Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2007 23:16:03 GMT
It seems to me that it's too easy to look abroad for the next 'coming men', rather than see the PL as the feeder league to the EL. Unfortunately, the BPL is part of the problem. Although it's understandable, too many promotions and fans would rather hang-on to their 'stars' rather than encourage progression. The retain-and-transfer system is also a huge part of the problem as well.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Jul 5, 2007 23:28:18 GMT
It seems to me that it's too easy to look abroad for the next 'coming men', rather than see the PL as the feeder league to the EL. Unfortunately, the BPL is part of the problem. Although it's understandable, too many promotions and fans would rather hang-on to their 'stars' rather than encourage progression. But what's that all about? I know I'm talking about a foreign rider now, but everyone seems to be talking about Magnus Zetterstrom; has he tried to move up, did he fail, is he not as good as everyone seems to think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2007 8:23:57 GMT
Me, I like club speedway, individual speedway and international team speedway. Not sure how I would feel about club speedway if I didn't have a local club but I am blessed with living in East Anglia where there are a few clubs so I could easily follow another I guess.
For years at club level KL were not very successful as a team although they always had some fantastic riders. I think we have so appreciated the success of the last few seasons, the end of race that won us the league last season made me very emotional, mad but it did!
I'm lucky to be able to be passionate about all speedway disciplines I guess ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2007 13:48:22 GMT
It seems to me that it's too easy to look abroad for the next 'coming men', rather than see the PL as the feeder league to the EL. Unfortunately, the BPL is part of the problem. Although it's understandable, too many promotions and fans would rather hang-on to their 'stars' rather than encourage progression. The retain-and-transfer system is also a huge part of the problem as well Thats why I suggested a squad/pool of riders for the lower ends of EL teams made up of the higher end PL boys. Too many riders can make a more stable (and probably better in absolute terms) living at the top of the PL than risk moving up, scoring at a inconsistent rate and then being replaced mid season and having expensive equipment to finance with no ongoing income Donsking there are a number of riders on the cusp (sp) of EL who have gone up with varying degrees of success - Olly Allen went up with Swindon only to really struggle with form and finance, dropped down the following season with Lynn and regained his form and now seems to have made the breakthough at Coventry. Chris Neath (I would say a comparable rider to Allen when they were both PL) never really made the step and seems content to be a top PL performer and the BSPA would not let him double up one year so he took the 'safe' financial option to stay at Rye House. The fact that Chris Mills is an EL no8 yet Topinka hasnt ridden in the EL for years just goes to show how wrong the authorities can get things at times Also annoys me when people start with the old 'PL is better than EL' argument without accepting that the PL is, at least, part of the problem, and dont get me started again about the 'asset' system
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2007 17:17:23 GMT
Thats why I suggested a squad/pool of riders for the lower ends of EL teams made up of the higher end PL boys. The problem though I think, is that the top BPL riders might then content themselves with doing the occasional lucrative BEL meeting, but sticking with the BPL instead of moving. Somehow, the costs and standards of the BEL need to be brought (down) closer to those of the BEL to encourage progression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2007 19:17:23 GMT
Thats why I suggested a squad/pool of riders for the lower ends of EL teams made up of the higher end PL boys. The problem though I think, is that the top BPL riders might then content themselves with doing the occasional lucrative BEL meeting, but sticking with the BPL instead of moving. With a bit of manipulation on how many EL team places (lets just say bottom 2 for now) and how big a pool of PL riders to select from (say top 4 from each PL team) it would probably end up being more than 'the occasional' meeting (on my example each PL rider would ride on average in every third EL fixture for their 'team' - 20 places (2x10) / 60 riders (4x15)). Riders in a rich vein of form (pet hate for me - riders that are doing well cant ride more heats for their club unless they are briefly reserves and can only benefit competitors by taking guest bookings) would get more fixtures, whereas riders that are struggling would get less bookings but would still probably be earning enough to keep going financially in the PL Somehow, the costs and standards of the BEL need to be brought (down) closer to those of the BEL to encourage progression. Having this 'pool' riding in both leagues would mean the gap between the leagues would close a little, essentially by bringing in riders who are currently unwilling to ride in the EL as well as increasing the available riders at the top end of the PL, but the big benefit would be that riders would move to 'full time' EL when they were ready (some may never make the step up but continue to be good PL heat leader standard with a place as a EL squad member). Much less of an incentive to have an untested 'overseas' rider come into the EL 1-5 when you could promote from within by having a rider who has shown what he can do for the past couple of seasons. Equally the PL may get more situations like Holder at IOW where everyone knows he is destined for EL but not quite ready this season so is having another year at PL, that would be the sort of progression I would imagine the squad system developing into but allowing the progression to be more gradual and not a sudden jump / dont jump at the start of the season
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2007 13:39:24 GMT
I am certain much interest went out speedway when the fiasco of equalisation of team strengths was introduced. Surely rider control existed from the early-sixties (at least in the Provincial League) until the late-seventies, which is generally considered a 'golden era' for speedway? Granted the points limit as it's currently implemented does the sport no favours, but you absolutely cannot have a free-for-all in a sport such as speedway (and I would argue any professional sport).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2007 14:39:53 GMT
The continual changing of riders hardly helps when you take into account sponsorship. A Company based in, say, East Anglia, may be sponsoring a Kings Lynn rider. The rider goes on to, say, Glasgow. He would then lose a valuable financial, to him, support. The days when Phil Clarke and Billy Bales, for instance, rode for Norwich for 13 years could not happen nowadays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2007 19:01:57 GMT
There was no equalisation of team strengths when I first went to New Cross in 1946. Nor did it happen for some 14 seasons. Yes, but to be fair, the sport experienced a significant downturn in the late-fifties and almost died. Many historians attribute that to the unbalanced teams of the time, and one of the principles of the Provincial League was a commitment to better team equalisation. Now it's virtually new-look teams every season. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that the current system is any way to do things, but I do believe that some system of moderate team equalisation is desirable.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Oct 29, 2007 19:10:06 GMT
There was no equalisation of team strengths when I first went to New Cross in 1946. Nor did it happen for some 14 seasons. As Norbold said, in the old days we knew who would be in our teams from season to season. Speedway was then an on-going affair in regard to the riders who we knew would be riding for our club. Now it's virtually new-look teams every season. And that is not a good thing for continuity and to hold supporters' interest. sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/oldtimespeedwayAll this "Golden Age" rubbish really gets on my goat. If it was so wonderful, then how come there were 35+ teams in 1950, and only around ten by 1958? The "Golden Period" for Speedway was blatantly the late sixties / seventies / early eighties, at which time team equalisation methods were in place.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Oct 29, 2007 21:10:12 GMT
There was no equalisation of team strengths when I first went to New Cross in 1946. Nor did it happen for some 14 seasons. As Norbold said, in the old days we knew who would be in our teams from season to season. Speedway was then an on-going affair in regard to the riders who we knew would be riding for our club. Now it's virtually new-look teams every season. And that is not a good thing for continuity and to hold supporters' interest. sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/oldtimespeedwayAll this "Golden Age" rubbish really gets on my goat. If it was so wonderful, then how come there were 35+ teams in 1950, and only around ten by 1958? The "Golden Period" for Speedway was blatantly the late sixties / seventies / early eighties, at which time team equalisation methods were in place. In fact, blatantly it wasn't. It may have been the most sustained period of good fortune for the sport, but it wasn't the era that attracted the highest audiences. Speedway's peak was when it first appeared, but that only lasted for a very short period; once the audiences began to fall, it was decided that the match races that were being served up weren't enough to satisfy the crowd's pack mentality, so team speedway was dreamt up. That was OK for a while, but audiences were in decline at the outbreak of war, which did speedway a favour, because after 6 years people were looking for some excitement in their lives which didn't involve doodlebugs, and speedway got it's next boom. A lot of the blame on the decline of speedway in the 50s is put on the government's decision to include it in entertainment tax, in fact I believe that this was the reason cited by the management for closing New Cross the first time round, but you also have to consider television, which was becoming seriously popular from 1953 onwards, and even more so with the launch of ITV in 1955. Into the 60s and it starts getting interesting again, principally I think because we started getting good at it, and we sustained that success through the 70s and into the 80s, along with putting it on the telly on a regular basis. There's no real good news here though, because present weekly attendances are 5-10% of what they were in the early 70s, which in turn are less than half of what they were during the 50s peak, and those audiences weren't a patch of what they were in the early 30s. So the real truth is, every one of those peaks was significantly smaller than the one before and that's the story of speedway. I still maintain that what the audience demanded in 1928 in terms of excitement, value for money and entertainment is totally different to that of today's audience, and that has been true with every successive generation. Speedway came to this country when many of the people watching it were born while Victoria was still on the throne, and it's still, essentially, a sport born of Victorian values that's trying to compete in the 21st century. One thing I do find interesting; three or four times the number of people that attend a weekly speedway meeting went to Cardiff, so where did they all come from? Could it be that individual speedway is a more appealing product in today's market?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 29, 2007 21:43:36 GMT
Could it be that individual speedway is a more appealing product in today's market? No, I don't think so. Apart from the GPs, there doesn't appear that much interest in individual meetings. And I think the GPs are approaching, or have already passed their high water mark.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2007 21:43:38 GMT
The continual changing of riders hardly helps when you take into account sponsorship. A Company based in, say, East Anglia, may be sponsoring a Kings Lynn rider. The rider goes on to, say, Glasgow. He would then lose a valuable financial, to him, support. Exactly what happened to Kevin Doolan when he agreed to ride for Belle Vue this season. Lost a valuable sponsorship deal in Kings Lynn and was financially struggling for a while. The fans had a whip round for him and raised over £1000.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Oct 29, 2007 21:58:50 GMT
Could it be that individual speedway is a more appealing product in today's market? No, I don't think so. Apart from the GPs, there doesn't appear that much interest in individual meetings. And I think the GPs are approaching, or have already passed their high water mark. It's an interesting conundrum. 100K+ people will watch it on SKY, 60K will turn up to Cardiff, but only 25K will actually go to a track on a weekly basis; it doesn't bode well for the sport really.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 29, 2007 22:02:42 GMT
The highest attendance figure for Cardiff that I've ever seen is circa 45,000. And Cardiff is increasingly as much a social event as a speedway meeting, which isn't surprising given that the track is usually shit as is the racing. I wouldn't go to my garden gate to watch speedway Cardiff style, in fact, I'm hard pushed to make it to the living room to watch it on television.
|
|