BWitcher

The reserves back then weren't quality at all.

Did he mention a time? He said a stopped clock.

If he has stayed active and been on a bike regularly I think he will be fine. Sam Ermolenko stayed fairly active and in a few meetings here and there, years after retirement, showed he was still competitive, mixing it with Lindgren and beating Darcy Ward in one race. He was much older, far more battered through injuries etc than Crump. As said, as long as he gets some decent equipment together I think he'll go well enough to maintain his average at least.

Good, glad you are offended. It's offensive you should use the name of Danny Ayres for such a selfish post.

Don't talk such absolute BS. Are you suggesting people are incapable of doing two things? A very sad post from a Hancock hater. His retirement had absolutely zero impact on any celebration of Danny Ayres life or any respects paid to him. And no, I'm far from a Hancock fan boy given he is, was and always will be a Spoon

Steve Rees states he'd prefer shale in the article.

Try reading the post again.

Who isn't behind it? For what it's worth I still think they'll reach the playoffs too.

It's not a question of what if's.. it's a case of building the strongest side you can within the limits, the stronger you are, the more chance of dealing with the 'what ifs' that will crop up. With a side built to the limit you can cope with a 'What if' going wrong, if a few of the other 'What ifs go right'. With one built two pts short, it only needs a 'what if' going wrong and you're in trouble already.

Forget averages when building a side to a limit dictated by averages? What is wrong with it is that it could have been 2pts stronger. Or if you want to forget averages.. it could have been a stronger team, significantly so. You don't have to be an expert, you don't have to even have knowledge of speedway to understand. Its very simple maths. It's not an opinion either, so there is no case of saying 'I don't agree'. It is a factual situation. Next you'll be telling us it doesn't matter if you lose a match by 2pts.. it's the same as winning.

I've seen some ridiculous comments on here.. but this one is up there.

Wow, that's shocking. RIP

Which again shows what a ridiculous decision it was. They had the opportunity to track a team that would dominate.. and bring in the crowds as a result.

Don't go ruining the 'excuse'!

I already have. Are you seriously claiming Man Utd is the ONLY club who have sellout crowds every match? I haven't been rude. Simply corrected you. If you want to act the fool and continue to perpetuate your made up nonsense, go ahead.

And I've told you that Wolves, Norwich, West Ham, Man Utd, Liverpool, Brighton, Leicester, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Man City, Tottenham and Everton have all sold out for every home match. Crystal Palace have sold out for most of theirs, Watford for most of theirs. The other teams have all sold out for many of their games. So just taking the 14 that sell out every game, thats approx 14 x 8.. gives you 112 matches.. you've got quite a few fingers there. Your statement was utterly wrong, accept it and move on.

100%!

He was a 4.00 average. Never ever going to be a 6.00. The bigger picture was very simple. The promotion tried to make it look like we were going to sign a number one in an effort to sell a few more season tickets. There was never ever any possibility of Lindgren, Woffinden or Hancock coming, but following the signing of Pedersen they needed to make it look like they'd tried. It then came down to cost, the cheapest possible option with an eye for the 'future'. You can always make signings for the future, indeed the promotion have done that multiple times over the past 30 years or so... however they have also NEVER started the season over 2pts below the points limit. That is utterly, utterly inane and there isn't ONE plausible argument that can defend it.

Of course there was never any doubt over his average being 4.00. The 6.00 nonsense trotted out at the talk in was just to keep the gullibles happy and make them think there was a sensible reason behind it.

Bit harsh. TNT suffered a stroke earlier this year and was quite ill for some time. He is better now but as anyone who has either experienced or knows someone who has suffered a stroke, it's effects live on. We didn't always agree (then again we often did) but he is a genuinely nice person to know and a long term keen speedway fan.

You can't be, you've told us it should be in the Championship?

All you had to do was clarify you meant 'some' riders.. debate over. You're right then. But that would mean admitting you made a mistake in your opening post.....

Yes Steve, we know you said "Riders generally do improve when they move away from Poole" Definition of generally "in most cases; usually." You then go on to admit you don't actually know. So what can be established is... 1: You don't understand the English language. 2: You don't even know if what you have been banging on about is actually correct.

You could compile a list for almost any track I suspect Sid.. both positive and negative. Riders joining at different stages of their career, what happened in their previous year, whether they like the track or not.. lots of variables. All we know is Poole have been adept, through one means or another, of signing riders who increase their averages... which is why they have been so successful.

Is someone forcing you to read?