Points B, 5+ A

 

13) Fines for promotors who are found to have "bent" rules to suit themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Agree part one but disagree part 2

2) Agree in principle but can't see it working.

3) Disagree. Successful teams ought not be punished for their success by having to de-strengthen. Teams above the previous season's average should be allowed to maintain their strength and those below should be allowed to increase up to the average.

4) Agree but who decides what is affordable

5) Agree to part one but disagree with part 2

6) Agree. Have always advocated this.

7) Totally disagree. One of the worst things allowed in the sport.

8) Agree but only for any missing top 3 rider whose rides may be taken one each by 4 other riders.

9) Agree but can't see this one happening.

10) Agree. Have always advocated this also.

11) Possibly agree ????? Can't see many promotions agreeing though

12) Disagree

13) Would like to agree but Dummies & Prams comes to mind

[AndyM]

Re. (5), what was wrong with the Subedei proposal to make all reserves British and under 22 - similar to the PL rule?

[HenryW]

Re. (5), what was wrong with the Subedei proposal to make all reserves British and under 22 - similar to the PL rule?

I would agree that such a rule would be good to implement.

As suggested in my post earlier, I would prefer to have the rule relate to experience rather than age, though. I see no need to penalise a late starter in the sport, or someone who missed a couple of seasons through injury....or simply wasn't good enough to hold down a professional team place for the first few years of their career.

 

For example, keeping with the grading idea in the PL, a C grade in PL could be someone who has raced for less than a seasons worth of professional meetings. B grade for less than 2 seasons worth and A grade for less than 3 seasons worth.

In EL a C grade could be less than 2 seasons, a B grade less than 3 and an A grade less than 4.

I would suggest having a numerical figure on the number of meetings or races that roughly equates to a season, maybe 40 meetings or 160 rides per "season" rather than just saying "a season", if that makes sense.

Rides might be the best way to go as then a rider doing exceptionally well and taking lots of extra races would spend less time at reserve.

 

I would allow them to continue to race at reserve regardless of their average as long as they met the other criteria.

The fact that the EL clubs would be clamouring for the best youngsters should discourage riders from staying in the PL if they were really too good for a reserve berth there. Using the rides limit would also help with this as continuing to take lots of easy races at PL level would reduce their time at reserve in EL.

 

I expect this suggestion to be torn apart in a similar fashion to what I did to easy_tigers suggestions earlier...or jsut ignored completely cos it's too stupid to comment on

[SCB]

So 11 EL teams, 2 reserve slots = 22 riders.

 

Find me 22 rider who are British and fit your criteria and I'll show you at least half a dozen CL riders! Then what about the PL teams? They're have no British rider (apart from the CL second strings and reserve riding at reserve). Now imagine a few of the better Brits to stay in the PL, that would mean some of the CL second strings would have to ride in the EL.

 

Can you imagine Sam Hurst in the EL? It would end his career as he'd be guarenteed to come last every time, Tony Rickardsson would fall off and still beat him.

 

It's not thr answer, YET

[AndyM]

Much too complicated and completely unnecessary - a simple rule which dedicates places to young Brits will do nicely. Why have tortuous grading systems for reserves?

[Kevin Meynell]

Why have tortuous grading systems for reserves?

 

Unfortunately, it's the politics of envy. No promoter wants to take the chance that another promoter chances upon a good reserve, and is able to run with them on an extended basis.

 

Now whilst I do believe that some sort of team equalisation is necessary, I'd say the encouragement and advancement of UK-based prospects (which does not necessarily mean British talent) is a far higher priority if speedway is to have a viable future in this country.

 

I'd simply allow all under-21s, or any rider in the first 3 seasons of their career, to ride with the minimum average (which is 3.00 these days). However, the proviso would be that they'd have to stay with the same team, or else move to a higher league. The idea would be to encourage tracks to develop their own riders, and give them some protection from predatory teams with big cheque books. A junior rider would still be allowed to move teams if they wished, but their actual average would then apply.

[AndyM]

Absurd! No matter how bureaucratic the rules, some teams will always make better selections than other. Much better to keep it as simple as possible, allow the riders concerned to stay at reserve until they're 22, and to give first pick to the teams at the bottom end of the scale.

[Jeff.]

Absurd!  No matter how bureaucratic the rules, some teams will always make better selections than other.  Much better to keep it as simple as possible, allow the riders concerned to stay at reserve until they're 22, and to give first pick to the teams at the bottom end of the scale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peter Collins was World Champion at 22, Mike Lee was 21. They would have made good reserves. John Louis on the other hand didnt sit on a speedway bike until he was 28.

[TonyM]

give first pick to the teams at the bottom end of the scale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

First pick at what? Not the junior rider moving up a league as that is hardly going to make or break a club, particularly as he would most likely want to ride for his local track where he can keep expenses to a minimum whilst he learns his trade and picking foreign imports is such a lottery anyway who is to say who is going to make it

 

Personally I was in favour of the new reserves rule in the PL but as ever poor implementation has (and will) result in the whole scheme being abused to such an extent so as to make it worthless. Plus the current system may well see a number of riders struggling to be placed once their easy time at reserve comes to an end

 

Better to encourage clubs to stick with riders by offering average reductions for returning riders and scrapping the asset system for rolling contracts. We might then see investment in rider development rather than asset development which seems to be at the heart of a number of promoters strategies (so sad to read the new Oxfords promotions views on why sponsorship mattered)

[Hazzman]

Well after doing a fantasy league team building exercise this year with certain rules discussed I can vouch for people's concern.

 

To address the balance in developing British riders, this would be my criteria.

 

Originally start off next season with the rule, there must be three Brits in one team. Then warm all clubs of a new apprentice rider rule coming next season, this should develop and give youngsters some encourage for second halfs at respective clubs,in many ways making a mini-academy and establishing riders such as Bridger at Eastbourne etc.

 

Next season starts, three Brits still within the main squad. No.6 spot becomes the apprentice jacket. The rider must be British and under-21. The No.6 Spot demands less from the no.7 jacket.

 

Next season, three Brits in main body of team. No.7 Spot is where the apprentice rider goes and then at No.6 is a new British under-21 rider.

 

Season after, if the orignal apprentice is good enough he goes into the three Brits in the top five. After the reserve thing continues.

 

No the hardest part would be if a junior riders does exceptationly well,do you keep him at reserve. Well yes, he will be there for two years max. The Junior rider would come in the main body at 5 point reserve making it profitable for a team to keep producing rivals.

 

If anybody is worried about Brits slipping out the team. Then dont, the rider would be good enough, for the country to develop riders time-wasters need do not apply.

 

 

Another thing the BSPA must massively support the youngsters and other Brits to ride abroad and gain more knowledge. This includes open meetings and competitions such as the European Championship.

[AndyM]

First pick at what?  Not the junior rider moving up a league as that is hardly going to make or break a club, particularly as he would most likely want to ride for his local track where he can keep expenses to a minimum whilst he learns his trade and picking foreign imports is such a lottery anyway who is to say who is going to make it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True of any sport - you never know for sure, but you can have a pretty good guess, and unless there is some mechanism to prevent it, the best young riders will tend to gravitate towards the best teams. Mobility isn't always a factor, since speedway riders manage to turn out for teams far from their base - if they believe it's to the benefit of their career.

[TonyM]

True of any sport - you never know for sure, but you can have a pretty good guess, and unless there is some mechanism to prevent it, the best young riders will tend to gravitate towards the best teams.  Mobility isn't always a factor, since speedway riders manage to turn out for teams far from their base - if they believe it's to the benefit of their career.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really tinkering around the edges (imo revolution not evolution is looking more and more the only way forward) but having thought about a'draft' type system the only way I could see it working would be to raise the age at which a rider could become an asset to (say) 21. Prior to this he could ride as a 'free agent' from year to year without any loan fee issues. This would help end the scrap for 15 year olds signatures and hopefully by 21 clubs would know what they were getting (as an aside I am with HenryW in that a fairer method would be rides rather than age but take the point about complicating things further)

[Bobbin' Along]

10) Promotion and Relegation to be brought in, Windfall payments for those promoted, parachute payments for those teams relegated.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with nearly all of what you suggest, but having been in the unenviable position of supporting the only team in recent history to have been relegated I can't agree with this one!