Mylor Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 (edited) - any predictions? where can you see speedway being in the next 5 years? I know that I didn't expect to see it where it is now 5 years ago - What we have to do now is to get as many forum members as possible to agree a set of principles for the future of speedway. I think you Mylor could do a fine job of coming up with these, which could then be discussed, and then finally agreed.... and then as many people as possible would e-mail/write letters... to every single promoter, (or maybe BSPA members to start with), until they are fed up with us that they have to respond... I don't think they'll pay attension otherwise. Worth a try?... Now I don’t know Mark……………for all I know he may be CVS looking for ideas but for better or worse I’ve accepted the challenge!! Mind your feet……….this ones heavy!! What follows is a draft of the principles Mark asked for above and has been generated using most of the salient points raised by forum members. In order to tailor this into a workable format I’ve sewn the threads together with a few strands of my own. Although the members may not always see eye to eye when discussing a single topic, there appears to be a general consensus amongst us that this sport is great, but could be much greater and much more popular if some of our ideas were taken up and acted upon. These may well give rise to a whole new set of problems but hopefully these would be ones born of success. There should be no element of compulsion in any of these issues. Freeing up some of the logjams the sport finds itself in and providing a framework within which the sport can evolve at a natural rate should be deemed the first priority. A bit like feeding and watering garden plants really rather than letting them fend for themselves. To cover all the points suggested by the membership would have been impractical in the time available before the winter recess. Believe it or not, what follows is an abridged version. Many of the issues, especially the more contentious ones, are still the subject of ‘live’ threads on the forum. My apologies if I haven’t covered ‘your’ point but as you can see this is already taking up a goodly chunk of Phil’s bandwidth. With this in mind I’ve numbered the points to save you quoting whole chunks in your replies. That’s the only reason I’ve done this…….it’s certainly not to make this look like a government white paper!! Please feel free to comment and add your own points to the thread and, if you feel it’s worth while, pass the thread link or even the whole text to anyone you think may help these, in full or in part, come about. 1) Ruling bodies At first glance it may appear that the ruling bodies have grown out of all proportion and would be expensive to run, however, many of these functions are already being undertaken. It seems to make sense though to bring these people in to the controlling bodies where they can have an impact by at least sanity checking the rule book if not being actively engaged in making the rules. There is a change of emphasis however, aimed at growing the sport in stature as well as size. 1a) FIM – No posts have suggested any change here, however the FIM seems the appropriate body to take on this task: A team of specialists be assembled to build temporary tracks of the finest quality where required. This team would replace a national body’s team. Any additional expenditure should be weighed against the benefits to the sport of producing first class meetings for a worldwide audience.. 1b) UEM – A union of European motorcycle federations responsible for organising European events. We may consider the speedway functions of the Track Racing Working Group of this body to be in need of a major overhaul as many of us have never heard of it and it fails to effectively promote itself or it’s championships. It’s primary functions should include the promotion of the sport at European level, the organisation of European competitions with the full co-operation and participation of all national bodies, Internationals and Test Series, media and marketing rights (European competitions), refereeing quality, track and stadia licensing (for European events), safety and track standards, marketing, sponsorship, media relations, ticket distribution and legal issues. Funding to come primarily from media and marketing rights related to the successful promotion of it’s competitions. 1c) National bodies - Speedway Control Board/Bureau, an ACU body Now seen as being under the control of the BSPA which is sometimes seen as a body not being dedicated to the promotion of the sport as a whole. It has been suggested that it be revised (and renamed?) to become an independent body comprising representatives of all facets of the sport to include, say, a promoter's delegate, a riders delegate, a referees delegate, an ACU delegate, a delegate with responsibility for liaising with the UEM and the FIM, a delegate with responsibility for promotional elements (TV, BSI liaison, publicity etc), media and marketing rights, a safety and track standards delegate, a ‘new tracks’ support delegate, and a training and development delegate. Again, it’s primary function should be the promotion of the sport at national level. Funding to come from track levies and the sale of media and marketing rights related to national competitions. 1d) BSPA - Of course we need promoters, especially the ones who ‘promote’ in the broadest sense of the word, and it’s only right that they have a body to represent their interests. As the promoter’s interests can sometimes appear to conflict with the best interests of the sport as a whole we would be amongst the first to applaud them on having the courage and foresight to transfer some of their powers to the new Control Board on which they would be represented. Other issues proper to the ruling bodies. 1e) Rule stability. One set of race rules including the use of substitutes etc to apply to all races internationally. Meeting rules should apply to all meetings of that type. The application of differing rules for different competitions creates confusion amongst new supporters and sometimes team managers and referees. 1f) Distribution of rights, sponsorship and marketing monies to be transparent. In order to encourage the rapid growth required to fulfil this plan training and development should be given a high priority. In the medium to long term it may be advantageous to allocate some of the proceeds specifically for stadium improvements and safety items such as air fences. 1g) Promote the sport by all available means. Be proactive. Provide media with materials, match reports, photo’s, video footage, competition prizes etc and the support necessary to encourage them to cover the sport in depth. The internet may well have a large part to play in the distribution of this material. Could ‘Speedway FM’ become viable at some point, broadcast on digital and the internet? 1h) Provide expertise and support to help new, and existing promoters opening new tracks, especially covering local authority presentations, planning, regional funding and local issues. 1i) Implement cost reduction measures aimed at helping newcomers take up the sport. Particular attention should be given to reducing tyre and engine costs and ‘Approved Supplier’ status awarded to companies offering discounts to newcomers on goods and services. 1j) A system of Yellow & Red cards to replace exclusion under the 2 minute rule, moving at the start or as the cause of a stoppage. Exclusion to remain as the penalty for touching the tapes. 2) Expansion It is generally accepted that, as the prime focus of televised speedway and as a showcase for the top riders, the Elite League will need to expand if it is to remain viable. The reluctance of other clubs to join the EL is, in many cases, the result of the much higher running costs and the lack of variety offered under the present format. To encourage new teams and increase the variety on offer the EL needs to reduce it’s running costs and offer compelling incentives for other tracks to join. Any growth in popularity of the sport encouraging new tracks to open may be hindered by the capacity of the PL to accommodate them without itself splitting into 2 divisions, neither of which may be viable until further growth occurs. It follows that, in the short term, capacity in the PL, and the difficulties being experienced by the EL, would, short of the possibility of new tracks entering the EL directly, best be eased by teams moving voluntarily from the former to the latter, however, the concerns of clubs offering to make the move should be effectively addressed. 2a) Cost reduction (EL) – Primarily based on one rider, one club across Europe which would have the effect of spreading the top riders more thinly. 2b) Increased attendances (All) – Suggestions include offering newcomers their first 6 meetings free (supporters clubs may well be happy to organise this based on temporary membership and proof of identity), Kids for a quid, kids clubs free nights, buy one ticket get one free/half price nights, carnival floats, local publicity, media liaison. At tracks not covered by local reporters, tracks may wish to write their own reports and send them, with photos to local media. Short video clips and match reports may also be welcomed by local TV and radio who may give additional coverage to meetings and events supporting local charities and good causes. 2c) More variety (EL) – As well as the welcome addition of any clubs deciding to make a step up under the new climate, the clubs should be encouraged to support a European Club Championship (ECC, made feasible by the one rider, one club initiative. Briefly this could comprise of the top 16, 20 or 24 teams across Europe competing home and away in leagues of 4, 5 or 6 followed by 2-leg knockout stages and a final possibly staged the Sunday after a GP on the same track (as many fans, the media and all the other required facilities would already be in place). Of course this would increase revenues from broadcasters, encourage sponsors and boost the sales of merchandise. 2d) Successful implementation of the above could see quite rapid expansion of the EL in the medium term. 3) Training & Development Vital in the new climate of course, as the riders will be needed to sustain the growth and cover the shortfall resulting from the one rider, one club initiative which is why priority should be given to rider training and development in the early stages of the plan when the authorities distribute rights and sponsorship monies.. 3a) Retired riders – Mechanisms should be available to reimburse the expenses of retired riders involved in training and development 3b) Cost reduction rulings – As highlighted above, these should aimed at encouraging newcomers to take up the sport. 3c) Travelling expenses – Primarily for non-wage earners, students etc when travelling to away meetings in recognised, essentially amateur competitions 4) Club issues 4a) One rider, one club. Not only reduces costs but promotes a culture of longer term team loyalty. Rider churn undoubtedly has an effect on fan retention. Fewer meetings per rider should mean fewer injuries and fewer guests. 4b) New riders. The training program should in the medium term provide new riders, however in the short term doubling-up, CL to PL and PL to EL may be deemed the best way forward. 4c) Doubling-up/down. Again, in order to encourage fan/team loyalty it may be worth considering naming the club’s pool of double-up/down riders before the start of the season. 4d) Squad system pilot. In order to promote rider/club loyalty consideration should be given to running a squad system pilot. 4e) Rider training. Consideration should also be given to expanded sponsorship, by clubs, of young riders, whether or not they can be trained locally, with a view to retaining them as assets. Such assets may, subject to further discussion and agreement between all parties, be retained regardless of any points limits in force. 4f) Guest riders. The guest rider system could be deemed to be confusing to newcomers and disheartening to regulars. As, in any one season, the number of guest appearances per team would be somewhat similar, little would be gained from retaining the system. Promotion of second strings and the use of reserves or doubling-up riders would probably be of more benefit in the long term 4g) European Club Championship. The adoption of the ECC initiative by EL and European clubs should provide more variety, more opportunity to see top class riders and more media and sponsorship revenue as well as giving a financial incentive to finishing towards the top of the league. The lure may also encourage PL or new teams to apply for entry. 4h) Promotion & relegation. A longer term objective requiring many of the other initiatives to be taken up and a degree of expansion to be achieved first. It is recognised that for geographical and financial reasons some clubs may wish to forgo promotion opportunities in which case promotion may be offered to the next highest club in the league. As an alternative it may be deemed more desirable for this ‘next highest club’ to meet in a 2 leg ‘play off’ with the relegated club from the higher division. To be allowed to compete in the higher division would mean accepting the rules, one of which would be acceptance of the conditions under which a team can be relegated. It may even be deemed desirable to withhold some or all of the rights and other money until the following season to act as both a 'parachute payment' and as a deterrent. 4i) Facilities for Prestige Events. In the medium to long term tracks licensed to hold prestige events should be encouraged to provide facilities in keeping with their status, scoreboards, video replays etc. The required funding should be raised from the proceeds of such events. 4j) Inter league tournaments. Rules for these seem to allow for a remarkable degree of flexibility, often causing much head scratching amongst regulars, newcomers and even referees and team managers. As stated above under Rule Stability, meeting rules should apply to all meetings of that type. 5) Rider issues There is little doubt that the above changes would affect top riders probably more than anyone else, however for a sport striving to improve it’s credibility and improve it’s popularity the concept of riders riding for more than one club is likely to restrict progress. 5a) One rider, one club. This would reduce income somewhat initially. Riders may well need to consider cutting their expenditure accordingly however, in this new environment, as it would be the same for all riders, competitiveness should not be unduly affected. In the longer term the benefits (more internationals, ECC matches and prestige individual events) should outweigh the disadvantages. 5b) ECC. All riders riding for the top clubs in Europe should benefit from the additional income, exposure and sponsorship such a competition would bring. Properly promoted and covered by the media it could quickly be perceived as being second only to the GP’s in popularity. 5c) Availability for internationals. More dates would become available for internationals and test series. Perhaps not a major draw at present, however this is probably only due to there being little history of rivalry amongst the test riding nations. England v Germany in football, England v Australia in cricket, major draws and always of interest to the media. Team GB v Sweden, Poland or Australia, take your pick. Everyone a winner? 5d) Availability for prestige individual events. These have lost credibility in recent years as fans have been used to seeing top riders week in week out at their local tracks, however as this may not be the case in the new climate these provide the ideal opportunity for fans to see their best home riders competing against the best in the world. 5e) Reduced expenditure and club benefits. One rider, one club would bring reduced travelling time and costs, lower machinery and support costs. It should also make many clubs viable again giving riders more stability and encouraging loyalty, which, as in other major sports, brings it’s own benefits in terms of merchandise sales etc. 5f) Injuries. More matches, more injuries……….track standards and safety have been addressed above, however it’s unreasonable to expect riders to arrive fresh and alert for 5 meetings a week spread all over Europe week in, week out without it taking it’s toll and what a toll it’s taken this year. 6) Broadcasters and rights holder issues. The quality of speedway coverage in recent years has been little short of stunning. Adoption of some or all of the initiatives and new competitions mentioned above should give plenty of quality competition and variety for broadcasters in the UK and throughout Europe to get their teeth into. 6a) An expanded Elite League would create more variety. 6b) A European Club Championship. 7 man teams, home and away, and a Final held on a GP circuit on the Sunday after the GP……… A brand new competition rights holders and broadcasters could mould and promote to their, and our liking. Ok it’s not strictly brand new but it’s not been tried like this before and should make excellent viewing. 6c) Internationals and test series. Team GB v Sweden, Poland or Australia, take your pick. With the potential to rival their equivalents in cricket, rugby and football. Ok we need to develop a history of rivalry, but this should happen rather more quickly with the aid of TV. Everyone a winner? 7) Timescales. A very rough guide to how this could come about. Year 1 – 1a, 1f, 1g, 1i, 1j, 2b, 3a, 3b, 3c, 4c, 4e, 4f. Year 2 – 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 1h, 2a, 4a, 4b (Yr 2-5), 4j, 5a, 5e, 5f. Year 3 – 2c, 4d, 4g, 5b, 5c, 5d, 6a, 6b, 6c Year 4 – 2d, 4i. Year 5 – 4h And finally Kick it about, amend it, criticise it, bin it, consign it to the Fantasy Speedway League section. Do as you will to it. I suspect some will do the latter. I considered posting it there myself more than once but the fact remains that these are the ideas put forward by us, the paying customers, whether we pay at the turnstiles, subscribe to Sky, buy the Speedway Star, the merchandise or the goods advertised on C4. We are the lifeblood of the business. Credible, successful business listen to their customers and even if they don’t react in quite the way we would hope we can make a difference. Edited March 5, 2006 by Mylor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 What follows is a draft of the principles Mark asked for above and has been generated using most of the salient points raised by forum members. I admire your enthusiasm, but similar exercises have been done at various times since the first speedway mailing list appeared back in 1994. Various promoters have always been on the lists, and are fully aware of what is said - the fact that they're so quick to condemn 'gossip' in the Speedway Star is evidence of this. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of the revocation of the decision to get rid of helmet colours, there is little evidence they take notice of fans' views. In fact, us fans on the Internet are widely held to be 'anoraks'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 One tip ............... improve the racing (amount of passing in races) by whatever means, hopefully in a way that will reduce the costs for the riders and therefore the club and therefore the fans :-) Processional speedway is boring to old fans and new and potential! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mylor Posted October 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 In the last 9 days 208.....ish have viewed thread but we still don't have a feel for how they view the principals. I suspect many have given it a cursory glance and moved on............probably thinking that Mylor's a cheeky bug*er for compiling this in the first place. The BSPA meeting takes place in 20 days time. You may wish to send them on their way with an idea of how you feel regarding the forum's suggestions. With this in mind I propose a vote on the following 5 options: a) Fans shouldn't be suggesting improvements Speedway should be developed roughly along these lines. c) Speedway should not be developed along these lines. d) I have a better idea and will post it in 'The Way Ahead' e) It doesn't matter how speedway develops as long as my team wins the league next year. Any seconders? ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 we still don't have a feel for how they view the principals. I could comment on nearly every point, but I know the BSPA won't take a blind bit of notice. The sport needs restructuring, but nothing will happen until the SGP, BEL and Sky television are disentangled from one another. That is the issue preventing change at the moment. As I mentioned in a previous post, this exercise has been done before, and I know that the suggestions have been read by the 'powers-that-be'. Unfortunately, there has never even been a 'thanks, but no thanks', let alone any sign that some of the suggestions have been acted upon (with a couple of exceptions). In an effort to be constructive though, I would say concentrate on the points that are within the ability of the BSPA to change. They cannot change anything in the FIM, UEM, ACU and other national leagues without a massive schism in the sport, so there's little point pursuing that (although I suppose we can dream). I wouldn't disagree with some of the more fundamental rule changes, like introduction of squad systems and the abolition of guests, but some appear to be akin to rearranging deck chairs on Titantic. I think you have to ask whether changing something make the sport easier to understand and/or attract new supporters. If not, then leave things as they are. I don't wish to appear negative about your admirable efforts, but you first need to convince the patient that he needs to be cured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark cox Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 The anoraksRus brigade will always be around: personally I don't think you can beat a nice warm fleece, er, but anyway Mr Mylor, let me be the first (hopefully not the last!) to second a) & . Whether its structure, track prep, type of engines, or whatever, everyone on the forum has an opinion, so please give generously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mylor Posted October 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 I think Kevin voted for a)............but then again......... Mark, can you read a) & again?.........I'm getting conflicting signals. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 I think Kevin voted for a) Not really. I think fans should be able to at least *suggest* improvements, but unfortunately I'm realistic about how much notice the 'powers-that-be' will pay these. You probably need to add another option in your poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mylor Posted October 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Sorry Kevin, This is a vote for what you want, not about what you think will happen. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark cox Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Whoops! Thought a) said should! Its then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchnut Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Hey Mylor, one area that you might want to look at is fixtures. There are several areas where fixture planning could be improved, what do others think? 1) When announced at the beginning of the season a lot of the fixture dates from mid-season are "reserved" for cup matches etc. I'd like to see meaningful fixtures booked in for all teams right through to the natural end to the main season in mid-Oct. 2) A league of less than 10 teams is never going to generate the necessary number of scheduled league meetings to fill the fixture list. 3) Speaking for myself the BLC has not generated the "must be there at all costs" feeling, I suggest that it either needs modifying, or deleting and replacing. 4) Do promoters etc. look at school holiday dates? I'ts been frustrating to me personally to have had "no meeting weeks" over half terms, when it could be an opportunity for younger children to attend, and similarly where the fixtures during the main summer holiday Jul-Aug-Sep are often dependant upon cup qualification rather than guaranteed. 5) Riders, promoters and fans of less successful teams have their season end middle of September (I know being an Ipswich fan!) 6) Get a really simple and complete fixture ready at the beginning of the season and promote it heavily. Many clubs are positioned to benefit from seasonal tourism - get the fixture lists down to all the tourist information offices. What do others think? Witchnut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mylor Posted October 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Sorry guys, I had to draw the line somwhere. I'd already covered 36 points and needed to get this out before the BSPA conference whether it made a difference or not. Good points for stage two though, if we get anywhere near to it eh? Fancy voting on stage one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 There are several areas where fixture planning could be improved, what do others think? Yes, fixture planning, particularly in the BEL, is very poor. Unfortunately, nothing will change until the league is run without SGP riders as that competition occupies 10 weekends (out of 32) during the season. If you then add in the SWC, SGP Qualifying (admittedly soon to be scrapped), World U21, European Championship, European U19, the ECCC, not to mention all the compulsory meetings in other countries, it's amazing that the BEL can fit in any fixtures at all! I'd like to see meaningful fixtures booked in for all teams right through to the natural end to the main season in mid-Oct. But if you have competitions with knockout rounds, you need to schedule spare dates in case you progress. In any case, most teams usually experience one or two rainoffs each season, and these can normally be rearranged on the reserved dates. Teams also need to ride away to other teams with the same race night, which creates blank weeks in the home fixture list. 2) A league of less than 10 teams is never going to generate the necessary number of scheduled league meetings to fill the fixture list. Tracks generally aim for 20 home meetings per season. A 10-team league generates 36 matches (home & away twice), add in 2-6 matches for the Knockout Cup, and possibly 6-8 for the BLC, and you have plenty of fixtures. similarly where the fixtures during the main summer holiday Jul-Aug-Sep are often dependant upon cup qualification rather than guaranteed. Many of the mid-summer dates are effectively taken by the SGP, SWC and other World/European Championships. You won't solve the problem until you find a way of resolving the clashes. can I suggest that next years conference is on Novemeber 1st (at the latest) and at BSPA towers in Rugby to save a bit of money Why do people get so upset about the promoters going to Spain for their annual conference? They pay their own fares, and as it's off-season, it probably doesn't cost any more to hold the event than it would in Britain. After a long, hard season, I wouldn't begrude anyone going to have their meeting in the sun. Also bear in mind, that most promoters probably can't take their holidays during the summer either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 What is the point of the BSPA offices? The BSPA offices are where their employed staff work. In any case, don't they share them with the ACU? Surely they're not there for a holiday anyway! Most things are have already been discussed and/or decided in previous meetings before the promoters get to the Annual Conference. I believe the conference acts as the official AGM (where accounts are approved, auditors appointed and officers elected), and is largely used to ratify most of the pre-agreed decisions. You also have to realise that important things are rarely decided in formal meetings. Real business is always done in bars and restaurants, and I hardly think that an annual jolly to Tenerife can be considered extravagent these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbit Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Think you'll find that firstly it's just as cheap to go overseas to hold it than it is to book a UK hotel! Secondly being abroad makes it easier for the conference to be the number 1 priority rather than interruptions from home which intrude (whether business or speedway). Also the fact that being out of the country makes it harder for certain promoters to storm out of the conference and return home might have something to do with it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Man Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Most of the rooms are a bit cramped that I have seen at the SCB in wood st, to fit all the promoters in takes a big conference room, also it takes place over several days, accommodation is not cheap in that area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Meynell Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Think you'll find that firstly it's just as cheap to go overseas to hold it than it is to book a UK hotel! Absolutely! You can often negotiate very good deals (including flights) abroad during off-peak periods, which work out cheaper than renting the conference room alone in Britain. To give you an example, a conference room for around 40 people would cost in the order of GBP 2,000 per *day* in a UK hotel. Then you'd be paying upwards of GBP 80 per person per night for accommodation. It's very easy to see why the promoters go off to Tenerife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Turner Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Think you'll find that firstly it's just as cheap to go overseas to hold it than it is to book a UK hotel! Think you've missed the main reason..... .... John Perrin hates flying. So Tenerife is the sensible choice. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mylor Posted October 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Order, Order........ Tenerife's a separate topic!! Can we have our thread back please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchnut Posted October 27, 2003 Report Share Posted October 27, 2003 Thanks Kevin, good points: Of course we don't have 10 teams in the EL so the 36 match league is not possible. When I look at the Ipswich fixture list as it stood at the start of the season the first league match was Mar 27th, the last league match was Aug 28th! Beyond end of August were reserved dates for the various cup / play-off matches but the net result was that our last match was the 16-lapper one-off on Sep 16th! season finished. Because of council regulations on the total number of stock-car and speedway matches in any (I think 8-day) period we can also end up with no-meetings following bank holidays where we have just generated interest in potential new spectators, even though it is a school holiday - Easter for example. On your point about riding away on your teams home night generating a no-meeting, this doesn't happen to Ipswich much but I know that some promotions years ago actually planned for this and ran one-off competitions while their side raced away. Witchnut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.