BWitcher

MORE unfair Moxey.. all such rules as White Knight corretly says can be deemed as being unfair to the winning team. Its the misconception that some have that it is 'more' unfair that is wrong.

Point me to where I have been attacking the new stadium??

Nobody is arguing against more credible.. its when people say it is more unfair, it isn't. Wrong. With a tactical sub you were usually replacing a rider that was going to finish last.. Sometimes you'd do a double tac sub in a heat where you would be replacing two riders likely to get 5-1's. It doesn't matter how you spin it, the old tac sub rule was far more advantageous to the losing team than the current ruling. So many holes in your post, you seem to be desperately trying to link the gaps in the terraces to tactical rules. . We've also coverered the 'entertainment aspect' (which I assume you mean the standard of the racing) on numerous threads and most with any sense.. and indeed the available evidence shows there isn't much difference between the racing now to previous years. Facts are, a close meeting with poor racing will always seem better than a one sided hammering with poor racing. By the same token a close meeting with great racing will also seem a lot better than a one side hammering with great racing.

Bizarre post.. you start by asking how can the TR be 'fair', then make a long post showing it's a lot fairer than the previous system! For what it's worth, I preferred the old system.. as you say Moxey, it was great when your lesser riders beat the tac subs (the same can be said now to an extent though). I can also understand folk thinking its 'silly' that someone can score double points... these are valid points. Complaining the current system is unfair and the old one wasn't simply is NOT valid. Hmm.. Some good points in there, however there is a big correlation between the closeness of the score and the 'perceived' entertainment. A bog standard (racing wise) meeting that goes to a last heat decider will seem a better meeting than a similar one that resulted in a 20pt win. Where do you think the phrase 'Happiness is 40-38' came from?

Was it? More often than not a top rider was brought in against lesser riders.. so Heat 8 for example was turned from a race with very likely 4 fairly evenly matched riders (2nd string and reserves) to a race with a no 1 in it. Thus creating the situation you complain about. For all the talk and bluster from the usual suspects who try to justify their reasoning with it being 'unfair' and 'drives fans' away.. the FACTS remain, the old system was much more unfair AND it was in existence for a long time AND the sport had no problem with attendances for much of that time. Thus, there is no correlation between what folk think is 'fair' and attendances.

It's not a point of view. You are mathematically wrong. End of. Precisely, the old tac sub rule meant extra rides for the losing teams top riders, less riders for their weaker ones, meaning less opportunity for the winning team to build up a lead.

There is no defence, you are doing nothing but heaping further embarassment onto Belle Vue Speedway and are quite simply a disgrace to the club you perport to support. As for your ludicirous paranoid accusations regarding Poole... remind me how many bricks they bought again?

Yawn. The old tactical rule, that teams can nail you as soon as you were 6 up.. and then again.. and sometimes again.. There is no validity in your argument at all, as the 'old' rule was more 'unfair' than it is now.

Only way to describe some of the deluded Belle Vue posters on here. Aces51 and I have had our disagreements, but he has made the perfect post regarding this situation. It's a shame a couple of Belle Vue fans can't do the same.

Why bar Ipswich? Who would have beaten Woffinden at Ipswich? And yes, you've mentioned the BSPA on a number of threads. As regards the 'idea' I don't see you complaining when wild cards are given out for the other GP's which use the same system.. BSI have the say and they've chosen the UK's 2nd best rider.. quite rightly so.

Add Cricket in too.

No track is ever 'neutral' in essence. They will all favor certain riders over others depending upon their preference. You could have staged the British Final on any track in the UK and the result would have been pretty much the same, especially the winner.

No wonder promoters have a conception of speedway fans lacking intelligence. How many times do people have to be told!! The wildcard for the GP is decided by BSI. It was not the BSPA's decision and had nothing to do with them.

Skyjack, the pictures played a part (not the sole reason) in bringing the events of that day to the attention of the SCB. If after investigation the Belle Vue promotion were found to be correct, then you would have an argument regarding the tweeted pictures. However they weren't. Perhaps you should focus more on the photos of the effected area that were published by Belle Vue, after all, if there was indeed no burst mains (you say chinese whispers, Belle Vue official site says different) then Belle Vue have dumped water on the track and posted a picture to try and justify there reason for postponement. Not only that but then continued the story later that day with further updates of 'riders safety' being paramount etc. It was only AFTER the SCB had sent the referee along and they realised they were caught red handed did the subsequent apology appear. As others have said, the question that needs answering is, was there a burst water pipe at all?

Why do they need confirming? There has been a hearing, the SCB has reviewed all the evidence available and Belle vue have been found guilty and punished accordingly. Yes, only in speedway. In any other sport the punishment would have been far harsher.

Skyjack, give it a rest. You are simply heaping further embarassment onto the club. The referee sent there was qualified. Your attempts to slander him are out of place and ill considered. Why not use your journalistic skills to go ask the Belle Vue promoters some hard questions.. such as was there a water pipe leak or not? Do you seriously think a 'tweet' from Zagar is evidence that he was in the country? I can go tweet now that I am relaxing on a beach in Australia, or that I'm on the moon, or sailing around the world.. means absolutely nothing.

Thanks for that attempted defence of the Belle Vue promotion. All you have done is remind us of just a few of the shambolic events that the promotion have been involved in of recent years. To suggest the infamous Good Friday meeting was 'effectively' cancelled by Wolves is ridiculous. The track was an utter disgrace. Belle Vue admitted this and sacked their track curator as a result. I hardly think they would do this if it 'wasn't their fault'. Now we are expected to believe the Belle Vue defence is that ' a relatively inexperienced' (in Elite League terms) referee looked at the track? Maybe you would care to explain us the difference between a Premier League track and an Elite League one. I wasn't aware this caused a big issue. The meeting was postponed due to an alleged water pipe/mains bursting. Which was it? Who repaired it? If it was a mains burst surely the water company would have a record of it? Have Belle Vue been able to provide any of this information? It seems highly doubtful that they have for the SCB to reach the conclusion they have. The proposed 'National Stadium' should have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ruling made by the SCB. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the SCB can be bribed. The journalist wants the SCB to make a corrupt decision. He hasn't given us any facts, just veiled accusations that everything that goes wrong at Belle Vue isn't their fault. Always the victims. If you really believe the SCB based their judgement on Chris Holders tweets then you are deluded.

You are spot on, it was Jack Hargreaves! Didn't he pop out the start and lead David Norris for 3 laps before taking a nasty tumble?

Pathetic post.

Belle Vue should have contacted Poole, explained the situation and requested a postponement. If Poole had (within their rights) refused this, then Belle Vue should have announced the situation, let the public know they are having to race with a weakened team, they requested the meeting be postponed and Poole declined. They would have come out smelling like roses and Poole bashers could have had a go at Poole. No member of the public would have been misled either as they should make it clear before people pay to go in what the situation was. Wolves have been in this circumstance before when Mikael Karlsson/Max had a flight cancelled and missed a meeting at home to Eastbourne (they had a decent team that year), we had to track Joe Haines in his place. The meeting was superb as the crowd got behind the weakened Wolves team and it created a great atmosphere. I think Wolves lost by 2 in the end, but I could be wrong.

Based on? Cook has been riding speedway barely 3 years I believe?? Nobody is improving at the rate he is.

Indeed, let's see how Drop a Cog wriggles out of this one. It will be amusing to see him try! However, more importantly, the SCB appear to have got this spot on.

It would help if the National Stadium was built first.

They just had another chance to prove themselves. They failed.

Absolute rubbish. If your post had ANY credence, tell me, why when Tai Woffinden is already in the GP's did he:- a: Bother to ride and b: Be so passionate and eager to win the meeting. Likewise Scott Nicholls, absolutely determined to win it for an 8th time, Harris equally keen and eager to win. As for the lesser lights, what difference did it make to them? They weren't going to qualify for the GP anyway. All in all, despite the huff and the bluster from the whingers, the riders were all going for it and the attendance was up.