Berwick 2015

[Robinh88]

Doolan will improve 6.81 riding in the middle order at Berwick. Rider posistioning is vital, we've spoke about this before

[Goodiepatchie]

Then place a value on their work as a volunteer, for example the labour to build Berrington was 10% to 15% of the value of the club, they should be represented on the board for that amount of input, a 10% to 15% vote on how the club is run. A fair reward for their endeavours.

the people who built berrington did it out of love for the club an a wish to see it continue most of them would have not looked for that kind of recognition their reward in their eyes was the club they love continuing to run Edited December 10, 2014 by Goodiepatchie

[YAMYAMBANDIT]

the people who built berrington did it out of love for the club an a wish to see it continue most of them would have not looked for that kind of recognition their reward in their eyes was the club they love continuing to run

And there is nothing wrong with that

[Hamster00]

Doolan isn’t going to up his average again IMO. He isn’t going to be Kings Lynn Doolan again. He hasn’t been that rider for 5 years.

 

He is however a very solid middle order rider, just because he has declined doesn’t mean that he should be discarded. If he could be fitted in at 3 or 4 he would still win a lot of races for a rider in that race jacket.

 

I wouldn’t put money on him before the race but it wouldn’t shock me to see Doolan beat a lot of Number 1’s in the league around their own track (he could also throw in a couple of dodgy rides in the process) but a guy who can score 7 or 8 with a big race win thrown in is valuable.

 

It is comparable to a lot of older riders over the years, not being the rider they once were doesn’t mean that they don’t have something to offer.

 

I agree he is never going to be Kings Lynn Kevin Doolan but not many riders in this league are as good as Kings Lynn Kevin Doolan

 

He is better than 6.91 he could be up between 7.5 and 8 as he proved at the back end of last season he's still got it and riding at number 3 as Robin said will make a massive difference

 

He did beat Cookie twice round Armadale last season not many people can say they've done that.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Hamster00

[emilali]

Doolan will.

Would you like a bet on that?

[Hamster00]

Would you like a bet on that?

 

Of course

 

On a side note do you think Jorgensen will up his average?

[Robinh88]

NO

[screm]

Doolan isn’t going to up his average again IMO. He isn’t going to be Kings Lynn Doolan again. He hasn’t been that rider for 5 years.

 

He is however a very solid middle order rider, just because he has declined doesn’t mean that he should be discarded. If he could be fitted in at 3 or 4 he would still win a lot of races for a rider in that race jacket.

 

I wouldn’t put money on him before the race but it wouldn’t shock me to see Doolan beat a lot of Number 1’s in the league around their own track (he could also throw in a couple of dodgy rides in the process) but a guy who can score 7 or 8 with a big race win thrown in is valuable.

 

It is comparable to a lot of older riders over the years, not being the rider they once were doesn’t mean that they don’t have something to offer.

 

If Doolan was 3rd heat leader behind Barker and Vissing for example the as long as he road to his average then that would be more than adequate IMO. Nothing against Doolan but if we have a fraction under seven points to spend then I hope we add that little bit extra and bring in a new asset, maybe its time to start building an asset base where in future years we don't get the Kus episode happening again.

[Hamster00]

 

If Doolan was 3rd heat leader behind Barker and Vissing for example the as long as he road to his average then that would be more than adequate IMO. Nothing against Doolan but if we have a fraction under seven points to spend then I hope we add that little bit extra and bring in a new asset, maybe its time to start building an asset base where in future years we don't get the Kus episode happening again.

 

I would rather have Doolan than a new asset purely because he is reliable and we already have one new asset to bed in and a lot of new riders that come in to this league are poor and struggle to ever live up to there original assessed average there have been a few exceptions but if you look at the big picture they are few and far between.

[Shadders]

I would go with

 

Ben Barker

Jake Allen

Kevin Doolan

Matt Tresarieu/ Pepe Franc

Claus Vissing oh sorry Thomas jorgenson

Richard Hall

Jason Bunyan

Don't bother with Tres. He'll be missing a few meetings with grass track commitments

[crescent girl]

Can't see Bunyan riding for a Northern Club, already been asked, also turned down two other Clubs in the north.

Thank the good Lord for that.

[sparkafag]

 

I would rather have Doolan than a new asset purely because he is reliable and we already have one new asset to bed in and a lot of new riders that come in to this league are poor and struggle to ever live up to there original assessed average there have been a few exceptions but if you look at the big picture they are few and far between.

 

 

I agree new asset is a great default answer to any team building question.

 

Sign a new asset, sign a 7.00 rider, it is often positioned that said 7.00 new asset will be an automatic success, the majority aren’t, they are a massive gambles

 

As an example, there was a time Kasper Lyke was a new asset and a 7.00 rider (I think he came in on 7.00), and I don’t mean to single him out, but he is a 7.00 rider who is still averaging 4.00, there was once a time when he sounded like the best idea in the world, on a track, he isn’t really. He does try and he is good to watch at times though I will say that for him.

 

The PL hit rate has suffered as the leagues have moved close, there was a time a few years ago when Newcastle would have signed Michelsen (Eastbourne) Porsing would have been at someone like Newport and Berwick might have signed Milik. The guys who most knew would be quite good wold have came to the PL as the EL was to strong for a first season rider in the UK.

An example being the ofte mentioned Krcamer, he isn't a well kept secret, he perfromed at the world cup, if Berwick fans on this forum saw that and were impressed, so did the promotion of Poole, Leicester, Wolves, the chances are he will never be near the Premier League.

The leagues are so close now that the EL clubs can take the gamble on the known talents, and the PL are left feeding of the scraps of the continent, there is a real risk signing a new asset now.

 

Signing a new rider on a 7.00 is an acceptance that you are dropping the best part of a point (at least) of your teams starting average, it is a big risk, one which Berwick have already taken (if Allan is 7.00) doing that with 2 riders, and looking at dropping 3 or 4 points of the starting average means that you are giving teams a start.

[Hamster00]

 

 

I agree new asset is a great default answer to any team building question.

 

Sign a new asset, sign a 7.00 rider, it is often positioned that said 7.00 new asset will be an automatic success, the majority aren’t, they are a massive gambles

 

As an example, there was a time Kasper Lyke was a new asset and a 7.00 rider (I think he came in on 7.00), and I don’t mean to single him out, but he is a 7.00 rider who is still averaging 4.00, there was once a time when he sounded like the best idea in the world, on a track, he isn’t really. He does try and he is good to watch at times though I will say that for him.

 

The PL hit rate has suffered as the leagues have moved close, there was a time a few years ago when Newcastle would have signed Michelsen (Eastbourne) Porsing would have been at someone like Newport and Berwick might have signed Milik. The guys who most knew would be quite good wold have came to the PL as the EL was to strong for a first season rider in the UK.

An example being the ofte mentioned Krcamer, he isn't a well kept secret, he perfromed at the world cup, if Berwick fans on this forum saw that and were impressed, so did the promotion of Poole, Leicester, Wolves, the chances are he will never be near the Premier League.

The leagues are so close now that the EL clubs can take the gamble on the known talents, and the PL are left feeding of the scraps of the continent, there is a real risk signing a new asset now.

 

Signing a new rider on a 7.00 is an acceptance that you are dropping the best part of a point (at least) of your teams starting average, it is a big risk, one which Berwick have already taken (if Allan is 7.00) doing that with 2 riders, and looking at dropping 3 or 4 points of the starting average means that you are giving teams a start.

 

Absolutely spot on

 

You only have to look at some of the recent riders to come across as you say a good example is Kasper Lykke and see that we are just getting sub standard riders and I don't think it's worth wasting a season for

 

It is only worth bringing in a guy like this if you are in a situation like Glasgow were last year where there season was over so giving Pavlova a shot was worth it to get him on a true average this year

 

It would be a very stupid move imo to pass up an opportunity to sign someone like Doolan to bring in an assessed rider.

[Fromafar]

Absolutely spot on

 

You only have to look at some of the recent riders to come across as you say a good example is Kasper Lykke and see that we are just getting sub standard riders and I don't think it's worth wasting a season for

 

It is only worth bringing in a guy like this if you are in a situation like Glasgow were last year where there season was over so giving Pavlova a shot was worth it to get him on a true average this year

 

It would be a very stupid move imo to pass up an opportunity to sign someone like Doolan to bring in an assessed rider.

Ithink there is a lot of riders on the continent that would ride to near a 7 pt average but the bottom line is they won't come to UK to ride for PL pay rates.Gone are the days when you find a Shane Parker or Les Collins dropping down.

[topsoil]

Scott, you no me by now.

Any business should be run by it's owners or boards of directors, not reliant on volunteers. So the question is, is Berwick Speedway a business in that sense. If it runs as a form of Cooperative, then fine, everyone involved should have an equal vote, each individual involved having an equal vote in any decision. 'YOU', run your business yourself, you are not reliant on anyone volunteering, you fall or stand by the decisions and standards you make, I doubt you would relish any outside interference in how you run your business. Your survival depends on the standard of sevice 'YOU' provide to your customer, who will return because of it, or reccomend you because of their satisfaction.

 

Speedway in general asks it's fans for help, then gets uppity when they want a say how it should be run, the speedway world cannot have it both ways.

Berwick has a good supporters club, backed up by the 2012 group, but even there, it seems there has been a bust up. The supporters club members give their time and effort to support the club and it's riders, and should 100% decide how their funds are spent, without the club interfering in their decisions. Here is a perfect example where animosity can build up, from a group of people who love speedway, and enjoy helping.

I've long thought that clubs in Britain should be run along the same lines as those in Sweden and Denmark, i.e. proper "clubs", run by members. These members pay a subscription or buy shares in the club to raise funds. they then appoint officials to run the club, like a chairman, secretary, treasurer and a host of volunteers to look after the track, turnstiles, track shop, food and drink outlets etc.

I get the impression that sponsors are far more willing to put money into a "club" run by enthusiasts, rather than an individual owner. Grants and state funding are also far more accessible for clubs, to improve facilities and buy equipment.

Also, financially I think it would serve the sport better. You are more accountable for money belonging to a club, if the funds are not there, they do not get spent. Clubs live within their means. Clubs must present financial accounts to their members and if any member was seen to be spending vast amounts of money unwisely these people would be voted off.

All that said I cannot see the current situation regarding ownership of clubs changing, simply because this has been the situation for so long.

[penchev]

The more you read into the kus situation is it actually a case that Berwick perhaps done a u turn and did not want the rider and someone else is lined up?

[topsoil]

The more you read into the kus situation is it actually a case that Berwick perhaps done a u turn and did not want the rider and someone else is lined up?

Certainly didn't put up much of a fight to get the rider. Sometimes things happen for a reason.

[bigeddiechek]

I've long thought that clubs in Britain should be run along the same lines as those in Sweden and Denmark, i.e. proper "clubs", run by members. These members pay a subscription or buy shares in the club to raise funds. they then appoint officials to run the club, like a chairman, secretary, treasurer and a host of volunteers to look after the track, turnstiles, track shop, food and drink outlets etc.

I get the impression that sponsors are far more willing to put money into a "club" run by enthusiasts, rather than an individual owner. Grants and state funding are also far more accessible for clubs, to improve facilities and buy equipment.

Also, financially I think it would serve the sport better. You are more accountable for money belonging to a club, if the funds are not there, they do not get spent. Clubs live within their means. Clubs must present financial accounts to their members and if any member was seen to be spending vast amounts of money unwisely these people would be voted off.

All that said I cannot see the current situation regarding ownership of clubs changing, simply because this has been the situation for so long.

 

I see what you mean with this. Berwick is a limited company and produce annual accounts, annual return, etc.

So financial accountability is subject to correct corporate governance.

 

I wonder, would a membership based system as you outline be able to raise the additional working capital required to keep the club afloat (it has been mentioned that it is in the region of £30l p.a.)?

 

It is a very complex and difficult type of business to run. I do my bit, but I'd run a mile from any corporate responsibility: unless I won the lottery, but I don't play it!

[YAMYAMBANDIT]

I've long thought that clubs in Britain should be run along the same lines as those in Sweden and Denmark, i.e. proper "clubs", run by members. These members pay a subscription or buy shares in the club to raise funds. they then appoint officials to run the club, like a chairman, secretary, treasurer and a host of volunteers to look after the track, turnstiles, track shop, food and drink outlets etc.

I get the impression that sponsors are far more willing to put money into a "club" run by enthusiasts, rather than an individual owner. Grants and state funding are also far more accessible for clubs, to improve facilities and buy equipment.

Also, financially I think it would serve the sport better. You are more accountable for money belonging to a club, if the funds are not there, they do not get spent. Clubs live within their means. Clubs must present financial accounts to their members and if any member was seen to be spending vast amounts of money unwisely these people would be voted off.

All that said I cannot see the current situation regarding ownership of clubs changing, simply because this has been the situation for so long.

That puts it over better than I did

[YAMYAMBANDIT]

 

I see what you mean with this. Berwick is a limited company and produce annual accounts, annual return, etc.

So financial accountability is subject to correct corporate governance.

 

I wonder, would a membership based system as you outline be able to raise the additional working capital required to keep the club afloat (it has been mentioned that it is in the region of £30l p.a.)?

 

It is a very complex and difficult type of business to run. I do my bit, but I'd run a mile from any corporate responsibility: unless I won the lottery, but I don't play it!

Scott, the reason 'Limited Companies' are formed is to create a safety net. If the Ltd. Co. gets into financial difficulties, it is the assets of the company that is affected, not any personal assets, unless they have been used as security..

 

The Financial accountability is only to the board of directors, and any sharholders, they do not have to be accountable to the general public. It's only when it is too late for any creditors, that they get involved, trying to salvage anything that is left.

Edited December 11, 2014 by TOURETTES