Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 23:13:54 GMT
Every time I start thinking about these things, I can only reach one conclusion; the sport has so many problems, ripping it up and starting again is the only real option. Totally agree but the problem is (as you've posted elsewhere) if you start again would you really 'invent' speedway in its current form. Changes are needed but if you are not careful all they will do is alienate the current (dwindling) fan base whilst failing to attract any new blood (did I hear anyone say bulldogs?) FWIW I would welcome Reading back to the PL on a longer term basis as I think the EL would be better with fewer clubs (although 8-9 is the minimum) and it increases the likelihood of the PL being split into PL1 and PL2 where teams can find their own level and a more financially stable basis
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Oct 30, 2007 23:19:39 GMT
Every time I start thinking about these things, I can only reach one conclusion; the sport has so many problems, ripping it up and starting again is the only real option. It's two teams of seven racing against each other over 15 heats . A simple sport totally wasted by a maze of rules and regulations . Ripping it all up and starting again is probably one of the best options open to the sport . Speedway seems to operate in a knee jerk fashion, with rules within, and on top of, pre-existing rules. It's as though a rule is introduced, then something comes up that nobody thought of, so another sub rule is introduced; this has now been going on for so long, that it appears no-one actually has a definitive knowledge of the rule book, worse than that, the rule book isn't even definitive!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 23:21:22 GMT
FWIW I would welcome Reading back to the PL on a longer term basis as I think the EL would be better with fewer clubs (although 8-9 is the minimum) and it increases the likelihood of the PL being split into PL1 and PL2 where teams can find their own level and a more financially stable basis If that were to happen, why not rename the leagues (Division One, D2 and D3) and to take it one stage further call the CL D4. That would stop the EL v PL debate and allow the opportunity for 'our sport' to develop without the divide that currently exists. Fundamentally, nothing would change, but maybe that is the way forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 23:29:01 GMT
It's two teams of seven racing against each other over 15 heats . A simple sport totally wasted by a maze of rules and regulations . Ripping it all up and starting again is probably one of the best options open to the sport . Speedway seems to operate in a knee jerk fashion, with rules within, and on top of, pre-existing rules. It's as though a rule is introduced, then something comes up that nobody thought of, so another sub rule is introduced; this has now been going on for so long, that it appears no-one actually has a definitive knowledge of the rule book, worse than that, the rule book isn't even definitive! I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but would re-writing the rule book actually entice any extra fans through the turnstiles? Too much time (imo) is spent debating the niggling issues within the sport, when those efforts would be better directed at positive promotion. I think the vast majority of fans would be happy for the much mooted 'independent body' to administer the sport, leaving individual promoters to live up to their name, and actually promote the sport at their track.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Oct 30, 2007 23:34:29 GMT
FWIW I would welcome Reading back to the PL on a longer term basis as I think the EL would be better with fewer clubs (although 8-9 is the minimum) and it increases the likelihood of the PL being split into PL1 and PL2 where teams can find their own level and a more financially stable basis If that were to happen, why not rename the leagues (Division One, D2 and D3) and to take it one stage further call the CL D4. That would stop the EL v PL debate and allow the opportunity for 'our sport' to develop without the divide that currently exists. Fundamentally, nothing would change, but maybe that is the way forward. I suppose it all depends on whether or not the public think there's a need to accomodate those GP riders that want to ride here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 23:44:20 GMT
KevH
More than happy with div 1, div 2 , etc (all the EL vs PL stuff just gets in the way)
Wont find many who are more pro an independent governing body than me and for the exact reason you quote, to separate the day to day promotion from the 'environment' setting that needs to be decided free from self interest and short term views
I would disagree about rule book changes and getting fans through the turnstiles though, whilst there may not be a direct link some 'rules' would (or at least could) have an impact ie: * incentives for retaining riders for the following season (average allowances / discounts) * greater incentives for teams to perform away from home which should impact on team building and more 'competitive' racing * changes to the reserve / replacement rules to allow riders performing well on the night to have extra rides in place of under performing team mates (subject to average constraints)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 23:49:55 GMT
I don't think Reading are will "use" the PL at all, imo after speaking to Wellie at the last home meeting of the season it's quite clear where he thinks our best future lies. Wellie wants PL racing, he's a big fan of the league and the attitude of the majority of the riders. He was around Reading long enough as a rider/friend/supporter during the Bliss years to realise Reading is a PL club and can be sustained at that level. Disagree with that mate, Reading are a D1 team who've spent far too many years in D2. Cast your mind back to the days of JD and DJ, Anders Michanek and Per Jonsson.............. very successful times I'm sure you'd agree, and four D1 championships thrown in for good measure. The most important thing is that Reading survive, and clearly to do that over a sustained period that they have to break-even financially. With the new, 'user friendly' promotion you have, I truly believe EL is the place for you, but if circumstances dictate otherwise I personally hope it is only temporary and that you can move back up very soon. We have had some good spells in D1 Kev, we also had quite a few baron spells. The problem at the moment is the club has no heart, even long term fans like myself have found it hard to maintain interest in recent years, more so the past 2 seasons. Everything about the club from the team to the stadium needs rebuilding (although it may be a dump I will miss Smallmead), and that's something that needs to be done carefully this time. I don't think we will end up PL in 2008, mores the pity, imo a good 3-5 years in the lower league for Reading bringing their own youngsters through the ranks and building their loyalty and commitment to the club would be the best option.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Oct 31, 2007 0:00:12 GMT
KevH More than happy with div 1, div 2 , etc (all the EL vs PL stuff just gets in the way) Wont find many who are more pro an independent governing body than me and for the exact reason you quote, to separate the day to day promotion from the 'environment' setting that needs to be decided free from self interest and short term views I would disagree about rule book changes and getting fans through the turnstiles though, whilst there may not be a direct link some 'rules' would (or at least could) have an impact ie: * incentives for retaining riders for the following season (average allowances / discounts) * greater incentives for teams to perform away from home which should imact on team building and more 'competitive' racing * changes to the reserve / replacement rules to allow riders performing well on the night to have extra rides in place of under performing team mates (subject to average constraints) I've been through this so many times! Speedway is meant to be a simple sport appealing to simple escapism; it's 4 blokes doing a wall of death round a dirt oval, it's meant to be cheap thrills. It was all of those things once, but now it's neither cheap, thrilling or simple; it's processional, poor value for money and so complicated to follow, even the hardcore supporters can't keep up with all the rules. And believe it or not, it really pains me to say that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 12:29:20 GMT
The PL wont get all smug and up it's own arse about teams dropping down . But people have long memorys and remember the one big league and how it nearly finished a few teams. The BPL is as guilty as the BEL of fostering the 'them-and-us' and 'my league is better than yours' attitudes. The BPL can only succeed in its current format whilst there's a top league to siphon-off the expensive 'stars', just as the BEL needs to work better with the BPL to ensure a sustainable progressive league system. The BPL could expand-up to 20-22 teams (if the existing supplementary competitions were dropped) without problems with dates, although clearly something is wrong with the overall structure if the sizes of the BEL and BPL are so lopsided. The BSPA really needs to sit down and work-out how to achieve a more equitable structure, which inevitably comes down to radical cost cutting at the top-level, and a cull of the expensive riders. As to the former 'one big league', it was inevitably doomed to failure because of large differences in the economies of the different tracks. Clearly the Berwicks of this world are never going to be able to compete financially with the Coventrys, although I think the league probably worked okay for the better-off former D2 sides. However, the consequence was the loss of a couple of tracks, with more threatening to drop-out if the experiment continued. This said, I rather enjoyed the BPL in 1995 and 1996. It was a breath of fresh air not having to watch the same teams over-and-over again, and it made it more interesting to travel away as well. More-to-point, you realised that you didn't need teams packed with supposed stars to have competitive and entertaining racing. The main criticism was that some promotions were unable to sign a decent No.1 to spearhead their teams, and this was popularly attributed to former top-flight teams retaining more than one 8-point rider. However, whilst it was undoubtedly true that some former D2 sides did indeed lack a proper No.1 (Shane Parker anyone? : , I suspect the reality was that those promotions couldn't have afforded them anyway, but it was easier to apportion the blame elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 12:30:17 GMT
I would disagree about rule book changes and getting fans through the turnstiles though I think to be honest, that whilst the rules desperately need looking at, they are neither here nor there in getting fans through the turnstiles. For some (such as sad people like me ), the unique rules are/were part of the attraction, and indeed you only need to look at cricket for a similar example. The rules of cricket are probably the most complex of any sport, and you can literally spend a lifetime learning them. However, you only need to know a few of them to enjoy the game, and so can watch the sport on different levels. I don't think speedway fans necessarily need to know or care about the minutiae of rider replacement or the points limits, provided the on-track entertainment is sufficiently good. However, once you get into the sport, you find there are more elements of it to explore. That's probably why I've grown to enjoy cricket more than football over the years, because there are always new things to discover. By contrast, football seems very one-dimensional now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 12:30:36 GMT
I suppose it all depends on whether or not the public think there's a need to accomodate those GP riders that want to ride here. It's only a few people on the BSF who jump-up and down about the 'watering-down' of the quality of the BEL every time the discussion arises. Those fans who've left the sport in droves clearly don't care for watching teams with GP riders, and the wider public wouldn't even know who they are!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 13:20:15 GMT
I think to be honest, that whilst the rules desperately need looking at, they are neither here nor there in getting fans through the turnstiles. 'Rules' is perhaps the wrong term but 'regulations' concerning aspects such as team building whilst not directly impacting on the racing at any individual track do have an environmental impact that it determines the standard (or more likely the variability) of riders on show and may also turn off fans who are sick of seeing different faces each season (interesting to see some EL fans on the BSF now discussing rewarding riders/promotions who stick with each other). Equally regulations concerning riding order and heat formats may be on the 'technical' side but can again have an important impact on the quality of racing (more mismatches = more processional racing = less fans)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 20:03:42 GMT
KevH More than happy with div 1, div 2 , etc (all the EL vs PL stuff just gets in the way) Wont find many who are more pro an independent governing body than me and for the exact reason you quote, to separate the day to day promotion from the 'environment' setting that needs to be decided free from self interest and short term views I would disagree about rule book changes and getting fans through the turnstiles though, whilst there may not be a direct link some 'rules' would (or at least could) have an impact ie: * incentives for retaining riders for the following season (average allowances / discounts) * greater incentives for teams to perform away from home which should impact on team building and more 'competitive' racing * changes to the reserve / replacement rules to allow riders performing well on the night to have extra rides in place of under performing team mates (subject to average constraints) You make some good points there Tony, but my opinion is the 'rule chages' you suggest would be far more likely to retain existing fans than encourage new ones. For the record, I do agree that all your proposals should be implemented, assuming (for your last point) that something is in place to prevent "off form heat leaders" from riding in the reserve berths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2007 20:50:25 GMT
You make some good points there Tony, but my opinion is the 'rule chages' you suggest would be far more likely to retain existing fans than encourage new ones. Thanks, retention would be a start, lots more could, and should, be done to move the sport forward once it can see the wood for the trees (have posted the odd idea on the BSF but they are about as open minded to the sports problems as the BSPA) For the record, I do agree that all your proposals should be implemented, assuming (for your last point) that something is in place to prevent "off form heat leaders" from riding in the reserve berths. The idea was to completely reform the whole notion of 'reserve replacement' for a system where any lower averaged rider could replace a team mate subject to maximum and minimum rides per meeting (so no change to riding order or heat format). The idea would be to get away from the whole 'get a good reserve for a month and give him extra rides' distortion of the rules and to give away teams (generally) a bit more assistance in that a 'track specialist' second string may outperform his heat leading counterpart but can only get an extra ride in heat 15 rather than replacing him (and providing a better race) in one of his scheduled rides, equally this would also help where riders where injured during a meeting by spreading the load in a similar way to r/r (but with no higher averaged replacement to avoid abuse). Downsides are not all riders get their full allocation and away averages would be tend to be skewed upwards as riders had more rides where they were likely to score and less where they werent - small price to pay IMO Not sure if that is clearer or not?
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Oct 31, 2007 22:06:27 GMT
I suppose it all depends on whether or not the public think there's a need to accomodate those GP riders that want to ride here. It's only a few people on the BSF who jump-up and down about the 'watering-down' of the quality of the BEL every time the discussion arises. Those fans who've left the sport in droves clearly don't care for watching teams with GP riders, and the wider public wouldn't even know who they are! The point I was trying to make there is that if the GP riders stay, and if you distribute them amongst all the available teams, then you would need to include riders in those teams that approached the ability of the GP guys, otherwise they would look fearfully unbalanced. Obviously, what you then end up with is 9 or 10 teams with a clear advantage over the rest, and effectively an 'elite' league. There is also the possibilty that the top riders might not want to ride in what could be seen as a watered down national league, and I can't see that organising a league that alienates the very best riders would be a good way of taking the sport forward.
|
|