More On The Decline Of British Speedway

[michaelcroucher]

I haven’t been on speedway forum for quite a long time and I haven’t been to speedway in this country for quite a while. Its not about being an arm chair person but I have been very lucky by going abroad to watch the speedway and I know in this forum someone wrote we shouldn’t compare UK to Poland, Swenden etc but the reason I have attend more abroad is the atmosphere is totally different the tracks have great racing and its cheaper. I know the price to get abroad is more money but it doent cost much more than going to speedway in this country. For myself to go to speedway in this country it can cost me about £50 for a nights racing. Thats taking in fuel, getting in, programme, car parking. I can attend speedway in lets say CZ or Poland for about £70 - £100. SO for £20 more im better going abroad.

I also have been going to grasstrack more in this country and for the price with the racing it’s more enjoyable.

Going back to speedway they also need to buy new equipment for track grading. I went to CZ for the golden helmet and the facilities they have at the track was amazing so if they can do it why cant the UK. I hope one day I will attend speedway back in this country.

[springdale]

There is just not the fanbase in the UK anymore, there are so many other things today for people to do.

 

It is all very well for fans to want to watch the top riders, in an ideal word that would great but with crowds as low as they are where does the money come from to pay their wages?

 

 

[Trees]

Some tracks have enough fans to pay the bills as long as the bills aren't too high I guess?

The promoters and riders need to try a little harder to attract more fans and keep them. This is another thing that the promoters should be discussing at their conference, surely putting their collective 'promoters' heads together will come up with some great ideas? Bloody should do!

[foamfence]

Most promoters (not ALL) are self-made successful business persons who obviously have a good idea what is worth throwing money at and what isn't. We have the freedom here to criticise and make suggestions but I fail to see what use insulting promoters and likening them to idiots will do. I remember the Ham brothers at Bradford regularly had a whole page with action photographs in the local newspaper, riders would visit schools, show their gear and a bus load of kids with free entry and souvenirs would arrive at the track on a regular basis, they had a very successful team staffed mainly by top British riders and they put on top events every season. It still went belly up! There might have been excuses that the stadium was to be redeveloped but I went to every meeting (it was a poor substitute for Halifax) and believe me it was totally dead by the time it closed, it was embarrassing when riders paraded round waving to empty terraces. The Provincial League took Speedway back to basics and after two or three years the sport was on a much sounder footing. Maybe keeping up with Poland and Sweden (or trying to) is the wrong thing to do?

[moxey63]

Time for British Speedway to worry about putting its own house in order. Any person who doesn't wish to be part of the restructure, should be asked to stand aside and allow a sport to re-invent itself. That person, no doubt, will wish to return... especially when the Poles and Swedes begin to suffer drops in interest in their particular leagues.

 

It will be tough at first, but we are down to the bare bones (star rider-wise) anyway, so a further cut may not be noticed. Plus, many fans like the Fast Track system, made up of less than star riders, so there is a taste for bread and butter guys.

 

We have to believe in the product.

[oldtimer]

Most promoters (not ALL) are self-made successful business persons who obviously have a good idea what is worth throwing money at and what isn't. We have the freedom here to criticise and make suggestions but I fail to see what use insulting promoters and likening them to idiots will do. I remember the Ham brothers at Bradford regularly had a whole page with action photographs in the local newspaper, riders would visit schools, show their gear and a bus load of kids with free entry and souvenirs would arrive at the track on a regular basis, they had a very successful team staffed mainly by top British riders and they put on top events every season. It still went belly up! There might have been excuses that the stadium was to be redeveloped but I went to every meeting (it was a poor substitute for Halifax) and believe me it was totally dead by the time it closed, it was embarrassing when riders paraded round waving to empty terraces. The Provincial League took Speedway back to basics and after two or three years the sport was on a much sounder footing. Maybe keeping up with Poland and Sweden (or trying to) is the wrong thing to do?

I wonder if they take any notice of what their customers want in their businesses outside of speedway?

[foamfence]

I wonder if they take any notice of what their customers want in their businesses outside of speedway?

Some people would always find something to moan about.

[Vince]

I wonder if they take any notice of what their customers want in their businesses outside of speedway?

Whether they do or not they make enough money to invest in Speedway!

[Halifaxtiger]

I guess crowds have been slowly on the decline for a few years, but speedway was having a bit of a renaissance in the early 21st century.

 

There were 2 moments that were real key moments for me. Two things that were introduced, and when you went the following season there was an instant, visible drop in crowd levels.

 

One was when they introduced the Tactical Ride rule. The other was the 39.95 points limit.

 

Both of these had a drastic effect and drove away many core supporters.

 

 

I must admit I have never understood why the implementation of this rule drove (and apparently still drives) people away.

 

As SCB has convincingly shown on many occasions, the tactical substitiute rule (which had been in force for 40 years) had more effect on scores. The skill in using it is still there and it saved the sport tens of thousands of pounds in wages.

 

What's wrong with that ?

[orion]

 

 

I must admit I have never understood why the implementation of this rule drove (and apparently still drives) people away.

 

As SCB has convincingly shown on many occasions, the tactical substitiute rule (which had been in force for 40 years) had more effect on scores. The skill in using it is still there and it saved the sport tens of thousands of pounds in wages.

 

What's wrong with that ?

Good post . The new tac sub rule Play offs etc tend to be a stick that the old time fans use to hit people with and blame for the drop in crowd figures . As has been said many times the Old Tac rule gave many more false results as well as costing a lot more money

Edited November 11, 2014 by orion

[martinmauger]

I preferred the old 'tac sub' but the tactical ride is almost certainly here to stay, on cost grounds alone. My issue with it, TR, is the nonsense where the rider finishing 2nd scores more than the rider in 1st, etc. I think it would be fairer, and probably more accpetable, if double points applied to the race winner only....

[Gambo]

I preferred the old 'tac sub' but the tactical ride is almost certainly here to stay, on cost grounds alone. My issue with it, TR, is the nonsense where the rider finishing 2nd scores more than the rider in 1st, etc. I think it would be fairer, and probably more accpetable, if double points applied to the race winner only....

....No matter which team the winner came from.....

Now that would certainly spice things up!

 

ATB

 

Dave

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

 

I must admit I have never understood why the implementation of this rule drove (and apparently still drives) people away.

 

As SCB has convincingly shown on many occasions, the tactical substitiute rule (which had been in force for 40 years) had more effect on scores. The skill in using it is still there and it saved the sport tens of thousands of pounds in wages.

 

What's wrong with that ?

 

I'd say it's the Mickey Mouseness of that rule, and the effect the same rule has had on the world stage in the WTC. Personally, I don't agree with any artificial attempted leveller - if you're behind, pull your socks up and catch up - and I fully understand that the previous benefit-the-losing-team scheme could have a greater effect on a score, but a bloke changing to a black and white hat and going for double smacks too much of 'It's a Knockout'.

[The White Knight]

 

 

I must admit I have never understood why the implementation of this rule drove (and apparently still drives) people away.

 

As SCB has convincingly shown on many occasions, the tactical substitiute rule (which had been in force for 40 years) had more effect on scores. The skill in using it is still there and it saved the sport tens of thousands of pounds in wages.

 

What's wrong with that ?

Because it is UNFAIR and CONTRIVED.

 

People may not like that - but it is a fact. It is cheating the Public.

 

If you can't see that HT, I am staggered. The BSPA themselves say that it is there "to keep Meetings close" so they are admitting, by definition, that they are contriving the Result.

 

There should, in my opinion, be NO Tactical Substitute or Tactical Rides. If a Team loses - it loses, if it wins, it wins.

 

THAT is what you call SPORT.

 

All that FIDDLING has done is to ruin the Sport's credibility, and driven people like me (and I am not alone) away from Speedway.

[Halifaxtiger]

 

I'd say it's the Mickey Mouseness of that rule, and the effect the same rule has had on the world stage in the WTC. Personally, I don't agree with any artificial attempted leveller - if you're behind, pull your socks up and catch up - and I fully understand that the previous benefit-the-losing-team scheme could have a greater effect on a score, but a bloke changing to a black and white hat and going for double smacks too much of 'It's a Knockout'.

 

Why is it 'Mickey Mouse' ? A lot of people say that without actually giving defining reasons.

 

I could argue that it is there - and has been in one form or another for 50 years or so - for the very specific purpose of keeping the scores closer and hence attempting to ensure that meetings are kept alive and made more exciting. On many occasions, its achieved precisely that when the alternative would have been a one sided contest which would have had fans streaming for the exits about heat 12.

 

Its unique to speedway simply because of the vast difference in tracks sizes and surfaces. As I have said before, if Chelsea's pitch was three times as big as Arsenal's, had goals that were triangular and grass two foot long there would be something similar in football.

 

As I have also said before, if we are talking Mickey Mouse how about having a rule in speedway where certain riders are only allowed on certain parts of the track and that is dependent upon the position of the other teams riders. Stupid ? Its called offside.

 

My point is not to denigrate football, but to point out that any comparison is so ridiculous as to be invalid.

 

There is a sound reason based upon logic why tactical changes and double points apply to speedway.

Because it is UNFAIR and CONTRIVED.

 

People may not like that - but it is a fact. It is cheating the Public.

 

If you can't see that HT, I am staggered. The BSPA themselves say that it is there "to keep Meetings close" so they are admitting, by definition, that they are contriving the Result.

 

There should, in my opinion, be NO Tactical Substitute or Tactical Rides. If a Team loses - it loses, if it wins, it wins.

 

THAT is what you call SPORT.

 

All that FIDDLING has done is to ruin the Sport's credibility, and driven people like me (and I am not alone) away from Speedway.

 

I won't say its unfair - it applies to all clubs in most meetings - but of course I can see that it is contrived to keep scores close. The point is there are grounds for that.

 

It only damages the sports credibility if a comparison is made to other sports without regard of the unique circumstances of speedway and any consideration of whether its application is both necessary and correct should be made on that basis alone. Just because no-one else has it doesn't mean its wrong.

 

But my real point is here is that I do not see how one rule can have such consequences that people will walk away. Does it ruin the sheer enjoyment of watching four blokes on bikes without brakes so much when in actual fact it doesn't affect that at all (and if it does, it merely makes a race more exciting) ?

 

My suspicion is that people who rail against it have seen their team lose as a result of its use, or alternatively have come in from another sport and can't - or won't - accept why speedway has it.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Halifaxtiger

[Trees]

Good post HT :-)

[E I Addio]

 

Why is it 'Mickey Mouse' ? A lot of people say that without actually giving defining reasons.

 

I could argue that it is there - and has been in one form or another for 50 years or so - for the very specific purpose of keeping the scores closer and hence attempting to ensure that meetings are kept alive and made more exciting. On many occasions, its achieved precisely that when the alternative would have been a one sided contest which would have had fans streaming for the exits about heat 12.

 

Its unique to speedway simply because of the vast difference in tracks sizes and surfaces. As I have said before, if Chelsea's pitch was three times as big as Arsenal's, had goals that were triangular and grass two foot long there would be something similar in football.

 

As I have also said before, if we are talking Mickey Mouse how about having a rule in speedway where certain riders are only allowed on certain parts of the track and that is dependent upon the position of the other teams riders. Stupid ? Its called offside.

 

My point is not to denigrate football, but to point out that any comparison is so ridiculous as to be invalid.

 

There is a sound reason based upon logic why tactical changes and double points apply to speedway.

 

I won't say its unfair - it applies to all clubs in most meetings - but of course I can see that it is contrived to keep scores close. The point is there are grounds for that.

 

It only damages the sports credibility if a comparison is made to other sports without regard of the unique circumstances of speedway and any consideration of whether its application is both necessary and correct should be made on that basis alone. Just because no-one else has it doesn't mean its wrong.

 

But my real point is here is that I do not see how one rule can have such consequences that people will walk away. Does it ruin the sheer enjoyment of watching four blokes on bikes without brakes so much when in actual fact it doesn't affect that at all (and if it does, it merely makes a race more exciting) ?

 

My suspicion is that people who rail against it have seen their team lose as a result of its use, or alternatively have come in from another sport and can't - or won't - accept why speedway has it.

 

 

I agree with your penultimate paragraph and yes it seems very unlikely that one rule could have such consequences that many people walk away, BUT it is one of a number of things that cause people to lose interest. No single thing turns people off but put them all together and they become a serious irritation for some.

 

I think you have looked at it TR rule in too much of an analytical way. Most fans do not go on forums and go through the ins and outs of how we got the TR rule. Most fans simply want to see decent racing and see their team win. Its no good arguing that the TR rule is fairer than some previous rule which was itself less than logical. In the perception of many, many fans the TR rule is just a device to give unfair advantage to a failing team.. That's the way they view it, rightly or wrongly.

 

Really is all a matter of perception. At least with the TS rule most people were familiar with the concept that in many sports substitutes of one kind or another are permitted, but I can't think of another sport in which there is an equivalent of the double points rule. The seasoned fan might see the point of the rule but the average punter, especially the children often see it differently.

 

The bottom line is that the logic or otherwise of the rule compared to the TS rule doesn't come into it. It is rightly or wrongly a matter of perception. The fact is that a great number of fans are strongly opposed to it so it needs to be looked at. Lets put it another way round. if you got rid of the TR rule a lot of fans would be happier, but without the TR rule do you think there would me masses of fans protesting that the absence of a TR rule was ruining their enjoyment of the sport ? I doubt it.

[Halifaxtiger]

 

 

I agree with your penultimate paragraph and yes it seems very unlikely that one rule could have such consequences that many people walk away, BUT it is one of a number of things that cause people to lose interest. No single thing turns people off but put them all together and they become a serious irritation for some.

 

I think you have looked at it TR rule in too much of an analytical way. Most fans do not go on forums and go through the ins and outs of how we got the TR rule. Most fans simply want to see decent racing and see their team win. Its no good arguing that the TR rule is fairer than some previous rule which was itself less than logical. In the perception of many, many fans the TR rule is just a device to give unfair advantage to a failing team.. That's the way they view it, rightly or wrongly.

 

Really is all a matter of perception. At least with the TS rule most people were familiar with the concept that in many sports substitutes of one kind or another are permitted, but I can't think of another sport in which there is an equivalent of the double points rule. The seasoned fan might see the point of the rule but the average punter, especially the children often see it differently.

 

The bottom line is that the logic or otherwise of the rule compared to the TS rule doesn't come into it. It is rightly or wrongly a matter of perception. The fact is that a great number of fans are strongly opposed to it so it needs to be looked at. Lets put it another way round. if you got rid of the TR rule a lot of fans would be happier, but without the TR rule do you think there would me masses of fans protesting that the absence of a TR rule was ruining their enjoyment of the sport ? I doubt it.

 

With regard to your first paragraph, I have certainly seen, read and heard people who have said that they either do not go themselves or know of others who do not attend simply because of the TR rule. That maybe because they hate it so much they have made such stories up, but they exist.

 

I think the only way to look at an issue is to be analytical. Its all very well to dismiss something as Mickey Mouse or less than credible without giving any reasons for that, but surely the only way to judge whether something is necessary or correct is to actually look at why it is both in existence and in force ? Part of the problem here is that those who dismiss TR do so because they simply don't like it without actually looking in any depth at why speedway has it.

 

As to the question of substitutes, I'd say the TS rule was so different to that applied by other sports it is difficult to actually compare the two. In no sport that I know of does the substituted player stay on the field, for a start. Moreover, it must be extremely rare that a substitution could result in one player being three (or more) times better than another being brought on. The only equivalent I can think of is in cricket, where a tail ender would be replaced by an opening batsman. A cricket fan would doubtless regard that as absurd.

 

I have no real preference for TR over TS, but I do recognise that one makes more difference than the other (which is what most fans object to) and that one would cost speedway tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of pounds more than the other.

 

I do agree that perception is most important, but to allow that to be the be all and end all without actually looking at the reality of the situation would be disastrous. While I condemn promotions for treating fans as ignorant and stupid, you only have to read the pages of this forum for a few minutes to realise that some fans perceptions are beyond belief.

 

At this stage, I have no doubt that if speedway did away with any tactical rule there would be far more who would be happy than unhappy. Whether that would be the case in 2 or 3 seasons time is entirely a different matter.

HalifaxTiger - the old TS rule was the closest that speedway had in comparison to substitutes in most other sports, e.g. in soccer they often bring on a substitute to replace an under-performing player (obviously the rule is also there for injury replacement, but the preferred use is tactical).

 

By using a TS, a team had the chance to replace an under-performing rider with one who could be better.

The complaint that a TS was always used in Heat 8 is valid (e.g. Steve Lawson would only take a TS in Heat 8, from Gate 1), but that could be prevented/adapted. Indeed, the new EL heat format lends itself more readily to the TS rule.

 

The Tactical Ride rule simply adds extra (artificial) points, which is the Mickey Mouse / It's a Knockout aspect. There's virtually no tactical thought needed for a TR, most of them being knee-jerk reactions, and the Team Manager is very limited on when to use them or who to nominate. Also, the fact that riders sometimes have to slow down to allow their teammate to pass for an extra point is potentially very dangerous, and pointless (if you'll pardon the pun).

 

There's a school of thought that NO changes should be allowed, but it's the tactical aspect which makes it interesting for spectators - and the TS rule in my view is tactical, while the TR rule is not.

 

I certainly don't agree that there is no skill in using a tactical ride and I could argue that there's more ability needed for that than just changing a rider in heat 8,which was the most common use for a TS. I think you'd find that team managers would also object to a statement that using a TR requires 'virtually no tactical thought' and you only have to read the pages of this forum to see the criticism meted out by fans who (on occasion, rightly) thought that a mistake had been made in its use.

 

What those who argue for TS overlook is the cost. To my knowledge there are few (if any) riders who get paid double money for double points rides, so it costs nothing. If your two top riders earn twice as much per point as reserves and second strings, a double change in heat 8 could cost in the region of £450 for just one race. There are 21 tracks in the EL and PL, so one change of that nature (and there could of course be more) per meeting would cost almost £10,000 pw or around £250k per season.

 

My figures are rough, but that's an awful lot of money that speedway doesn't have.

[Vince]

Personally I think calling it the Joker in the World Cup is nearer the truth and the way league points are now awarded is the fair way to account for track differences. I understand the logic behind the rule but detest it, equally I never had any time for the TS either. For me the beauty of Speedway is in it's simplicity, 4 blokes line up then go hell for leather for 4 laps, first over the line wins. As soon as the guy in second wins the whole point of the sport disappears for me.

 

Having said that I believe the impact of the TR on the numbers watching Speedway is minimal. Like most of the suggestions made it is only of significance to current Speedway fans and it will take something far more radical to get new people along to watch. Slowing the decline is one thing but with an ageing fan base it will continue so new blood is the only thing that will make the sport more popular in the long term.

 

That's not going to come from having the top riders because Joe Bloggs doesn't know who they are, it's not going to come from any tinkering with the rules because he doesn't care about them yet. It has to come from his knowing that he will get a good entertaining night out that will be more fun than his Playstaion or the TV. Set in surroundings where he can take his missus / girlfriend or even meet the next one because the facilities are respectable and promoted so that it is the cool place for them to be. Very tall order and with some stadiums probably never possible but on the bright side I would expect the sport to survive in something like it's current form for a long time yet.

[greyhoundp]

With Nigel Pearson saying Cradley Heath have not covered there expences for 2014, and only today Scunthorpe with there own Track have said they have lost money, this really is a massive AGM this weekend.

Edited November 12, 2014 by greyhoundp