Vincent Blachshadow

Riders have been missing out because of a fraction of a point for years, at most teams, anyway.

I'd say Peterborough Panthers still have the assets, which is why Ms Mahoney came aboard as co-promoter. Certainly, some EL promoters were rubbing their hands at the prospect of freebie riders when Rick stood down although that may not have been the case anyway since we don't know the terms of the deal Mick Horton has. But on hearing an existing co-promoter was staying on those hands stopped rubbing.

I remember it being posted on here that doubling-up riders didn't need to be contracted to the club they were doubling-up with (I believe it was in the Kildemand to Poole, or not - thread). That being the case, priority should lie with the team they do actually have a contract with which would be the PL team.

He would have to be wiped out by a Lakeside rider first though. If that happens then fair enough. As somebody posted earlier - don't wipe the opposing riders out. That's what refs are for. They do occasionally get it wrong (but, funnily enough, it's only ever one team that complains) and somebody has to make the decisions.

Yes, I accept that. I queried this and, once again, was told in no uncertain terms that reserves won't meet #1s at all. I did ask where I/we could see this but was informed it was a work in progress and won't happen. http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=75437&page=13 Starts at post 191, but post 208 tells us in no uncertain terms it won't happen.

We have been 'reliably' informed on here that this will not happen, that no way will a reserve face a #1.

First noticed it here Posted on the Panthers' thread. I then posted this And this was the answer

Since we've been assured reserves will not ride against heat leaders, I'm more interested in knowing how injured (during the meeting) heat leaders will be replaced and the changes to the R/R rule for covering 3rd, 4th and 5th averaged riders..

That may be the case. I'm asking for a logical reason why a rider can gain free entry at a track he is not riding at and does not ride for and why TWK thinks it's right for ex-riders to have that privilege too?

Why? Are ex-professional footballers allowed free entry into any ground they wish to go to? Ex-riders of the particular club may have a case, but not ALL riders and ex-riders.

Of course they would. If signing for an EL team meant they couldn't ride in the PL they'd have to ride EL only and get by on three or four points a match. How many EL riders are in their formative years in the sport? The reason they sign EL at the outset is because they will be loaned out to PL clubs until they become good enough to step up. If that is taken away from them they'd sign at the lower level and wait for an EL team to sign them. If none does, they will still make a living as PL riders. Where will the rider signing EL but not good enough for the top level ride? EL teams would have to buy these riders once they become good enough to ride at the top level ONLY and even then they may decide to stay at PL level - less money per point but more than likely more points scored.Remember, this is only if they can't ride in both leagues.

No it wouldn't. If the riders could ride only EL or PL most riders coming into the sport would sign for PL clubs.

Not quite the same. Peterborough were allowing Puk to leave but, since it was the rider's third year at the same club were asking for a full transfer as is their prerogative as per the regs.

It was just after that he decided Peterborough wasn't for him wasn't it? Just before his 12th meeting. Came back with Poole a couple of years later though, didn't he?

You mentioned history, I just answered the post.

Now there's a thing - I've been led to believe you're the one with history.

Is that your way of saying there isn't one? Unlike you, I can be arsed. I've looked at the SCB page and they're still running on 2013 rules. The BSPA site tells us nothing. The only reference I can see mentions they'll be protected in 'programmed rides' but doesn't mention injuries higher up the order or R/R. So, is there anywhere telling us about these alternatives or is it still merely a work in progress?

Link please

We were reliably informed by Patchett and Tsunami on here two or three years ago that double-uppers don't need a contract to ride for a club.

OK, so it's been said that reserves won't ride against the top liners. Has it been said R/R and replacing injured riders rules have changed (which they must have done to stop #6 and #7 riders facing #1s). If so, apologies, but I haven't found it yet and I'd be grateful for a link please.

Having been away some time minus a lap-top and not bothering with internet cafes, I haven't read every thread on this forum so, instead of shouting reserves won't ride against the top guys how about saying 'this won't happen because this IS happening' rather then 'it won't happen because this ISN'T happening'. Reserves have taken the rides of injured riders in the past so presumably this is no longer the case and an alternative rule has come in to cover R/R for the third fourth and fifth average riders.

A quick look at the riders so far signed tells me there are as many, if not more, Panthers' riders in next year's EL as some of the top tier teams have got so it could be argued Panthers do indeed belong in this section too. Ps I'd put a smiley after that full-stop if only I could get the darn things to work on this pc.

Quite. They'll race each other, something like heat 2, heat 8 and heat 12 with races in other heats when necessary. Sort of Elite 'development' heats but with the points counting towards an Elite League match. They'll get extra rides, of course, when needed in usual reserve fashion then we'll get the farce you talk about - Darcy Ward v Josh Bates. Course, the occasions of an EL heat leader v NL rider could be reduced if they adopt the sensible move of replacing a rider injured in an incident for which an opponent is discluded by another top-five rider as per R/R.

Some time in the future, after several ambition-lacking years, somebody might come along offering riders free or on the cheap, a bigger cut of sponsorship money and indemnity against losses for two or three years just after the management has said that PL is the way to go and entering the PL KO Cup for the following season. You never know.

That's certainly the case when a team packs up when owing money left right and centre but Peterborough did not. They owe nothing and, in all probability, they're owed money from last season (and, knowing how the sport is run, I reckon a penny or two from before that)so to suggest Mr Frost loses everything he's owed because he decided to not run can't be right. Ex promoters have held assets in the past and, whereas it's likely Mr Frost has no say where 'his' riders ride I'd think he gets something for the loan of 'his' assets at least - certainly the ones he paid out for.