villiers210

It is exactly the same in the respect that Isherwood was the best possible option available to Mildenhall to cover for injury. I dont for one minute think that the fact that he had no club was taken into consideration. He was the best available to cover, and Mildenhall signed him. There is no difference.

What was it you were saying about nobody accusing Dudley of being cheats or win at all costs?

I find some of the comments on here hysterical to be honest. As far as I am aware, the National League (while it is a development league) was, the last time I looked, still a league and as such that makes it competitive. Despite all the bleating and claims of "win at all costs Dudley" (which implies bending or altering the rules to suit themselves) as far as I am aware, Dudley have always worked within the boundaries of the rule book and what is legal. I make no apology whatsoever for supporting a club who has an "in it to win it" attitude though. Whats the point if you're not going to give it your very best shot? Dudley started off this year with exactly the same points limit as everybody else. The fact that they made some very astute signings is to their credit, but some people would like to shout "cheat". So now Adam Roynon is unfortunately injured. Would you expect us to replace him with an untested 3 pointer on the eve of the play-offs? Someone suggests we should use a guest or R/R. Why? Because that would suit your club better? Name me one team who has run into injury trouble and have not done their level best to come up with the best possible alternative. Stoke have when they signed Simon Lambert. Mildenhall haven when they recalled Baseby etc etc. Perhaps the next suggestion is to do what another club did recently and field a 5 man team? If any team (especially at the point of reaching the play-offs) have their top rider injured, please tell me what is wrong with replacing him with the best possible alternative (whose average by the way is lower than the guy he's replacing).

Joe Haines has signed for Dudley as cover for the injured Adam Roynon http://www.dudleyheathens.co/news.php?extend.643

Absolutely spot on, and that is exactly what is making the whole situation heart breaking. Dudley / Cradley have never sought one penny piece from local government, it would be a self funding proposition without my cost whatsoever to the council tax payers. Money is not an issue - getting the council to find us somewhere is.

I just don't see what peoples problem is with us using a guest from another club to cover the absence of the leagues no 1 rider.

Yet again, some of the posters on here manage to get just about everything wrong. From Birks guest appearance being questioned as illegal, through to even no updates and quoting that ther aren't any supporters capable of texting. Well on that score I should learn to read if I were you son, they were there for everyone to see. They are listed under the National league, and then If you are familiar with the alphabet, look under D for Dudley.

So there has never been trouble elsewhere where Dudley weren't involved? Oh hang on, what about when fans were pushing the barriers over at Mildenhall last year to get at the riders - and not a Dudley fan in sight? What selective memories you have!

Garrity can't have a R/R can he?

Nobody is answering my question because I don't listen? What does that mean? Trust me, I am listening, yet still i have not heard an answer. It is a plain and simple question that time and time again people like yourself have replied to, but not answered. And I strongly suspectt they won't because the truth of the matter is that it shows this whole sorry matter up for exactly what it is. As for your jibe about Tom Perry being at no 7, I have 2 points to make. Firstly, it is as a result of him doubling up for Somerset that this has happened. He is still using last years average whilst the others have been recalculated. Dudley have no option but to drop him to no 7 thanks to the stupid rules that are in place. Perhaps rather than me getting out more, you should get your facts straight. Secondly, do you for one minute think that there is anybody within the Dudley management or fan base that actually wants to see Tom at no 7? Unlike other similar situations (Stoke comes to mind) it does Dudley absolutely no favours whatsoever. Whereas Tom was.regularly beating opposing teams het leaders, whoever rides at no 3 for us now won't find it so easy. Not to mention when he is unavailable, he can only be replaced with an unattached 3 pointer. Your lack of the facts speaks volumes.

The question was posted on here in response to the vast amount of inaccuracies that people had been writing. Furthermore, giving us the contact details to get hold of the club is a complete and utter waste of time when the Mildenhall website clearly states that the meeting will start at 4.30 and no further comment will be made on the matter. Thanks for that - very helpful!!!

lol even more @ evade the question tigers!

Anither one who is unaware of all the facts, or just chooses to ignore them. And cant answer the questiom. I'm outta here. Will be glad when Sunday is out of the way, but I am sooooo looking forward to Tuesday.

where did you get THAT quote from? It quite clearly says (and I quote) that they (Mildenhall) MUST start at 3.00. Nowhere in the statement have I read the word "should".

What??? They obviously do have the power to make the call to state the meeting should start at 3 because that's exactly what they did after hearing the evidence from all concerned. As far as this being on the Dudley website, do you really think that Dudley or any club for that matter, would make such a statement if it weren't true? Could you imagine the repercussions if it was untrue? Which leads me to ask the question for one last and final time. Dudley made the objection, the BSPA made a ruling. Why was it that only after all this sorry mess had unfolded did Mildenhall see fit to announce there sta dim wasn't available till 4.30. Don't you think for one minute that if it were a legitimate reason, they would made this known at the onset?

So I take it, after 2 days of constantly asking, that nobody has the answer to my question. That's interesting. Not surprising but interesting.

http://www.dudleyheathens.co/news.php?extend.615 To be honest, and I say this with all respect, I am not surprised that you didn't understand our frustrations if you were unaware of this. Perhaps now, you can understand a little more why we are agitated. Anyway, let's hope we have a good match with some great racing, and all riders staying safe. By the way, looking forward to seeing one of my favourite GB youngsters Joe Jacobs. Top bloke!

Er, firstly they DID. decide and rule that it should start at 3.00, and secondly, that must bethe 60th non-answer I've seen to this question.

And STILL nobody can answer my earlier question.if the stadium is not available until 4.30, why do Mildenhall wait until AFTER the BSPA ruled it should start at 3.00 before they make the point? If you know the answer, please tell me, but don't bother answering with a "non-answer"

Funny how after the BSPA rule that the meeting should start at 3.00, all of a sudden there is a problem (that nobody ever mentioned previously) about the availability for 3.00. If this is a valid reason, please tell me why it hasn't been mentioned before. It would have saved a lot of hassle with complaints to the BSPA and bad feeling.

So you are saying that the report in the speedway star, the announcement on the Heathens website and the announcement on the Leicester website were ALL incorrect? Bit of a coincidence that they all jumped to the wrong conclusion don't you think?

The only mention of the time being altered was from a Dudley fan on this forum???? You obviously haven't read the speedway star. Or seen the Dudley website. Or seen the Leicester website. In fact you must have been asleep!

and still no answer to the question we keep asking.

You are doing a really fantastic job of avoiding the qustion I keep asking.

Here we go again!!! I have been to all but 3 Heathens matches this year both home and away. I am not bothered about having a rider missing from a match. But all 3 heat leaders from one team and 2 from another?????? . And stil, nobody has answered the question as to why the start time cannot be moved forward. Or is the answer just so plainly obvious?