Elite League Draft Riders

[phillipsr]

But Auty isnt an improved performer hes actually gone backwards so the draft has worked perfectly.

Edited December 15, 2013 by phillipsr

[SCB]

They haven't been forced out, they've had their chance, there are other British riders in the 1-5 of teams, who promoters and team managers think are a better prospect, there will be changes anyway as the season goes on, you don't often get the same seven right through a season.

You get more fixtures though, and most season ticket prices are either frozen or reduced.

He has been forced out. He would have been someones reserve this year but instead teams were forced to sign never has been and never will be's. If Auty has been found out then what about Lambert, Starke, Smart and Halsey who have all been around years and not even looked like making it as an EL rider. Yet Auty who is EL standard gets forced out for them because he's not good enough to be a second string but way beyond NL standard. Basically there is a void now that if you're in it, you're not riding EL. Anyone who is Pl 5-8 point level is forced out of the EL.

 

Auty may not be an improver but even a getting worse Auty is better than Lambert, Starke, Smart and Halsey will be even if you give them a free ride in the EL for the next 10 years.

[orion]

They haven't been forced out, they've had their chance, there are other British riders in the 1-5 of teams, who promoters and team managers think are a better prospect, there will be changes anyway as the season goes on, you don't often get the same seven right through a season.

You get more fixtures though, and most season ticket prices are either frozen or reduced.

Of course they have been forced out without this rule Auty would have an El place . No matter what we think of him there is no doubt worst riders have taken his place .

But Auty isnt an improved performer hes actually gone backwards so the draft has worked perfectly.

What by bringing in riders who gone backwards in the NL ? What sort of logic is that .

[Hodgy]

But Auty isnt an improved performer hes actually gone backwards so the draft has worked perfectly.

Auty is a similar age, in most cases younger than the draft riders mentioned. He is no world beater but is a much better rider than Lambert, Starke, Halsey and Smart will ever be. Not sure how you view this as working perfectly. Why they didn't implement this in the PL and have a minimum 2 Brits in EL teams is beyond me.

[Crump99]

Why they didn't implement this in the PL and have a minimum 2 Brits in EL teams is beyond me.

 

I read this elsewhere and I'd say that he's on the money so to speak, he usually is: "Don't believe the hype. All this rubbish about fast track development of British riders is a crock. This is purely a cost saving exercise and a very poor one at that."

[foamfence]

Of course they have been forced out without this rule Auty would have an El place . No matter what we think of him there is no doubt worst riders have taken his place .

 

What by bringing in riders who gone backwards in the NL ? What sort of logic is that .

He might well have been replaced by a foreigner under the previous set-up. The promoters/team managers had the choice and chose the riders that they did, over others on the list, there are more being added to the list should a change be required. More and more people (including Scott Nicholls and Tai Woffinden) have said it's the right thing to do. Whoever was on the list, there would have been grumblers.

[Fromafar]

This draft rider situation really is just farce at least 1/2 of the chosen riders would never make EL standard even at reserve,the best Young Talent is already starting in the 1-5 Robert Lambert.Like has been pointed out just subsidising the so called "superstars" of the EL.& charging last years admission is a nerve .

[stratton]

Is this post a joke ?

My opinion is yours that much better than mine? are we not entitled to that or is it the norm that you always no best.?

[E I Addio]

Auty is a similar age, in most cases younger than the draft riders mentioned. He is no world beater but is a much better rider than Lambert, Starke, Halsey and Smart will ever be. Not sure how you view this as working perfectly. Why they didn't implement this in the PL and have a minimum 2 Brits in EL teams is beyond me.

 

My understanding is that the PL promoters rejected it for geographical reasons. The EL covers an area from Poole to Manchester, the PL covers Plymouth to Glasgow/Edinburgh. There are apparently not enough suitable riders based in the North to make it viable.

[orion]

He might well have been replaced by a foreigner under the previous set-up. The promoters/team managers had the choice and chose the riders that they did, over others on the list, there are more being added to the list should a change be required. More and more people (including Scott Nicholls and Tai Woffinden) have said it's the right thing to do. Whoever was on the list, there would have been grumblers.

No they never had the choice they have been forced to pick riders they would never had taken ...the bottom line is Auty is better than nearly all the draft riders no matter how you dress it up .

My opinion is yours that much better than mine?

?? :rofl:

[Hodgy]

My understanding is that the PL promoters rejected it for geographical reasons. The EL covers an area from Poole to Manchester, the PL covers Plymouth to Glasgow/Edinburgh. There are apparently not enough suitable riders based in the North to make it viable.

It would still be more viable than the outcome.

I read this elsewhere and I'd say that he's on the money so to speak, he usually is: "Don't believe the hype. All this rubbish about fast track development of British riders is a crock. This is purely a cost saving exercise and a very poor one at that."

Aware of the reasons, assume Frosty was too.

[stratton]

It would still be more viable than the outcome.

I think what you have suggested Hodgy is what 99 per cent of us believe to be the right thing to do why is it so difficult to implement.?

[500cc]

 

My understanding is that the PL promoters rejected it for geographical reasons. The EL covers an area from Poole to Manchester, the PL covers Plymouth to Glasgow/Edinburgh. There are apparently not enough suitable riders based in the North to make it viable.

So instead the PL uses those locals from the likes of Denmark and Australia. Only in speedway !!!

[E I Addio]

 

I read this elsewhere and I'd say that he's on the money so to speak, he usually is: "Don't believe the hype. All this rubbish about fast track development of British riders is a crock. This is purely a cost saving exercise and a very poor one at that."

 

I don't think there was ever any pretence that it wasn't a cost saving exercise. The point is to provide more meetings

 

For the last 3 years we have had this utterly ridiculous league system of only 14 home league matches meeting some teams twice and some teams once. Probably one of the most unpopular decisions ever which caused big gaps in the fixture list and caused fans to get out of the speedway habit. Its been public knowledge since at least last July that the promoters , or at least some of them, were working on ways to provide more fixtures but its clear that something has to give.

 

Do the sums. On published figures Eastbourne were losing £5000 per meeting, Peterborough were losing over £7000 per meeting. Swindon and Belle Vue were known to be losing big money. Now, it stands to reason that if you are losing £5000 per meeting and you put on another 4 meetings you lose another £20,000 so some way has to be found to reduce the cost per meeting.

 

There is no point in raking over past history that led to this situation , we are where we are. The choice facing us is more meetings at lower losses per meeting or sticking with the old 14 home meeting formula with promoters still suffering eye watering losses..

 

Personally, although I don't like the idea of 2 NL races per meeting but I would prefer that to 14 meetings of the old system. Others may feel different which is fair enough but one thing that is for sure is that we can't have our cake and eat it. , No point in moaning about the draft unless you are content with fewer meetings.

[SCB]

So instead the PL uses those locals from the likes of Denmark and Australia. Only in speedway !!!

Only in speedway!

[500cc]

As a sport I don't think the finances add up anyway. Too much is spent on rider wages. Certainly at the top end of the sport, too much of club's income is going to a few riders. But actually I think the real problem is that the riders themselves incur too great a cost. The amount of money that goes into engine tuning is ridiculous. The essence of the sport isn't about the best equipment, but about four riders pitching their skills against one and other.

 

It doesn't appear to me that the costs are being addressed; we've simply identified some cheap labour in 2013. Now you'd like to think that the aim here was to build a future for British youngsters; but you suspect it was a cost cutting exercise that fell on the idea.

 

Now I like the direction, too big a jump in one go, but I prefer it to nothing. What will happen as a result. Well I have no doubt that some riders will take a massive step forward in their careers, some who we suspect will, others who will surprise us. That will be the HUGE success of this initiative. I also believe others will drop out of the system, many cost related. 36 meetings is a lot if the numbers aren't adding up. The promoters have told us that losses increased per meeting last year; riders may well experience a similar issue.

 

Now actually having riders succeeding and those dropping back is actually healthy, providing the system has enough riders to cope. I'm not sure at has though and I'm worried this nice set-up won't last the season; the worst scenario being that rules have to be changed mid season.

 

Now as a whole the promoters are trying to cover two categories of loss. One is the basic fact that outgoings are exceeding incomings on a per meeting basis. The other is the loss of Sky income. Now without addressing the bigger picture of costs, I'd be very surprised if the reserves initiative will cover all of this. In the worst published scenarios, we are talking a 'loss' of 10K+ per meeting. Now you'd hope those riders replaced this year weren't earning around 5k a meeting. Assuming they weren't, then there are teams still operating on a loss unless they can further manage their costs.

 

Now we don't yet know who the 2014 league sponsor is, nor how much they will pay (we probably won't be told anyway), but anything less than a million and costs that must be covered elsewhere.

 

More important is what is the 2015 strategy. The strategy must consider what happens to the riders in this year's scheme. We can't get in a position where the most successful reserves this year are frozen out next year. We are seeing a touch of it this year where the likes of Roynon and Auty are set to miss out. Now the ideal for 2015 is that the scheme continues with some new riders (there won't be 20), and the best of 2014 move into the main team. That requires spots to be reserved exclusively for graduates of this years scheme.

 

Promoters must work towards controlling costs this year, the further "cutting" using British reserves won't be an option next year. But they most also have a structure in place to ensure this year's initiative has a legacy.

[Crump99]

 

Aware of the reasons, assume Frosty was too.

 

May have been part of it but we'll never know beause Julie Mahoney said: “I’m very sad about it – everyone knows at times we’ve become disillusioned along the way, but this isn’t the time to go into that" - looking forward to opening my Readypower annual on Christmas Day, hopefully they spill the beans

[500cc]

Only in speedway!

Good point.

 

I was more referring to the reason (geography) more than the outcome which I agree is prevalent in numerous sports (not only the obvious one of football).

[Crump99]

 

There is no point in raking over past history that led to this situation , we are where we are. The choice facing us is more meetings at lower losses per meeting or sticking with the old 14 home meeting formula with promoters still suffering eye watering losses..

 

 

We are where we are but we ignore how we got from a 40 match league season in 2006 to the current mess and then think that those allowed it to happen have suddenly come up with a masterplan to put it right. Dream on. They'll still moan about losses, it comes with the territory. They also still run year on year although where they go from here at the 2014 AGM, God alone knows?

Edited December 15, 2013 by Crump99

[E I Addio]

 

We are where we are but we ignore how we got from a 40 match league season in 2006 to the current mess and then think that those allowed it to happen have suddenly come up with a masterplan to put it right. Dream on. They'll still moan about losses, it comes with the territory. They also still run year on year although where they go from here go at the 2014 AGM, God alone knows?

 

 

I never said ignore the past but this is where we are now and we can't change what's happened by moaning about it.

 

I never said they have come up with a master plan either. At best it is a transitional arrangement that may or may not be successful in leading to a more tenable arrangement. All I am saying is that the deal is cut costs to give more meetings and people have to recognise we can't have more meetings with last years line-ups and rider costs.. However much we want to we can't turn the clock back to 2006 .