Coventry V Poole 1/6/15

[Midland Red]

The point I was making from square one, which seems to have gone well over your head was; yes Coventry will have made a loss that night, yes it will have affected their cash flow and is far from ideal, but it really isn't as bad as some people are making out. The play offs will bring a big pay day for the Coventry management and this blip in their season will quickly be recovered from.

I cannot believe that you continue to make this comment, despite others trying to have explained it to you - so I'll try

Coventry, assuming they make the play-offs, will not generate from that achievement any extra funds/profit to recover the losses they clearly made over the debacle of the Poole/Sky meeting

If the weather had been good, and the attendance on that night had been as big as expected, or budgetted for, the income from the play-offs will be still be the same - therefore, those losses will not be recovered

[it would be interesting to know, by the way, if any figures for losses on that night are losses against break even (ie the cost of the debacle) or losses against expected/budgetted profit]

Whatever the figure, £10,000 is different things to different people - to me it's a vast sum, to Richard Branson a drop in the ocean - to virtually all speedway promoters in the UK, I suggest it is a big sum - so for you to say that £10,000 "isn't that much money" is a very poor, misleading comment

Mr Horton is probably more keen for the meeting to be rerun as it would be the only opportunity to recover some, if not all, of the losses he has incurred

Remember, the losses are due to the (dis)organisation of GSI (with Sky) over the running of televised meetings in bad weather, and this was a meeting virtually everyone agrees should never have taken place

 

As far as the league points are concerned, it is perhaps time to take stock of how they are awarded in rain-offs

At present, a home win brings 3 points for the home side - after 15 heats

It cannot be right that 3 points are also awarded at the "cut-off" stage of 10 heats, if the home side could still lose, or draw, a meeting had it gone the full distance

Similarly, an away win brings 3 points (1-6 match points up) or 4 points (7+ points up) - if those are the scores at the "cut-off stage" of 10 heats, they could still be overturned if the meeting had gone the full distance

I do not offer an alternative league points suggestion, merely to say that the rewards at heat 10 should not be the same as at heat 15

 

My stance on the meeting on 1 June is that the responsibility/blame lies squarely with GSI/Sky, which includes the actions and inactions of the meeting steward, and absolutely no blame can be attached to either team manager [since clearly with the regulations as they are, the winning team manager will almost always want to get to heat 10] or to the riders - the only time I would blame a team manager is risking the safety of a rider, and the only time I would blame a rider is risking his safety, of that of another rider

 

Hopefully, some good will come out of all this - it's time for a full-blown review on how UK speedway operates, and perhaps a 2015 version of Nelson Mills-Baldwin should be brought in as soon as possible

Edited June 11, 2015 by Midland Red

[foreverblue]

 

I cannot believe that you continue to make this comment, despite others trying to have explained it to you - so I'll try

Coventry, assuming they make the play-offs, will not generate from that achievement any extra funds/profit to recover the losses they clearly made over the debacle of the Poole/Sky meeting

If the weather had been good, and the attendance on that night had been as big as expected, or budgetted for, the income from the play-offs will be still be the same - therefore, those losses will not be recovered

[it would be interesting to know, by the way, if any figures for losses on that night are losses against break even (ie the cost of the debacle) or losses against expected/budgetted profit]

Whatever the figure, £10,000 is different things to different people - to me it's a vast sum, to Richard Branson a drop in the ocean - to virtually all speedway promoters in the UK, I suggest it is a big sum - so for you to say that £10,000 "isn't that much money" is a very poor, misleading comment

Mr Horton is probably more keen for the meeting to be rerun as it would be the only opportunity to recover some, if not all, of the losses he has incurred

Remember, the losses are due to the (dis)organisation of GSI (with Sky) over the running of televised meetings in bad weather, and this was a meeting virtually everyone agrees should never have taken place

 

As far as the league points are concerned, it is perhaps time to take stock of how they are awarded in rain-offs

At present, a home win brings 3 points for the home side - after 15 heats

It cannot be right that 3 points are also awarded at the "cut-off" stage of 10 heats, if the home side could still lose, or draw, a meeting had it gone the full distance

Similarly, an away win brings 3 points (1-6 match points up) or 4 points (7+ points up) - if those are the scores at the "cut-off stage" of 10 heats, they could still be overturned if the meeting had gone the full distance

I do not offer an alternative league points suggestion, merely to say that the rewards at heat 10 should not be the same as at heat 15

 

My stance on the meeting on 1 June is that the responsibility/blame lies squarely with GSI/Sky, which includes the actions and inactions of the meeting steward, and absolutely no blame can be attached to either team manager [since clearly with the regulations as they are, the winning team manager will almost always want to get to heat 10] or to the riders - the only time I would blame a team manager is risking the safety of a rider, and the only time I would blame a rider is risking his safety, of that of another rider

 

Hopefully, some good will come out of all this - it's time for a full-blown review on how UK speedway operates, and perhaps a 2015 version of Nelson Mills-Baldwin should be brought in as soon as possible

You say league points should be adjusted for only doing 10 heats which i can see the logic in but how is it these points are only raised when Poole are involved?

Edited June 11, 2015 by foreverblue

[SCB]

You say league points should be adjusted for only doing 10 heats which i can see the logic in but how is it these points are only raised when Poole are involved?

Ignore that Poole (and Coventry) were involved this time. Is it right that meetings get to heat 10 and are called off? It was agreed, it seems, by the people controlling the meeting around about heat 8 that they'd get to heat 10 and call it off. If they knew at that point the track was dangerous, shouldn't it have been called off then? Not pushing through 2 more heats.

[foreverblue]

Ignore that Poole (and Coventry) were involved this time. Is it right that meetings get to heat 10 and are called off? It was agreed, it seems, by the people controlling the meeting around about heat 8 that they'd get to heat 10 and call it off. If they knew at that point the track was dangerous, shouldn't it have been called off then? Not pushing through 2 more heats.

I thought the old 12 heat rule was fair at least you get better value 10 heats for 18 quid is a rip off. Can't believe i actually went knowing it would be a crap meeting or rained off. i think i need to see a doctor!!

[Midland Red]

You say league points should be adjusted for only doing 10 heats which i can see the logic in but how is it these points are only raised when Poole are involved?

 

This has nothing to do with Poole or Bees or any other specific team - it is about overall fairness and common sense

I have never agreed with the present rules, even when Bees have picked up heat 10 cut-off points or Poole or any other team have lost out

Couldn't give a fig who is involved - let's get the bloomin' thing right!

[GoFastTurnLeft]

 

This has nothing to do with Poole or Bees or any other specific team - it is about overall fairness and common sense

I have never agreed with the present rules, even when Bees have picked up heat 10 cut-off points or Poole or any other team have lost out

Couldn't give a fig who is involved - let's get the bloomin' thing right!

And what would you suggest as a solution? I'd genuinely like to know as the current system is far from ideal, but I can't see a solution that would help everyone. Lets put a pin in which teams were involved for a second. The facts were, over half the meeting had been completed before people stopped riding for safety reasons* and one team was beating the other on merit. We can now either

 

A: call the meeting off, points stand. Winning team pick up the points, losing team feels shortchanged

 

B: Re-run the meeting, thereby giving the losing team a free do-over, winning team feels shortchanged

 

The only thing that would seem remotely fair IMO is to re-run the meeting, but give the previous losing team some kind of point deficit as a handicap.

[SCB]

I think heat 12 is a fair compromise for full points and to give the fans fairer value for their money

It doesn't matter if it's 6,8,10,12 or 14. If a track in dangerous and someone says, "just two more heats to get a result" they have sent riders out on a dangerous track, that is wrong.

[foreverblue]

It doesn't matter if it's 6,8,10,12 or 14. If a track in dangerous and someone says, "just two more heats to get a result" they have sent riders out on a dangerous track, that is wrong.

Depends on your view of dangerous, one riders dangerous is another man's not dangerous, Harris thought it wasn't dangerous and Joonas had a different view.

[Alan_Jones]

Depends on your view of dangerous, one riders dangerous is another man's not dangerous, Harris thought it wasn't dangerous and Joonas had a different view.

 

But what SCB is saying is that if it's the meeting officials saying it then they are indeed playing with rider safety.

[stevebrum]

If a meeting starts they should do there best to get at least 10 heats in, we need to ensure the public get there money's worth IMHO.

Rider safety of course is important but equally so is the paying public.

[foreverblue]

But what SCB is saying is that if it's the meeting officials saying it then they are indeed playing with rider safety.

What are mean't to do, dammed if they carry on and dammed if they stop it, especially when two riders on the same team have a different view, the riders cannot and should not be put in a position where they have the final say, that decision has to be made by a independent official, maybe all meetings should have an ex rider to assess it when needed.

[Alan_Jones]

What are mean't to do, dammed if they carry on and dammed if they stop it, especially when two riders on the same team have a different view, the riders cannot and should not be put in a position where they have the final say, that decision has to be made by a independent official, maybe all meetings should have an ex rider to assess it when needed.

 

They stop it when they've decided it's dangerous, not wait until they can declare a result.

[JamieE]

If a meeting starts they should do there best to get at least 10 heats in, we need to ensure the public get there money's worth IMHO.

Rider safety of course is important but equally so is the paying public.

 

As one of the mugs who paid £18 to attend the meeting, I can assure you I didn't feel I got value for money just for "getting at least 10 heats in". What you had there was the worst scenario for all parties pretty much, fans getting ripped off and questionable rider safety after a certain point of the meeting.

 

Speaking as a fan, I would only feel I had got my money's worth if the meeting had been called off and re-staged another night in better conditions, or if the attitude was to "get at least 10 heats in", then to be compensated accordingly for not getting full value for money.

Edited June 12, 2015 by JamieE

[stevehone]

maybe all meetings should have an ex rider to assess it when needed.

 

would that be an ex rider that liked riding in the wet, or an ex rider that didn't?

[Alan_Jones]

 

But the problem is, who decides when it is dangerous? When at least 8 out of 14 riders wish to continue and the track steward wishes to continue, surely you must continue?

 

That's a different debate. What SCB & I are saying is that once the referee or meeting steward has decided at around heat 7/8/9 that the meeting will be called off after heat 10 then they're putting a result ahead of rider safety.

[foreverblue]

 

That's a different debate. What SCB & I are saying is that once the referee or meeting steward has decided at around heat 7/8/9 that the meeting will be called off after heat 10 then they're putting a result ahead of rider safety.

That depends on the conditions, they may say it can be called off after heat 10 because they expect the track to worsen so by the the time we get to after heat 10 it would be deemed dangerous or if the conditions improved they could continue after heat 10. if the majority of riders do not think it is too dangerous to ride why should the minority over rule them.

[orion]

 

As one of the mugs who paid £18 to attend the meeting, I can assure you I didn't feel I got value for money just for "getting at least 10 heats in". What you had there was the worst scenario for all parties pretty much, fans getting ripped off and questionable rider safety after a certain point of the meeting.

 

Speaking as a fan, I would only feel I had got my money's worth if the meeting had been called off and re-staged another night in better conditions, or if the attitude was to "get at least 10 heats in", then to be compensated accordingly for not getting full value for money.

I trust you never went to the Lakeside match the other week then when the same happened then or maybe you forgot to post ? it's amazing that fans only feel ripped off or worry about the riders getting hurt when they get beat .

[foreverblue]

Isn't that what happened at this meeting?

 

I can only think of the Belle v Vue Poole meeting when the manager of the team in the lead knew it was dangerous (he said something like 'when riders lke Iversen fall off it must be dangerous') and still told his riders to go out in a subsequent race.

But when Iversen came down it was heat 10, so Middlo didn't tell them to go out in a subsequent race.

[The Voice Of Reason]

I trust you never went to the Lakeside match the other week then when the same happened then or maybe you forgot to post ? it's amazing that fans only feel ripped off or worry about the riders getting hurt when they get beat .

What an utterly, ill-informed, patronising post.

 

Most of us on here are TRUE Speedway Supporters. Unlike many other 'various sports' supporters, we hold our particular sport close to our heart. In most cases, I'd suggest that we have been Speedway fans since a VERY early age,

 

Irresepctive of the teams, or riders, that we support, the last thing that we EVER want to see is riders getting hurt. Simple reason is, as Speedway Supporters, and despite our dislikes, the LAST thing that we want see is rider injury.

 

Basically, to suggest otherwise Orion, you truly are a complete and utter CLOWN.

Edited June 13, 2015 by The Voice Of Reason

[SCB]

What an utterly, ill-informed, patronising post.

 

Most of us on here are TRUE Speedway Supporters. Unlike many other 'various sports' supporters, we hold our particular sport close to our heart. In most cases, I'd suggest that we have been Speedway fans since a VERY early age,

 

Irresepctive of the teams, or riders, that we support, the last thing that we EVER want to see is riders getting hurt. Simple reason is, as Speedway Supporters, and despite our dislikes, the LAST thing that we want see is rider injury.

 

Basically, to suggest otherwise Orion, you truly are a complete and utter CLOWN.

Orions point is spot on. When I complained about the Lakeside heat 10 a few people told me I was wrong, nobody agreed with me. 4 weeks later it's the the worst thing ever.