One League - Matt Ford

[Ovalman]

Good to see Glasgow and IOW crowds are up, good promoting paying off.

[Fortythirtyeight]

3 hours ago, auntie doris said:

Good to see Glasgow and IOW crowds are up, good promoting paying off.

Yes, good promoting, but Glasgow are sill losing money every week. They openly admit to needing 2,500 each week to break even and are currently getting around 1200 paying customers with ' promotions ' ( free or massively discounted tickets ) bringing in around 2-300.

They won't put up with this forever.

 

[Littleze]

Nailed it,the sport is contrived.. one of its biggest problems as to why it isn’t taken seriously.Even the SON is contrived... you still get big home wins,the racing isn’t any closer because of it & the crowds reflect it too,not solely for that reason...obviously.Presentation is amateurish,music outdated etc... 

[Fromafar]

On 7/20/2019 at 1:36 PM, Fortythirtyeight said:

Yes, good promoting, but Glasgow are sill losing money every week. They openly admit to needing 2,500 each week to break even and are currently getting around 1200 paying customers with ' promotions ' ( free or massively discounted tickets ) bringing in around 2-300.

They won't put up with this forever.

 

I find it hard to believe that they are losing money if the average crowd is  around 1200.

[Fortythirtyeight]

8 minutes ago, Fromafar said:

I find it hard to believe that they are losing money if the average crowd is  around 1200.

Then you live in cloud cuckoo land with the advertising they do, the investment they have made ( all good ) and the over the top wages they pay ( compared to every other track in their division ).

[Fromafar]

6 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

Then you live in cloud cuckoo land with the advertising they do, the investment they have made ( all good ) and the over the top wages they pay ( compared to every other track in their division ).

You seem to an expert in the financial affairs. I was told they  weren’t bothered about the money spent on upgrade ,they are only concerned on the sport paying for itself through the gate now.( Whether true or not I’m not sure).

ps

I live in Scotland

[Fortythirtyeight]

15 minutes ago, Fromafar said:

You seem to an expert in the financial affairs. I was told they  weren’t bothered about the money spent on upgrade ,they are only concerned on the sport paying for itself through the gate now.( Whether true or not I’m not sure).

ps

I live in Scotland

They make no secret of the break even crowd figure and have quoted it many times. Their wage bill alone is three times that of other clubs ( Mr.Cook does not come cheap ) and their have often stated they will not go on forever suffering losses. They have invested heavily and good on them for doing so but 1200 is still losing them money. They are very approachable gentleman so you can ask them yourself .

P.S. Scotland is a very nice place, I live nearby and drive into it most days.

 

[Topcat]

I think breakeven is more like 1500. No promotion tries harder and we do not want to loose this one.

[brianbuck]

I don't believe anyone disagrees with the fact that there have to be major changes if speedway is to start turning the corner, but in the light of the current financial climate, any changes which will increase costs for promoters would have no chance of being accepted.

I would suggest that the BSPA considers reducing the number of riders per team from seven to six (hopefully, this would only be temporary, and we would in time, be able to return to seven man teams). A race formula used in 1959 (when each match was followed by a 5-heat Reserve League match) featured 6-man teams racing over 15 heats with each rider having five rides. This format did not include a nominated riders' race which I would think was beneficial costwise, and helped to avoid clubs going for top-heavy teams which in effect, in the race formula currently used, give these clubs virtually a "free" 5-1 and usually means that heats 13 and 15 are duplicated and more predictable.

With the suggested format, the home club would be required to provide an "emergency 7th rider" who would receive no programmed rides but who could be utilised by either team should the need arise. (I realise that on occasions, this might mean that the Emergency Reserve might have to ride for both teams which isn't desirable but would be no more of a farce than some of the nonsense that we are witnessing all too often these days.)

With all 12 riders in each match receiving five rides, this would realise additional income for the riders without increasing costs for the promoters.

A redistribution of riders and a genuine equalisation of team strengths would be an essential requirement of any "new deal" and I would suggest scrapping the points limit in favour of a grading system which would be administered by a small "Grading Committee." The Grading Committee members would have to be independent, and would need to be thick skinned since they would inevitably find themselves under pressure from all sides, but there must be three or four people not involved with a particular track or promoter, whom all parties could trust and who would be willing to take on what would probably be a thankless task. (I'd volunteer!!!)

The grading need not be complicated or extensive - perhaps with riders graded as "A" "B" and "C" with clubs being allowed no more than two riders from each grade, and being allowed to retain the six riders they have chosen, for say, cycles of three years. The Grading Committee would have to have the power to regrade a rider making either exceptional progress or completely losing form should the need arise, and would also need to have the authority to prevent a club from using its financial clout to get themselves the best rider from each grade.

A rider's average would clearly have to be used to determine his grade, but this could be weighted by other considerations such as his age, his experience, whether he is regarded as "on the way up" or a bit "past his best" etc. Not an easy job, and the Committee would get a few wrong, but that's inevitable - and they would at least have the authority to correct any serious howlers!

The "Emergency Reserves" would be regarded as "D" grade riders, but any who advanced enough to gain a place in a club's top six would immediately be upgraded to "C" status.

Inevitably, Guest Riders and Rider-Replacement would have to continue at least for the time being, but I feel that the return of the Tactical Substitute rule this season has been helpful, although I would like to see the rule as it used to be - when a team could make a tactical change whenever they were six points in arrears, and not limited to a single occasion as the rule now stipulates.

Changes like these would be difficult to get enough support I know, but this wouldn't be impossible, and whilst it obviously will not cure all of speedway's ills, it could be a suggestion worth examining.

I'd welcome the thoughts of other posters, even if they want to shoot down my suggestions. We are care for our sport and want to see it back on an even keel.

 

[topsoil]

39 minutes ago, brianbuck said:

A race formula used in 1959 (when each match was followed by a 5-heat Reserve League match)

One point I would agree with wholeheartedly is that every team should have a junior team and every league meeting should be followed by a junior match. I wouldn't insist on a strict make up of teams, as I think the purposes that would be served is that young riders would get extra track time and the crowds get extra races if they want to stay back and see them. You could even name teams after local defunct teams just to keep names alive (e.g. Poole could call their junior team Weymouth, Swindon could call their's Reading) and teams could be made up of 500 / 250 / 125cc riders if needed. Regionalise it to cut down costs if you like, I wouldn't even worry about league tables, just make sure the young riders get as much track time as possible and the fans get more races for their money.

[waytogo28]

10 hours ago, brianbuck said:

I don't believe anyone disagrees with the fact that there have to be major changes if speedway is to start turning the corner, but in the light of the current financial climate, any changes which will increase costs for promoters would have no chance of being accepted.

I would suggest that the BSPA considers reducing the number of riders per team from seven to six (hopefully, this would only be temporary, and we would in time, be able to return to seven man teams). A race formula used in 1959 (when each match was followed by a 5-heat Reserve League match) featured 6-man teams racing over 15 heats with each rider having five rides. This format did not include a nominated riders' race which I would think was beneficial costwise, and helped to avoid clubs going for top-heavy teams which in effect, in the race formula currently used, give these clubs virtually a "free" 5-1 and usually means that heats 13 and 15 are duplicated and more predictable.

With the suggested format, the home club would be required to provide an "emergency 7th rider" who would receive no programmed rides but who could be utilised by either team should the need arise. (I realise that on occasions, this might mean that the Emergency Reserve might have to ride for both teams which isn't desirable but would be no more of a farce than some of the nonsense that we are witnessing all too often these days.)

With all 12 riders in each match receiving five rides, this would realise additional income for the riders without increasing costs for the promoters.

A redistribution of riders and a genuine equalisation of team strengths would be an essential requirement of any "new deal" and I would suggest scrapping the points limit in favour of a grading system which would be administered by a small "Grading Committee." The Grading Committee members would have to be independent, and would need to be thick skinned since they would inevitably find themselves under pressure from all sides, but there must be three or four people not involved with a particular track or promoter, whom all parties could trust and who would be willing to take on what would probably be a thankless task. (I'd volunteer!!!)

The grading need not be complicated or extensive - perhaps with riders graded as "A" "B" and "C" with clubs being allowed no more than two riders from each grade, and being allowed to retain the six riders they have chosen, for say, cycles of three years. The Grading Committee would have to have the power to regrade a rider making either exceptional progress or completely losing form should the need arise, and would also need to have the authority to prevent a club from using its financial clout to get themselves the best rider from each grade.

A rider's average would clearly have to be used to determine his grade, but this could be weighted by other considerations such as his age, his experience, whether he is regarded as "on the way up" or a bit "past his best" etc. Not an easy job, and the Committee would get a few wrong, but that's inevitable - and they would at least have the authority to correct any serious howlers!

The "Emergency Reserves" would be regarded as "D" grade riders, but any who advanced enough to gain a place in a club's top six would immediately be upgraded to "C" status.

Inevitably, Guest Riders and Rider-Replacement would have to continue at least for the time being, but I feel that the return of the Tactical Substitute rule this season has been helpful, although I would like to see the rule as it used to be - when a team could make a tactical change whenever they were six points in arrears, and not limited to a single occasion as the rule now stipulates.

Changes like these would be difficult to get enough support I know, but this wouldn't be impossible, and whilst it obviously will not cure all of speedway's ills, it could be a suggestion worth examining.

I'd welcome the thoughts of other posters, even if they want to shoot down my suggestions. We are care for our sport and want to see it back on an even keel.

 

Sounds like one of the best put together proposals of the last few years and involves learning from the past. If we are unable to do that and /or come up with better, completely new ideas and just continue with the same old, same old of the last twenty years, it really is "game over".

[mikebv]

Some food for thought Brian..

I would go one step further and run initially with five riders per team..

Graded A to E with one rider from each grade or two from a lower grade if you don't want anyone from the grade above. Eg you can have two B grades rather than having an A rider..

To take subjectivity and criticism away from any third party arbiter just use averages to determine the grades with an overall mean team average set to ensure no team can cherry pick the best rider from each grade..

Twenty teams would mean 100 riders needed, race home and away once and that's 38 matches..

Teams then split into groups of five for the play offs. 1st to 5th, 6th to 10th etc etc 

Home and away means another 8 matches to determine the winners of each group..

Give each group a trophy to ride for named after past iconic riders..

Maybe for the top group add in a 'play off final' to be raced by the top two teams to determine the overall seasons champions? Seems to bring decent crowds in and TV like them..

Strength of league would need to be Championship Lite I would suggest...

To make it more interesting I would run with a prize fund rather than points money and suggest £7500 a night be up for grabs with £4.5k to the winners and £3k to the losers. This gets shared as seen fit by the teams dependent on rider level but it would deliver an average £900 per rider for the winners and £600 for the losers..

A prize up for grabs will give credibility and context a meeting too in a way that just paying out points money doesn't, and can form part of any marketing to attract attention and give it value in the eyes of the wider public..

And you can then do a presentation each evening of the 'cheques'..

£14 an adult and free for U19's in Education..

800 punters would bring in £11200 without any bar and food take, car park, programmes or merchandise income..

A ridiculously low number of punters used as an example but I would suggest where most clubs currently are in terms of attendances..?

Overall, It would bring a variety of teams rather than the same visitors constantly coming which should stimulate interest and the final groups should be close as they will be against teams of around your level..

And of course a big finale should deliver well above 800!

 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by mikebv

[ShyTalk]

1 hour ago, mikebv said:

Some food for thought Brian..

I would go one step further and run initially with five riders per team..

Graded A to E with one rider from each grade or two from a lower grade if you don't want anyone from the grade above. Eg you can have two B grades rather than having an A rider..

To take subjectivity and criticism away from any third party arbiter just use averages to determine the grades with an overall mean team average set to ensure no team can cherry pick the best rider from each grade..

Twenty teams would mean 100 riders needed, race home and away once and that's 38 matches..

Teams then split into groups of five for the play offs. 1st to 5th, 6th to 10th etc etc 

Home and away means another 8 matches to determine the winners of each group..

Give each group a trophy to ride for named after past iconic riders..

Maybe for the top group add in a 'play off final' to be raced by the top two teams to determine the overall seasons champions? Seems to bring decent crowds in and TV like them..

Strength of league would need to be Championship Lite I would suggest...

To make it more interesting I would run with a prize fund rather than points money and suggest £7500 a night be up for grabs with £4.5k to the winners and £3k to the losers. This gets shared as seen fit by the teams dependent on rider level but it would deliver an average £900 per rider for the winners and £600 for the losers..

A prize up for grabs will give credibility and context a meeting too in a way that just paying out points money doesn't, and can form part of any marketing to attract attention and give it value in the eyes of the wider public..

And you can then do a presentation each evening of the 'cheques'..

£14 an adult and free for U19's in Education..

800 punters would bring in £11200 without any bar and food take, car park, programmes or merchandise income..

A ridiculously low number of punters used as an example but I would suggest where most clubs currently are in terms of attendances..?

Overall, It would bring a variety of teams rather than the same visitors constantly coming which should stimulate interest and the final groups should be close as they will be against teams of around your level..

And of course a big finale should deliver well above 800!

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mikebv said:

Some food for thought Brian..

I would go one step further and run initially with five riders per team..

Graded A to E with one rider from each grade or two from a lower grade if you don't want anyone from the grade above. Eg you can have two B grades rather than having an A rider..

To take subjectivity and criticism away from any third party arbiter just use averages to determine the grades with an overall mean team average set to ensure no team can cherry pick the best rider from each grade..

Twenty teams would mean 100 riders needed, race home and away once and that's 38 matches..

Teams then split into groups of five for the play offs. 1st to 5th, 6th to 10th etc etc 

Home and away means another 8 matches to determine the winners of each group..

Give each group a trophy to ride for named after past iconic riders..

Maybe for the top group add in a 'play off final' to be raced by the top two teams to determine the overall seasons champions? Seems to bring decent crowds in and TV like them..

Strength of league would need to be Championship Lite I would suggest...

To make it more interesting I would run with a prize fund rather than points money and suggest £7500 a night be up for grabs with £4.5k to the winners and £3k to the losers. This gets shared as seen fit by the teams dependent on rider level but it would deliver an average £900 per rider for the winners and £600 for the losers..

A prize up for grabs will give credibility and context a meeting too in a way that just paying out points money doesn't, and can form part of any marketing to attract attention and give it value in the eyes of the wider public..

And you can then do a presentation each evening of the 'cheques'..

£14 an adult and free for U19's in Education..

800 punters would bring in £11200 without any bar and food take, car park, programmes or merchandise income..

A ridiculously low number of punters used as an example but I would suggest where most clubs currently are in terms of attendances..?

Overall, It would bring a variety of teams rather than the same visitors constantly coming which should stimulate interest and the final groups should be close as they will be against teams of around your level..

And of course a big finale should deliver well above 800!

 

 

Certainly would be a bit sceptical about any 5 man teams using R/R. Does anyone have the race formula they use for this in Denmark?

 

[SteveLyric2]

2 hours ago, mikebv said:

Some food for thought Brian..

I would go one step further and run initially with five riders per team..

Graded A to E with one rider from each grade or two from a lower grade if you don't want anyone from the grade above. Eg you can have two B grades rather than having an A rider..

To take subjectivity and criticism away from any third party arbiter just use averages to determine the grades with an overall mean team average set to ensure no team can cherry pick the best rider from each grade..

Twenty teams would mean 100 riders needed, race home and away once and that's 38 matches..

Teams then split into groups of five for the play offs. 1st to 5th, 6th to 10th etc etc 

Home and away means another 8 matches to determine the winners of each group..

Give each group a trophy to ride for named after past iconic riders..

Maybe for the top group add in a 'play off final' to be raced by the top two teams to determine the overall seasons champions? Seems to bring decent crowds in and TV like them..

Strength of league would need to be Championship Lite I would suggest...

To make it more interesting I would run with a prize fund rather than points money and suggest £7500 a night be up for grabs with £4.5k to the winners and £3k to the losers. This gets shared as seen fit by the teams dependent on rider level but it would deliver an average £900 per rider for the winners and £600 for the losers..

A prize up for grabs will give credibility and context a meeting too in a way that just paying out points money doesn't, and can form part of any marketing to attract attention and give it value in the eyes of the wider public..

And you can then do a presentation each evening of the 'cheques'..

£14 an adult and free for U19's in Education..

800 punters would bring in £11200 without any bar and food take, car park, programmes or merchandise income..

A ridiculously low number of punters used as an example but I would suggest where most clubs currently are in terms of attendances..?

Overall, It would bring a variety of teams rather than the same visitors constantly coming which should stimulate interest and the final groups should be close as they will be against teams of around your level..

And of course a big finale should deliver well above 800!

 

 

As I've said before some clubs don't get any financial gain from bar and food, car park etc so your example would net approx £9400 gate receipts (taking the VAT off) less stadium rental - maybe £3k as in some cases - and less staff costs (officials, St Johns, etc) aside from the volunteers, so that would grossly affect the bottom line.

Then you would have the promotional costs eg advertising, marketing, PR etc to attract improved audiences - these could vary substantially from area to area.

With both the above suggestions there is little info about exactly how you would attract new audiences nor the costs of doing so?!

Sorry for the critique as I try to be positive but there are so many questions left unexplained - or maybe even worse not even considered.

 

[brianbuck]

Although I think cutting down to five-man teams might be a bit too drastic, I'd take this if it meant an end to all this doubling-up farce. I also rather like the idea of a fixed "prize fund" instead of riders being paid points money, but there would need to be a fair and transparent way of paying it in order to prevent the greedy top few from cornering the bulk of it - such as all riders being paid from a central point rather than by their own promoters.

All in all though, we all have to accept that there is no magic formula which will bring back the crowds overnight - it has to be a slow and steady process.

Edited July 28, 2019 by brianbuck

[mikebv]

4 hours ago, Skidder1 said:

As I've said before some clubs don't get any financial gain from bar and food, car park etc so your example would net approx £9400 gate receipts (taking the VAT off) less stadium rental - maybe £3k as in some cases - and less staff costs (officials, St Johns, etc) aside from the volunteers, so that would grossly affect the bottom line.

Then you would have the promotional costs eg advertising, marketing, PR etc to attract improved audiences - these could vary substantially from area to area.

With both the above suggestions there is little info about exactly how you would attract new audiences nor the costs of doing so?!

Sorry for the critique as I try to be positive but there are so many questions left unexplained - or maybe even worse not even considered.

 

Obviously a business plan would need to be gone into much greater detail than a very high level proposal..

However, I am sure there are are good few clubs who get no extra income and currently smash 800 punters a week, just as there will be clubs who own everything and wouldnt get 800 through the door..

My team for example if they ran on a Saturday night with a quintet including for example Craig Cook at one, Kyle Bickley at four and Leon Flint at five would get 1400 minimum I would suggest, which at £14 in would deliver well over break even I would guess if they were 'only' paying out a max £7500 in total for effectively the home and away matches in that round..

Getting 100 riders in the first place may also be a stretch, and the bottom rung level will need to NL reserve standard I would think such is the talent pool that currently exists..

However, from small acorns and all that..

Bottom line is, British Speedway needs credible competitions which it currently doesn't possess...

Riders pay out stupid amounts (incredibly as they are just running to stand still as everyone does the same), and need to earn almost every evening to make it pay, therefore more meetings are required for them to do that...

And to keep fans interested these meetings need to include different teams, with different riders, rather than the current same old, same old visitors, sometimes coming two or three times a season within just a couple of months..

And to ensure the fans can get there, meetings need to be ran on nights when each promoter believes it his or her best crowd level opportunity..

How we get to 'utopia' is open to conjecture, but one thing blatantly is for sure, and that is the current operating model is simply miles away from being fit for purpose, therefore it needs a Nationally joined up collective fix which includes all the teams working together for the greater good...

It cannot keep up its current failing plan and let any more tracks close I would think as it will become eventually untenable..

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by mikebv

[brianbuck]

I'm all in favour of Topsoil's suggestion that ALL clubs should have a Junior Team - but this should be comprised of riders who are exclusive members of each club - not two or three different clubs all using the same riders! 

"Doubling-up" (in the main leagues) has become a monster totally out of control (a child of five could have seen this coming!!) - and it needs to be phased out as soon as possible whether the riders like it or not. Phasing it out though, seems to be and impossible dream - every season it is further extended. Whoever dreamed up this idea should be put up against a wall!!!!

 

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, brianbuck said:

I'm all in favour of Topsoil's suggestion that ALL clubs should have a Junior Team - but this should be comprised of riders who are exclusive members of each club - not two or three different clubs all using the same riders! 

"Doubling-up" (in the main leagues) has become a monster totally out of control (a child of five could have seen this coming!!) - and it needs to be phased out as soon as possible whether the riders like it or not. Phasing it out though, seems to be and impossible dream - every season it is further extended. Whoever dreamed up this idea should be put up against a wall!!!!

 

The vicious circle of riders needing more rides to pay for expensive equipment and the maintainence of it...

Which then means they end up riding here, there and everywhere for everyone and anyone who requires their services..

Which then renders the competitions they compete in devoid of credibility...

Which then reduces the fan base further year on year..

Which then means admission costs that many who still believe in the Sport find prohibitive....

Which then reduces the amount of teams financially able to continue in the Sport..

Somebody really needs to stop this circle before it reaches its inevitable conclusion, but who will it be?

And ultimately you have to ask, is there a will to do so?

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by mikebv

[wealdstone]

One league or no league is the choice imo

[topsoil]

3 hours ago, brianbuck said:

I'm all in favour of Topsoil's suggestion that ALL clubs should have a Junior Team - but this should be comprised of riders who are exclusive members of each club - not two or three different clubs all using the same riders! 

"Doubling-up" (in the main leagues) has become a monster totally out of control (a child of five could have seen this coming!!) - and it needs to be phased out as soon as possible whether the riders like it or not. Phasing it out though, seems to be and impossible dream - every season it is further extended. Whoever dreamed up this idea should be put up against a wall!!!!

 

In an ideal world there would be enough junior riders to go round so that they are exclusive to one club, my reason for saying the above was that I was concerned there would be enough riders to go round and I did not want any bidding wars to take place on young riders.