Halifaxtiger

I heard that too and not just at Plymouth. What would be interesting is how he deals with a rider who behaves exactly the same way.

It might be a personal point of view but from what I heard (and saw) at SBA you are far from the only person who has it. Indeed, I'd say that is more or less accepted. I think whether Barker is retained may swing on the way he rides. At the end of the day, he is still one of the top riders in the PL and with Benko in on a 3.00 average I think he can be fitted in without damaging the balance of the side too much. If he goes back to the rider from the first couple of seasons I doubt there are many that wouldn't want him in the team.

I have to say my memories of Warwick are him bumping on to the centre green at Smallbrook after a couple of laps when he had missed the start.

Not often I do this but: Barker 8.91 Franc 5.67 Newman 6.51 Simota 6.1 Worrall 7.32 Benko 3 Starke 4.79 42.3

No chance of Jensen.

As I say, I don't care what they say. Its what and I my fellow supporters think that counts and I'd say Scunny is set up to entertain spectators (which they all should be) not pander to riders. In my experience, what riders want and what spectators want are often two entirely different things and as I am paying and they get paid I'd say its my call. I was there too and I'd agree with that The Scunny/Ipswich play off match was one of the best I saw anywhere last season. Rob Godfrey not only has the best racing track in the country, he always tries to run meetings without delays (no intervals at Scunny) and I think he's one of best presenters in the business. To answer your question, I don't know. EWR can be inhospitable at times but I very much hope that the switch to Friday nights only will see things improve. I went to Scunny more than any other track last season and I can only see that increasing in 2015.

Newman I think everyone would want. Simota was the most popular rider at SBA last season. Those two are fine. I think you could get away with two of the others but not three.

The PL final was a classic example of just why tactical changes are very good for speedway. What's more important is that it is anything but the first or last time that that will happen. Those who wish to rid the sport of tactical rides simply because their team has been on the receiving end of one - and I suspect that's a fair proportion- should be ignored completely. Selfishness - whether from fans or promotions - is a blight on British speedway and one of the reasons why the sport is on its knees. Any decisions regarding rulings should be made on what is best for speedway as a whole, not just because it does or doesn't suit a particular club. Then that's a real shame. I'll miss our attempts to wind Tsunami up and your reminiscences of Sunderland.

As EC has inferred, probably gating tarts frightened of a bit of loose shale. Personally, I don't care what riders think as long as the surface isn't dangerous. I can remember one describing a truly appalling Leicester track as 'mint'. Surely what counts is what fans think (they are after all the paying customers, not the paid employees) and as far as I concerned Scunthorpe is the best racing track in the country.

I think he's nailed on. .

I usually park on the road outside the stadium. At £14 for parking, programme and entry Workington is one of the cheapest of them all (and that includes NL tracks). Giving that the racing is usually pretty decent, its definitely one of the best value places to watch speedway anywhere.

Cradley built their team to the same points limit that applied to the rest of the clubs in the NL. In doing so, they simply used the financial muscle their attendances gave them to put together the strongest line up they could. That's precisely what any other stand alone club in any of the leagues would do. It is complete nonsense to suggest that a team should be barred from competing simply because their team was better than anyone else's.

You have to be joking. Scunthorpe's average score per match was 27. The next lowest in the NL was Buxton on 37. Over 16 matches, and accepting that the riders are paid £10 per point, that's a cost of £1600 to the rest of the league (or £500 per team). I believed at that time and still believe that the Stags were a financial burden to the rest of the league,. This was evidenced by the number of double header meetings that were arranged when they were in town (undoubtedly due to the disastrous effect that their line up would have on attendances) and I am aware that at least two promoters were very unhappy at how much they had to pay their riders following visits to or from the Stags. The fact there is a lot of speculation that there will be a minimum points limit in the NL this season is a direct result of Scunthorpe's line up last season. I would agree that teams could and indeed should have used a No8 rather than rider replacement against the Stags and using any guest (never mind a 40 year old) was hard to understand. But had that been the case, that would merely have reduced a by small amount costs involved and would certainly not in any way have led to accusations of a financial burden being found to be unreasonable.

Picking a bloke up in bar and going back to his hotel room with him is likely to be seen as consensual sex - as they say in the Telegraph, you're not going back there to play Scarbble. If that blokes mate (or mates) turn up afterwards for the same treatment, that could easily be non consensual. That's what happened here. I certainly don't think for one second that Charlie Webster has done this to court publicity. As someone who has apparently been assaulted herself, it is entirely reasonable that she wants nothing to do with a club that is employing a convicted rapist. The difficulty for her is that this case is subject to review and Evans conviction could be quashed.

I only know TWK who won't go because of the TR rule, and with respect to him (because I have a lot of time for him) we'll see if that's the case come March.I just can't grasp why it affects someone's enjoyment of speedway to the extent that they will not attend. The rule is there to ensure that meetings are closer and therefore more entertaining. The scoring system has added to that, but in many ways it merely enhances the case for tactical changes. If it was just about 2 points only, then the chances of using it are less if a team is 10 or 12 points behind going into heat 12 as the meeting has completely gone. I am genuinely surprised that it is stated here that 'a tactical rule has indeed been around in speedway for a while with the express purpose of allowing close scores. One rule allows a team to take advantage of this and the other doesn't'. I would have thought that the PL Grand Final this season, when a tactical ride turned a meeting on its head completely, would be more than adequate evidence of that. Many point to the 2006 Peterborough-Reading EL grand final as being one of the best ever, and that too was radically affected by a TR. Its absolutely true to suggest that it is only in a minority of meetings that a TR has significant effect, but its existence allows at least some meetings to be enhanced. Take it away, and they would have been dead. I think Vince (as usual) is right. He hates the rule, but accepts that the number of people affected is minimal. The fact that tactical changes have been in existence for 50 years is of itself evidence that speedway needs it - or at least, that it is desirable. I think you are right when you say that many would be pleased if TR's were scrapped, but I reiterate that I wonder whether they would be saying the same thing 2 or 3 seasons from now. I do know of one top EL rider who is on a guarantee but he's the only one. Word I got was that Ward & Holder, for example, were both paid per point (albeit with sponsorship, flights etc thrown in). I'd say riders on large guarantees are very rare exceptions, and its more likely that it is those at the bottom end who have some sort of fixed amount agreed before hand. Whenever I get into a discussion about riders wages, the amount per point comes up (albeit that they may get other funding as above). From that, I would say that the overwhelming number of those competing in the three leagues are paid that way. If that's the case, then my position regarding the cost of reverting to the TS is fully valid.

Malcolm corrected me in a later post: 'It doesn't have to be close to the start of the season but it is essential that it is related to the number of teams in the League and the more there are at this level the lower the points limit must be so that the best riders are shared around between the teams as far as is possible. Therefore it cannot be formulated prior to the commitment of Clubs to compete at National league level for the 2015 season'. He's right. All he is saying is how he sees the points limit should be set and he did so in response to an earlier post. I have yet to see anyone disagree with him. What's wrong with that ? He's right not to respond to some of the posts on the Stoke thread when they are made by people whose principle interest is not in the good of Stoke Speedway but in merely slagging off the current promotion, and who are very selective about when they do it.

With regard to your first paragraph, I have certainly seen, read and heard people who have said that they either do not go themselves or know of others who do not attend simply because of the TR rule. That maybe because they hate it so much they have made such stories up, but they exist. I think the only way to look at an issue is to be analytical. Its all very well to dismiss something as Mickey Mouse or less than credible without giving any reasons for that, but surely the only way to judge whether something is necessary or correct is to actually look at why it is both in existence and in force ? Part of the problem here is that those who dismiss TR do so because they simply don't like it without actually looking in any depth at why speedway has it. As to the question of substitutes, I'd say the TS rule was so different to that applied by other sports it is difficult to actually compare the two. In no sport that I know of does the substituted player stay on the field, for a start. Moreover, it must be extremely rare that a substitution could result in one player being three (or more) times better than another being brought on. The only equivalent I can think of is in cricket, where a tail ender would be replaced by an opening batsman. A cricket fan would doubtless regard that as absurd. I have no real preference for TR over TS, but I do recognise that one makes more difference than the other (which is what most fans object to) and that one would cost speedway tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of pounds more than the other. I do agree that perception is most important, but to allow that to be the be all and end all without actually looking at the reality of the situation would be disastrous. While I condemn promotions for treating fans as ignorant and stupid, you only have to read the pages of this forum for a few minutes to realise that some fans perceptions are beyond belief. At this stage, I have no doubt that if speedway did away with any tactical rule there would be far more who would be happy than unhappy. Whether that would be the case in 2 or 3 seasons time is entirely a different matter. I certainly don't agree that there is no skill in using a tactical ride and I could argue that there's more ability needed for that than just changing a rider in heat 8,which was the most common use for a TS. I think you'd find that team managers would also object to a statement that using a TR requires 'virtually no tactical thought' and you only have to read the pages of this forum to see the criticism meted out by fans who (on occasion, rightly) thought that a mistake had been made in its use. What those who argue for TS overlook is the cost. To my knowledge there are few (if any) riders who get paid double money for double points rides, so it costs nothing. If your two top riders earn twice as much per point as reserves and second strings, a double change in heat 8 could cost in the region of £450 for just one race. There are 21 tracks in the EL and PL, so one change of that nature (and there could of course be more) per meeting would cost almost £10,000 pw or around £250k per season. My figures are rough, but that's an awful lot of money that speedway doesn't have.

Why is it 'Mickey Mouse' ? A lot of people say that without actually giving defining reasons. I could argue that it is there - and has been in one form or another for 50 years or so - for the very specific purpose of keeping the scores closer and hence attempting to ensure that meetings are kept alive and made more exciting. On many occasions, its achieved precisely that when the alternative would have been a one sided contest which would have had fans streaming for the exits about heat 12. Its unique to speedway simply because of the vast difference in tracks sizes and surfaces. As I have said before, if Chelsea's pitch was three times as big as Arsenal's, had goals that were triangular and grass two foot long there would be something similar in football. As I have also said before, if we are talking Mickey Mouse how about having a rule in speedway where certain riders are only allowed on certain parts of the track and that is dependent upon the position of the other teams riders. Stupid ? Its called offside. My point is not to denigrate football, but to point out that any comparison is so ridiculous as to be invalid. There is a sound reason based upon logic why tactical changes and double points apply to speedway. I won't say its unfair - it applies to all clubs in most meetings - but of course I can see that it is contrived to keep scores close. The point is there are grounds for that. It only damages the sports credibility if a comparison is made to other sports without regard of the unique circumstances of speedway and any consideration of whether its application is both necessary and correct should be made on that basis alone. Just because no-one else has it doesn't mean its wrong. But my real point is here is that I do not see how one rule can have such consequences that people will walk away. Does it ruin the sheer enjoyment of watching four blokes on bikes without brakes so much when in actual fact it doesn't affect that at all (and if it does, it merely makes a race more exciting) ? My suspicion is that people who rail against it have seen their team lose as a result of its use, or alternatively have come in from another sport and can't - or won't - accept why speedway has it.

That's certainly a great deal more likely than a texter or updater getting free entry. Texters are often extremely honest in their opinions and that doesn't always go down well. Indeed, I know of one texter who was asked to make his texts more than 'FTG' even if that wasn't the case. As an occasional texter myself (and without in anyway understating the work of any updater or texter) there's no doubt that the hub of the system is Sue herself. I am sure we are all aware of the fact that she spends considerable amounts of time chasing up texters or updaters and indeed has on a number of occasions found herself in trouble because of her ownership of the updates site. Yet, in all my dealings with her, she has always remained both unfailingly cheerful and genuinely grateful when I step in to text. She is, in no uncertain terms, a top lady

I must admit I have never understood why the implementation of this rule drove (and apparently still drives) people away. As SCB has convincingly shown on many occasions, the tactical substitiute rule (which had been in force for 40 years) had more effect on scores. The skill in using it is still there and it saved the sport tens of thousands of pounds in wages. What's wrong with that ?

Don't disagree with any of that, Mike. While it is his popularity that will get him a place rather than his potential I think there is a place for that.

I'll be astonished if he isn't back for next season. Probably Plymouth's most popular rider last season, and that includes Newman.

I agree. On one of my visits to Lakeside last season he was simply brilliant, easily the best I have ever seen him ride. On the others, he put in 100% in every race. I think its true to say that Bridger is occasionally his own worst enemy, but he is both talented and willing to put it in on the track. We can't afford to lose riders like that.

They should listen to every speedway fan. Too often, I get the impression that they don't.

I'm with you and Trees and I think many others would be too. Based upon experience this season, there are a few that hit all of them :Wolverhampton, Redcar, Mildenhall, Lakeside. Plymouth would but its toilets are something out of a Hammer Horror film. I am surprised you can have Coventry and good track in the same post