Halifaxtiger

Is this the same Lee Trigger who was talking about signing a new rider in the Plymouth Herald yesterday ? Very difficult to believe that the team manager knew nothing about Morris going out. While the manner of Morris dismissal is contemptible (although Plymouth are from the first club to treat riders that way) Kurtz is definitely a better rider and the one the thing Plymouth need now is an improved team. They simply can't carry on being beaten at home every week.

I am not sure the sun has changed from 10 years ago ! There is some force in what you are saying, though and I'd agree that start times could be changed. The UKVI clamping down on riders isn't totally new - I think it was in 1980 that Mike Fullerton (a New Zealander) of Berwick was only allowed to ride after representation from an MP and was barred totally in 1981.

You could be right. On the other hand, if he left would Stoke Speedway be the better for it ? There are many that argue that it would - far more than would argue otherwise. I have no time for those who harbour personal grudges against the current promotion and use incidents like this to beat Dave Tattum with. Their interest is not in Stoke Speedway, but in settling scores. However, there are those (Vog for instance) who are committed supporters driven away by the incompetence, arrogance and hostility of those who run the sport at Loomer Road. There are some tracks in British Speedway that deserve far higher attendances than they get simply because of the effort they put in to try to attract paying customers (Berwick & Workington come to mind, but there are others). Stoke simply does not fall into that category.

Stoke have had that before - to my knowledge, several times. That's along with ambulances not turning up and the SCB apparently getting involved due to the state of the track. Read Vog's (a passionate Stoke fan if ever there was one) excellent comments on the meeting thread. One offs happen. Repeated occurrences should not. Nor do I, Gem. I am sure we can all see the potential risk but if it wasn't dangerous 30 years ago why is it now ? Along with many other aspects of the sport, it puts the paying customers interests secondary when in fact they should be first.

I'm certainly not naming my source on a public forum. SCB responded to this point rather eloquently earlier. As he said, its a matter of trust. I have crossed swords with Bewitcher a couple of times but I have never had cause to suspect that he entirely fabricates the circumstances he states or embellishes them to any degree for malicious or spiteful ends.

I agree with your view but as far as I am aware Sheffield were fully aware of the situation all along and simply tried to buck the system. Totally their fault and what's worse they will merely reinforce any view that the UKVI hold that speedway promotions cannot be trusted at all.

To me, this is the most infuriating and indeed frightening bit. Over the course of the last year, the UKVI have landed on speedway like a ton of bricks but by most (if not all) accounts they have acted more than reasonably, forgiving past misdemeanours and wiping the slate clean for the future. Literally months into this new agreement we have promotions trying to flaunt it. Are these people stupid, ignorant or both ? From what I have heard, BB has it spot on.

I have said before that I remain unconvinced that speedway promotions do all that they can to ensure that their paying customers get value for money and I maintain that now. Fans are taken for granted, treated like stupid children and justifiable criticism is ignored or responded to with abuse. Some criticisms I regard as unreasonable, particularly around rain offs. With rare exceptions - Glasgow last Sunday is one - deciding whether to keep a meeting on or postpone it is not always easy and most fans make comment in hindsight, which is of course a wonderful thing. Promotions do not postpone matches lightly. I think we can also all accept that one off situations occur, even if they are the promotions fault. Having said all that, and taking Thursday night as an example, Redcar have been guilty of preparing appalling race surfaces in the recent past. What's worse, there's so far been no hint of an apology and, as has been said, to allow only a reduction for the next meeting is insulting. The reaction (or lack of it) to the original issue has merely made things worse. At the end of the day, its about customer care - ensuring that the people who buy your product get value for money and will want to buy it again. That is, all too often, sadly lacking and examples like the chap who went up to Workington for the first time and was treated like royalty are far too rare.

Probably including my pals from Plymouth There is a lot of nonsense talked about rain offs on this forum when no promotion calls a meeting off unless they have to. Quite simply, calling meetings off costs money. That is undoubtedly the case here but from what I can see someone has made a very poor decision that will do Glasgow speedway no good at all. Blobby has a point.

Just over 75 minutes for the NL match at Scunny on Monday

Agreed. Complete, total and utter waste of time. In fact, I don't know anyone - and that apparently includes the riders - who actually likes them. Some delays are inevitable - 2 minutes for doing two on the trot, for example. But I sincerely believe that a lot are entirely preventable - you don't have long delays for injuries at Newcastle and Plymouth because they have two paramedics and two ambulances. Costs more, but what cost having your fans standing around (in some cases for hours) on a cold night ?. Sometimes I really believe that promotions don't realise just how damaging drawn out meetings are. They are, disastrously so.

So did I................and if he was half the riders in speedway would get done. Mr Godfrey's description of what happened - which rhymes with rollox - was just about spot on.

Cracking meeting Although the Monarchs top end power always had the edge. Brilliant to see Davies hitting his stride and Lunna deserved more. Wolbert backing Cook and Masters makes Monarchs a real handful for anyone. Bizarre - and, in my opinion, wholly ridiculous - to exclude Lunna for exceeding two minutes when he was feet away from tapes. If all referees did that, the number of exclusions would be huge. I can only hope that it was a coincidence -rather than malice - that the referee awarded Branford the point in the same race, because as far as I could see Lunna beat him. Mr Godfrey perhaps shouldn't have said the things he did, but he was far from the only person who was thinking them.

It must be my ridiculous and naïve belief that the sport should be run to the rule book. You'd think I'd become accustomed to such bizarre decisions by now, wouldn't you ? You cant have a rule book and 'the best interests of the sport'. One or the other but not both. Your final paragraph is spot on. I'd like to know too.

I heard that too (actually I heard one club had been told 5.00, the other that it hadn't been decided). Given that the rule is so clear, how have they come up with that figure ?

Care to quote the SCB regulation that justifies that ? He's an NL rider. They come in on a 3.00: 8.6.1 Riders new to Premier League racing are categorised as follows: Cat 1: Riders with an “end of the previous season’s published average” in the Polish Ekstraliga or the Swedish Elitserien of above 6.00 points and a Rider subject to a Certificate of Sponsorship Cat 2: Riders with an “end of the previous season’s published average” in the Polish Ekstraliga or Swedish Elitserien of 6.00 and below plus ALL other Riders riding currently in any Professional Speedway League, Cat 3a: Riders not riding in a Professional Speedway League Cat 3b: Commonwealth or USA (to a maximum of 4 each season) Riders new to British Speedway Cat 4: Riders who have ridden in the National Development League as an Amateur 18.6.2 The Assessed MA's for new Riders to the PL racing is: Cat 1 8.00 Cat 2 7.00 Cat 3a 5.00 Cat 3b 7.00 Cat 4 3.00 What is clear is that things can't continue this way at SBA. Even the most loyal supporters (and Plymouth have some of the best) will be tested by results like this one.

I agree. It was definitely better than that if not hitting the heights of the Leicester meeting. Cook was impressive - another lap in heat 14 and he might have had a maximum. Definitely the best I have seen Nielsen ride this season and for a while before that. Being at the meeting, I didn't hear the comments on Sky but there was no way that this match should have been called off early. There was some rain but hardly anything more than light showers and with one very quick exception I didn't even see the need to take cover.

I have been critical of Buxton in the past but I thought this was a decent meeting and will come back for more. The track seemed ok to me although Ryan Blacklock described it as 'tricky' and there was some entertaining racing. The presentation, too, has improved. Finally, all credit to Graham Flint for keeping the meeting moving. 16 races in around 90 minutes is how things should be but very often are not.

I find what referees think are good tracks and what fans think are good tracks are entirely different. TWK is right - STMP used to be one of the best in the country. It went disastrously down hill when Havelock took over and although better than it was its still nothing like the first couple of seasons.

Totally contrary to the SCB rulebook would be closer.

They make it up as they go along, often breaking their own rules. Not surprisingly, I have been told that 4 PL clubs have looked at Eastbourne's Bradley Wilson-Dean. He rides in the NL (as he has patriality) and under PL rules therefore comes into the PL on a 3.00. One PL club has been told 5.00, another that it hasn't been decided yet The sooner we get independent adjudication and decision making to force the BSPA to stick to their own rule book instead of interested and prejudiced parties making arbitrary rulings that are inconsistent with printed regulations the better.

I'm with Cookster. You're going to the wrong tracks. Frequent visitor to Leicester, by any chance ?

That's the way I have always seen it - its not the riders, its the track. To illustrate the point, Peterborough have dropped down and Leicester have gone up. One's still brilliant and the other is still crap. I was faced with someone telling me that they won't go to NL speedway at Birmingham because its so much slower (10 seconds a race I was told). In actual fact, the NL track record is 4 seconds slower than the all time EL/PL one - I defy anyone to say they would notice a second a lap. |I drew the conclusion that that was just an excuse not to go to NL speedway, however entertaining it might be. In truth, the best meetings I have seen at your place have been NL ones. In my view, Stoke is one of the best shaped tracks in British Speedway. The problem is its rarely (if ever) prepared to the standard that would produce the quality of speedway that its shape would allow.

Of course its the issue - or at least part of it. The situation was created by those that organised the meeting. I repeat : is it so unreasonable that at the top level of the sport both riders and fans can expect a decent racing surface and a starting gate that works ? The very fact that this has never happened before speaks for itself. On a finaI note, I think the very last description I would give for speedway riders is 'pansies'.

As usual, Humph, I think you might well have a point. its all very well to blame the riders, but isn't it reasonable to expect that in our sports showpiece event that the standard of preparation and organisation would be correspondingly high ? Don't paying spectators have a right to believe that the money they have paid out will be well spent, given the level of the meeting ? It could well be that faced with starting on the green light and also having to ride on a dreadful track was a straw too far for those competing. Who knows, there might have been other issues. I should say I haven't seen any of the meeting at all. I was elsewhere last night and watched an appalling crash in which I suspect (but hope otherwise) that a rider was seriously injured. I can't help but think that those who blame the riders would be the first to start pointing fingers at the organisers had there been a similar accident. Maybe I am affected by what I saw yesterday but rider safety is paramount. They risk their necks enough on well prepared tracks without having to do so on those that are anything but. Simply saying 'I have seen worse' is, to me, pretty cheap and offers an excuse to those who are responsible for this shambles when, in fact, there is none.