SCB Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Tired argument I know, but realistically on current hunger, Lambert would most probably out score Harris had he cemented a wild card spot at Cardiff. He didn't, but that heat 15 win only reaffirmed who I would put my money on getting a race result being thrown in the deep end of any meeting right now. Yeah, Chris Harris with his 8.80 heat 15 average. Chris Harris who has won or paid won 3 last heat deciders in the last week. Chris Harris has a bloody great record for Coventry of stepping up to the plate when a big ride is needed. Wrong rider to critisize. There are plenty of riders who "bottle" heat 15, plenty of riders who give up when at the back. Harris does neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) One reason the sport is dying is the rules. Last night we heard very little about what the winner gets, all we heard time and time again, the loser gets a point for losing by less than 6. Ridiculous. Race to win, not race to lose by less than 6. That particular rule has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the sport is dying. It actually does the exact thing you would want it to do, keeps a meeting alive and encourages teams to race harder as last night demonstrated. Early on Poole were hit hard and down, they set their target at getting at least a pt and continued to battle hard.. that battling soon brought them into contention for actually winning the meeting. Without it, they may well have just gone through the motions and we wouldn't have seen the exciting end that we did. Edited July 2, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubichair Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 No reductions, no extra promotion. promoting meetings has changed for the worse since chapman jr left Lynn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReturn Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Early on Poole were hit hard and down, they set their target at getting at least a pt and continued to battle hard.. that battling soon brought them into contention for actually winning the meeting. Without it, they may well have just gone through the motions and we wouldn't have seen the exciting end that we did. The old bonus point system could have done that job too and it's a much more positive way to earn a point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 The old bonus point system could have done that job too and it's a much more positive way to earn a point. The point for losing by less than 6 is good. Other sports (such as Rugby Union) have similar systems. The only problem with it, really, is they took away the staggered points on the home team winning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointsmeanplayoffs Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 He wasn't everyone's cup of tea but he did get "out there" and drum up business. Was round the holiday places on the coast and in town. Tried hard. It's a bit open the doors and hope people turn up now. I'm sure it's a resource issue, if people volunteered to help promote they would be welcomed with open arms. It's Buster's own money at risk if lets people in cheap on Sky meetings. It's a risk which may pay off in the long term but it could cost him too. Safer bet is to rely on your hardcore fan base to turn up week in and week out, bank that consistent revenue stream, and run a club within it's means. Let's not forget the ££££ that's been invested in facilities too. The AFA is one of the best speedway stadiums in the country now if not the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) The most flawed argument ever. Your promotion and all the others have lost hundreds of thousands of £££'s during the Sky coverage by not reducing admission. I sometimes think you argue a point just for the sake of it, as your comment above portrays. Every club and occasion is different. There is no laid down right or wrong theory as to what always works. Having a cheap admission, might be the right thing to do, when the track is in a densely built up area, ( i.e; The Midlands), but when located in the open Fen countryside, you rely on supporters coming from much further a field.. A recent survey highlighted the majority of the Star fans travel more than 20 miles to support the club. A large proportion travel as much as 50 miles. So reducing the admission would never overcome the obvious advantage of watching the speedway on the tele, from home. I am sure Buster knows far more than you, and he priced the fixture accordingly. After all, he would know what was the best for the club ....... Edited July 2, 2015 by GRW123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 The old bonus point system could have done that job too and it's a much more positive way to earn a point. No it didn't, hence it being changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reliant Robin Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) No it didn't, hence it being changed. Indeed, the scoring system is much better and one of the more positive changes. Only half of meetings carried a bonus point on them whereas all meetings now have that point available. As Grachan has said above...preferred the staggered points for the home win by less/more than 7 Edited July 2, 2015 by Reliant Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I sometimes think you argue a point just for the sake of it, as your comment above portrays. Every club and occasion is different. There is no laid down right or wrong theory as to what always works. Having a cheap admission, might be the right thing to do, when the track is in a densely built up area, ( i.e; The Midlands), but when located in the open Fen countryside, you rely on supporters coming from much further a field.. A recent survey highlighted the majority of the Star fans travel more than 20 miles to support the club. A large proportion travel as much as 50 miles. So reducing the admission would never overcome the obvious advantage of watching the speedway from home. I am sure Buster knows far more than you, and he priced the fixture accordingly. After all, he would know what was the best for the club ....... I am sure promoters of some of the most successful sports/entertainments/businesses in the world know far more than Buster. If you are going to be advertising your product on TV, which effectively what a live screening of a match is, then you should be making your product seem worthy of peoples attention. If there are very few people watching it the immediate message it will send is, not worth of attention. If it looks like there is a decent crowd and atmosphere, the opposite. That IS a laid down right theory. One of the worlds biggest entertainment businesses was built in that exact way. WWE. As they expanded their TV output they made sure that venues were always full as much as possible.. regardless of ticket sales. Thousands of tickets were given away for free in the days before events. Thus, the commentators could introduce the show as 'Sold out', 'Standing room Only', 'They're hanging from the rafters'.... and before long they no longer had to give tickets away as the sheep effect kicked in. Or we can go down the speedway model of do absolutely nothing for 15 years of prime time tv coverage and see the sport sink further into obscurity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I sometimes think you argue a point just for the sake of it, as your comment above portrays. No only Gavan does that. Although sometimes you would think they are the same person !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointsmeanplayoffs Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Maybe running a speedway team is a little more 'hand to mouth' than running the WWE. Cash flow will be a consideration. Promoters are basically small business owners in most cases not multi-millionaires. To reduce the risks associated with such promotions, there should be a central body running the sport who look after all teams instead of each promoter scrapping around for themselves. e.g. If Sky give £100,000 to the Elite League for coverage. Give each team £10,000 up front but leave £20,000 in the pot which could be used to underwrite any loss in revenue from teams running promotions to boost crowd on Sky TV matches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I can see the arguments for not lowering the prices but i feel had the price been reduced last night not only would it look better on tv but it would have brought so many more in it could have made the evening more profitable and the fans would have appreciated the gesture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Maybe running a speedway team is a little more 'hand to mouth' than running the WWE. Cash flow will be a consideration. Promoters are basically small business owners in most cases not multi-millionaires. To reduce the risks associated with such promotions, there should be a central body running the sport who look after all teams instead of each promoter scrapping around for themselves. e.g. If Sky give £100,000 to the Elite League for coverage. Give each team £10,000 up front but leave £20,000 in the pot which could be used to underwrite any loss in revenue from teams running promotions to boost crowd on Sky TV matches? Don't promote the sport on TV, continue to whither away and die. Or promote the sport and help it to grow. For 15 years they've opted for the first option, the sport has continued to whither away in this country. You've missed the point entirely regarding WWE. It wasn't a massive business, it was a fairly successful regional promotion in the North East of America... turned into a massive World Wide business primarily due to its use of TV and ensuring its product appeared to be the place to be. I do agree however there should be some sort of centrally co-ordinated strategy for TV meetings. Edited July 2, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointsmeanplayoffs Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I can see the arguments for not lowering the prices but i feel had the price been reduced last night not only would it look better on tv but it would have brought so many more in it could have made the evening more profitable and the fans would have appreciated the gesture. But how can you be sure that it would have bought more fans? Where is the proof? I know I'm being argumentative but the fact is it's a risk for the Promoter who relies on gate money to pay riders wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 But how can you be sure that it would have bought more fans? Where is the proof? I know I'm being argumentative but the fact is it's a risk for the Promoter who relies on gate money to pay riders wages. Every other TV meeting that has offered a decent promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReturn Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 No it didn't, hence it being changed. I always thought sport was about winning... not losing by a small margin. It's ridiculous... then again, the team that wins the league at the end of the season is not the champion, so I expect nothing less in this stupid sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I always thought sport was about winning... not losing by a small margin. It's ridiculous... then again, the team that wins the league at the end of the season is not the champion, so I expect nothing less in this stupid sport. Personally if I think something is stupid I most certainly wouldn't be watching it and even more so spending time on a forum discussing it. Which begs the question, if the sport is stupid, what does that make you? These same tired nonsensical arguments keep being trotted out as a means of attacking speedway... you obviously don't watch much sport if you think speedway is 'stupid' for such rules. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Tired argument I know, but realistically on current hunger, Lambert would most probably out score Harris had he cemented a wild card spot at Cardiff. He didn't, but that heat 15 win only reaffirmed who I would put my money on getting a race result being thrown in the deep end of any meeting right now. Not sure why you feel the need to compare them. Lambert was brilliant in heat 15 However I take it you only follow sky meetings as otherwise you would know how stupid your statement sounds when you look at the 3 Coventry meetings over the last 2 weeks. Belle Vue: Harris flew from last to first to get the draw for bees in heat 15 At Brandon he team rode JK to a 5-1 to secure the win for Coventry And on Monday he secured all 4 away points for Coventry in heat 15 Yeah, Chris Harris with his 8.80 heat 15 average. Chris Harris who has won or paid won 3 last heat deciders in the last week. Chris Harris has a bloody great record for Coventry of stepping up to the plate when a big ride is needed. Wrong rider to critisize. There are plenty of riders who "bottle" heat 15, plenty of riders who give up when at the back. Harris does neither. Well said. When it comes to riders who I would most like representing my club in heat 15, Harris would be top of the list. Always goes out to give 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 valve Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) But how can you be sure that it would have bought more fans? Where is the proof? I know I'm being argumentative but the fact is it's a risk for the Promoter who relies on gate money to pay riders wages. On Monday Leicester lowered their prices and had their largest crowd of the season. Also consider, a) the match was on sky & b, Monday was not the Lions regular race night and without doubt some regulars did not go because of the next day being a school. so yes lower prices do mean higher crowds, if the event is promoted which the Lions did. Edited July 2, 2015 by 1 valve 3 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.