Halifaxtiger

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.

I think your response here and your reaction to Barry's comments says it all. Your first comment was critical (but fairly so) and you were obviously unimpressed. Barry & Martin take about 5 minutes each to come on, explain how things are, apologise and state that they hope you come back and your view has almost turned full circle. It just shows how a tiny piece of customer care can make a huge difference and is one of the reasons why I have been banging on about Isle of Wight for a year or so. Its also in stark contrast to some of the feedback I (and many others) have got from promotions across the country. That's ranged from indifference to abuse and the same people then have the gall to complain about falling gates. My experience was almost exactly the same. A dusty track deserving criticism and an almost immediate reply with an apology and a remedy. I have been back 5 times since and I have told Barry (probably several times) that it was he and Martin taking a very small amount of time to respond that was a major factor in that.

That's a real shame because he's one of the best and with Graham Hambly would have made a real dream team. I'd maintain, though, that for right or wrong you cannot savagely criticise a referee during a meeting and I am told that is precisely what happened. Absolutely bang on I call it the Mike Bennett style, because I'd say he was like that. I also think that commentating during races is annoying and pointless. Try Belle Vue. Their centre green presenter hits the depths, believe me, and its made all the more obvious because the announcer is as good as anyone. I think having both an announcer and a presenter works well - indeed, the best presentation I have ever seen was at Peterborough for the PL Fours last season and they had 4 ! A top box man in Edwin Overland, two total professional interviewers in Craig Saul and Kevin Moore and Roy Clarke playing the clown. I'd come back to Kevin Long again. A true speedway fan, a damn fine interviewer, hits the fine line between saying too much and saying too little and effortlessly and subtly funny with it.

I agree. I think its a sensible decision based upon the facts at the time. The only thing is it must stand as a precedent. I think it says a lot that neutrals out there agree with it. Its not one of the savagely biased, one-sided rulings we have come to expect. Compare it with some of the average fixing decisions in the NL and its positively enlightened. To turn the argument round, would you be happy with the original ruling if you were in Glasgow's position ?

That's harsh. A rain off with everyone at the track costs a promoter thousands so its little wonder Scunthorpe tried very hard to get the racing back on. You could argue that they did that at least partly so that paying customers wouldn't lose out and if they hadn't tried remedial work there would have been criticism for that, too. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Its a difficult call when its raining at or soon after start time when there is a possibility of getting the meeting on or back on. Sheffield delayed the other week when I was there and I really didn't have an issue with it.

Whether he can do so publicly is another matter - to be fair, he's usually pretty tame and if he did get fined the referee would be subject to a barrage of (justified) criticism. What is true is that a promoter should not be liable for the actions of a presenter and they must take that responsibility themselves. Tim Allan is one of the best in the game, but you simply can't - in his position - heavily criticise a referee during a meeting. He's grown on me. What I will say is that the presentation at the Peterborough 4's last season is the best I have ever seen, and he was part of it.

While there are limits, I am not sure that a presenter calling it how he sees it will damage the business. Quite the opposite is probably more accurate. The worst one I know for that is, ironically in view of his BSPA status, Rob Godfrey. Heard him criticise referees (albeit gently) many times and its one of the reasons why I think he's one of the best - he simply says what I - and almost certainly many others - think. It seems to me that a few referees need to grow up a bit. At Glasgow this afternoon, we had the excellent Michael Max but with him they had that dreary, mistake-ridden bloke in the box who tries to be funny when he's not. Stark contrast, and its the same at Belle Vue if the other way around - the excellent Neil Drummond with that total tool on the centre green. I still maintain the master is Kevin Long. Speedway fan through and through and funny with it.

Thing is Cook means it. In the past it was just part of the show. There's a difference - ones a character, the others a kn@b. Cook wasn't too keen on the track at Workington last Saturday either.

According to the Birmingham website, Parkinson-Blackburn is averaging 10.96in the NL. Its difficult to see what average he would need to go into the Championship. I think that it is a good idea to have the 2 point riders in that league but there has to be an understanding on the part of everyone (promoters, fans, management, the rider, his sponsors and family)that it will be a long term haul and that patience is required. Almost all of those on that average are struggling and that's more because it is a huge step up rather than not being ready. There is a benefit to having those lads in a higher league - after all, better them than a shed load of low grade foreigners.

He did. Good meeting and all wrapped up in 90 minutes with no interval. Deserved point for the Tigers, with Howarth the star of the show (just) after holding off a big challenge from Masters in heat 15. Clegg impressive, important points from Branford.