British Speedway statement

[Speedtiger]

34 minutes ago, KIRKYLANE said:

Speedway has ebbed and flowed since it started.

we have to hope that the corner will be turned in the near future…

Don’t hold your breath KL…

[Fortythirtyeight]

38 minutes ago, Deano said:

Anyone one know how much in total speedway has received from TV since SKY took it on?

I'm guessing it might have been enough to have bought a few stadia.

It wasn’t by a long distance and once it was shared out between the ‘top’ clubs the individual amount wasn’t enough to purchase the promoter a a Rolls but it did offset a large percentage of their running costs.

The new money won’t buy them a decent second hand tractor with grader attached.

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, Deano said:

Anyone one know how much in total speedway has received from TV since SKY took it on?

I'm guessing it might have been enough to have bought a few stadia.

Wasn't it just over £100k a club per season?..

With individual meetings getting another '£x thousand to offset any crowd loss due to live TV..

That was in a 10 club Elite league..

And it went in for a fair few years, so it was a good few million..

Edit. Cant link it up but just read an article from 2001 with Vanessa Purchase of Oxford in the Oxford Mail, where she discusses the £5 million, five year deal with Sky..

Edited November 24, 2021 by mikebv

[Deano]

16 minutes ago, mikebv said:

Wasn't it just over £100k a club per season?..

With individual meetings getting another '£x thousand to offset any crowd loss due to live TV..

That was in a 10 club Elite league..

And it went in for a fair few years, so it was a good few million..

So perhaps enough to have bought Newport. I can’t remember the sale costs but a promoter paying the BSPL rent is money staying in the sport. 

[Humphrey Appleby]

16 minutes ago, mikebv said:

Wasn't it just over £100k a club per season?..

I may have remembered this wrong, but I think it was closer to 50k per track per year. 

Terence got his cut of course, and I think I heard that aside from the fixed amount paid to each promotion, additional payments were made to teams when they were shown live to compensate for lower crowds.

[Fortythirtyeight]

25 minutes ago, mikebv said:

Wasn't it just over £100k a club per season?..

With individual meetings getting another '£x thousand to offset any crowd loss due to live TV..

That was in a 10 club Elite league..

And it went in for a fair few years, so it was a good few million..

Edit. Cant link it up but just read an article from 2001 with Vanessa Purchase of Oxford in the Oxford Mail, where she discusses the £5 million, five year deal with Sky..

No, it wasn’t.

Yes, Sky paid a for a 5 year deal and did settle in full despite withdrawing early.

The current deal is less than 3% of the Sky money.

[mikebv]

4 minutes ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

I may have remembered this wrong, but I think it was closer to 50k per track per year. 

Terence got his cut of course, and I think I heard that aside from the fixed amount paid to each promotion, additional payments were made to teams when they were shown live to compensate for lower crowds.

As I edited on my last post..

It was £5m for Five years in 2001...

The interview with Vanessa Purchase didnt say whether that was "gross or net" of the "finders fee"...

Can't remember the exact amount each track got for holding a meeting but do remember thinking at the time that it was a "decent amount"..

Especially considering that early into the contract tracks got very good crowds with the novelty of TV being there getting fans to attend their tracks..

And tracks would also do plenty of "add ons" to try and attract crowds with kids being a particular target audience...

Dont know if the next contract five years later yielded the same, or similar...

 

 

[mikebv]

7 minutes ago, Fortythirtyeight said:

No, it wasn’t.

Yes, Sky paid a for a 5 year deal and did settle in full despite withdrawing early.

The current deal is less than 3% of the Sky money.

Sky didnt pull out before 2006 did they?

Thought it was much more recent than that..

Edit Just checked. BT took over UK coverage in 2017...

Sky paid up their contract in 2016

Sky showed British Speedway for a long, long time...

And paid a hell of a lot of money in too...

Edited November 24, 2021 by mikebv

[topaz325]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59406087

[steve roberts]

39 minutes ago, topaz325 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59406087

Very apt...been saying it for years that speedway needs an independant body to run the sport and now the same being said in football.

[topaz325]

9 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

Very apt...been saying it for years that speedway needs an independant body to run the sport and now the same being said in football.

Do not know how it could be implemented in Speedway but clearly the sport is not in a good place , ok a few tracks opening Northside, Oxford but the overall state of the leagues in Britain is not good

[steve roberts]

23 minutes ago, topaz325 said:

Do not know how it could be implemented in Speedway but clearly the sport is not in a good place , ok a few tracks opening Northside, Oxford but the overall state of the leagues in Britain is not good

It's been well documented that speedway had an opportunity many years ago when John Berry put himself forward but some members of the BSPA got cold feet and Berry re-tracted his offer. If I recall Peter York stepped in what became a very diluted position of power and never got the co-operation of  the BSPA. During his short tenure he came across all sorts of problems and it didn't help matters that the two leagues had different administrations with very different agendas but that was to be expected considering the in-rivalry amongst the speedway fraternity hence the problems that continue to exist within the sport.

Edited November 25, 2021 by steve roberts

[Humphrey Appleby]

41 minutes ago, steve roberts said:

It's been well documented that speedway had an opportunity many years ago when John Berry put himself forward but some members of the BSPA got cold feet and Berry re-tracted his offer. If I recall Peter York stepped in what became a very diluted position of power and never got the co-operation of  the BSPA. During his short tenure he came across all sorts of problems and it didn't help matters that the two leagues had different administrations with very different agendas but that was to be expected considering the in-rivalry amongst the speedway fraternity hence the problems that continue to exist within the sport.

We've discussed before, but the narrative has tended to be written from the John Berry perspective. We don't fully know what the demands and conditions were, and I don't think it's realistic to expect complete autonomy as has been alluded to.

John Berry was undoubtedly a good promoter, certainly had good if not visionary ideas on how the wider sport should be run, and was familiar with US sports practices which he suggested should been the model for speedway. However, any multi-stakeholder organisation needs a leader who is patient and persuasive, not one that quickly gets frustrated and falls out with people at the drop of hat. He also appears to have been reactionary about developments in other sports (e.g. World Series Cricket) that arguably revolutionised them (even if his underlying point about the demise of existing competitions was correct), so how things like the advent of satellite/cable television and the SGP would have been handled would have been interesting.

I do think much of his vision for the way forward was correct, but i don't think his tenure would have lasted that long in that sort of role though. Plus speedway had already started on its long road to decline at that point, so it would have been in an environment of long under-capitalisation and increasing financial pressures.

[Speedtiger]

Let’s not get sidetracked that having an independent body/person will save speedway as is often put forward as a solution, the sport already has an ‘independent’ body in place, for what it’s worth, and that’s the SCB. Now stop laughing, I know the SCB are about as much use as a chocolate kettle. But that’s the point, no matter who or what body is appointed it will make no difference to the way the sport is run or prevent the downward spiral. In addition to the sports ineffective management by the BSPA who are devoid of any bold initiative, the reasons for speedway’s decline are many and complex and there are no simple answers or quick fix solutions, the sport is an unsustainable business and sadly it’s inevitable it will continue to fall apart.

[steve roberts]

5 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

We've discussed before, but the narrative has tended to be written from the John Berry perspective. We don't fully know what the demands and conditions were, and I don't think it's realistic to expect complete autonomy as has been alluded to.

John Berry was undoubtedly a good promoter, certainly had good if not visionary ideas on how the wider sport should be run, and was familiar with US sports practices which he suggested should been the model for speedway. However, any multi-stakeholder organisation needs a leader who is patient and persuasive, not one that quickly gets frustrated and falls out with people at the drop of hat. He also appears to have been reactionary about developments in other sports (e.g. World Series Cricket) that arguably revolutionised them (even if his underlying point about the demise of existing competitions was correct), so how things like the advent of satellite/cable television and the SGP would have been handled would have been interesting.

I do think much of his vision for the way forward was correct, but i don't think his tenure would have lasted that long in that sort of role though. Plus speedway had already started on its long road to decline at that point, so it would have been in an environment of long under-capitalisation and increasing financial pressures.

...I wouldn't completely ignore and/or reject such a proposal as for example an independant body came up with a solution to 'rescue' the sport during the winter of 1964/65. Unfortunately I can't recall the body responsible now? However is the present situation beyond 'repair'? I would hope not...

[fatface]

5 hours ago, Humphrey Appleby said:

We've discussed before, but the narrative has tended to be written from the John Berry perspective. We don't fully know what the demands and conditions were, and I don't think it's realistic to expect complete autonomy as has been alluded to.

John Berry was undoubtedly a good promoter, certainly had good if not visionary ideas on how the wider sport should be run, and was familiar with US sports practices which he suggested should been the model for speedway. However, any multi-stakeholder organisation needs a leader who is patient and persuasive, not one that quickly gets frustrated and falls out with people at the drop of hat. He also appears to have been reactionary about developments in other sports (e.g. World Series Cricket) that arguably revolutionised them (even if his underlying point about the demise of existing competitions was correct), so how things like the advent of satellite/cable television and the SGP would have been handled would have been interesting.

I do think much of his vision for the way forward was correct, but i don't think his tenure would have lasted that long in that sort of role though. Plus speedway had already started on its long road to decline at that point, so it would have been in an environment of long under-capitalisation and increasing financial pressures.

100%. Great at his job as a promoter, but not a man to bring people together. He was sworn enemies with half of his fellow promoters and his tenures as England boss resulted in multiple fall outs. Just not the right fit. Though, to be honest, I am not sure if there has ever been the right person around..and if there ever was, if they had any brains, they got out of the sport pronto! 

11 minutes ago, Speedtiger said:

Let’s not get sidetracked that having an independent body/person will save speedway as is often put forward as a solution, the sport already has an ‘independent’ body in place, for what it’s worth, and that’s the SCB. Now stop laughing, I know the SCB are about as much use as a chocolate kettle. But that’s the point, no matter who or what body is appointed it will make no difference to the way the sport is run or prevent the downward spiral. In addition to the sports ineffective management by the BSPA who are devoid of any bold initiative, the reasons for speedway’s decline are many and complex and there are no simple answers or quick fix solutions, the sport is an unsustainable business and sadly it’s inevitable it will continue to fall apart.

All true. Sadly. Speedway will never adapt with the times....change will only come to speedway - as it always has - when change is forced upon it. And not in a good way.

[steve roberts]

4 hours ago, steve roberts said:

...I wouldn't completely ignore and/or reject such a proposal as for example an independant body came up with a solution to 'rescue' the sport during the winter of 1964/65. Unfortunately I can't recall the body responsible now? However is the present situation beyond 'repair'? I would hope not...

The Shawcross Report.

[Humphrey Appleby]

5 hours ago, steve roberts said:

Unfortunately I can't recall the body responsible now? However is the present situation beyond 'repair'? I would hope not...

The SCB is not really an independent body, nor is its role to be running the sport. It's there as a sort of regulatory and judicial body. 

An independent body would something that which oversees the day-to-day running of the sport in line with agreed principles, and whose members have no (longer any) affiliation with any track. Most major sports have moved in that direction, although some have mix of independent directors and club representatives. 

Ideally it would also make recommendations as towards the best way to run the sport, with some experienced financial and marketing people on board. However, a major issue is that speedway just doesn't have the money or cachet to attract such people. 

[arnieg]

2 hours ago, steve roberts said:

The Shawcross Report.

And the solution was the creation of the BSPA!!!!!!!!!!

[Pieman72]

8 hours ago, Speedtiger said:

Let’s not get sidetracked that having an independent body/person will save speedway as is often put forward as a solution, the sport already has an ‘independent’ body in place, for what it’s worth, and that’s the SCB. Now stop laughing, I know the SCB are about as much use as a chocolate kettle. But that’s the point, no matter who or what body is appointed it will make no difference to the way the sport is run or prevent the downward spiral. In addition to the sports ineffective management by the BSPA who are devoid of any bold initiative, the reasons for speedway’s decline are many and complex and there are no simple answers or quick fix solutions, the sport is an unsustainable business and sadly it’s inevitable it will continue to fall apart.

Nice to read someone who understands what's going on. It's falling apart but I think something useful may come out of this mess speedway will continue but probably more semi -professional. Speedway should be accessible by anyone who's willing to give it a go. Presently that's just not possible. Unfortunately the 'Anorak' supporter has taken over and that's not good for the future.