Stadium Racing

[Pieman72]

55 minutes ago, wealdstone said:

Dumbing down  leads to more dumbing down which leads to there is nothing left to dumb down.

The type of format that is similar to Grasstrack would attract a spectator as opposed to a supporter. Less Anorakky and less dumbing down?

[Chadster]

I remember seeing sidecars at Rye House as a special second half attraction in the days of Ronnie Russell. I thought they were pretty entertaining. Is my memory deceiving me or did Sky not show a sidecar meeting from the Isle of Wight? I recall it as being a bit disappointing in racing quality.

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, wealdstone said:

Dumbing down  leads to more dumbing down which leads to there is nothing left to dumb down.

The NDL (pre covid) was the lowest level possible. ..

Yet also appeared to be the most profitable..

Something in that worth scrutinising if they desperately want to keep "team speedway" for me...

[Fortythirtyeight]

2 hours ago, mikebv said:

Bingo...

Dont run 20 meetings and pay out literally hundreds of thousand in salaries for 40 meetings, with poor returns and attendances....

Instead run say 10 meetings over six months from April to September (March if Easter falls then), with BIG prize money and promote and advertise them properly, using all the Bank Holidays available, and run Saturday and Sunday if it's your best day to attract a crowd..

Even those who rent must be able to negotiate 10 meetings per season only with their landlords given the current economic situation, and those landlords who keep the bar and car park take would be pleased to have large crowds attending Speedway meetings that have some "meaning" surely?

16, or even 12 at a push, riders of similar level at each meeting, therefore all races competitive and (if only 12 riders) the prize money shared would be greater.. 

Plenty of meetings for the riders, a chance to still earn good money and "proper, meaningful speedway" for the fans to watch..

Stick in a few "extras" to supplement the racing similar to the way the IOW do and who knows, it may help relaunch some "team racing" that starts again from scratch and doesnt remake all the mistakes which has led it to its current situation..

 

and pay rent for 12 months on a stadium your only going to use for 10 evenings ?
Think again.

[Fromafar]

6 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

and pay rent for 12 months on a stadium your only going to use for 10 evenings ?
Think again.

How many Clubs pay for 12 months rent.That is the question.

[mikebv]

10 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

and pay rent for 12 months on a stadium your only going to use for 10 evenings ?
Think again.

Or let the landlord then rent out the Speedway track to someone else...?

If any track pays 52 weeks rent for 20 weeks or so use they must be crackers..

Especially in this current climate.. 

[wealdstone]

2 hours ago, Ray Stadia said:

What would be your solution? 

I think we are past the point of no return?

[wealdstone]

4 hours ago, mikebv said:

I remember the side cars at the old Hyde Rd track doing 2nd Half races and also remember the crowds that stayed behind were much higher than the usual 2nd half racing attracted.. 

A novelty value maybe, but Speedway could certainly do with a few of those..

Those with bigger tracks may run Stox already so the sidecars wont rip up the tracks as badly as those monsters do..

And having seen them in the US racing on tiny 110m circuits without destroying the surface, ran alongside the solos rather than after them, (akin to Grasstrack), I can definitely testify that they are a great watch.. 

15 heats of Solo racing in a contrived made up team sport scenario isnt cutting it so anything else that can pull punters in has to be worth a go .

Seen the sidecars .Can only say boring, boring . boring

[Humphrey Appleby]

3 hours ago, mikebv said:

Bingo...

Dont run 20 meetings and pay out literally hundreds of thousand in salaries for 40 meetings, with poor returns and attendances....

Instead run say 10 meetings over six months from April to September (March if Easter falls then), with BIG prize money and promote and advertise them properly, using all the Bank Holidays available, and run Saturday and Sunday if it's your best day to attract a crowd..

Even those who rent must be able to negotiate 10 meetings per season only with their landlords given the current economic situation, and those landlords who keep the bar and car park take would be pleased to have large crowds attending Speedway meetings that have some "meaning" surely?

16, or even 12 at a push, riders of similar level at each meeting, therefore all races competitive and (if only 12 riders) the prize money shared would be greater.. 

Plenty of meetings for the riders, a chance to still earn good money and "proper, meaningful speedway" for the fans to watch..

Stick in a few "extras" to supplement the racing similar to the way the IOW do and who knows, it may help relaunch some "team racing" that starts again from scratch and doesnt remake all the mistakes which has led it to its current situation..

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple.

For those promotions renting their stadiums, what else are those stadiums going to be doing to cover their costs? If they lose the income from 10 speedway meetings, will they continue to be viable as going concerns and will they instead decide to sell up for development?

For those promotions owning their stadiums, they'll still have fixed costs regardless of how many meetings they stage. So by staging more meetings rather than less, they'll be at least getting some income to amortise some or all of those costs, and may in fact lose less money that way.

The number of meetings that get staged is presumably a compromise that suits the cost structure of all the promotions, and without having insight into all the costs, we can't know what the optimal number of meetings is. 

[Humphrey Appleby]

3 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Paying out for away meetings basically paying 14 riders from each gate, if its a 12 rider meeting then saving is already there, then throw in that you can pick and match up the riders to create a good meeting and you don't have to pick the top stars to create good racing but still use riders that are on show every week at CL level for example. Then as stated bulk out with additional races, 2nd halves throughout the match with riders that would happily turn out and put on a good show for just a contribution towards their costs. 

I'm not sure you'd get the savings you think.

If you reduce the number of riders needed per meeting from 14 to 12, you might save the travel expenses for a couple of riders, but the other riders would need to take more rides each to fill up the requisite heats. Some of those may well be on higher points money anyway, but would certainly expect compensation for the increased wear-and-tear of their equipment over the course of the season. So your costs may well go up rather than down.

 

[Ray Stadia]

30 minutes ago, wealdstone said:

I think we are past the point of no return?

I know how you feel, but I do believe  speedway or the model can be reinvented. At the end of the day, basically, we enjoy watching 4 riders, on 500 cc single pot 4 stroke engines, going round a shale oval track, over 4 laps, with the whiff of Castrol R in the air.   

[Ray Stadia]

12 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple.

For those promotions renting their stadiums, what else are those stadiums going to be doing to cover their costs? If they lose the income from 10 speedway meetings, will they continue to be viable as going concerns and will they instead decide to sell up for development?

For those promotions owning their stadiums, they'll still have fixed costs regardless of how many meetings they stage. So by staging more meetings rather than less, they'll be at least getting some income to amortise some or all of those costs, and may in fact lose less money that way.

The number of meetings that get staged is presumably a compromise that suits the cost structure of all the promotions, and without having insight into all the costs, we can't know what the optimal number of meetings is. 

I agree. I think once speedway gets it's model/formula right, it can go back to meetings in the best spring/summer/autumn months, every week! 

[Humphrey Appleby]

4 hours ago, Sings4Speedway said:

1000cc chairs do need the bigger circuits to produce their best but IOW, Belle Vue, Somerset have all hosted spectacular racing in the past, i think Kings Lynn has also. The 500 chairs can produce entertainment but it is a bit dialled down and don't quite have the thrill of the big chairs. That said lower power can generate closer racing, i feel that if the main solo class was downgraded to 250cc machines it would mean every rider would have to get everything out the engine and use track craft to get the wins rather than being reliant on having the best motor and the biggest b&lls which is often the case now. All of these require gradual changes over time but fastest isn't always bestest. 

I think the problem is that you're adding an entirely different class of riders and machinery to a meeting, which would all cost money that the sport just doesn't have. Would you realistically find 40-odd sidecar outfits that would be prepared to buy and maintain specialist equipment, and be willing to travel to 30-40 meetings per season for a couple of races and a few quid? How also would you provide context to the sidecar class week-after-week as well?

This is quite aside fact that sidecars race the opposite way around the track, so you need to duplicate infrastructure like warning lights, and I suspect some tracks would not be safe enough to be licenced for clockwise racing without expensive modification. 

I've seen sidecars at speedway a few times, and I'm afraid I don't think they're really the answer. I think people go to speedway to watch speedway bikes and not a variety show.

I fully agree there needs to be a fuller programme of races run more quickly, but I think the support races need to be junior leagues or mini-individual competitions with ongoing context (i.e. linked to a wider national competition). 

[mikebv]

17 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple.

For those promotions renting their stadiums, what else are those stadiums going to be doing to cover their costs? If they lose the income from 10 speedway meetings, will they continue to be viable as going concerns and will they instead decide to sell up for development?

For those promotions owning their stadiums, they'll still have fixed costs regardless of how many meetings they stage. So by staging more meetings rather than less, they'll be at least getting some income to amortise some or all of those costs, and may in fact lose less money that way.

The number of meetings that get staged is presumably a compromise that suits the cost structure of all the promotions, and without having insight into all the costs, we can't know what the optimal number of meetings is. 

Most rented stadia is owned by the greyhound fraternity which I can't see wanting to sell up for development as that sport would pretty much cease to exist if they did...

Therefore if ever there was an opportunity to find some common ground between use and profit (for both), it's surely now...

And if clubs are losing money by holding meetings eg Brum and Newcastle, then maybe less, but actually meaningful, meetings would be better for them...?

[Humphrey Appleby]

1 minute ago, mikebv said:

Most rented stadia is owned by the greyhound fraternity which I can't see wanting to sell up for development as that sport would pretty much cease to exist if they did...

Umpteen greyhound tracks have closed in the past years and I'd thought it's another sport on borrowed time - not least because of the animal welfare issues. As with speedway, I could well imagine many greyhound stadiums live a hand-to-mouth existence and that it's only the speedway income keeping the wolf from the door, so losing half of that may not go well. 

1 minute ago, mikebv said:

Therefore if ever there was an opportunity to find some common ground between use and profit (for both), it's surely now...

The bottom line is that I don't think many stadium owners would be in a position to accept significant rent reductions and expect the stadium to continue to be going concern.

1 minute ago, mikebv said:

And if clubs are losing money by holding meetings eg Brum and Newcastle, then maybe less, but actually meaningful, meetings would be better for them...?

Perhaps, but without knowing their cost structures it may be they'd lose even more if they staged less meetings because they'll have certain fixed costs and have probably agreed rent on the basis of a minimum number of meetings. And of course, they'd need to comprise with other tracks who will likely have different cost structures. 

[Ray Stadia]

13 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Umpteen greyhound tracks have closed in the past years and I'd thought it's another sport on borrowed time - not least because of the animal welfare issues. As with speedway, I could well imagine many greyhound stadiums live a hand-to-mouth existence and that it's only the speedway income keeping the wolf from the door, so losing half of that may not go well. 

The bottom line is that I don't think many stadium owners would be in a position to accept significant rent reductions and expect the stadium to continue to be going concern.

Perhaps, but without knowing their cost structures it may be they'd lose even more if they staged less meetings because they'll have certain fixed costs and have probably agreed rent on the basis of a minimum number of meetings. And of course, they'd need to comprise with other tracks who will likely have different cost structures. 

So, what would be your solution HA? 

[wealdstone]

4 hours ago, Ray Stadia said:

What would be your solution? 

I believe the catalyst was when people like Ric Frost was driven out of the sport. He came in expecting others to uphold certain standards of decency and integrity , but instead he was IMO rubbed out by the Mafia. The standard of such person was to  be told if you don't like F***off.  We are seeing in some quarters a brief resurgence but I feel this is to be short lived.

We are now a third world nation Speedway wise when not so long ago we were top of the pile.

[Pieman72]

The silence from the speedway establishment is worrying. What are they hiding when tracks are closing at an alarming rate.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Pieman72

[Humphrey Appleby]

1 hour ago, Ray Stadia said:

So, what would be your solution HA? 

Where does one begin? There are so many issues.

I think you'd need to look at the running costs of every track, what their fixed and variable costs are, and work out what they can afford with their current revenue levels. You'd then need to work out how to structure the season in terms of fixtures and pay rates that work for (say) 80% of the tracks, but you'd also need to take into account the number of riders available (for the whole season) who'd be willing to ride for those pay rates. You'd also need to work out what stadiums would be prepared to accept and which could continue to run on the expected revenue, and taking all these factors into account, the hard-nosed decision may be that some teams and tracks are simply no longer viable. 

But I think there's little point continuing with a sport if all it's doing is rationalising ever downwards without looking at how to improve its situation. So in parallel I think a lot of consideration needs to go into how the whole product can be improved whilst losses are reduced or preferably stemmed - at the very least faster-paced meetings with more races held on days convenient for the fans, up-to-date presentation and efforts to attract younger audiences. If something a bit different is needed (e.g. 8-rider races with double points, sidecars, quads, whatever) - whether fully or partially - then so be it, but this needs to be based on some sort of market research rather than because someone just happens to think it's a good idea.

I think to ensure costs are controlled in the longer term, you'd also need to have the riders centrally employed by the BSPL with tracks effectively run as franchises and allocated riders on a needs basis. Maybe you also need to consider pooled engines as well - maintained to as common a standard as possible - but allocated in some rotating or random manner to riders. 

Ultimately though, I think the underlying problem is that speedway has a poor or largely non-existent image, has an ageing social demographic that isn't attractive for sponsors or even media coverage, and is far too expensive for what it offers. All the tinkering in the world with formats and numbers of meetings won't fix this unless these other things can be turned around, which is going to be far from easy because the sport has sunk so low. The reality is that no decent business or marketing person would want to touch speedway with bargepole, far less work for the limited rewards it could offer currently, so it's difficult to see how the sport will dig itself out of the hole, even if the current promoters were willing to provide a spade. 

[Ray Stadia]

7 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

Where does one begin? There are so many issues.

I think you'd need to look at the running costs of every track, what their fixed and variable costs are, and work out what they can afford with their current revenue levels. You'd then need to work out how to structure the season in terms of fixtures and pay rates that work for (say) 80% of the tracks, but you'd also need to take into account the number of riders available (for the whole season) who'd be willing to ride for those pay rates. You'd also need to work out what stadiums would be prepared to accept and which could continue to run on the expected revenue, and taking all these factors into account, the hard-nosed decision may be that some teams and tracks are simply no longer viable. 

But I think there's little point continuing with a sport if all it's doing is rationalising ever downwards without looking at how to improve its situation. So in parallel I think a lot of consideration needs to go into how the whole product can be improved whilst losses are reduced or preferably stemmed - at the very least faster-paced meetings with more races held on days convenient for the fans, up-to-date presentation and efforts to attract younger audiences. If something a bit different is needed (e.g. 8-rider races with double points, sidecars, quads, whatever) - whether fully or partially - then so be it, but this needs to be based on some sort of market research rather than because someone just happens to think it's a good idea.

I think to ensure costs are controlled in the longer term, you'd also need to have the riders centrally employed by the BSPL with tracks effectively run as franchises and allocated riders on a needs basis. Maybe you also need to consider pooled engines as well - maintained to as common a standard as possible - but allocated in some rotating or random manner to riders. 

Ultimately though, I think the underlying problem is that speedway has a poor or largely non-existent image, has an ageing social demographic that isn't attractive for sponsors or even media coverage, and is far too expensive for what it offers. All the tinkering in the world with formats and numbers of meetings won't fix this unless these other things can be turned around, which is going to be far from easy because the sport has sunk so low. The reality is that no decent business or marketing person would want to touch speedway with bargepole, far less work for the limited rewards it could offer currently, so it's difficult to see how the sport will dig itself out of the hole, even if the current promoters were willing to provide a spade. 

It seems that many of the current promoters, with the exception of the Isle of Wight, just want to carry on with the same formula. It would appear they are not interested in getting round a table with marketing people, supporters of the sport, riders etc. There seems to be a 'my way or the highway' attitude. I think change could only happen in one of 2 ways, 1. new tracks open with a new formula and not called speedway, but it is still 4 riders going round a track. So you start, effectively with a brand new sport. 2. assuming the new sport is successful, the existing set-ups 'jump ship' to the new sport. The new sport would have to be amateur, certainly at the beginning and will probably have to be 'a track in a field', as the chances of a new stadium in a town, with that kind of land at a premium and all the other problems associated with the building of an inner or indeed an outer town stadium, won't happen. The biggest thing killing the sport, is the costs. I doubt current riders would accept a pay cut. Stadium owners are not likely to be sympathetic to reductions in rents. For the sport to survive, in my opinion, it has to ditch the 'glitz and glamour' mentality, that every rider is a superstar, needs multiple bikes, a sign written van etc etc, we need to get back to a rider, with a passion for the sport, not a passion for what the rider will earn, but a passion for riding a speedway bike. Those riders are out there, they are competing in grasstrack, paying to enter, driving long distances, all out of their own pockets. What is more, they are 'starved' of enough meetings to attend. They would, I'm sure, love the chance to also ride a speedway type sport, but without all the 'cloak-and-dagger' the riders get with speedway.