Halifaxtiger

I don't doubt your word, but its unusual that a meeting is called off the day before hand never mind 5 days before on the basis of a long term forecast - a forecast that becomes more unreliable the further it is in the future. Where would we be if that became common practice ?

Martin Widman & Barry Bishop did a presentation for the Nuneaton Speedway Supports Club a couple of nights ago and apparently went down a storm. Unsurprisingly

I think he's right. I went in the early 80's and the racing was no different. My Dad, who went in the early 50's, always said 'first of the gate always wins'. The only thing is gates are affected by the quality of the racing. I go to Scunthorpe and Belle Vue simply because of the entertainment and I doubt very much if I am the only one. Stadiums might not be packed because of the quality of the speedway, but its entirely possible that they'd be emptier without it.

Er ............yes.

Long trip down my friend but you should try them out. They are a truly remarkable outfit, setting a standard that shames much of the rest of the sport. Its pretty much characterised by their promoters willingness to come on here and engage with us all - not the 'utterly without credibility' stance of other teams. I'll see if I can get him to respond to you - knowing him a bit, the sky's the limit for the Warriors but this isn't a man who will pour good money after bad for one single second. Huge enthusiasm but financial accountability. There's a novelty

At the risk of being - for the second time today - uncharacteristically cynical, since when did precedent have anything to do with speedway ? I suspect, however, that on this occasion you might - and should - be right.

I too welcome the SCB's intervention in the Nicholls case but I'll await the transparency that you suggest because I am not convinced. E I Addio has pointed out that the AGM finished in mid November and the SCB resolved the matter at the end of February - after a challenge by Peterborough, a review by the BSPA and a threat of legal action from Nicholls. His description of the SCB's actions in this matter was 'appalling incompetence'. It could easily be seen as though they took no steps to correct the situation until Nicholls legal challenge, at which point they had no choice but to change the decision. The other thing is is that this is a major issue, one that affects all clubs. It is equally as important that disputes on single decisions affecting just one club are dealt with - as BCD has said - fairly, openly and subject to precedent. I have it on good authority that when Adam Roynon signed for Plymouth last season three NL clubs protested, saying that the average they were using was incorrect. Those protests were brushed aside, despite the fact that the average was indeed substantially understated (something that was later admitted, although not publicly). Matt Marson has a British passport (I stand to be corrected, but I believe his mother is British). As a British citizen and a newcomer to the sport in this country, Mildenhall put him in their team last season on a 3.00 in accordance with the SCB rulebook. Suddenly, he was graded as a 5.00, an average that doesn't even exist in that rule book. My understanding is that it took a further threat of legal action to make the BSPA adhere to their own regulations. On those (and so many other occasions) speedway fans - and even clubs - did not know who made the decision, how they made it and why they made it. That simply cannot be right, nor can it be the case that the sports own regulations are so easily broken to suit the needs of individual promoters. I have never believed that the running of speedway teams should be subject to independent control. Speedway teams are mostly loss making, so it is a case that he who calls the piper calls the tune and that initial decision making must be left to those that put their hands in the pockets every week. However, any protest must be determined by an impartial adjudicator with no interest in any speedway club. It is at that stage that currently the sport disastrously falls down and, quite clearly, if you know that any decision you make could well be subject to independent audit, you're more likely to get it right in the first place.

Isle of Wight pretty much have a meeting every week throughout the summer. After the fixture list was published, they moved swiftly to fill the gaps.

When Tungate is at his best, he is simply magic at NSS. Must be in with a shout.

The decision was not only made at the AGM, it was subsequently confirmed on 1 February 2018 - despite the fact that Peterborough challenged it. As such, they did test the decision and were refused. Three weeks (BCD has stated it was less) later - apparently after solicitors were contacted - the BSPA backed down completely. According to Phil Rising, the SCB were fully aware that the Nicholls decision was illegal and refused to ratify it. I am therefore asking myself whether the decision to retain the rule after review in early February and then reverse it a matter of weeks later was a matter of incompetence, viciousness or both. I don't regard Rathbone as the peoples champion - and I suspect those that do are motivated by their own prejudices - but I do regard him as someone who stood up to a ruling in the interests of his promotion, his team, his fans and his sponsors. That is very hard to condemn. The problem with a closed shop is that no-one is allowed to challenge it. That means however illegal, corrupt or biased their rulings are they must be adhered to. That surely cannot be right, and the answer must be not to punish dissent or dissension but not make such rulings in the first place. Decisions that are fair, open, justifiable, subject to precedent and legal are far harder to challenge. There are those who bash the BSPA at every opportunity - again, almost certainly as a result of their own prejudices. The thing is though is that the BSPA themselves have, to a degree, created such an attitude. Personally, I take pleasure that an illegal ruling has been struck down and I doubt very much that I am the only one with that view. I have made no secret of my respect and admiration for the promotion at Isle Of Wight and its clear Barry Bishop and Martin Widman have put a huge amount of time, money, effort and enthusiasm into ensuring that the Warriors are a paying success. Yet last season, time after time, rulings went against them, be that because they were turned down (despite precedents) or that others received ludicrously beneficial judgements. That undoubtedly contributed to their final league position and no doubt there were times that they would have felt utterly disillusioned by events around them. The thing is I - and I would stand on my own reputation for fairness and impartiality - can well believe that they were denied their share of discretion through simple jealousy, provoked by the remarkable (and totally justified)amount of credit and praise they have received from speedway fans across the country. Ged Rathbone was heavily fined and had his promoters licence suspended as a result of allowing Holder to ride in Poland. Two seasons ago, I went to a meeting where a promoter took part in a sit on the track during that meeting. He, one of his riders and a number of the home support sat on the track on one side of the tapes while on the other side were riders ready to race. I thought that was a grossly irresponsible act and an awful breach of health and safety regulations. To my knowledge, that promoter was never fined, punished or disciplined in anyway and, in my view, there is no question about what was the more serious offence. Any organisation that treats its members with such appalling inconsistency - and, seemingly, favouritism - can also make decisions in precisely the same way and therefore deserves at least some of the odium and criticism it gets.

I went to the notorious Leicester-King's Lynn meeting last season and while it escapes just how many guests were riding - a lot - the car park attendant told me that the speedway had been cancelled and there was a circus instead. The odd thing was that it was - thanks largely to Dan Bewley - a highly entertaining meeting.

Here, he's tried something on and been proved correct twice (I am sure that a Peterborough fan can tell me what the third one is). On the basis of what you are saying, he should simply have accepted what he was told - ie that Nicholls couldn't ride for his team - and not make any issue of it. That sounds a bit too much like a closed shop for me. Accept all our decisions - however crooked, biased, incompetent or illegal they maybe or how much they damage your business - and you're OK simply cannot be correct. There should be no reason why anyone does not co-operate with Rathbone at this point. Not to do so can only be motivated by spite or vindictiveness..........and one or two have already mentioned just how much of that there is.

I genuinely hope you are right but the fact that they tried to enforce this rule after 'Holdergate' doesn't fill me with confidence that they will now start to behave with a great deal more responsibility. Sadly, I think it will only be a temporary setback to the way they run things with Rathbone becoming even more isolated than before.

I think it will always be a problem if you sign a rider knowing his average will almost certainly drop by a point or more. The idea is to improve averages or at least maintain them. Having said that, Nicholls might not be the only problem.

I think you're right. While its a very reasonable point to suggest that Rathbone (with the backing of the SCB) has forced the BSPA to change an unfair and illegal rule, all it has gained Peterborough is a rider on a hugely inflated average.

Give them a little credit. Their press release after a total reversal of one of their policies is almost up to political party standard.

Morris on a point less than Nicholls sounds like a pretty decent Plan B to me.

If a track serves a brilliant day for the supporters, why change it ? Your concerns are entirely reasonable but I would hope that Redcar satisfied everyone that they could cope before they were allocated the meeting.

In purely geographical terms, Redcar is definitely the better choice because of its location and precisely where many of the Championship clubs are based. The thing is, though, is even if there are significant improvements I really don't see in terms of facilities how STMP will compare with Peterborough (to be fair, there are few that can). In addition, I don't think you can overlook just how brilliant the last two seasons Fours Finals at the Showground have been. Not only does that make it more likely that people will travel, it also means that supporters from places like King's Lynn, Mildenhall, Rye House & Leicester will be tempted to go. I have no difficulty with the Fours being allocated to Redcar, I just think it is a huge shame that they won't be at Peterborough again.

As an outsider, that is the way I saw it. No question that it weakened the team, but better to do that than allow a couple of prima donnas to ride rough shod over everyone at King's Lynn. For that reason - ie that 2017 was exceptional - there is a strong case for writing it off and moving on. Its not the same old, same old here.

................and the preparation. One of my favourite tracks is Plymouth (which I believe is the smallest in the country) and no-one could reasonably say that the racing is better at Berwick, for example. While over a season in my view their is no comparison between Belle Vue & Redcar, I have seen some brilliant racing at STMP. If you can do it once, you can do it again.

You have got to be having a comparing Kinsley to Dugard. Kinsley might not score well at Eastbourne, but he hasn't been sacked from his last two clubs because of poor scores and, apparently, poor attitude. Dugard has more talent than some might suggest but it is going to take a major change for him to consistently show decent form.

There was a time not too long ago when I would have disdained this view. Having been to Isle of Wight and seen the methods used by the promotion there to attract new fans, I have completely reversed that position. First of all, there is a massive effort to make sure people know they are there. Then when they get them to come, there is an equally massive effort to make sure they stay. Makes a significant and most welcome change from absolutely no effort at all in the first place and then a surly 'we are doing you a favour' attitude that is so prevalent amongst promoters across the country.

If I am truly honest, I do have trouble grasping why people stay in to watch speedway on television when they can actually go. I remain of the belief that people such as yourself who do that are the exception and that the number lost for that reason is absolutely minimal when compared with those who have stopped attending because of poor value for money, and that on balance there is no question that television coverage is beneficial for the sport. As I have said, when people are asked on here why they no longer go - and sometimes I think they outnumber us that continue to attend - its extremely rare that they will say that that is because they make use of a BT/SKY package instead. Delays, guests, gaps between meetings, cheating, crap tracks all come much higher. The other thing is it seems to me that you are a neutral and will therefore be more likely to stay in rather than attend. I am one too, but we constitute a very small proportion of the speedway paying public, with most watching their teams week in, week out. I would be very surprised if a Belle Vue fan, for example, would skip a home meeting simply to watch a Poole-Somerset match on the box. Its almost equally as unlikely that they would skip a Belle Vue meeting to stay at home for the same reason (which, currently, happens once a season). As I have made clear earlier, the biggest attendance I saw at the NSS last season was a televised match against Wolverhampton. Properly promoted and with a reduced entry fee, I suspect the gate was near double the average. The GP's are different because they represent the pinnacle of the sport with its very best riders. Most of them are beyond the pocket of the average speedway fan, so they are far more likely to use the very decent coverage that we have. There will be a loss to teams that run against them but I refuse to believe that Workington are losing 300 a week as a result - with their gates, it would be more than noticeable if 300 were there one week and not the next.

Some of you may know that Hoggy gives me a lift to home meetings and I have just been speaking to him about his involvement in 2018, because due to business commitments I know that Friday nights could be difficult. He has said that the promotion want him to continue with Saturdays and he is making every effort to come for at least some Fridays. I'll admit I am biased (and my lifts might be affected if I say otherwise ) but I think he is a top quality presenter, so this has to be good news and a reflection on the promotions efforts to retain their existing supporter base and attract new ones during 2018. A big part of Dave's motivation for trying to sort out Fridays is his genuine affection for the hospitality and kindness of the people of Workington, something he has mentioned to me many times. I did have a couple of trips to Dodge City pencilled in but it looks likely that that will be increased at least a bit