The BSPA (piss up) Conference-when, where, what!!

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 18:04:37 GMT admin said:

Here's where the BSPA makes itself look rather silly.
Last year it had a plan; a three year plan, to be precise. And now it appears that this plan has had a lifespan of one year. The silliness is, of course, to even hope to believe that speedway can sustain a plan that evolves over three years. Speedway lives a hand to mouth existence, with no room for such luxuries as multi-year plans.

I quite agree, Subedei. There was also a three year plan in 2007, which only lasted until 2008!

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 18:04:37 GMT admin said:

The silliness is, of course, to even hope to believe that speedway can sustain a plan that evolves over three years. Speedway lives a hand to mouth existence, with no room for such luxuries as multi-year plans.

Yes and no. I think it's essential to think about where British speedway is going in at least the medium term - with respect to its relationship with the SGP and other leagues, the optimal size and strength of the leagues, rider development, and team continuity (or otherwise). These things you can plan for if you have the vision and will.

Certainly other aspects like league sizes plus or minus a team or two, pay scales, and competition rules might have been made on the fly in response to events. However, constant tinkering with things like the points limit in this manner, is one of the main reasons why the sport is in inextricable decline. It just doesn't allow for any sort of planning, be that short, medium or long.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 11:56:39 GMT @tonym said:

Its no wonder the sport is in the state it is with people like this in charge - however well meaning

Toogood was supposed to be one of the better promoters as well. However, I detect he's just reverted to vapid pronouncements in recent years, which is usually the sign of someone who realises that real change is impossible.

I'm reading David Davies's autobiography 'Sweet FA' at the moment, and he said the same happened to Graham Kelly, several FA Chairman, and even a government minister. They came in with good ideas, but with the forces of conservatism (not to mention squabbling Premier League chairman) opposed to them, they quickly realised meaningful reform was a futile task.

Nov 4, 2008 11:56:39 GMT @tonym said:

for the sport to move forward with any sort of vision we need outsiders with practical experience in sports administration in to run the sport.

Through my own practical experience, I'm not entirely convinced about dedicated sports administrators, and speedway is actually quite unique compared to many other sports (e.g. very few sports have riders simultaneously competing for multiple teams).

It really needs a benevolent dictator (not the Orange Dictator) to buy up a number of tracks, and run them as a single entity in the first instance. Failing that, it needs a commissioner who has marketing and legal skills, but also understands something about the nature of speedway otherwise they'll founder pretty quickly. Speedway is very much a word-of-mouth type of sport, and conventional promotional techniques just won't work (as BSI found out at Reading).

Where you find such a person is anyone's guess though - they only come along once in a blue moon, and I doubt many really talented people would want to associate themselves with speedway.

[Deleted]

We are probably not too far apart regards our views of 'professional sports administrators' but from the outside looking in that is what is so lacking at the top of the sport, and whilst its true what you say about well intentioned people being ground down that is not an argument against change

Not really sure that a wholesale buy up of tracks would be necessary (or indeed beneficial) but it would be good to see a strong governing body with enough clout to demand development plans for 'franchise' rights in the way the RFL recently did (and even better to see the summary findings on each published on their web site). I still think there are many (OK some) promoters who do a decent job in difficult circumstances but what is lacking is the overarching development of the environment they work in - perhaps it does need a mass clearout of the 'old school' but I would hope that the good promoters would adapt and change to a new world order and welcome it and prosper from the freedom that would allow them to concentrate on their own business and give some longer term stability to the sport

As for speedway being different, I think too much is made of that, good people can come in and assess what is and isnt important and more often that not things that seem set in stone are able to be changed or accomodated relatively easily

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 22:15:16 GMT @tonym said:

it would be good to see a strong governing body with enough clout to demand development plans for 'franchise' rights in the way the RFL recently did

The RFL had its minds focused when Sky came along and dropped an unbelievable amount of money into their laps. This was largely because Rupert Murdoch himself saw it as the sport of the future, which could be controlled by his media empire. By contrast, football was too big even for him to take on.

Nov 4, 2008 22:15:16 GMT @tonym said:

perhaps it does need a mass clearout of the 'old school'

It needs a strong leader to identify which are the sensible promoters, and which aren't. I'm suspicious of new broom types as invariably there are those from the 'old school' who can pass on a lot of experience. Some are just fools, and some are too set in their ways, but you completely discard the past at your peril.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 22:31:37 GMT @wibblemuis said:

Nov 4, 2008 22:15:16 GMT @tonym said:

perhaps it does need a mass clearout of the 'old school'

It needs a strong leader to identify which are the sensible promoters, and which aren't. I'm suspicious of new broom types as invariably there are those from the 'old school' who can pass on a lot of experience. Some are just fools, and some are too set in their ways, but you completely discard the past at your peril.

I'm not sure a new governing body would look to cull off large sections of the current promoters (for one thing until the sport has been turned around there are not many looking to take their place), but I think it would be more subtle than that in that those that could adapt and change would and those that couldnt would probably jump ship when they saw the writing on the wall for the old way of doing things - less of a distinction between 'old and new' promoters as 'good and bad' as an example I would guess that both Len Silver and Stuart Douglas would make a go of promoting in the brave new world governed not by the BSPA, others less so.

[schumi]

From www.speedwayworld.tv

PETERBOROUGH promoter Mick Bratley says British speedway should stick to the three-year plan which was implemented last winter.
The Panthers were one of the clubs to suffer from the points limit being slashed from 42.50 to 38.85, and the next stage of the proposals was for the 2009 limit to be 39.90.
Bratley believes that riders who competed in 2008 should have their averages slightly reduced to compensate for the fact that they were racing in a weaker league, and to enable teams to at least build to the level of this season.
He says the only alternative strategy he would consider would be to halve the number of regular Elite League fixtures, raise the points limit to 45 and increase the number of matches in the play-off process.
Bratley said: "As far as I am concerned the points limit for next year must be 39.90 - that is what we reluctantly had to subscribe to at last year's AGM, and we are intent on following that mandate.
"We have had to endure the pain throughout 2008 and now it is someone else's turn to do that in 2009.
"Some sort of formula needs to be applied to give all riders who obtained a GSA (Green Sheet Average) in 2008 a very small reduction to try and bring some normality back.
"This would go some way pacifying the fans who have questioned the weaker product they have witnessed in the past few months."

[schumi]

And here's what Nigel Pearson thinks. From www.skysports.com

Next season we will see a top flight with riders such as Chris Holder, Leigh Adams, Adam Shields, Niels Kristian Iversen, Bjarne Pedersen and Chris Harris as the top men. Is that really such a bad thing?

It should also enable tracks like Coventry and Eastbourne to have more continuity throughout their season. In Eastbourne's case, why not stage a league meeting at 3pm on a Saturday so people can be home in time to watch that night's GP on TV? That sounds like a great Saturday to me!

Coventry could race every Friday when there is a Grand Prix against those teams who don't have a GP star in their ranks.

And there is nothing to say the league won't be competitive. It was better last season than in 2007 and there is no reason why it cannot be better again in 2009.

I'd also like to see the return of the aggregate bonus point. It was one of the best rules introduced in the sport in the mid-eighties and worked well.

But I also like the idea of an extra point for an away win - so why not go down the route of BOTH the aggregate bonus point and an extra point for the away success?

There are interesting times ahead for our sport. Let's hope the guys at the BSPA come up with the right formula to provide us with good, exciting and competitive racing in 2009 both for fans watching at their local track and on Sky Sports.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 16:25:54 GMT @schumi said:

Bratley believes that riders who competed in 2008 should have their averages slightly reduced to compensate for the fact that they were racing in a weaker league, and to enable teams to at least build to the level of this season.

Oh dear, and there was me thinking he was the sensible one at Peterborough.

Does he not realise that averages always reflect the contemporary strength of the league, because the same number of points are always awarded whoever is racing? If you want to build to the same level as this season, then you should in fact increase the points limit to 42, which is the equilibrium.

Surely the point of 39whatever was to make significant numbers of existing riders surplus to requirements in some sort of attempt to reduce costs. Not the best way of doing it by any means, but if you go all wobbly and start tinkering with either rider averages or radically increasing the points limit, then you'll be back to square one. A 45-point limit would be madness in the current climate.

Nov 6, 2008 16:25:54 GMT @schumi said:

increase the number of matches in the play-off process.

Surely the problem is that certain tracks need a minimum number of matches, which is something 'playoffs' don't guarantee, unless of course everyone gets into the 'playoffs'.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 16:55:30 GMT @schumi said:

And here's what Nigel Pearson thinks.

So setting the scene for significant changes next season, on the orders of his paymasters?

I do detect though, that realism has finally set in at the BSPA, and increasingly amongst fans, that the 'Elite League' as we know it cannot continue in its current form.

[Deleted]

Sept 30, 2008 10:48:49 GMT @bratters said:

Unfortunately in 9 out of 10 seasons the team that will finish top is almost guaranteed by July. The play off's are the right way to go from a financial and TV perspective. From a fans perspective, I can never understand why we don't follow the Speedway "business" model of Sweden and Poland regards play off's - in a league of 9 the top 5/6 play off for the title, the bottom 4/3 play off for relegation home and away, no one leg nonsense. Makes sound economic sense for all. The purist would no doubt want the league to be won in August and the riders back to wearing monkey masks and using upright engines.

Who agrees

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 17:43:18 GMT @rigsby said:

Sept 30, 2008 10:48:49 GMT @bratters said:

Unfortunately in 9 out of 10 seasons the team that will finish top is almost guaranteed by July. The play off's are the right way to go from a financial and TV perspective. From a fans perspective, I can never understand why we don't follow the Speedway "business" model of Sweden and Poland regards play off's - in a league of 9 the top 5/6 play off for the title, the bottom 4/3 play off for relegation home and away, no one leg nonsense. Makes sound economic sense for all. The purist would no doubt want the league to be won in August and the riders back to wearing monkey masks and using upright engines.

Who agrees

I want the monkey masks back

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 17:02:53 GMT @wibblemuis said:

Nov 6, 2008 16:25:54 GMT @schumi said:

Bratley believes that riders who competed in 2008 should have their averages slightly reduced to compensate for the fact that they were racing in a weaker league, and to enable teams to at least build to the level of this season.

Oh dear, and there was me thinking he was the sensible one at Peterborough.

Does he not realise that averages always reflect the contemporary strength of the league, because the same number of points are always awarded whoever is racing? If you want to build to the same level as this season, then you should in fact increase the points limit to 42, which is the equilibrium.

Surely the point of 39whatever was to make significant numbers of existing riders surplus to requirements in some sort of attempt to reduce costs. Not the best way of doing it by any means, but if you go all wobbly and start tinkering with either rider averages or radically increasing the points limit, then you'll be back to square one. A 45-point limit would be madness in the current climate.

You have to see the point of all this mathematical slight of hand, the two sentances are meant to be read by very different audiences:

The three year plan has to be stuck with so the limit must be reduced from 42 by 5% giving you the 39.9 (thus showing continuity and justifying 'the plan')

Obviously too many riders have gained a 'false' average this season in a weakened league and need to have it adjusted to ensure there are still enough riders in the pool for 2009 (listening to fans concerns about watering down)

Its only when you put the two sentances together that the stupidity of the maths is apparent - my suggestion would be that 2008 averages are reduced by (say) 5% and then everyone will be happy, just shows that those who say many of the AGMs ideas are half baked seem to be spot on

The real worry is that they still seem set with the mindset that the only way to control costs is by adjusting the points limit rather than addressing some of the structural issues that the sport is saddled with

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 17:43:18 GMT @rigsby said:

Who agrees

I don't really have a problem with 'playoffs', although rarely was the league won in August from what I remember. I'd like to see more Aussie-style 'playoffs', and to stop calling the damn things playoffs in the first place, but those are details.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2008 17:54:19 GMT @hatcham said:

Nov 6, 2008 17:43:18 GMT @rigsby said:

Who agrees

I want the monkey masks back

and I'm still big on uprights.