Halifaxtiger

Part of the problem for Pickering was that it was very difficult to pass last night. I saw him at Peterborough earlier in the season and he attacked the track and got his reward. He did the same last night and got nowhere. Barker, amongst others, was also busting a gut to no effect. There were a couple of decent races - particularly heat 15 - but overall the meeting was disappointing. STMP is a brilliant race track and it certainly appeared that it was back to that early season, only for the last two matches there to be nowhere near that standard.

Much appreciated. No more needed, on my way.

All weather updates appreciated.

Not a surprise to me. Sedgman has done OK but Tungate is a real track specialist.

Dead right Problem is it seems to me that some speedway promoters believe they can serve up any old rubbish and people should pay for it. It simply must be the case that the product is attractive enough (or at least every effort is made to ensure it is) to pull people in and, if its not, I don't blame anyone walking away if they do not feel they are getting their money's worth. Relying on loyalty to the team is just not enough. Late start, rubbish racing and intervals would be three reasons for me to think again about going because there is no need for any of them.

A track prepared for spectators, not riders.

Yes, it is my highlighting. For once, I don't think it is unclear. What it says is that if a rider has an average in the Championship or NL between the years 2011-16 then his average for 2017 is either double the PL one or the NL one, whichever is higher. That is precisely the interpretation used in the Richard Hall/Birmingham decision last year, although in that case Hall's NL average was from 2004 so how they came up with that one your guess is as good as mine. Latest refers to the year it was obtained - so if a rider has a 2016 average in the Championship or NL, that is preferred to a 2015 one. It doesn't refer to the same season, and I think there are sound grounds why that is the case. The reasoning for the inclusion of both Championship and NL averages is wholly justifiable because many riders struggle to cut it in the Championship while remaining kingpins in the NL - one glance at greensheets for riders doubling up will tell you that their averages in the NL are up to 4 times as much as they are in the Championship. If Jack Parkinson-Blackburn, for example, had chosen to ride Championship only this season but dropped down in 2018, he'd come in on 4.00 if the NL rule was not there (rather than his present 11.00 plus figure). James Shanes is the other example. Calculating his present Premiership one to be an NL for 2018, he'd be on 5.60. I am sure we can both agree that would be ludicrously low for a rider of his ability. If a rider has been out of the sport (for injury or otherwise) there should be some sort of reduction allowed depending on how long that is. What we cannot have, though, is precisely what we have got : some riders getting reductions, some not and the reductions themselves being totally inexplicable, wholly unjustifiable and turning out to be ridiculously inaccurate (Paul Hurry springs to mind).

That is true, Steve. That doesn't make it right, though. I was told by a promoter that programmes have 100% mark up. That means you can sell them at half price and still breakeven and I can recall Debbie Hancock doing just that at Somerset the other year I think your suggestion is spot on and that's half the problem. Pretty much all the time you don't know its an insert until you have bought the programme, so its not just a rip off its a con. They should say that it is an insert at least.

In truth, Adz, I think this is a matter of incompetence rather than something a bit more malign. Whoever made the decision to allow Roynon to ride simply didn't check the regulation and/or the averages. The real problem is that they can't admit to their mistake, because I am aware that two clubs have questioned it and, basically, been told to shut up.

Good summary A lot of races were from the gate but there were still a few decent ones and some were very close. I loathe intervals anyway but having one with rain threatening was just stupid. Keeping people standing around getting wet - aside from the fact that the meeting might have been abandoned - is just not on. Insert programme at full price Its all very well saying why that is the case but its still an absolute rip off, particularly when the programme itself is for the Peterborough meeting. Covering your costs by cheating your paying customers is hardly likely to make them come back.

If its anything like last year - and I see no reason why not - the blinkers are out. I have never seen speedway advertising like it.

Completely agree They have been shafted, big time. First with Cook not being allowed a reduction and then with Greaves being allowed to sign for another club with the same race night (something which Rob Godfrey had said could not happen). Then we have the ridiculous, totally unexplained and totally unaccountable decisions to allow Paul Hurry to have a much reduced figure (despite the decision on Cook) and to permit Adam Roynon to come in on his PL average when regulations clearly state that his existing (and higher) NL average takes precedence (despite the Richard Hall decision last season). Speedway's ability to make inconsistent, illegal and crooked decisions to suit some promotions but not others has always been in evidence. It seems to me, though, that this season they have exceeded themselves. Those complaining about the Redcar abandonment ruling should recognise that we know who made it, how and why they made it and that it is entirely within the discretion of the decision maker. There are light years between that and the above. It might be me, but I can't but help think that the shabby way that IOW have been treated is at least in part down to the almost universal credit and praise they have received from fans since they opened at the beginning of last season, the sheer unbridled enthusiasm of Barry Bishop and Martin Widman and the efforts they have made to make their club a success by treating paying customers as paying customers. As we all know only too well, there is an awful lot of vicious jealousy and spite within the ranks of the BSPA and newcomers showing everyone else precisely how to do it will not be viewed with warmth or pleasure.

Anyone who has heard Rob Godfrey at Scunthorpe will tell you that baiting of referee's is not quite dead. He's shamelessly biased, with comments like 'Should have gone to Specsavers', 'You're having a giraffe' and 'That's a controversial one' being typical when a decision goes against the Scorpions. 'Are we having the two minutes on, ref ?' is another when he thinks the delay is too long. Its quite ironic that this man is also the VC of the BSPA You're right that being an announcer is different to be a presenter. In my book, the latter is far harder. The master to me is Kevin Long, a true speedway fan, a very capable interviewer and effortlessly funny without ever being too much. Dave Hoggart (Workington), Michael Max(Glasgow), the aforementioned Mr Godfrey and Clive Fisher(Swindon) are all up there. I also was a big fan of the late, great Bryn Williams and saddened when Tim Allen handed in his cards after an altercation with a referee recently. Edwin Overland is definitely one of the best boxmen along with Graham Hambly (Plymouth), Barry Wallace (Newcastle), Andy Young (Lakeside) and the very impressive new kid on the block, Neil Drummond (Belle Vue). To be fair, what you think of the presenter will always be a personal thing of individual choice. I dare say some of the names above aren't appreciated by everyone.

Govier seems to be saying on the IOW Facebook page that it wasn't a contractual issue but won't (probably wisely)elaborate. The IOW promotion aren't saying anything (again, probably wisely). I think you make a very fair point here. It is a foolish young rider who gives up a team place voluntarily. Whatever the case, the IOW promotion deserve far better.

Ted Sear, Bob Radford, Dave Lanning and John Earrey have all been mentioned (must be 20 years since one or two of those had a go) so why not you ? In any case, this is not so much about you personally as a style of presentation that you had which is still around today. My old mate Gordon Bennett once described that style as being 'like marmite'. My question to him was why have marmite when half the punters don't like it ? I don't doubt it was a performance. But it was one that I just didn't like and, let's be honest, I was anything but alone in that. In addition, as far as I can see being unpopular with customers doesn't seem to affect the number of bookings you get. The chap at Belle Vue apparently is inundated with presentation work yet he's awful (and again I am anything but alone in that opinion) and Peter York has only stopped announcing because Coventry have closed (see Midland Red's comment above). I do, however, wish you every success with your book and if I have done a bit to promote it perhaps you'd like me to be critical elsewhere

To an extent, it has to be. People will not pay to watch a training league so it must be attractive enough to make them cough up the entrance fee. NL speedway, for the most part, is a business. For that reason, I have a degree of sympathy with the likes of Stoke, for example, who have tracked a team that has a lot more older riders than some might consider necessary. Truth is, there just aren't enough young riders of sufficient standard to go round so they either put those who are not ready or capable in or older ones get team places. The need to win means that the latter is more preferable. I would maintain that the NL is still packed with the very best youngsters we have and that the present situation is a very good compromise between development and staying in the black. I also have no difficulty with senior riders - and by that I mean those over 35 - taking a team place. See if you can find a criticism of Jon Armstrong, for instance, anywhere. The NL's problem is not senior riders. It is crooked, unjustifiable and unjustified decisions that allow riders to ride or prevent them from doing so made by unnamed and irresponsible persons. Its been shocking this season.

2012 NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM DECLARATIONS ISSUE 28 (Final issue) Adam Roynon 11.64 2017 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE Issue 14 Adam Roynon 10.24 19.8.2 A Rider’s MA will be based upon their latest (attained during the seasons 2011 – 2016 only) NDL or PL MA (multiplied by 2 and subject to a minimum / maximum converted MA’s being 3.00 / 12.00. NB. Where a rider has both a previous PL and NDL MA, the highest will apply. Can someone (hopefully Laurence) tell me why Roynon's average is 10.24 (or double his Workington one) and not 11.64 (the Dudley one) ? The extra point or so takes Plymouth over the limit.

I don't either providing its applied consistently. It hasn't been, because Harland Cook was refused a similar reduction this season. Have a quick look at the Plymouth thread - I don't think Roynon should be riding for them based upon the existing SCB rule book. He should be on an old NL average, not the converted PL one.

10.08 I make it. Standard formula certainly wasn't followed for Luke Clifton last season.

Been told the inspection is at 1pm. 50/50.

GB is right. Its not just a question of how good Shanes is or isn't, its equally a question of who you can get to replace him and whether they are any better.

I didn't think the track was up to its usual standard either but it was still an entertaining meeting. I am not sure what happened to the Aces (or the Pirates) half way through but the score turned on its head. Fantastic team ride from Cook (almost as good as Nick Morris at Berwick), two real battling passes from Bewley (which in the end made a huge difference) and a cracking last heat decider. Not bad at all.

You have no idea how Hurry was given that average. None of us have, because its never been explained (nor will it be). Last season, three riders were assessed at 3.5 due to taking time out of the sport. That had nothing to do with their previous average at all, it was simply an assessed figure. This season, when Isle of Wight wanted a rider using that rule it was dropped. What we have is the usual make it up as you go along, face fitting, prejudiced and inconsistent decision making made by faceless and unnamed individuals who take no responsibility whatsoever for their actions.

I think its the right decision, and that's without any underhand tactics that may (or may not) have taken place. There is a case to be made either way (elsewhere someone has said that we should stand in Redcar's shoes, but we should also stand in Glasgow's) so someone has to determine what the outcome will be and clearly some aren't going to be happy whatever happens. That is how it is in the majority of court litigation. Even if I disagreed with the conclusion, it still remains reasonable in the circumstances and has been fully explained. We can't ask for more than that so I give Neil Vatcher a bit of credit. It stands in contrast to some of the appalling, secret (and not so secret) decisions that have been made regarding NL averages this season. No explanation for why riders can ride and why they can't, teams (and fans) just have to accept it. When we descend to that (and, lets face it, we have had quite a lot of it) that we have every right to be angry and frustrated - much less so here. However, you make a very important point : it has to set a precedent. If it does not - and history suggests it won't - then it has no credibility whatsoever. One final point : I certainly accept that Redcar has stepped up big this season. Better team, better track, better (and that's a minor understatement) customer care. That cannot, however, have any bearing on any ruling made.

This deserves a thread on its own : https://www.facebook.com/groups/198832456794185/permalink/1668989229778493/ Absolutely brilliant yet so simple and hardly difficult. A tiny act of customer care having a huge effect and once again it is Isle Of Wight that set the standard.