38.85 - an on-going debate

[admin]

The season has only just begun, yet already, after just one thrashing, some are trashing the 38.85 rule agreed at the BSPA AGM in November.
It's an interesting debate and certainly one worth having and it's okay to give early opinions, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. And that won't happen for a few weeks, maybe months, yet.
But if it all turns sour, will it be the fault of the points limit, or should blame really be laid at the door of promoters who didn't grasp the "new reality" that a 38.85 limit brought?
If we take as our example Peterborough, which seems reasonable enough, given that it was the Panthers on the wrong end of the thrashing. Peterborough have a superstar of the sport on their books, an "elite rider" for an "Elite League", but what about further down the order? One rider doesn't make an "elite league" or even an "elite team". You have to look further down the order and, as far as Peterborough goes, frankly that isn't pretty.
Now, in fairness to Peterborough (and Swindon), they'd already signed their superstar before the points limit was decided. If I'd have been involved in the management of Peterborough alarms bells would've been ringing and ringing loudly after 38.85 was voted in. And that's because as far as I see it, 38.85 only works if the top riders are culled from the league. I wouldn't have signed any of the riders averaging 9.00 or over last season.
But, as it happened, apart from Nicki Pedersen, the "elite riders" were all signed up and, in my view, the 38.85 limit was undermined. We know from our interviews with Messrs Rossiter and Patchett that Swindon re-considered their position after the limit was voted in. They decided for perfectly valid reasons to stick with Leigh Adams. Time will tell if they were right.
It's early days, perhaps too early to tell and the debate will rage throughout the season, so let's have it raging here.

[Deleted]

No i think it will work . Ok there will be the odd thrashing , but you will get that regardless of the points limit . Just look at the early performances from the likes of Ipswich and Belle Vue , which gives hope that the race for play-off places will be contested by most of the league .

[admin]

Mar 28, 2008 16:48:09 GMT @paulco said:

No i think it will work . Ok there will be the odd thrashing , but you will get that regardless of the points limit . Just look at the early performances from the likes of Ipswich and Belle Vue , which gives hope that the race for play-off places will be contested by most of the league .

I don't think it'll work as well as it could've. I still have huge reservations about the Belle Vue and Coventry teams, although I may have to admit defeat when it comes to Ipswich.
And I genuinely think other teams could've done better - Poole have obviously landed on their feet with Holder, but I'd have been inclined towards a spearhead of Kasprzak and Watt, rather than have BP.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2008 16:54:30 GMT admin said:

I don't think it'll work as well as it could've. I still have huge reservations about the Belle Vue and Coventry teams, although I may have to admit defeat when it comes to Ipswich.
And I genuinely think other teams could've done better - Poole have obviously landed on their feet with Holder, but I'd have been inclined towards a spearhead of Kasprzak and Watt, rather than have BP.

Was Pedersen not on a two year deal anyway ?
And he's turned into a horse and is currently running in the 5 o clock at Newbury . I kid you not .

[admin]

Mar 28, 2008 16:57:49 GMT @paulco said:

Was Pedersen not on a two year deal anyway ?
And he's turned into a horse and is currently running in the 5 o clock at Newbury . I kid you not .

No, I think the two year deal was 2006 and 2007, but squirlie will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong.
And given some of his early season scores, if young goldmember were a Poole supporter he'd probably tell you BP had turned into a "camel".

[jimblanchard]

I can see what they are trying to achieve in theory, but in my opinion in practice its not going to work.

I think I said it to Tsumami at Scunthorpe speedway a couple of weeks ago; its like creating a pool of riders based on their individual averages and each team builds a team from what is available. Rather like we played football in school play grounds. Two captains picked their teams from a group of lads that wanted to play. The best players were picked first, and it worked backwards to a point that the last two were considered ‘poor’ players (I was one of those sadly) and it did not matter which side they played for anyway.

I know many will say that is a poor analogy, but not being an expert on the subject that is how it seems to me. Its teams right enough but not ‘team speedway‘. Its creating teams purely on a mathematical calculation, and to me it is not enough

Surely, there is more to it than that? How about that some riders ride better in teams where they get on with team riders, and in some cases it worked the other way and that some successful teams most riders did not get on at all. Funny enough, I was told the year that Peterborough won the EL that most of the riders were not big mates at all and there was a competitive edge between them. No doubt, I might be proved incorrect about that theory.

It should be about a ‘squad’ that gels in some way and that may be with or without a top line GP rider, and there is too much emphasis based on just points values. I feel that this season it will continue in the way it has started. Thrashings, rather than close meetings.

As SKY TV in particular like dramatic endings (A final race off for a GP even though one rider may have been undefeated all night amazes me) why not decide a team meeting result by a 'run off' between the highest scoring rider from each respective team. Like we have seen on the odd occasion when a meeting has finished equal on points.

I’ll get me coat then. Roll on the GP’s, I understand them a little better (not much though ;D)

[Deleted]

Agree with what you are saying Jim with teams being built to fit the maths although no reason why that in itself should produce more (or indeed less) thrashings unless there are loads of 'Adam Allott' riders out there who are very capable of riding their own track but complete novices anywhere else

Sub's point is the most worrying in that the justification for the 38.85 has not produced the 'slightly lower overall standard' league but rather a league which appears to have a wider ability gap between top and bottom of each team than ever which can only be bad for the on track entertainment

When it was announced it was all part of a brave new three year plan but there has been little in the way of detail (indeed there was a thread on the BSF saying there was no detail yet as to what the in season team building limit was set at) and that has to be the biggest problem as the sport moves (limps) forward

Unfortunately the real impact of the 38.85 will only be seen well after the wheels have stopped turning for 2008 and we get to the AGM and see what comes out for 2009 (will the EL limit be slashed again to allow the EL and PL to get closer? will the PL have to split into two to allow the top PL clubs to strengthen towards an EL of the same standard to this year? will we just end up with another ill thought out 'temporary' fix to get us through another season?)

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2008 16:44:21 GMT admin said:

Now, in fairness to Peterborough (and Swindon), they'd already signed their superstar before the points limit was decided. If I'd have been involved in the management of Peterborough alarms bells would've been ringing and ringing loudly after 38.85 was voted in.

And also from Dec 2006 "Club chiefs thrashed out a deal to snap up Bjerre for the next two years"

so that was a massive chunk of our 38.85 already taken up with Bjerre and Andersen on 2 year deals.

[schumi]

I know it’s still early days and the league meetings haven’t started, but Subedei’s right. If the 9 point plus riders had been forgotten about when it comes to team building it would have worked. The teams getting humped are all those who chose to keep their big heat leaders, and those dishing out the thrashings are the teams who are more balanced – granted they’ve been home meetings.
It’ll be interesting to see what the new team building limit is set at once the averages kick in, but I think we might see more of the top line GP riders being left out of teams next year to avoid a repeat of this season.

[jimblanchard]

When it comes around to foreign nationals in the case of Greg Hancock and Nicki Pedersen for example, it must be a huge consideration for them that if they visit the UK more than 91 days in a year or as classified 'domiciled' in this country, their income tax liability to HMC is subject to 'all their world wide earnings'.

Less, time in the UK and not 'domiciled' here their liability is restricted to only their earned income in the UK.

Perhaps Kevin might be able to clarify that one.

[Deleted]

It's kind of working - it's basically made a similar system to the gradings which in practice seems ok. However, the tail end of teams are painfully weak. In terms of grades, you have a mass of E Grade riders taking the final four positions.

40 and a structured pay system would have been the best bet. I am worried that the likes of Nicholls and various other GP mid-table stars are going to be squeezed out next year on very false averages. The limit next season should allow some space for this.

[Deleted]

I think manipulating points limit is a crude way of achieving what needed to be done, and will likely be somewhat ineffective. In some respects I'm glad the BSPA finally grasped the mettle and took some reasonably drastic action by their standards, but it really needed a wholehearted cull of some riders.

The basic problems run so deep that it's hard to know where to start. The asset system needs to be abolished along with transfer and loan fees, whilst new incentives need to be given to teams to develop riders. A better form of team equalisation is also required, which discourages cheque book speedway but isn't punitive to developing teams.

We also can argue about the value of SGP riders to the BEL, but I think at some point the whole of speedway is going to have to bite the bullet on that issue.

To be honest, I think the whole league needs to start with a blank sheet of paper. Work out how much can be paid, which riders are willing to ride for that money, and then distribute the riders as evenly as possible (trying to take into account local favourites where possible). In subsequent seasons, there should be some sort of variable points limit or draft system for balancing out team strengths, which stops teams becoming overly strong, but isn't perenially punitive either.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2008 22:12:12 GMT @jimblanchard said:

it must be a huge consideration for them that if they visit the UK more than 91 days in a year or as classified 'domiciled' in this country, their income tax liability to HMC is subject to 'all their world wide earnings'.

I don't know how it works for speedway riders, but in my case, I'm classed as being resident in both the UK and the Netherlands and pay tax on the proportion of my earnings in each country according to the time spent working there. At the moment, this is 40-60.

The Dutch taxation authorities will try to tax me on all my earned worldwide income, but as the UK and the Netherlands have a double taxation treaty, any tax already paid in the UK can be offset against it. By contrast, the Inland Revenue seems completely unbothered about my earnings outside of the UK, although I could again offset any tax paid in the Netherlands.

AFAIK, Hancock lives in Sweden which has a taxation treaty with the UK as well (as do most if not all EU countries). I also imagine personal taxes are higher in Sweden so there's probably not much advantage to claiming not to be in the UK. I guess the complication comes with any earnings in a third country that such as Russia or the US, but again, it seems the UK has double taxation treaties with those countries as well (according to the HMRC website).

I think the new rules about non-doms are mostly at those claiming to be domiciled in 'flag-of-convenience' territories with low-tax regimes such as Monaco and the Cayman Islands, and which have no agreement with the UK (ironic considering the Cayman Islands is a British territory ).

[Deleted]

Surely, there is more to it than that? How about that some riders ride better in teams where they get on with team riders, and in some cases it worked the other way and that some successful teams most riders did not get on at all.

I thought this has happened to a certain extent in the EL this year, brits at Eastbourne, the danish contingent at Boro, the poles at Ipswich, aussies at Swindon etc etc

Swindon have said again and again that they didn't want a team like they had last year where nationality differences were a problem.

[admin]

Mar 29, 2008 14:20:51 GMT @trees said:

I thought this has happened to a certain extent in the EL this year, brits at Eastbourne, the danish contingent at Boro, the poles at Ipswich, aussies at Swindon etc etc

Swindon have said again and again that they didn't want a team like they had last year where nationality differences were a problem.

I get the feeling that this season, once Swindon decided to stick with Adams, they went out and got riders they felt would grow alongside him and would pay attention to what Adams was telling them.