Halifaxtiger

Should be a cracker. Looking forward to it. Edinburgh has always been one of my favourite tracks, never seen a bad match there.

I am glad you seem to be saying that's a wind up. I thought it was a highly entertaining meeting - enough certainly for me to go back and a massive improvement on previous seasons. As to the other two points, I think you're right and, as you point out, Rose is scoring his average (at least). If someone is being considered for replacement (and I'd say its a bit early for that) he is quite possibly the last one I'd get rid of.

Very good meeting in front of big crowd Lawson was indeed imperious, Summers excellent and Graversen equally so. The rider who impressed me most, though, was Skidmore. Newcastle were disappointing. Schramm and Robson put in their usual 100% but Rosen, who I thought would be a top rider this season, was poor. The best bit was STMP getting back to its best . It was a little slick but that didn't stop there being some very entertaining racing and after stating that you couldn't pass on the outside Lawson promptly did so by taking all three others in one swoop. Rammed down my throat the comments might have been, but the taste wasn't a bad one. All in all a good night, despite my old mate Rolypolygoly having a pop at me every five minutes. Good to see you in the pink, Kenneth.

That is good news. When its good, STMP is up there with the best.

I think this could be a cracker (particularly if the track is as it was at the end of last season rather than the beginning). Looking forward to it already.

From what I have seen and heard, this sort of action by the Workington promotion doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Its just a pity there aren't a few more who are giving it all they can to try and make their track - and through that, the sport - a success.

I'm not excusing him. I was there yesterday and saw what happened - indeed, I suspect most knew of it because I mentioned the incident while texting for the updates site. I described it as 'sickening' earlier and said that I didn't want to see it again. I see no reason to change that opinion. However, the law makes a clear distinction between cold blooded actions and those that are spur of the moment reactions and I think that should be taken into account when/if Hall is punished, because I happen to believe that his apology is sincere and genuine.

I think the point is you will really know when the Scunthorpe lads are getting good when they do start beating them. Based on the promise I saw yesterday - Campos has been around a fair while, too - that probably won't be too long. Yes, there is (and rightly so). But you can only have one. I enjoyed that one too, Rob. Partly because I am biased and young Mr Kirby was out in front but also because its always pleasing to see a young lad show his promise. Will only do him good, too.

To be fair, I don't think he is. He did something in the heat of the moment (which we are all capable of) and while I accept the serious nature of what he did I think that apology is sincere and he's not known for such behaviour. I'd give him a warning and leave it at that.

If he's never done it before - and I don't think he has - I'd say what happened yesterday is enough in the light of the apology.

No question, Workington. Abbott is just about spot on. Wrap up warm, though !!

Don't get too carried away, they never looked like beating Cockle, Hughes or Mallett. Having said that, I was very impressed with both Sanderson and Macdonald............and Josh Bailey for that matter. Sanderson's win in heat 14, in particular, was excellent for a rider who has only ridden speedway for a short time.

Apparently they were in the door of the ambulance..............watching a crowd of officials trying to find them out on the track was both bizarre and hilarious, aided very much by Mr Godfrey's droll commentary. No, we don't. There's a great deal of difference between fisticuffs (which are usually little more than handbags) between two riders and booting a potentially seriously injured opponent who is lying prostrate on the track. Personally, I hope Hall gets a ban, because it was sickening - I haven't seen anything like it in the 10 seasons I have been watching speedway and I hope I don't see it again. I thought the decision to exclude Auty was correct as he came off his line but it certainly wasn't reckless. It was a typical EWR high quality meeting, with the highlight being Douglas' superb pass of Wilkinson and Lawson.

Thanks very much for doing the updates.

As Jayne Moss pointed out, you can only have one rider aged over 30 in your starting line up. Its in the NL section of SCB regulations.

You said he was an excellent signing on the Plymouth thread and I agreed. Not sure about you, but its about time I got one right

To be honest, I never thought they were quite as bad as some made out or their first couple of results suggested. Barker, Newman, Jensen, Simota and Katajisto should all be capable of scoring decent points at PL level and only Benko and Reade were gambles. It will be interesting to see how they get on at Hoddesdon tonight and against Ipswich next Friday.

Plymouth really rammed that one down your throat, didn't they ?

Very fair post indeed, Rob In truth, I don't have an issue with what Scunny did back in 2007 and I don't really have a problem with what they are doing now. Indeed, I don't really have an issue with Scunthorpe at all. I rank tracks from 1(the best) to 5 (the worst) and EWR is one of only 4 that gets a 1. The set up is a model of how to create, maintain and improve a speedway stadium. Their record of producing young riders is probably bettered only by Eastbourne back in the 1970's. Its fair to say that the only problem I have is with certain Scunthorpe supporters (although the promotion have not similar statements recently, they most certainly have done so in the past) slamming NL teams for building sides to satisfy the needs of the paying supporters by winning and paying more than standard pay rates to do it and, in doing so, utterly ignoring the plain truth that that is precisely what they did themselves. This isn't about the biggest payer, its about paying more than the league allows. Of course the agenda has changed, I really wouldn't expect otherwise in the circumstances and that is both realistic and fully understandable. What I would expect, though, is a bit of acceptance that the stand alone clubs (and indeed double up ones that cannot have the financial safeguard of double header meetings) need to build sides to win to ensure their very survival. I would say that a Scunthorpe supporter, having been there, would appreciate that as much as anyone.

I thought it was a cracking meeting, both sides very much playing their part. Excellent performances from Stead and Poole and a mention for Nielsen, a win and a paid win including a fine pass of Rosen. All down to personal choice of course but I like the £1 programme. I'd admit the score card is a little small, however. I thought the attendance was up on last years but a little disappointing, although the rain would have played its part in putting people off. EDIT: and whoever said the announcer is improving must be deaf. I lost count of how many mistakes he made last night.

Vog's point is entirely valid. The fact that they started at Scunthorpe on 3.00 point averages is entirely irrelevant (and I think you will find that Dennis started at Boston and Tully's average from Armadale was well above 3) because they started the 2007 season on around 60. If that's not building a team to win at all costs I am not sure what is, and I can just imagine what the reaction from Scunthorpe would have been if they had been told to break it up. In addition, the only true unknown was Woffinden. Auty and Haines both had competed (and, if memory serves me correctly, won) in the U15 championships. They were cherry picked in exactly the same way as Dudley or Mildenhall might do now (the only difference being that neither of those two had ridden for any other clubs), and they almost certainly weren't paid £10/10p NL rates. Of the Mildenhall side, Jacobs, Bates, Mountain, Kingston & Coles have also all started at that team around the 3-4pt mark. To suggest that they (and Cradley, for that matter) merely parasitically prey on others is nonsense. The simple truth is that Scunthorpe built the strongest team ever seen at third tier level and they paid over standard NL pay rates to do it. Now, they grossly object to other teams doing exactly the same thing. That's hypocrisy.

I don't actually disagree. Aside from the damage it will probably do to others gates I don't really have a problem with the Stags team. Its this hypocritical, do as we say not as we did attitude that annoys me.

Lets not forget who set the standard for win at all cost teams in the third tier of British Speedway, shall we ? I'll give you a clue who that was: Its not Mildenhall or Dudley. You can just imagine what the reaction to comments like these would have been from the Scunthorpe promotion and their supporters in 2007,when their team exceeded the current Dudley set up by around an astonishing 20 points a match. No doubt Rob Godfrey would have embraced the suggestion that he would have had to have got rid of around 5 of his riders and shared them with everyone else. Yeah, right The hypocrisy coming out of North Lincolnshire is just incredible. Basically, when they were a stand alone club they built super strength teams to smash everyone else out of sight and paid over the standard rates to do it. Now they are a double up club, their attitude is to demonise other teams for doing exactly the same thing. Its fair to say that their position has changed 180 degrees, and that's absolutely nothing to do with the development of young riders or the future of the sport in this country. Its about what suits Scunthorpe Speedway and nothing else. The contrast between that attitude and the willingness to try to co-operate and compromise indicated by Dale Allitt is truly breathtaking. I have said before that selfishness is one of the reasons why British Speedway is on its knees, and you won't get a worse example than a promotion that changes its views from one extreme to another just for its own ends.

Certainly no need to duck at all. I might not agree totally but what you are saying is pretty fair. It would be true to say that if a team is paying over the NL standard rate the visit by and to Scunny will cost a lot more than normal. That still doesn't affect the fact that even if you were paying £10/10p the Stags turning up could result in an alarming drop in your gate. A lower points limit might be considered (although I have always thought 40-42 was OK) but anything less than 38 and I'd say people might reconsider attending. Payment rates just cannot be enforced and, to a degree, I don't see why they should. Tell Rob Godfrey that the wages he pays his PL team can only be the equivalent of that of those whose budget is the smallest and he'd be most unimpressed. I don't see the difference. What constitutes a developing rider is a moot point. I'd say Joe Jacobs is, even though he is now on his 6th NL season, and that's because of his age and the fact that he has only had one year in the PL. Simon Lambert is another matter. The EL draft has created problems like never before for the NL. In the past, if you had three riders riding at PL level you were unlucky, now Mildenhall and Dudley have two riders riding for three clubs. The draft is a good idea (although it should have been at PL level to my mind) but the knock on problems are significant.

Dale Allitt once told me that we -meaning double up clubs - want it here, they -meaning stand alone clubs - want it there. There must be something in the middle. He's right. What that middle is another matter, but its everyone's interests to work out what it is and it needs everyone to display the sort of willingness to compromise that Dale did. For a Cradley fan, there's a lot of credibility and pleasure in humping Mildenhall (and vice versa) There's absolutely no credibility in humping this Scunny side, and probably very little pleasure. While the hard core will attend week in, week out, there's no question that the more attractive opposition pull in more spectators and that the weaker ones attract less. A team that don't stand any chance of even providing a modicum of entertainment or competition could disastrously effect gates. Its not about what they pay the riders, its about paying punters. Crap opposition will put people off. Selfishness is one reason why British Speedway is on its knees. We need more co-operation and compromise, not less. I remember seeing a 15 year old go straight through the Scunny safety fence in his first appearance at the track - if memory serves me correctly, he broke his collar bone in the process. Last year, he became world champion. Some will make it and some won't, but never write someone off before giving them an opportunity. And which riders in the Mildenhall//Cradley teams aren't developing ? The truth is that there are as many in their teams as there are in Scunny's. Its ridiculous to suggest that a developing rider is a first year rookie and nothing else.