Halifaxtiger

I agree with most of this although if you are offering twice the amount per point and twice the amount per mile that other clubs do that is undeniably likely to make you more attractive to riders. Its not all about that, but its a big part. I would say, though, that if any club is found guilty of tapping up they should be fined to the extent that they would think very hard about doing it again.

Nicolai Klindt has been released from Wolves..........

I'd have said Ipswich, Rye House or Scunny would have been Stef's destination. Clearly not. Jacobs would be a good choice, I just prefer Nielsen. I think Steady will be your next signing, and I think most will be very happy with that. Not sure about that last comment Is he still in self imposed exile ?

Forgive the assumption, but your view is almost identical to that stated by the Scunthorpe promotion in the past. I have no difficulty with a more rigid pay structure, I am just not sure how it might be policed. I can very much see your point on tapping up, but other than having punitive fines for those that make illegal approaches (ie without the permission of the parent club) I really don't see how you can stop other clubs poaching assets. At the end of the day in most cases the rider will leave. I would have hoped that loyalty and gratitude for the time and facilities given would count for a bit more; sadly not. I don't think its a weaker product but certainly the more clubs the better. The Saints will definitely be missed.

I am certainly unaware that Scunny have poached riders from other clubs but do know that that has happened to them before. Personally, I agree with Malcolm's view on the subject but the BSPA/SCB hardly condemn the practice and indeed some might say they condone it. I don't think it matters if it is a 15 year old novice or an established international that is tapped up and if memory serves me correctly that is precisely what happened in the Miedzinski case earlier in the season. Not only were Poole not punished, they were actively found to be in the right. Tapping up, though, isn't my point here. I have listed below a couple of quotes you have made earlier in this thread and presume they are reflective of the Scunthorpe promotions view: 'The National League is a training league. If each team is bringing in two new 3.00 riders each season, the points limit is about right, although I'd like to see it reduced to 36 or 38. Where things go wrong is when clubs start to push up the costs to going all-out to win. The National League is first and foremost a training ground. Any team success is just a bonus'. Accepting for a moment that team strengths at the time were based upon averages not gradings, what I am asking myself is whether the Scunthorpe promotion would have advocated such a position at the start of 2006 or 2007, or would they have supported or endorsed it if it had been made by another club ?. Would they have agreed that their young, capable and attractive team could have been torn apart due to the points limit, or that they could not introduce PL riders when the strength of their team was reduced due to injury ? Would they have actively supported the position of Buxton or Sittingbourne that pay rates had to be the agreed NL ones and nothing above ? I think its absolutely clear that in 2006 & 2007 they would have objected (possibly violently) to the position you have stated and therein lies the double standard. When it suits Scunny to have super strength teams, pay over NL rates and go all out to win, its acceptable. When it doesn't, it isn't. Personally, and aside perhaps from the overall organisation, I think that the NL needs no lessons in professionalism from either the EL or PL and could teach them a thing or two. Little harsh. Although Rob Godfrey did make a commitment to be in the NL for two years the circumstances of last summer had awful consequences for virtually every speedway team and if he is looking to cut costs the first thing is to protect core business and lose peripherals so I don't blame him if, on financial grounds, he chooses to not run NL. I don't think the league is dying. Although it is disappointing to see Scunny go, Coventry are replacing them nad Buxton are staying. Moreover, three new tracks (Cornwall, Bristol & Norwich) who have all intimated that they will run NL are in various stages of obtaining planning permission. A good summer might have seen the Saints continue. Your last point is spot on. The thing is, though, in my experience Scunthorpe are the one side who don't seem to be interested.

Great news. Long may that be the case.

Nielsen rather than Jacobs for me. Jacobds rode superbly last year and deserves a PL place, but Nielsen is the better of the two.

I'd say there were more than enough cowboys connected to Plymouth Speedway last season

He did ride for Rye House - on 8 occasions (and 1 for Redcar). In using the above stats, I thought that only reasonably full seasons would count (some of the Scunny riders have ridden more than that stated - Benji Compton had ridden 2001-4, for example).

I think the difference is that I have ruled out three riders and you haven't. I shudder to think what the reaction of Sheffield fans would be if the next three riders signed were Hall, Sanchez & Franc. EDIT: I also think you need a new team manager. As some have pointed out, the balance of the side on race nights was definitely askew, and I don't think some (especially Squall) have yet forgiven that disastrous decision against Glasgow...........

I don't believe I actually said that Scunny were big payers. What they did was pay over standard NL rates, something they now object violently to other clubs doing. Of the Mildenhall team this season, Heeps, Bates, Jacobs & Stoneman have only ever ridden for Mildenhall. Blackbird has only ridden a handful of matches for King's Lynn and Nielsen just one season at Scunny. Only Halsey has ever significantly ridden elsewhere. Of the Dudley side, Greenwood & Perry have only ever ridden for Dudley. Ritchings and Morris have had one season elsewhere. White-Williams, Roynon & Bekker have had significant experience with other clubs. The Scunny side of 2006 included Wayne Carter who (had ridden for years -far more than anyone in any of the above teams) Andy Tully & Benji Compton (both of whom had had three seasons at other clubs) Richie Dennis (who had 2) and Byron Bekker (one). In fact, its probably fair to say that Woffinden was the only unknown, Auty having been the British U15 champion. From those comparisons, thre Mildenhall side of 2012 is definitely more home grown than that of the Scunthorpe one of 2006 and if the Dudley one of 2012 is less so, that is only marginally the case. In 2007, the starting average of the team (Dennis, Bekker, Auty, Compton, Woffinden, Richardson, Haines) was well over 50 points - way, way higher than anything Dudley put out this year and way, way higher than any other club. Even taking into account Bournemouth back in 2009, its by far the strongest team ever seen at third tier level and one that was assembled to destroy the rest of the league. Perhaps the most important point on that is that when riders got injured Scunthorpe simply went out and drafted in another PL one (Paul Cooper, James Cockle).

And it still is and does or did you not attend NL speedway matches last season to watch the likes of Bates, Ellis, Stoneman, Greenwood, Clegg, Blacklock, Coles, Rose, Verge and others ride ? To my knowledge, there were as many 3.00 starters in the NL last season than in any previous season. Perry, Nielsen, Birks, the Worrall brothers, Blackbird and others have all gone on to ride PL in the last two seasons. More would have done but for the PL & EL's determination on occasion to persevere with foreigners while booting out British youngsters after a few poor scores. I'd agree it is a third division but it is still a stepping stone to higher things between amateur meetings and the PL, so its existence is both valid and credible. Sadly, what we have is a Scunthorpe point of view that has been expressed before and one that is both arrogant and selfish, smacking of 'play our way or we will not play at all'. The NL might be a development league to them, but to the likes of Mildenhall, Dudley, Stoke and Isle of Wight it is their bread and butter. Talk of 36 point limits and training leagues would almost certainly send those clubs to the wall, because people will not pay to watch something that it is little above an amateur meeting. What is especially galling is that they whine on about win at all cost teams and paying over the odds for riders. Mildenhall and Dudley were strong this season, but the Scunthorpe sides of 2006 & 2007 that were packed with PL riders would have torn them apart and there's no doubt that those riders were paid over basic NL pay too. Basically its a case of don't do as I did, do as I say. While I fully accept that each club has to protect its own interests when you are the member of a league that cannot be completely at the expense of all the others. The continuing existence of the NL is about compromise (and, in truth, it always has been). Its about accepting that the stand alone clubs need to put on a decent show for their paying spectators and that the double up clubs need to keep costs down so that their valued development role (which, lets face it, is more about creating assets for those clubs than the development of British youngsters as a whole) might continue. I do not see any reason why such a compromise might not be agreed if the sort of attitude we have seen in some of the posts on this thread is dropped.

You have got to be kidding. Franc, Schramm & Skidmore's averages dropped last season.Hall, Sanchez & Wells stayed the same. Haines maybe (although I am still not convinced he is going to go up that much). Wells has some potential although I agree with Tigerowl - his performances for Sheffield simply did not match those for Wolves and that is hard to take. Scramm is worth a punt on an unrealistically low average. Skidmore maybe. Sanchez, Franc & Hall definitely not. They simply won't go anywhere. Sheffield need three, maybe four new faces and an attractive, competitive team with some potential thrown in. Another outfit like last season (and the poor performances and falling gates were widely predicted last March) and the Tigers will be staring closure in the face.

Sh*te. I'd forgotten about that........... Will look forward to it David.

Brilliant news Top track with some top supporters. Very best of luck to the Devils in 2013.

No. One word is a statement, not an argument. Bloody pleased to hear you will still be there

I am not surprised that they made a loss last season. Some of that, undoubtedly, was down to the effects of the weather. However, it was clear almost from the start that supporters were deeply unhappy with the team line up and they were proved right. That's down to the promotion, and them alone. As some accurately said, put a poor side out and increase the prices and you are asking for trouble.

I'll dismiss any argument out of hand when that argument consists of one word.

I have made my case for tactical rides above. With the greatest of respect to you (and others) I'll only start questioning that view when I hear a counter argument that is more substantial than 'unfair' or 'destroys credibility'.

What happened at the WTC was so blatant it was ridiculous. While any form of tactical change is potentially open to abuse, I have been to over 140 matches in the last two seasons and I don't think it happened once. The decision to restrict it heats 1-12 was a master stroke, destroying the possibility of ridiculous races at the end of meetings when they were mostly likely to occur. I think many newcomers might view it that way (I have had the same problem) and I'd say that is because it is unique to speedway. That doesn't mean its wrong, though, or it destroys the sports credibility. In my view, it enhances it once you become aware of the actual reasoning behind it and the effect it can have. I saw an amazing meeting at Sheffield last season (v Glasgow) that was only amazing because the tactical ride rule was in force. I could make a fair argument that the offside rule in football is a joke. The only difference is the majority of the public are more used to it. On a final note, the tactical change rule is pretty much irrelevant when taking in to account how brilliant watching 4 blokes on bikes without brakes can truly be. I will never understand anyone that stops going (or doesn't come) for the sake of a rule. Its the step up they have made since John Anderson took over that is quite remarkable. Its the same place, yet it is completely different.

I was with you all the way...........until that last point. The use of the Joker in SWC last season did more damage to the argument supporting tactical changes than anything else I have ever seen or heard. However........... The tactical change rule has been in force in speedway for 50 years. Some meetings are dead after 5 heats without it, and it gives the opportunity for those matches to stay alive. Every time someone comes in as tactical change, there is more emphasis on the race - a bit like having a last heat decider in the middle of the meeting. Both of the above create more excitement, and there's no-one who would deny that. Isn't that what speedway is all about ? The TR rule effects heats by 3 points. The TS rule can effect a heat by up to 8, and it costs a lot, lot more. TR all the way for me. People point to other sports and suggest that no other has something similar. Perhaps we should introduce an offside rule into speedway instead. The simple fact is speedway is entirely different, so its rules not only can be but need to be different too. The difference in the playing fields in speedway - way, way greater than football, rugby league, cricket, ice hockey or any other sport - means that having a rule that assists away teams is far more justifiable. I find those who knock it either can't make a cogent argument against it, don't like speedway and use it to bash the sport, or attempt to pander to the bashers (which is a waste of time). It might suit top heavy teams, but when's the last time one won the league ? That's all about balance, and the most top heavy team in the PL in 2012 finished bottom.

At the risk of giving him yet another job, any chance of Rob Godfrey on the mic ? Heard him once last season and his droll humour was bloody priceless.

Decent team - every chance of improvement from maybe as many as 6 of those riders. Very best of luck to Scunny for next season. There's no doubt its one of the best racing tracks in the country, the club has probably the best development facilities in Britain and its a model for any new speedway team. They also have a promoter whose views are at least somewhat in tune with the ordinary fan, his remarks in Speedway Star being subject to favourable comment by members of this forum.

Auty, Howe, Jorgensen, Birks, Palm Toft, Irving .............and Ryan Douglas. http://www.scunthorpescorpions.co/News.aspx?Team=Scorpions

I have heard many comments over the years where football managers have blamed their teams performance on the poor state of a pitch and I would say that the condition of a football pitch (while relevant) is nowhere near as important to football as the condition of a track is to speedway. Many are questioning the value for money that speedway offers - ie whether you get sufficient entertainment for your money, and that's all about good racing. Crap tracks mean crap racing. Having an obsession about ensuring that everything is done to ensure that track surfaces are the best that they can be for spectators is not just understandable, its essential.