Halifaxtiger

I'm not surprised because its a cracking line up - young, exciting and full of potential. Its certainly one I would want to watch (and, all being well, most certainly will). Bizarrely, 'start of the season' is correct. Why ? Your guess is as good as mine.

Was it ? I ask because to be a 7.00 you have to be category 2: 'Riders with an "end of the previous season’s published average" in the Polish Ekstraliga or Swedish Elitserien of 6.00 and below plus ALL other Riders riding currently in any Professional Speedway League' - the crucial words being 'riding currently'(it doesn't say 'has ridden'). Is he riding in the Danish (or any other professional)League in 2014 ? If not, I'd say he's a 5.00. Whatever the case, I simply do not know how Somerset - or the BSPA - got it that he was a 3.00, because the qualifying condition is clear: 'Riders who have ridden in the National Development League as an Amateur '. Why did they even need to ask ?

One question: in all those 'years of personal experience' did you make every effort to make the BSPA 'open, honest and up front' ? If you did, fine. If not, given the position you state above why not ? I ask because in my experience (and being uncharacteristically cynical) there have been a fair number who have ranted on about the BSPA's practices when decisions have not gone their way or when they are no longer part of that organisation but were absolutely complicit in the same sort of decisions when it suited them or they were involved.

OK, but it was 1.74 in the PL. Simple truth was he was way out of his depth. He'd come in on a 3.00 and there must be a question mark about whether he'd achieve that. Damien Koppe, on 3.20, would be in my view be a far better bet.

My reaction too. The collective groan of disappointment from Sheffield when he signed last season could be heard in Halifax. This is about rebuilding one of the PL's biggest clubs after two disastrous seasons and putting a side out that is attractive enough to pull back those who stop going in that time, and what the Tigers do not need are riders that have been around for years without going anywhere. They need those with potential and Hall has none. Knight simply isn't good enough as was shown (and widely predicted) last season. A rider from the NL needs to be on at least a 7pt average from that league, not a 4pt one.

What happened with Heeps is merely an example of the corrupt practices at the heart of British Speedway - others have received the same preferential treatment. The way I see it it is watertight but was just blatantly ignored.

.............and at Workington last season.

I'd say so, yes.

The criteria for qualification to ride in the NL is the same as it was in 2011: 17.9.3 All Riders must hold a UK Passport or have UK Patriality. You can only claim British citizenship from parents, not grandparents. You can only get patriality (ancestry) if you are aged at least 17 - this is what Debbie Hancock had to say about Brady Kurtz last season: "We were hopeful of signing Brady and he was extremely keen to join the Rebels for the 2013 season, as were his parents Steve and Sue," said Rebels promoter Debbie Hancock. "But despite representations from everyone, including his parents, Brady cannot be granted patriality until his 17th birthday, which isn’t until late September, which effectively ruled him out for next season. Heeps was 15 when he rode for Mildenhall (and hence could not satisfy the criteria to ride in the NL) and 16 when he rode for Ipswich (and therefore should have come in on a 5.00 average).

Two things: a/ good weather b/ good racing tracks.

Riders come in on a 3.00 only if they have ridden in the NL. Commonwealth riders come in on a 5.00. To ride in the NL then (and now) you have to have a British passport or patriality. Heeps had (and has) neither.

I think you are right - it is there to be played but it most certainly should not be. What's the point of having specific written down rules if they can just be ignored ? I think Heeps came in on a 3.00 because it suited three clubs - Rye House, Ipswich and Mildenhall - for him to do so.

I know Robert bangs on a bit but he has a point: the racing at Beaumont Park is invariably poor. What's more, I am absolutely convinced that that is nothing to do with the shape of the track but its preparation, and as Glyn Taylor is one of the best in the game (Redcar has never been the same since he left) it suggests to me he was under orders to prepare slick, bald surfaces. The only consolation is that it is entirely possible that given that riders will be different for the new season so will the track.

I think the point with the Mildenhall ruling is that it is specific to speedway stadiums and people complaining about noise and nuisance who have moved in afterwards and where the stadium is long established. Its a court of appeal decision, so it will be binding (or at least very persuasive) on any future judgement where the same circumstances apply. For the layman, it also has the considerable benefit of being one that is backed by common sense - after all, if you don't like an area for whatever reason, it is not for that area to change to suit you but for you to choose somewhere else to live. Its difficult to overstate the relevance of this ruling for existing stadiums surrounded by new housing developments (Edinburgh is a good example).

Spot on. I don't think its a title winning side but its certainly one I'd want to go and watch.

Following the court judgement regarding Mildenhall stadium (which is now the binding case law on the subject) that is no longer true. Basically, people who moved in next to the stadium were told that if they didn't like the noise, they shouldn't have bought the house. When they said they didn't know it was there, they were told they should have found out. Court judgements are occasionally less than persuasive, but this one got it absolutely spot on.

I agree. Never used to like race cards but have been converted. If you are going for a programme something like the Scunny one (at £1) would do.

Providing they put a decent team out (and I see no reason why that might not be possible) does that really matter ? Surely the important bit is that the takeover bid has been a success and that Sheffield will be coming to the tapes in 2014.

I think the point Nikko is making is that you have stated that 'Kent is very much in every respect a stand-alone club' . Given the facts he has stated, it isn't and I am not sure how it can be defined as such. I think its acknowledged that at least to a degree Mildenhall is a feeder club for Ipswich, and that was one of the reasons why Chris Louis became part of the promotion. Is it similarly acknowledged that Kent is a feeder club for Rye House ? Links are one thing. Having the same promoter, the same team manager and the same riders is something else.

I'd say the principal reason we have double points rather than tactical substitutes is the cost, nothing to do with Sky at all. Most riders do tactical rides for no more pay, but introduce them instead of another rider and they will want adequate reward. Based upon a simple calculation, returning to tactical substitutes would cost tens(possibly hundreds) of thousands of pounds every season that the sport simply doesn't have. As SCB has pointed out many times, tactical rides are also less destructive and affect scores less than tactical substitutes and I must admit I wonder how anyone who is an advocate of tactical substitutes can actually justify them over tactical rides at this time. The rules don't make any sense to outsiders because the sport is so different to those they are used to. Football fans might be critical of double points, but away goals counting double is fine. What's the difference ? Why not have a rule in speedway where certain riders are only allowed on certain parts of the track at certain times, and then it is dependant on where opposition riders are. Stupid ? Football has it, its called offside. My point in reality is that you simply cannot judge one sport's rules against another's and say they make no sense, they have to be judged within the context of the sport itself and very valid reasons can be made for double points, points limits, guests etc. There's every argument against people who criticise speedway's rules and they are not right, they just think they are. I have seen many, many posts on here from people who blast the BSPA for their lack of foresight and offer up all the solutions in the world to turn things around. Never seen one of them put their money where their mouth is yet. I'd say the play offs have been hugely successful, and its sheer nonsense to suggest that they have downgraded the league itself. You have to get into the top four, so every match is as important as it used to be - indeed, it is very much the case that a lot more matches are important. When I went to the Workington-Ipswich play off match last season, the gate was up 25%. People criticise them because they personally don't like them, they brush aside any question of an objective opinion of what is actually good for the sport. The change to the points system is another that has been very successful. Back in Collins day, 6 points up or down with one heat to go meant you either got 2 points or nothing. Now, you can gain or lose as much as two points on one race, meaning that the number of last heat deciders (and hence riders putting more in on the track) has rocketed. Personally, I'd say one of the reasons why the sport is on its knees today is the failure to invest long term when things were good - ie when Collins was riding. Money was poured into riders and promoters pockets - Collins himself never came cheap, I can remember him disputing wages in 1982-3 when he didn't want to swallow a contract whereby he was to be paid the same as Morton and Ross despite the fact that his average was lower - instead of investing in the infrastructure of the sport. As a final thought, I think you have to have one eye on the past, but you can't live in it.

As Dean says, there's no way Wightlink will accept free spaces for riders on a summer weekend, so that's out. Tsunami's point about holiday makers just arriving or leaving is a good one too. I know someone who has tried to set up a track in a similar sort of area (ie a tourist destination) and he immediately ruled out weekend race nights for that specific reason. Many locals stopped attending when the team went NL but IOW speedway always relied on visitors anyway. Back in 2008, Dave Pavitt showed me the spectator figures for a meeting held in April and it wasn't much more than the number quoted now. However, he stated that the figure would increase 6 fold in the summer holidays and I suspect he was right. As by and large tourists couldn't care less what the level of the speedway is, there must have been a change between those days and what happened in the last couple of seasons, and I think that is a matter of advertising - there simply isn't enough, and to me that's a disastrous mistake when you rely on visitors to the area to survive.

Is it ? Plymouth sign a rider to huge and sustained criticism from their fans (I haven't seen anyone from SBA who has said they want him) and then they drop that rider in favour of a soon to be club asset 20 years his junior who made a big impact at the club in 2013. Perhaps they shouldn't have signed him in the first place, but I could make a fair case that the decision to renege on his contract was an excellent one where the promotion have listened to their fans (something that happens all too rarely in speedway).

James Holder ? He's as popular with the Plymouth lot as Mark Lemon is.

Never heard the same comments about Peter Karlsson, have you ? Perhaps you could lobby your team to sign him.

I heard similar comments at Newcastle - during his last season, anyway. If you are averaging around the 10pt mark, people will put up with moaning and complaining. When it drops below 7, they won't.