Vincent Blachshadow

Swindon fans might not agree here!

Is that not already happening in speedway? Has it not happened before? Peterborough 45 Birmingham 45. Peterborough 1 point, Birmingham 2 points. Remember the bonus point? We got more at your place than you got at our's so we get the extra point. And that's not just a tie-break, it can decide play-off qualification or even the Championship. How about the old tac ride - Panthers' won the Championship utilising extra points never available to the opposition. At least both teams have the extra 30 minutes when extra-time is played.

Sorry mate, poor reply to a good post. Somebody has to progress in a cup-tie.

Pleased to see you included the few pints there. We all know that the effects of the beer will wear off quite shortly and, by the next evening the rider should be ok riding. Not so the weed, that stays in the system a considerable while longer - up to seven days, if I remember what a fellow forumite (working in the offender system on the drug side of things) told me. Maybe that's why the law is as it is, because of the length of time the stuff stays in your system and impairs reactions.

So does that make it ok for a rider to have his recreational got home after the match joint, followed by an amphetamine or two to keep him going so as he can see to his bike in readiness for the next evening's match?

According to his brief he was using speed to keep him going whilst tuning and building engines for sporting motorcycles. Not impacting on others? Being illegal DOES make it wrong. We can't pick and choose which laws each of us abides by.

So we know that something is going up now, but not necessarily what's included.

Are these builders appointed for the entire project or just for the speedway stadium part of it?

Yes, sorry, two seasons. Even so, I'd have thought that, given all the support there is in Poole for youngsters, that a second team would have proved a workable proposition, especially since the Wildcats closed down.

So much that the NL team lasted one whole (Championship-winning) season.

But it's not a 'news'paper giving information which will be old news tomorrow. It's a 'match magazine' giving current info (which, in most cases, will remain 'current' until after the next match) and a few general details on that day's visitors. As long as the magazine is reissued for the next match and the 'today's visitors' pages are updated with an insert I really can't see the problem. Maybe promoters should re-label them as match magazines, miss the opponents off of the front cover and give them a match number instead. These cost money to print and I'm surprised that speedway fans would prefer it if postponed match programmes are dumped rather than re-issued asap. I don't know programme printing costs but I'd imagine a year as bad as last year would have cost each promoter thousands. The sport can really afford that, can't it!

Whether or not it's a rip-off would depend on what's in the programme. Most are very home club orientated with their results, averages, a report from the last match or two, some blurb from promoters, team manager, a rider or two. Then some info on the opponents for that match. If it's from the previous match then the home team blurb is the same - nothing's altered, no changes in statistics, just a rain-off to report on - so if the insert provides the info on that day's opponents with the relevant race-card I can't see a problem. Again, whether or not that's acceptable is up to the individual but, not following a particular team, I don't go into one if the 'wrong' opponents feature on the front cover as long as I know why. Where I do see a problem is if it's the programme from the match originally postponed two months back re-issued with just a race-card for the new day and no other additions. Outdated statistics, missing results, missing info for the three riders signed by the opposition since the postponement. To me, that's a rip-off.

I didn't say it was acceptable, just common practice and, off hand, I would say I've had rain-off re-issues at half our tracks atm. The sport hasn't got money to throw away so I suppose I just accept it. One of the guys that accompanies me now and again always asks for his money back if such programmes are issued for the match and he's never had any problem - a lot of moaning sometimes, but not a problem. I carry several blank print-outs with me and he uses one of them instead. I believe the sport has far greater issues to sort out before the subject of programmes from rain-offs would come up for discussion.

Since this is common practise, why should 'the promotion' be ashamed in this instance?

They are listening though. Have a read of the various threads. The play-offs are great - they're in. There's no way around the guest system (especially for #1s) - you've got them. Two leagues, keep the total average low to give every team a chance - that's how it is. Spread the top riders around - sort of got it, if you forget the turbo twins. Keep artificial help-the-hammered schemes and the t/r is fairer than tac subs - bingo. Most of us are in favour of some of those but against others. There's no way everybody will agree to everything. At the end of the day the promoters are the ones risking their cash so, rightly, they should be the ones making the rules. What is needed is a way to make sure those rules apply equally to all teams, are stuck to and the same punishments handed out to transgressors, whoever they are.

I've got quite a few such programmes from a variety of tracks and they're not all recent ones. It's common practice. I suppose it depends on your point of view (and probably what you think of the promoter in question) but what's preferable, a re-issue from the previous match with an insert or the programme from the match between the same teams postponed two or three months previously? Course, the promoters could just dump the programmes from a postponed match and lump the loss but they're losing enough already.

They went before the end of the match. Maybe they found it boring or didn't take to it, maybe they felt their time would be better spent in their local pub, I don't know. What I do know is they didn't think much to that rule and told me so and left not long after. I never posted they left because of the rule but that, despite the fact the extra points gave the visiting team a chance of getting a point in heat 15 these folk weren't there to see it. Sorry if they didn't agree with some posters' opinions of that rule but there you go - not everybody does.

They did, mate, and, more importantly, do - in most tracks around the country. You can tell by the empty spaces in the stands and terraces. Course, you don't have to believe me, you can just believe all newbies keep coming back because they find the sport riveting and the rules so fair and understandable. Now, if only THAT were true!

How unexpected! If only they'd thought tac rides were a good idea.

Ah, tac rides, new fans. Reminds me of an occasion a season or two back. At a PL track for a league match, stood quite close to obvious newbies. Score after ht 7 was 27-15. Out came a rider in black and white who won the heat, home riders second and third. Our newbies had sussed the scoring system so down went the score. After a 4-2 in heat 9, they heard the score announced as 34-23. Looking puzzled, they asked me the score and I agreed at 34-23. 'We've got it at 34-20' they say. 'Ah, but you didn't double the tac riders score, you know, the one in black and white a heat or two earlier'. 'Ah, right'. said the one given the honour of filling in the programme. All was well again for another heat, a 4-2 home win. Out came a rider in black and white to finish third in a 1-5 reverse. Quick on the uptake, the newbie scribe put the score down. After the next (drawn) heat he heard the announcer give the score out as 46-29. Looking puzzled he stepped over to me and, before he could say anything, I said 'I bet you've got 46-30'. 'Yes, I have' he replied. So I told him it was 5-1 not 5-2 since the t/r didn't beat an opponent. 'What's this t/r all about then?' (or words to that effect) he asked. So I told him. Mickey Mouse was mentioned and something along the lines of 'why give them double points because they're getting hammered. They should pull their fingers out and get riding not take b****y hand-outs. They don't have stupid rules like that down the road' (meaning the local Football League team). The visiting team did pull their fingers out and two successive heat wins gave them a shout at a point coming into heat 15. The newbies were gone by then!

Yes, but in speedway, things can only get better.

But has having to listen to Showaddywaddy put you off going to any more speedway?

November? Work on him now, every match. By November he should be at the 'ignoring calls from his parent club' stage.

In many discussions on here, we keep getting told that, for most, speedway is all about four blokes racing round a track and much of the rest is incidental. So if the sport is now almost down to the bare-bones of support most will be of the 'all about four blokes' type so should still come regardless of who's out there. I don't know if leaving these highly paid riders out is the answer but we'll never know until we try. What I can see though is that, if clubs are making huge losses with these expensive to employ and maintain riders, without them clubs will probably still make losses, but they should be smaller. Cutting the amount of the loss could be the first step to cutting losses all together. That could stop some regulars giving up coming but will it get newbies? The high cost of the sport could be a deciding factor as to whether a newbie attends a meeting or not. £17 is a lot of money to come and find out you don't like it specially in today's financial state and with plenty of alternatives to spend the money on one does like.

The rule states (so we're told) that the only reason a home promoter can call a meeting off is if racing will be dangerous. That implies one of two things:- 1) That any other reason requires permission from the MC, the other promoter, or both. or 11) That the match cannot be called off at all for any other reason. This was not called off because of a dangerous track so how was it called off at all? Cook should know that so could and should have insisted the match went ahead