Philip Rising writes

[Deleted]

IMG take over full responsibility for the SGP/SWC in 2008, think this season is kind of a transition period.

In either case, who's the guy still fronting things for Speedway/IMG is it not Poslethwaite? Zagar would have had plenty opportunity to raise any issue surrounding outstanding monies owed with him since he left Reading.

I'm sure Zagar would be in trouble if he failed to compete in a SGP as contracted, as he also should be for not competing in the EL as contracted.

[Deleted]

wacks said:

In either case, who's the guy still fronting things for Speedway/IMG is it not Poslethwaite?

In theory, but has anyone seen him recently? No.2 Paul Bellamy seems to be fronting the SGP now.

wacks said:

I'm sure Zagar would be in trouble if he failed to compete in a SGP as contracted, as he also should be for not competing in the EL as contracted.

I'm sure he'd rightly argue that any BEL contractual obligations are nullified if he's not been paid. He'd have a separate contract for the SGP though, and if he's being paid (and as I say, I think the prize money is the responsibility of the FIM), then he's got no reason to not turn-up for that.

[admin]

The prize money in the GPs is a pittance, as far as I can remember. And for most riders I suspect it's more a glory-trip than a genuine money-spinner. The GPs are, to a large extent, subsidised by the leagues in Poland, Sweden and the UK: the riders earn their crust in the leagues. It wouldn't be a surprise to me if Postlethwaite was coughing over proportionately more to Hancock for riding for his Bulldogs than Hancock was getting from the GPs.

[Deleted]

To be honest I think the rumour of riders being owed money at Reading is bullshit. We'd have other riders refusing to turn up if that was the case, and Simota's backroom team aren't backwards in coming forwards & naming & shaming in these sort of instances.

I still believe Zagar's absences have fuck all to do with money and more to do with his ego and the way he thinks it is acceptable to behave.

Local rag reporting today that he "should" be back tonight. He has got a meeting in Sweden tomorrow though, so maybe the thought of all that travelilng will give him a headache again.

[Deleted]

admin said:

The prize money in the GPs is a pittance, as far as I can remember.

Pretty much so, although I'm led to believe the prize money is actually paid by the FIM from the monies received from BSI for the SGP rights.

admin said:

And for most riders I suspect it's more a glory-trip than a genuine money-spinner.

Although I suspect the riders are also able to leverage a certain amount of sponsorship from being in the SGP.

admin said:

It wouldn't be a surprise to me if Postlethwaite was coughing over proportionately more to Hancock for riding for his Bulldogs than Hancock was getting from the GPs.

Hancock has made USD 34,350 (about GBP 16,800) from the six GPs this season. That's GBP 2800 per meeting, which is perhaps marginally more than he got at Reading, but there were also more meetings on offer there.

[Deleted]

wacks said:

I still believe Zagar's absences have fuck all to do with money and more to do with his ego and the way he thinks it is acceptable to behave.

Perhaps the money issue was just a convenient excuse at the time to justify ducking-out of the team. Whatever the truth though, it just shows why British speedway needs to kick these riders into touch and use riders who actually want to ride here.

[schumi]

wibblemuis said:

Perhaps the money issue was just a convenient excuse at the time to justify ducking-out of the team. Whatever the truth though, it just shows why British speedway needs to kick these riders into touch and use riders who actually want to ride here.

I don't disagree (or agree for that matter) with you, but knowing your views on GP riders being in the EL I feel I have to mention that I fully expect Nicki and Hans to take their place in the ELRC (for example), but also expect at least Zagar and a couple of others to pull out.

That's where your theory backfires, because there ARE riders who are in the GPs but still want to ride here, and it's those guys who would lose out if things went according to the Wibblemuis plan.

[Deleted]

schumi said:

That's where your theory backfires, because there ARE riders who are in the GPs but still want to ride here

That's undoubtedly true (although I seem to remember NP having mysterious illnesses before GPs in the past), but that isn't really my point.

It isn't that some GP riders (such as Leigh Adams) aren't professional about riding in the BEL, but their continued presence means that BEL fixtures need to be arranged around the GPs. Teams either then need to run on financially unviable nights, or have to run with teams full of guests, R/R or PL replacements.

The sport, particularly now, desperately needs continuity and cannot keep bending over backwards to accomodate a competition that not only doesn't benefit them, but actually undermines their business. This will be even more the case if the SGP expands further.

schumi said:

it's those guys who would lose out if things went according to the Wibblemuis plan.

There are two issues here. Firstly, British speedway can't really afford to employ GP standard riders anyway, at least not at current pay rates. Secondly, the riders wouldn't necessarily lose out as they'd be free to choose the BEL over the SGP.

I suspect if it came to the crunch, some SGP riders would actually opt out of the SGP because they certainly can't make a living in it at the moment, whereas the BEL still offers higher earning potential.

Incidentally, it isn't just piss-taking SGP riders we're talking about either. All the other here today, gone tomorrow types should be shown the door as well.

At the end of the day, British speedway needs to do what's best for British speedway, not what's best for the interests of the riders. They won't be able to make much of a living out of the sport anyway if the SGP forces the national leagues out of business. It's absolutely ridiculous the way the tail has been allowed to wag the dog, particularly with respect to the SGP.

[schumi]

wibblemuis said:

It isn't that some GP riders (such as Leigh Adams) aren't professional about riding in the BEL, but their continued presence means that BEL fixtures need to be arranged around the GPs. Teams either then need to run on financially unviable nights, or have to run with teams full of guests, R/R or PL replacements.

Does the GP really affect things that much? At the moment the majority of guests and replacements I've seen have been through illness or injury, Eastbourne excepted.

I also wonder if there were no GPs whether it would make much of a difference to clubs. I'd guess the fact that more don't run on a Saturday (or Friday night) is more down to arrangements with stadium owners who would probably have more profitable choices than speedway for the weekend, and other similar complications, than the GPs themselves?

[Deleted]

schumi said:

Does the GP really affect things that much?

What people tend to forget is that tracks have been forced to move to midweek race nights because of the SGP, or not run during GP weeks at all. Whilst this might work for Poole, it has been detrimental to pretty much everyone else.

Both Coventry and Swindon were forced to move race nights (from Saturday), Eastbourne has been badly affected by a lack of continuity, and I don't doubt the reason Oxford originally lost their Friday race night was because their crowds could no longer support an acceptable rent and it seemed more financially attractive to run the dogs that night instead. I think Belle Vue were also in a similar situation.

Even where tracks have moved race nights, there have still been far too many cases of absent riders during GP weeks which just pisses fans off even more.

Of course, it's unfair to say that it's entirely the fault of the SGP, but being unable to run on the most lucrative night of the week for 11 weeks of the season can't be helping things.

schumi said:

I'd guess the fact that more don't run on a Saturday (or Friday night) is more down to arrangements with stadium owners who would probably have more profitable choices than speedway for the weekend, and other similar complications, than the GPs themselves?

But ask the question why other sports/activities are more profitable than speedway these days?

I really don't understand the obsession with GP riders riding in the BEL at all costs. What exactly is it that they're bringing to the sport at a domestic level, other than expense and disruption?

[schumi]

wibblemuis said:

Both Coventry and Swindon were forced to move race nights (from Saturday), Eastbourne has been badly affected by a lack of continuity, and I don't doubt the reason Oxford originally lost their Friday race night was because their crowds could no longer support an acceptable rent and it seemed more financially attractive to run the dogs that night instead. I think Belle Vue were also in a similar situation.

Well Eastbourne knew about Nicki Pedersen’s GP commitments before they chose to use him – no-one forced them to sign a GP rider but they obviously felt his contribution would outweigh the risks. I've heard the Oxford situation was their own doing, but I may be wrong, but even so I don't see why the GPs are to blame, per se, for falling crowds.

wibblemuis said:

Incidentally, it isn't just piss-taking SGP riders we're talking about either. All the other here today, gone tomorrow types should be shown the door as well.

This I wholly agree with, though where do you draw the line? There's mixed reaction to Ostergaard's departure - some feel he was hard done by, others think it was the right move.

wibblemuis said:

But ask the question why other sports/activities are more profitable than speedway these days?

Interest is dwindling. Less fans = less profit. I think this can in part be attributed to the BSPA's inconsistencies when applying rules, the lack of information being given to fans these days, and poor promotion. Some clubs seem to be able to make it work, so why can't others? But I've asked this before, so I don't expect a response.

wibblemuis said:

I really don't understand the obsession with GP riders riding in the BEL at all costs. What exactly is it that they're bringing to the sport at a domestic level, other than expense and disruption?

Not at all. I asked you to explain why you thought we should get rid of GP riders in the elite league so I could weigh up the argument for myself, and I do agree with you in theory. Only it would be wrong to force out riders like Adams, Andersen and Pedersen who have shown their commitment (the debate about Nicki’s illness aside, because I do believe it. In fact Nicki seems more likely to miss meetings in his home country than he is here) to racing here, especially when I’ve read so many comments from people saying they wouldn’t watch if these riders are forced out. I think if they show they want to be here that they should be entitled to, though I also agree with you that costs need to be brought down, but there are ways around this – sponsorship would be the main one I’d suggest.

[Deleted]

schumi said:

Well Eastbourne knew about Nicki Pedersen’s GP commitments before they chose to use him – no-one forced them to sign a GP rider but they obviously felt his contribution would outweigh the risks.

Yes, but this is the problem. Other teams have top GP riders (Poole have Crump, Swindon have Adams), so the likes of Eastbourne are forced into signing other GP riders in order to remain competitive. They know those riders are going to be missing for certain fixtures which will be detrimental to their business, but equally having a weakened side compared to the other teams will be detrimental as well.

And so it goes on... teams paying increasingly stupid money to chase riders who will only end-up riding for them part-time anyway. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to cobble together competitive sides at the current level, and the number of mugs willing to throw their money away trying to sustain an unsustainable level of competition gets fewer every year.

That's why all teams need to sit-down and work-out which riders should be employed, and more importantly, which riders they can afford to employ. They then need to distribute those riders as evenly as possible between the teams, so that each team is reasonably competitive relative to all the others.

schumi said:

I've heard the Oxford situation was their own doing, but I may be wrong, but even so I don't see why the GPs are to blame, per se, for falling crowds.

In the case of Oxford, I think the enforced change of racenight was the beginning of the end. We were forced to move to Thursday, then Wednesday (which is a terrible night for speedway in Oxford), then back to Thursday, and now Friday/Sunday. You simply can't establish any sort of continuity when no-one knows when you're going to riding.

Of course, the SGP is not the only reason for falling attendances elsewhere, but I do think it's part of the problem for a number of reasons (but that will take a long essay to explain, it's getting late, and this posting is already starting to run to essay length )

schumi said:

This I wholly agree with, though where do you draw the line?

It's simple. You only employ riders who agree to ride in every British fixture, and if they sign a contract and then miss meetings without a good reason (i.e. injury or illness) then they should be immediately sacked and barred from riding in Britain ever again. By this, I'd also include riders who provide dubious sicknotes but end-up riding the following day in another country (which is easily checked these days).

[Actually, I'd like to see some international coordination between the main national leagues with respect to this, but this won't happen whilst they're in competition with each other.]

schumi said:

Interest is dwindling. Less fans = less profit. I think this can in part be attributed to the BSPA's inconsistencies when applying rules, the lack of information being given to fans these days, and poor promotion.

Again, that's part of the problem, but this it's also partly due to external issues as well. Inconsistency in applying the rules is because teams are increasingly trying to work around external commitments, and are often finding it hard to track competitive sides, especially where there are injuries or riders going AWOL. Promotion is also going to be more difficult if you can't stage fixtures on the most financially viable day, or if you have an irregular home schedule because you're trying to work around rider availability.

schumi said:

Some clubs seem to be able to make it work, so why can't others?

I suspect about two teams are making it work - Poole and Coventry, and I'm not that convinced that Poole are really making as much money as people think. Others might point to the more recent examples of Swindon and Lakeside as well, but can people honestly say that crowds of 1,500 are decent for Elite League speedway?

The fundamental problem is that running costs are too high, which makes the cost of going to speedway too high, which puts people off going when the product is fundamentally poor. Even before Oxford closed, I went to just two meetings this season and just thought the whole thing was rubbish. Since then, I've found better things to do on a Friday and haven't missed the sport at all - I was actually completely indifferent about Oxford closing even though I've been going for the best part of 25 years.

schumi said:

In fact Nicki seems more likely to miss meetings in his home country than he is here

Well I don't want to pick on NP, because I don't follow his antics closely enough to have a real opinion. However, the Danish League probably pays less than the BEL and certainly offers fewer fixtures, so it may not be a priority for even Danish riders.

schumi said:

there are ways around this – sponsorship would be the main one I’d suggest.

Unfortunately, speedway is not like cricket or rugby which has a lot of supporters in influential positions, and therefore gets a lot media coverage which helps it leverage good sponsors. Serious sponsors will only be found if speedway offers them something in return, and frankly it's not going to happen with the current state of the product. I wouldn't put in money as a sponsor, so I can't see why blue chip companies would want to either.

Incidentally, for those that applaud the sponsorship leveraged by the SGP, well what a rum bunch they actually are. A dodgy online gambling site, a lift maintenance company, several vendors of products unknown outside their immediate regions, and a couple of tourist boards who'll provide minor sponsorship to any moderately-sized event. [In fact, the Copenhagen Tourist Board sponsored our reception when we organised a conference there this year.]