Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Swc 2018


Recommended Posts

Why on earth would BSI pay more to run a new comp, in addition to paying for a competition thermy are not running? I dont see how that makes any business sense.

The reason for the supposition is because the SWC is arguably the most anticipated week in the speedway season and has now been cast aside in favour of who knows what.

As an organisation waiting to make a formal announcement when all other parties have already released information...Im not sure that necessarily comes across as professional?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it won't just be a return to the not very popular traditional Best Pairs System.

 

Reading Casatgna's comments in the Star I guess it will somehow involve junior riders (maybe a 500cc U21 and even an 250cc U16) along with the best senior riders in this Speedway of Nations.

 

I wonder if the FIM will also abandon their Junior U21 World Team Championship, which had even less nations take part than the SWC, and which was almost every year won by Poland ... and which has an equivalent in the European Junior U21 Team Championship ... which again has even less ... and is alway won by ... you know what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would BSI pay more to run a new comp, in addition to paying for a competition thermy are not running? I dont see how that makes any business sense.

The reason for the supposition is because the SWC is arguably the most anticipated week in the speedway season and has now been cast aside in favour of who knows what.

As an organisation waiting to make a formal announcement when all other parties have already released information...Im not sure that necessarily comes across as professional?

BECAUSE as far as the FIM are concerned it is a new competition and BSI still hold the SWC rights because that certainly isn't just a thing of the past. Understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it won't just be a return to the not very popular traditional Best Pairs System.

 

Reading Casatgna's comments in the Star I guess it will somehow involve junior riders (maybe a 500cc U21 and even an 250cc U16) along with the best senior riders in this Speedway of Nations.

 

I wonder if the FIM will also abandon their Junior U21 World Team Championship, which had even less nations take part than the SWC, and which was almost every year won by Poland ... and which has an equivalent in the European Junior U21 Team Championship ... which again has even less ... and is alway won by ... you know what.

If Castagna is proposing a mixture of junior riders, to be included alongside senior riders, I cannot see how it will lead to a big jump in participation levels, as there are relatively few countries that have a proper junior development programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ONE Under 21 rider per country is the most likely scenario I believe

On that basis, the following countries applied for places in the qualifiers for the World Under 21 Championship in 2017;

 

5 Poland; 5 Sweden; 4 Denmark; 4 Czech Republic; 4 Germany; 3 GB; 3 France; 2 Latvia; 2 Russia; 2 Norway; 2 Finland; 2 Australia; 2 Italy; 1 Ukraine; 1 Slovenia; 1 Argentina; 1 Slovakia; 1 New Zealand; 1 USA; 1 Austria.

 

The numbers indicate the number of places respectively allocated to each country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to have a compulsory U21 rider,then we are back to square one,as Poland have a bunch and most other countries don't even have one to match........great!!!

Edited by iris123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to have a compulsory U21 rider,then we are back to square one,as Poland have a bunch and most other countries don't even have one to match........great!!!

That was pretty much my own thoughts on having a mandatory Under 21 rider. They are hoping to create a system that gives more countries a chance of competing and winning at the highest level in one breadth, yet in another, they are handing Poland a significant advantage over the rest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRONG ... how did you come to that conclusion? The FIM demanded a licence fee in addition to that paid by BSI for the SWC commercial rights. So more money into the FIM coffers, not less.

Are you talking about the meeting licence fees, because they're different to the commercial rights fees for a competition, and as far as I'm aware are payable on any meeting that's organised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humphrey I enjoy reading what you have to say on here and even if I dont agree I will appreciate - but if Phil said the sky was blue would u disagree?

Phillipe is here to put a positive spin on things for BSI with whom he has a commercial relationship. Nothing wrong with that, but he cannot be considered a neutral party and he's either carefully wording his posts thinking we don't know the difference between commercial rights and inscription/permit fees, or he's just repeating BSI verbatim. Throwing in the term 'licence fees' just serves to further that confusion.

 

And if I were the commercial rights holder of the SWC and the FIM made a decision to suspend it and replace with another team-based competition of a very similar ilk, I'd expect that to be included in the rights or be paid some sort of compensation. Of course, if the SWC wasn't sufficient profitable for me and I had a get-out clause on that basis, both parties might wish to negotiate some revised arrangement to reduce costs but ensure that both gain something from it.

 

I think most appreciate Phillipe's participation on here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to not take everything at face value from an official source. Only a few weeks ago he was priming us for a return to a pairs format, yet now the powers-that-be seem to be discussing another format with junior riders and so on. Either someone isn't well informed, or the FIM and BSI are just making things up as they go along.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phillipe is here to put a positive spin on things for BSI with whom he has a commercial relationship. Nothing wrong with that, but he cannot be considered a neutral party and he's either carefully wording his posts thinking we don't know the difference between commercial rights and inscription/permit fees, or he's just repeating BSI verbatim. Throwing in the term 'licence fees' just serves to further that confusion.

 

And if I were the commercial rights holder of the SWC and the FIM made a decision to suspend it and replace with another team-based competition of a very similar ilk, I'd expect that to be included in the rights or be paid some sort of compensation. Of course, if the SWC wasn't sufficient profitable for me and I had a get-out clause on that basis, both parties might wish to negotiate some revised arrangement to reduce costs but ensure that both gain something from it.

 

I think most appreciate Phillipe's participation on here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to not take everything at face value from an official source. Only a few weeks ago he was priming us for a return to a pairs format, yet now the powers-that-be seem to be discussing another format with junior riders and so on. Either someone isn't well informed, or the FIM and BSI are just making things up as they go along.

I AM not and neither have been an official spokesman for BSI. Nor do I contribute here to put a positive spin on anything for them. I can actually think for myself so whatever I write here is a personal opinion, nothing more. Nor do I have a commercial relationship with them.

 

It will be a return to a pairs format but to eradicate the possibility of a rider getting injured during a meeting and that ''pair' becoming a 'single' each country will also include an Under 21 rider in their team.

 

The fact is that the FIM see this as a new competition and demand BSI pay for the commercial (yes, I mistakenly wrote license and I apologise for that)) rights while still retaining and paying for the SWC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is that the FIM see this as a new competition and demand BSI pay for the commercial (yes, I mistakenly wrote license and I apologise for that)) rights while still retaining and paying for the SWC.

So BSI are continuing to pay for the commercial rights for a competition they're unable to run? That wouldn't seem like good business sense, unless of course they asked to stop running the SWC.

 

And didn't we hear that OneSport were prevented from running national teams in the European Pairs competitions because BSI supposedly objected that they were the rights holders to the World Pairs?

 

It will be a return to a pairs format but to eradicate the possibility of a rider getting injured during a meeting and that ''pair' becoming a 'single' each country will also include an Under 21 rider in their team.

So the competition is something we've seen before then. It's a best pairs competition with a reserve, which was the WTC format run from 1993 to 1998 except now with an under 21 reserve.

 

Which also begs the question what Armando was rambling on about in the Spar the other week...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So BSI are continuing to pay for the commercial rights for a competition they're unable to run? That wouldn't seem like good business sense, unless of course they asked to stop running the SWC.

 

And didn't we hear that OneSport were prevented from running national teams in the European Pairs competitions because BSI supposedly objected that they were the rights holders to the World Pairs?

 

 

So the competition is something we've seen before then. It's a best pairs competition with a reserve, which was the WTC format run from 1993 to 1998 except now with an under 21 reserve.

 

Which also begs the question what Armando was rambling on about in the Spar the other week...

WHY not just wait and see?

 

The SWC is not dead which is presumably why BSI retain the rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy