Thank you Sky for nothing

[Byker Biker]

Whenever the Elite League clubs went back for more money or to extend the term for "advances" Sky and GoSpeed questioned the wisdom of not reinvesting in the sport. At contract renewal they suggested putting some of the money into grass roots schemes, Team GB and other long term initiatives. Terry told the BSPA "you do know you are going to run out of money" but the cry was "who are they to tell us how to spend our money". Admittedly some found it's way into those initiatives but nowhere near enough and the BSPA Office was partly funded from TV money.

[IainB]

6 minutes ago, George Dodds said:

 the "I'll only go to watch the top riders" type of fans take a large dose of reality

I'd say they already have had a reality check and just stopped going to Speedway

[BWitcher]

6 minutes ago, George Dodds said:

There aren't any but you're trying to make out that speedway promoters are the only club owners so inept that they cannot make a profit from their sport.

Except there are. I've listed all the ones who made a profit in 2016/17. There were only 3 Premier League sides who didn't.

[Byker Biker]

10 minutes ago, iainb said:

Don't forget a certain cockney gentleman who also skimmed the cream off the top of the pie!

I think this needs rephrasing, he earned a percentage of the Sky fee in line with the BSPA's finders fee payments policy, the fact that he took less overall than he was entitled to seems to go unrecorded. They chose to outsource their broadcast rights just like they've outsourced Team GB now, the fact that Terry was and Rob may be successful with it seems to go against Speedway's grain hence Terry is still begrudged what he justly earned. How can you say to someone "get us on TV and we'll pay you X per cent" and then "now you've got us on TV we don't want to pay you any more"?

[SPEEDY69]

43 minutes ago, Grand Central said:

Just about everyone - perhaps bar the OP - agrees that it was the Speedway Promoters themselves that did not make best use of the Sky Money when it was flowing into the sport freely. And that some better choices should have been made to 'invest' for the future.

But this oft repeated criticism that it was wasted by just being given to the riders needs a little more scrutiny surely.

I think it's true that it did go to them and then to engine tuners and travel costs etc. But isn't that how WE wanted it spent at the time, if we are honest.  Didn't we all want to our own club to pay the money to the top guys to have them in our team in those years.

Wouldn't we have all voted with our feet back then in even greater numbers sooner if the big money was not spent on a strong team like they rest?

If we had a big TV deal starting today isn't the first thing we would want it spent on is getting Tai, Emil, Freddie and the rest back ASAP.

I think we are just being a bit 'holier than thou' when we scream at the promoters today for doing what really was our bidding then.

I am not and I would have nothing but respect for a promoter who says we tried to get this rider but I'm not prepared to meet their demands.  It does need all of them to operate a similar stance otherwise they will migrate to those who pay more but if points limits and replacements are found then the opportunities for those with big demands dry up.  I accept there will always be differences but they should never go beyond what they can afford in order to make a profit.

[George Dodds]

15 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

Except there are. I've listed all the ones who made a profit in 2016/17. There were only 3 Premier League sides who didn't.

... having taken into account their TV money - ie they spent it on players wages, same as speedway did. Speedway operates on crowd levels in line with National League football crowds but are paying League one wages ... it doesn't work

[mikebv]

Seem to remember it was a three hour show virtually EVERY week during the season when Sky first showed British Speedway....

And then they had a further two full repeats, as a minimum, at the two other time lots of morning and afternoon....

A minimum NINE hours in which to SHOWCASE your largely forgotten/unheard of Sport..

NINE hours per week of coverage going out on one of, (if not THE) fastest growing global media platforms at the time and also since...

You then had the GP's with similar coverage featuring riders who virtually to a man appeared in the British League..

This meant circa 18 hours of coverage most weeks!

For a Sport with very, very little TV coverage in the preceding 10 years or so... 

PLUS wasn't it over £1M to be shared amongst a fluctuating 11 to 8 teams each Season?

Yep...

British Speedway's problems are all definitely down to Sky. In fact they should be ashamed of themselves..

Providing the Sport with just hours and hours of prime time coverage virtually every week, and giving it seven figure sums each season, just to have the 'honour' of showing it.. 

I mean,  no wonder the Sport didn't prosper...!

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by mikebv

[George Dodds]

2 minutes ago, mikebv said:

British Speedway's problems are all definitrlydown to Sky...

 

 

 

no but it also gave people an opportunity to stay at home and for the cost of entry at one meeting see between four and ten from the comfort of their living room on TV along with other sports for the rest of the month. Rugby League has huge TV viewing figures - second only to football on Sky - around the country but those people do not travel to watch it live.  

[BWitcher]

31 minutes ago, George Dodds said:

... having taken into account their TV money - ie they spent it on players wages, same as speedway did. Speedway operates on crowd levels in line with National League football crowds but are paying League one wages ... it doesn't work

So you want clubs to make a profit without taking into account their income.

The second part of your statement I agree with.. the rest you are wrong on.

Edited July 11, 2018 by BWitcher

[Argos]

1 hour ago, iainb said:

Don't forget a certain cockney gentleman who also skimmed the cream off the top of the pie!

Also don’t forget if it wasn’t for him British Speedway would have had nothing off Sky. 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Argos

[BluPanther]

1 hour ago, BWitcher said:

Right..

So the argument is, Sky has pumped money into lots of sports, given them massive exposure and that is what has caused them all to 'decline'.

No other reasons.. all Sky's fault? 

Seriously? lol

Just think for a moment where some of these sports would be if Sky hadn't got involved with them....

I never blamed Sky for any decline, in fact i agree with many of your points. I believe cost and the digital age two of the many reasons, and these sports would have declined even if Sky had never got involved. Maybe you could point out where i blamed Sky for anything  

[BWitcher]

1 minute ago, BluPanther said:

I never blamed Sky for any decline, in fact i agree with many of your points. I believe cost and the digital age two of the many reasons, and these sports would have declined even if Sky had never got involved. Maybe you could point out where i blamed Sky for anything  

On a thread that is about the decline of Sports due to Sky's involvement.. you say Sky has thrown money at other sports and speak of how in decline they are it was logical to assume you were agreeing with the OP thesis as you gave no other reason for their decline.

Now you've clarified it we seem pretty much in agreement, there are lots of factors involved, the digital age being a big one.

How much certain sports have actually 'declined' is open to argument. 'Evolved' might be a better word in some cases.

[TonyMac]

1 hour ago, Grand Central said:

Just about everyone - perhaps bar the OP - agrees that it was the Speedway Promoters themselves that did not make best use of the Sky Money when it was flowing into the sport freely. And that some better choices should have been made to 'invest' for the future.

But this oft repeated criticism that it was wasted by just being given to the riders needs a little more scrutiny surely.

I think it's true that it did go to them and then to engine tuners and travel costs etc. But isn't that how WE wanted it spent at the time, if we are honest.  Didn't we all want to our own club to pay the money to the top guys to have them in our team in those years.

Wouldn't we have all voted with our feet back then in even greater numbers sooner if the big money was not spent on a strong team like they rest?

If we had a big TV deal starting today isn't the first thing we would want it spent on is getting Tai, Emil, Freddie and the rest back ASAP.

I think we are just being a bit 'holier than thou' when we scream at the promoters today for doing what really was our bidding then.

In this age of rampant self-entitlement, fans of all team sports want success at every turn and defeat is treated like the end of the world, especially among football fans.

Speedway promoters can learn a lot from listening to supporters but not always when it comes to how best to spend the money generated at the turnstiles and through TV and sponsors.

 

[PHILIPRISING]

1 hour ago, iainb said:

Don't forget a certain cockney gentleman who also skimmed the cream off the top of the pie!

OR that without him there wouldn't have been a deal in the first place

[stevehone]

speedway had been in decline for many years before Sky came in, but there was a massive opportunity to showcase the sport and sell it to a big sponsor, but i wonder if the desire was there once the ££££ signs were seen. I think too many in charge rested on their laurels and just took everything for granted, and that includes both supporters and income, which is always a bad way to do things. Having some financial backing should have been the start to clubs being able to speculate and actually try pushing the sport to a wider audience, promote in other words!

it seems the money was used to help create the monster we have now, with seemingly no way to turn things around, Sky aren't going to do it all over again and give another go

[moxey63]

Could  I blame SKY for the red blazers the managers wore?

[Grand Central]

1 hour ago, moxey63 said:

Could  I blame SKY for the red blazers the managers wore?

Well, you could do if it that would make you feel better.

But the Red Blazers predate Sky's involvement by a couple of years or more.
They have been with us longer than things like dirt deflectors.

I remember the 1996 fours day at Peterborough when they were just everywhere you looked.
It had the appearence of a bizarre Butlins reunion.
With all the redcoats who never 'made it' in entertainment meeting up in old age wearing outfits from a bygone age.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Grand Central

[cityrebel]

1 hour ago, Grand Central said:

Well, you could do if it that would make you feel better.

But the Red Blazers predate Sky's involvement by a couple of years or more.
They have been with us longer than things like dirt deflectors.

I remember the 1996 fours day at Peterborough when they were just everywhere you looked.
It had the appearence of a bizarre Butlins reunion.
With all the redcoats who never 'made it' in entertainment meeting up in old age wearing outfits from a bygone age.

Fits in well with speedways current image. A sport from a bygone age.

[TonyMac]

9 hours ago, PHILIPRISING said:

OR that without him there wouldn't have been a deal in the first place

Terry Russell, and he alone, got the BSPA the original TV deal that no-one else within the promoters' association was capable of.

And in hindsight, he spent too much of his own money on a lost cause, or certainly British clubs that didn't deliver a return on that investment.

It's ironic that fans, many of the same people who still slate Terry today, probably wouldn't have been able to watch league racing at their local track in the last 25 years if TR hadn't let his heart rule his head.

Those who blame TR for any part of UK speedway's demise have got the wrong scapegoat.

[steve roberts]

I've said it before but I was never quite sure who the targeted market was in broadcasting live league matches? Was it to attract new people to the sport or to appeal to the already converted...or indeed to attract major sponsorship to which it has apparently failed on all counts.