Halifaxtiger

Interesting, that. Checking the timetable, the earlier fastcat goes at 8.47 so if the meeting took an hour and a half you'd still be on the 9.47 one even if the meeting started 30 minutes earlier. The same applies to the car ferry (to be fair, that is based upon winter timetables). I was very much in favour of the change of time but I am not sure it will assist those coming from the Mainland (other than preventing the mad dash if the meeting runs late). In 2011 I got smuggled across in Barrie Evans van for one meeting. In the charge to the ferry terminal, I was in the back with the bikes and some tools fell on me as we carreered round a bend, the race being in vain as the bloody ferry was nearly an hour late.

That is definitely true. You don't go to the speedway for the announcer. But I agree with MSC1874 in that their performance can stop some people from going. In my (pretty wide) experience, he's not that bad. He knows his speedway, for a start. The bloke at Sheffield thought Gary Irving was Tom Young, for heavens sake.

Compared to some, he's pretty good. Take a trip to Coventry one time to see just how bad centre green announcers can be. On the same subject, I suspect that attendances at King's Lynn will increase this coming season.

Or the Jonathan Chapman's.

That's not unreasonable but.... There are many who predicted doom and gloom at the start of last season and they were proved right - but for a poor Plymouth side saddled with an appalling promoter, the Tigers would have finished bottom. The last thing Sheffield Speedway needs is a sub standard team, way below the top 4 sides that have invariably been put out in the past. The effect on gates was there for all to see. While its very early days and I don't think that the criticism of the team as a whole is fair at this stage, the fact is its debatable whether Koppe is worth a 5.00 average when someone like Stefan Nielsen could be obtained on a 3.00.

As always, Jayne, many thanks for your contribution. I can't help but wonder what the changes are that you, King's Lynn & Scunthorpe want.

Halsey too I am reliably informed. With the possible (if not probable) reduction in points limits, that means its likely that there's no place for Jacobs or Blackbird (or even both of them). While I would definitely have picked Nielsen over Jacobs, the latter can count himself a little unlucky. He's had by far his best ever season (raising his average by almost two points) and when I have seen the Fen Tigers away from home he has more than anyone else usually held the side together with a string of consistent performances - the play off matches at IOW & Dudley being the most obvious examples. I am little surprised that Halsey was chosen over Blackbird. Only half a point in it and no question in my experience about who is the more reliable performer. Bates and Stoneman are no brainers. Stoneman on a three is an absolute bargain and Adam Ellis aside Bates is easily the best novice I saw in 2012.

Some deserve it more than others. Some hardly deserve it all. However a man who books 3 rooms for 15 people for an overnight stop deserves all he gets (and believe me that's a minor offence). Aside from bringing speedway back to Plymouth I have never heard a good word about Mike Bowden from anyone, anywhere. That's unique among BSPA members, and his worst critics are all from Devon.

Not a guarantee, but I'd be surprised if they weren't given that Adam Ellis has signed.

Because having read your posts on here for some considerable time (particularly about Berwick) I know that to suggest you are not a Berwick supporter is complete and total nonsense.

I'd say the problem is Steady's. If he wants to come back that badly he'll opt for Sheffield over Swindon - after all, I am sure he could fixed up with another EL club. One things certain - the Tigers can't change their race night solely to suit the needs of one rider.

Problem with that is it might mean the club is finished altogether, and it took nearly 40 years to bring it back before. The way I see it is if it is a choice between speedway with Bowden or no speedway at all I'd opt for the former every time.

Absolutely spot on . Also absolutely spot on Problem is he has stayed at the same level for years and riders like that should only be considered when you can't get someone who shows signs of improving. I can totally understand the adverse comments on here about bringing Hall back. Its a no brainer as far as I am concerned. Get him back and the interest is stoked up immediately. Compare that to signing Josef Franc and the point is even clearer. / Bjarne Pedersen ?

Just reading the pages of this thread tells me that that is simply not true. You have a terrific little club and a promoter who has tried very hard to improve the product andattract knew supporters (in my view, more than anyone else in the country). Perhaps you lot would be better forgetting personal differences (whatever they maybe) and uniting behind your club. Pathetic squabbles over old issues aren't going to help in the slightest.

Good to see you back in..........not that you were ever that far out !!

At this stage, I think the points limit is something that must be a matter of compromise between the different clubs in the NL and a balance between the running costs of the clubs with smaller attendances and the ability of most of the stand alone teams to attract enough supporters to make them viable. There must be fair dialogue with both sides recognising the needs of the others because for the league to remain credible it needs to retain all of its current participants. I'd maintain that allowing one foreigner (of which ever persuasion) into each team does not damage the development role of the league to an unnecessary degree and they can be a major pull for supporters,Cameron Heeps being an obvious example. They would come in on an average of about 7.00, so they would not replace a British youngsters. I'd say that the one over 30 rule should stay. It allows that rider to pass on his experience - the tributes paid to Dean Felton for his help to younger team mates are clear evidence of that - but prevents the league being overwhelmed with more experienced competitors who will take the place of someone much younger. We don't want to get back to the point where Plymouth had 3 riders over 35 and so prevent the league fulfilling its development role. I see nothing wrong with the current format of 15 heats and very much agree with Kev's point about heat 15. I would say that in the event of injury to any rider, rider replacement would be used. If a second rider was injured, then a guest might be brought in and that would apply to a third rider if necessary. That would avoid the situation of a team being massively weakened (similar to Dudley in the NL final) without swamping the league with guests. As to double up riders, I see no reason why a team should not have as many as they dare but priority in fixtures would depend on which club the rider was an asset of. In the event of the rider not being owned by either, the club owning the riders contract would decide. That means that the team owning the riders contract are permitted to take the action they see fit for the riders development (hopefully having taken account of the riders views). With respect to the management of the league, I think it is clear that Peter Morrish is pretty much a discredited figure and that opinion extends to almost everyone I have spoken to right across the speedway spectrum. My own view is that that would be someone with considerable experience of the league who is a respected figure within the sport itself. My candidate would be Dale Allitt.

Unless the SCB Regulations published in February 2012 have been updated, that's the rule. I'd agree on the your view of the definition, Malcolm...........which means I'd also agree that you got short changed that day. The problem, it seems to me, is that you have someone making rulings who doesn't know the letter of the applicable legislation or is making it up as they go along. That's unacceptable as decision making simply must be consistent. It sounds like a fair idea in practice but for it to be effective it must have been well publicised. As someone who has sponsored a junior rider for some years, I have never heard of it until I was looking up the relevant rule. While Malcolm is, in my opinion, definitely right about No 8 riders it seems a shame that if they are only a No 8 they would be excluded from having other rides for other teams when there is a shortage of available, qualifying riders.

Rule 18.2.3 covers facilities for absent riders in the NL: a) Absent #1: G (who must be in a NL Line-Up) or RR Absent Rider (2 – 5): RR c) any other Absences: any Rider on the "Emergency List" The only problem is there is no definition of what precisely the 'Emergency List' is, and where is anyone to find out who is on this list and who is not ? Surely this should be made available to all teams for the purpose of not only getting riders into their team but checking whether the oppositions use is legal or not ? Then again, when has adherence to written regulations been part of the decision making process of British Speedway ?

To be fair, I have no idea who Statman is. If he's connected to the promotion, then he will know better than I. Unless your knowledge of the situation is better than mine ignorance hasn't stopped you posting, has it ? I would say that about 95% of the posts on this forum are based on at best partial information and that most do so not 'regardless' of the facts but because they don't actually know all of them. That is all that fans are privy to (in many cases, absolutely correctly) and inevitably they indulge in speculation and guesswork. Unless those opinions are absolutely ridiculous given the facts to hand, I see absolutely no reason why they might not do so. Those are precisely the questions that I have raised and of course its not unreasonable. My view was that Hall's inclusion in Heat 15 was an understandable one - it certainly wasn't stupid - and backed that up by pointing to the score chart. I then suggested that there were a hatful of riders all with higher averages than him who might have been available and supported that by reference to the greensheets . Never deny that both points are my opinion and based upon speculation, but I do not accept that they are unreasonable points to make.

My point was that Doyle's average was 2.25 points above Hall's. Somerset replaced one of the league's best riders with a third heat leader at best. While I don't know who was available or not, neither do you. What I do know is there are around 15 riders with averages higher than Hall's who might have been chosen. Is it really reasonable to suggest that none of them could have been an option ? If not, then I think comment on the choice of guest is entirely reasonable.

Not giving Hall stick so much as Somerset for choosing him...........and is he a track specialist ? Scores this season at least would not suggest that. Its difficult to actually state anyone because we don't know if they were available or not but as an example wouldn't Stuart Robson fit the bill ? A genuine number one, a rider who never gives up and one who has scored more points than Richard Hall at Scunny this year. I doubt if there is anyone wouldn't sooner have had Robbo given the choice. The NL rider is more difficult, but Joe Jacobs has been superbly consistent for Mildenhall this season and is averaging about 2 points higher than Lewis Kerr.

I don't doubt Hall did try hard and the decision to put him in in Heat 15 seems to me to a reasonable one. Davies had not beaten Morris or Auty and while Vissing had beaten Morris, Hall had beaten Auty. Closer decision than some have made out I'd say and the actual points scored in the meeting aren't a fair yardstick to judge the decision on. You have to question Somerset's use of him as a guest, though. His average is no less than 2.25 points below Doyle's so effectively you are replacing one of the league's top riders with someone who is a third heat leader at best, and its difficult to believe that he was the best choice avilable. Many congratulations to Scunthorpe.

I agree and its why I also agree with Dudley's protest even if it must not be allowed to affect the result. Quite clearly the rules of the sport state that only a team manager or the clerk of the course is allowed contact with the referee during a meeting so Chris Louis should be made to answer why he went to the referee's box at that time. Even if that was solely to view the video evidence, he should be warned about future conduct and reminded of the particular rule. Dave Robinson, however, has a far more serious case to substantiate. He is either not aware of the particular rule (which is disastrous) or he chose to ignore it (which is worse) choosing to do so at a point when the NL title hung in the balance and Louis' presence would clearly result in allegations of influence (which is worse still). The fact that Louis was in the box is entirely Robinson's responsibility. Don't hold your breath, though. I suspect that in true BSPA style this will swept under the carpet.

I'd value Godfrey's comments on this but it seems to me he'd be leasing the stadium and the licence only as Plymouth have few (if any) riding assets. With new promotion in charge and a decent team to back them, I'd be surprised if the gates at SBA didn't double (sponsorship increasing too) so there would be optimism regarding the financial position. In addition, it gives the college a year to consider their position.I absolutely agree with devildodger when he says that he wouldn't buy a house built on the land - from BobC's statement to me about the flooding there you'd have to have a bolt loose to even think about it. There's no way a superstore could be put there either, Sainsbury's car park across the road being far bigger without the access road that the Highways Agency have. Light commercial units of the kind that surround the stadium are more likely, but would it be worth the expense of the flood proofing for something of that size?

Its a disaster for the sport as a whole - one of our best supported clubs folding because of the loss of the stadium. I know comment has been made regarding the suitability of the land for building purposes but knowing where it is it surprises me that anyone would want to build almost anything substantial on it. I will feel the loss of speedway at Plymouth personally possibly more than most (with the exception of Devils fans). Its one of my favourite tracks for racing, the run down there the other side of Exeter is superb and I have made some cracking mates at SBA. Fingers crossed things change. Mike Could they lease the club from Bowden in the way that Gary Patchett did at Birmingham ? That would enable the speedway to continue, provide a breathing space and allow the college to think again.