BWitcher

We've had recorded deliveries that are supposed to be their the next day delayed. As others have said, this is the busiest time of the year and as online purchasing grows it will continue to be a problem.

Makes you resorting to petty comments even worse then doesn't it really. Tis a pity.

Most people on here are quite intelligent and understand basic maths. There are others who initially hadn't considered whether the old one was fairer previously, but when it was explained realised it was so. Then there is another very very small group, used to consist of 1, perhaps there are 2 now, who simply get in a huff. Very sad.

It's about being an adult Sidney and learning. That is what life is all about. You refuse to learn and admit where you are wrong, that is your decision. You then try and blame others. You've declared someone as self righteous for believing that 3 is less than 8. In doing so, you've declared pretty much the entire human civilisation as being self righteous. That's your decison. Next time you buy something for £12 and you give them a £20 note and you get £3 change I assume you will be happy. After all, it would be self righteous of them to give you £8 change.

Because i am right. I am cock sure that 8 is more than 3. My 2 year old niece knows that. I assume you are claiming it didn't make any difference as you were a poor team who was going to lose anyway. So you replaced your no 7 in heat 8, who was likely to score zero. In comes Lawson and wins. You have gained 3 from his win, plus the opposition has scored 2 less. Your no 2 has scored 1 less. Gain equals 4 pts. However now, Lawson could not even go in heat 8. He would have to take on better riders in a heat of his own, as well as having to be 10 behind, not 6. The maximum he could gain if he won the race is 3 pts. The opposition lose none. So your memory is irrelevant, the old rule effected matches more and on a more frequent basis. Once again that is stone cold FACT, not opinion.

No it isn't opinion. I am glad that the assertion that 8 is more than 3 makes you laugh. I am glad that the assertion that 6 is less than 10 makes you laugh. You ridicule yourself Sidney, but you do provide great entertainment.

I can highly recommend this game, lots of fun!

What exactly are you 'getting' Sidney. We are explaining something to you. You could take it on board like an adult or put your hands over your ears and refuse to accept it.. and hurl insults instead. You are in control of your own actions.

Has it ever been confirmed there was a ban? Other than through the Onesport propaganda machine?

Yes we are sure because we are right Sidney. 8 is more than 3.. perhaps you have an opinion that is isn't? You could use the first old tac subs when only 6 behind and the second one.. and the 3rd one .. now its 10 for the first.. 12 for the second.. for the third, oh wait there isn't a 3rd. So if you truly believe 8 is not more than 3.. 6 is not less than 10 or 12, that's up to you. You are wrong however.

Of course they are both unfair against the winning team WK. The current rules are the fairest we have ever had since a tactical facility was introduced though.

They would have lost even easier under the old rules.

It's not an opinion Sidney. 6 is less than 10. FACT. Not opinion. 6 is less than 12. FACT. Not opinion. 3 is more than 2. FACT. Not opinion. I have been wrong many times before, the difference is if I am wrong I admit it. You preferred the old tac sub rule, in actual fact so did I Sidney, so did many others I'm sure. However, it was not 'fairer'. Correct, also throw in you could use it when only 6 behind also (later changed to 8, but the classic rule folk pine for was 6) and potentially use it 3 times (even 4 in extreme circumstances)

Do you still have the opinion that 6 is more than 10? Or perhaps that 6 is more than 12? Or perhaps 3 is less than 2? As if you believe the old tac sub rule was fairer, you believe all the above.

I subscribed through Exactly a few weeks back, then just linked the account to the ipad app last night. Its straight forward

Interesting post from Flagrag on another thread... seems Sky are not at all happy.

Not promoters. Promoter. Matt Ford.

I'm getting the impression that someone called 'Ford' leaked this info...

The tweet has been posted above by Phil. Some folk seem to keep missing it. This appears to be the source. I presume this is an Echo reporter? He clearly states Matt Ford has informed them. It's telling that the Poole clan have gone somewhat quiet since the BSPA statement was released....

Damn the BSPA up in the high heavens judging Mr Ford from their lofty positions. Ford has jumped the gun on this one, unprofessionally so.

IF he indeed did leak it. We only have a post on here saying he did. Although the way Starman/Skidder jumped to his defence would suggest some truth in it. Is it reported in the Bournemouth Echo? A link?

That statement puts a slightly different twist on things doesn't it. Naughty boy Mr Ford (if he did leak it)

Exactly, that would be an excellent start. I'm not sure you have fully thought through your comments here.

Yes it is wrong, basic business etiquette. Not exactly a big deal in the grand scheme of things though and potentially good news about the deal... of course if they carry on presenting meetings in front of empty stadiums with zero atmosphere then its another 5 years of damage to the sport. Until they wake up and realise they need to use TV to their advantage (money aside) then it will harm them rather than help.