G the Bee

He's not riding. Shoulder op this Weds.

Tell me, what was honorable or dignified about the Brummies' management's conduct over Ben Barker? If you think agreeing to buy Barker and then turning around a month before the end of the season and saying you are not going to bother is being honorable then you have a different definition of the word to mine! January 2013: "I am absolutely delighted to announce that Ben Barker is, with immediate effect, an asset of this club and it goes without saying that he will be riding for Birmingham this coming season and for many more, I hope," said Brummies co-owner Alan Phillips. August 2013: "The directors of Birmingham Speedway have today reluctantly decided, after careful consideration, not to pursue the full transfer of Ben Barker from Coventry in the immediate future. This will be reviewed at a later date.” (Speedwaygp.com). "It's very disappointing that Birmingham have been unable to fulfill their financial obligations regarding the Ben Barker transfer and Ben therefore reverts back to being a Coventry asset with immediate effect." - Mick Horton. Your attempts at portraying Brummies as having some sort of moral high ground are laughable.

I tend to find it's only those that lose that use that reasoning!

Well, being as he has posted enough times on this thread, perhaps Neil Watson can reply to these concerns. So Neil: Why the disparity between the teams? Don't you think the Bees fans deserved more than turning up at Brandon expecting to be given a good hiding yet again? Even using the current riders it's not hard to sort out. Leicester should use James Sargeant (who rode for them up until a few months ago) and Bees should use Hansen. This gives Bees an average of 40.73 and Leicester an average of 39.69. Pretty close. If the idea is for Bees to track a team based around the supposed 2014 points limit, then Leicester should also build to the same rules. They should simply replace Kasprzak, K. Bjerre or Andersen with an EL 3 pointer. That would make the teams roughly equal. Like Robbobee, I was really looking forward to Sunday but, to be honest, I probably will not bother going now. Once you take into account the fact that Barker will have his eye on his play-off final the next day (and don't even get me started on his inclusion) and the fact that Tungate is, I suspect, using the meeting to gauge his fitness for the same meeting, makes the Bees line up a truly sorry state of affairs.

Looking at the amount of posts on this thread, perhaps this is an indication of the interest in this meeting. However, all I can say, in regards to the disparity between the teams, is that it is a total and utter joke. The Bees team averages, using current EL averages totals 37.9 and that is being generous by allocating James Sargeant a 3 point average when he is currently on an assessed 3 point average in the Premier League! In reality, James Sargeant's average is 1.8 (using PL to EL conversion) and that is generous! In real-time Elite League averages, the Leicester team averages a whopping 42.52. This is calculated by using EL averages for Lasse Bjerre and an EL conversion for the averages of Kevin Doolan and Jan Graveson. I have also used Kenneth Hansen's last EL average. How on earth did the Cov management allow Leicester to track Bjerre, Andersen and Kasprzak? All three riders have higher averages than our number 1! I suppose the thought is that KK riding against Bees might put a few bums on seats but, to me, a Bees fan who has watched him underachieve all season, it just rubs our noses in it a bit more. At least if you are going to put two select teams together, make them equal! I can't see this meeting being anything other than another twist of the knife to us Bees fans who have watched their side struggle all season. What a joke!

Yes... Me. I just can't bring myself to cheer for the Brummies. I just can"t see past the whole Ben Barker affair over the winter plus the additional twist to the tale in August.

Then, of course, there was the changing of the rules regarding assessed averages for foreign riders. To ensure that Bees could not have tracked Shamek on an average of 4 (I think that was the figure it was previously). As it stands, I felt that the rules regarding assessed averages and PL to EL conversions had needed looking into for some time. But it was oh so convenient to look into all of these rules in the year when certain clubs did not stand to benefit from them and one team, run by an owner whose face did not fit, did. We all know that Coventry had assembled a team which would have made them dead-cert favourites to retain their EL title in 2011. Therefore it was pretty much in all the other clubs interests to weaken the Bees over the winter so that's what happened. Bees and Peterborough stood alone. The annoying thing is that this was the third time, following a Bees team winning the league, major changes were made to the points limit so it's hardly surprising people sensed a conspiracy. Now, three years on, and irrespective of whether people believe Coventry and Peterborough were right or wrong for making the stand they did, a few things to me are clear: Speedway is still crying out to be run by an independent body with no vested interests The sport is in a bigger mess now than it has ever been Coventry, as a club, have never really recovered from those events in the winter of 2010/2011. I wonder if, with the benefit of hindsight, whether certain promotions now wish they had stood alongside Bees and Panthers during the winter of discontent.

And only, of course, after Wolves had benefited from the rule with Tai Woffinden and Poole had benefited from the rule with Chris Holder and Darcy Ward in the seasons leading up to it.

Oh... A conspiracy theory. Still, the season is nearly over and they, at least, provide a talking point.

And why was this done? Any idea?

Disgraceful set of affairs. With Torun using RR for Holder there was always the possibility one of their riders might have been injured whilst fulfilling some of their other riding commitments. Especially with a GP the night before! I can't believe that a contingency plan was not in place. As Dave Rowe spoke about on SpeedwayTV, they had squad riders, so why did they not have one of these riders (Sullivan, Kennett etc) on stand by? It appears that Torun will now have the book thrown at them and quite rightly too. Nevertheless, it's such a shame because it will be the Torun fans that suffer.

Come on Speedway TV lets at least have a commentary of events. I'm just watching a screen with no sound.

But it was your argument! You were the one that talked about a climax to a meeting. My point was that surely the climax should come at the end! I don't understand the point you are making in your second paragraph. Why would Starke even consider helping his team mate out if they had both qualified for a grand final? Surely Starke would want to win it himself if he was in it! My point was, had the meeting been run under the GP type system, Starke would not have considered helping his team mate out in that heat 15 as he would have been totally focused on getting enough points himself to get into the semis. As he was on 3 points after 3 rides a couple of decent rides in his 4th and 5th could well have seen him through. In the same vein, Blackbird after 3 rides was sitting pretty for the semis anyway, so would not have needed Starke's assistance in the first place!

Sorry, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but are living in the past. You talk about a climax to a meeting. Surely there can be no better climax to a meeting than keeping the meeting undecided until the final heat! The one flaw in your comment above about Friday at Brandon is that you state the climax to the meeting would have happened in heat 19! With a heat to go! That makes no sense at all. Both riders from heat 19 also appeared in the final anyway, so I struggle to see the point you are making. For all your talk about the Boxall heat last night, that action could have been in heat 17 if the draw had panned out differently. Then you would have potentially had to have sat through 3 more meaningless heats. I don't want to see a meeting decided three heats before the end. You are also overlooking the points I made earlier about possibilities for gamesmanship the 20 heat formula brings up. Opportunities for this are drastically reduced in the 20 heat format followed by semis and a final. In regards to the U19s, the fact is, despite his maximum, Ashley Morris was not the best rider on display on Friday at Brandon. He made some awful gates tbf and always looked like he was going to be up against it if he came to the tapes against the top 4 in the meeting. In the final, Nielsen went off the outside, was the only rider all night to put his back wheel in the dirt whilst the others played it safe and won the final in a new track record! Job done. I'm sorry but the GPs are a far better spectacle than any of the old world finals were. One of the reasons for that is because of the race format. Each heat means something. You are either watching riders fight for maximum points at the top of the leaderboard or fight to get into the semis. Then it starts all over again. Great stuff.

I said exactly the same thing after the last Bees meeting. "Nicholls should retire" were the exact words I used. He can still pull out the odd great ride but when I compare him to the rider that rode for us between 2005 and 2007, it is sad to see how he has declined. It's inevitable though. Age catches up with us all. That's not to say I don't think Nicholls has anything to offer. Far from it. In a weakened league especially, he has a good few years left in him. My comments were based on not wanting to see him go into some sad decline like, for example, Havelock or Screen. Gradually losing competitiveness in the top league (this is already happening) and the inevitable drop down to the Premier League in a few season's time before gradually declining there too. It was sad (but inevitable) to hear the collective groans of dismay when Bees signed Screen. The reality of what he had become totally overshadowed the memories of the great rider he once was. I would hate this to happen to Nicholls too. Should he retire... Yes. In an ideal world. Will he retire... I can't see it. After all, it's his livelihood.

You are right of course. The Sjosten incident is a case in point. In his autobiography Mauger states that he was simply playing it safe, finishing behind a rider he was 'a bit wary' of. However, he does acknowledge the disgruntled Coventry followers. Perhaps he heard my dad! What I was trying to say in my post was the system of qualifiers, a semi and a final limits opportunities for gamesmanship or, just as importantly, giving the impression of gamesmanship. I have edited my previous post to reflect Ivan's views.

When people mention that it has happened in meetings far more important than the NLRC they are probably referring to the 1969 World Final. It is a running joke in our house that my dad practically cleared a section of Wembley with his vocal blast at Ivan Mauger after he finished behind his Belle Vue team mate Soren Sjosten in heat 20. Mauger had gone unbeaten to this point and was already world champion. Sjosten's win enabled him to finish on 11, securing him a run-off against Barry Briggs for second (which he lost so ultimately finished third on the night). Had Mauger beaten Sjosten, Sjosten would have gone into a run off with Nigel Boocock for third. Many, including my dad, were convinced that Ivan was helping his Belle Vue team mate out. Ivan, in his autobiography states he was wary of Sjosten and was simply staying out of his way as he had no need to beat him. The fact is, this is precisely why semis and a final is by far the best way to decide a meeting. The 20 heat qualifying event prior to semis (be that one semi or two) and a final limits the opportunities for a rider to help anyone out, whether deliberate or inadvertantly. No matter what his original motivation was, Mauger would have been unable to influence Sjosten finishing on the rostrum in 1969 and Starke would have been unwilling to move over last night to let Blackbird through as he would still have been looking for a top 6 or 8 finish himself. Anyone who believes that the flawed and anachronistic 20 heat format was/is the best way to decide a meeting is, in my opinion, letting misplaced nostalgia cloud their judgement.

I actually don't agree with you, although I would concede that you probably have more experience of watching riders at this level than I. The 2012 winner (who had looked steady, if not spectacular all night) regaining his title was hardly a shock result. Nielsen was always capable of beating Morris and Ellis. Both the final, and the heat 19 meet between Morris and Ellis, were pretty routine affairs. But isn't that often the way in speedway?

It was a poor meeting. Absolutely no fault of the Coventry management though. The track was in excellent condition and heats were pushed through at a good pace whenever possible. However, the many re-runs obviously affected the pace of the meeting, to the point where it was decided not to proceed with an interval (another good call by whoever was running the meeting). The biggest issue for me was we don't have sufficient riders of equivalent quality to produce a competitive meeting at this level. The top six (Morris, Ellis, Nielsen, Ritchings, Greenwood and Morley) together with Josh Bates (who got 8 from his three completed rides) were clearly a cut above the rest. The gulf between PL reserve standard riders (such as Nielsen, Morris, Ellis) and national league reserves (such as Nathan Greaves and James Shanes) is huge. In their programme notes, Neil Vatcher and Phil Morris asked the question "How many of these talented young Brits are going to go on and ride at the highest level?" In fairness, it's hard to judge 15/16 year olds such as Max Clegg, Nathan Greaves and James Shanes. And clearly Adam Ellis has made huge progress this year,although he faded badly in his last 2 rides. However, it's fair to say I didn't see any rider last night who had the 'wow' factor. It will be interesting to see how these riders progress over the next few years.

Well I have subscribed to the pay per view feed on www.speedwaytv.tv. The commentary is with David Rowe so it's excellent and whilst for the first heat there was no sound other than commentary (no bike sound) this was sorted for heat 2. However, the picture quality I am receiving is not particularly good. Quite blocky once the action starts. Admittedly, though, my broadband connection is not good (only about 4.3mbps). However, I can watch iplayer and Youtube clips in very good quality so surely it can't be just down to my connection? The picture quality I am getting is not much better than a stream and nowhere near the quality of a decent YouTube clip. Any other comments? edit... Further to my previous comments, I noticed there is an icon on screen to change the picture quality. I didn't see it before, despite looking for it. Has it just been added on? I changed the quality to HD and I've got an excellent picture now. With good picture quality and commentary from David Rowe I am very pleased I paid for the meeting. Well done to all concerned.

Why has the Elite League 2014 thread turned into a debate about Ryanair?

I agree. What I was driving at was that some sort of forethought would be needed. The powers that be need to move away from this apparent belief that simply dropping the points limit will provide answers to problems. Proposals such as that you have made need sorting out at this agm to stop promoters, at the end of the 2014 season, already having their hypothetical Holders, Iversens etc waiting in the wings for a return in 2015 and a resulting fraught agm at the end of 2014 between those that have a 'ringer' heat leader and those that do not.

The problem is, due to the constant mis-management of the product (especially over the last ten-years), the top-level of the sport in this country has reached rock bottom. At the moment we are scraping along in a sort of half-way-house between being a league with some of the world's top riders and being a glorified Premier League. In my opinion one of the biggest problems is that the league has become steadily weakened over the last ten years as promotions continued to dilute the product to appease the weakest teams rather than working together to ensure the weakest teams could increase their competitiveness without diluting the value of the product. I believe the best years for the EL were its formative years up until around 2003. From that point on, the product has declined year-on-year. I have said before that speedway promoters must be the only business owners who think they can consistently provide a product which is, year-on-year weaker than the year before yet steadily increase the price of the product and expect their business to be successful. We have also failed to move with the times. If we want to provide a product which has the worlds best riders in it then we need to pay attention to the needs of those riders. I believe that a fixed race night (or nights) as the other main leagues adopt has been needed for years. Unfortunately the powers that be have consistently came up with all manner of reasons why this would not work in the UK without ever really showing the 'can do' attitude to make it a reality. They will point out that certain clubs cannot guarantee their stadium week-in-week-out on a certain day. Others will state that their landlords have other sports (usually greyhounds) on other nights of the week. However my argument is that where there is a will there is a way. Sure it may have meant certain teams would have had to move into the PL if they could not meet the requirements of the EL in terms of race night but others would have moved up to take their place. It is certain that we can't keep on the way we are going, lurching from one season to the next with no long-term plan. The way I see it, we have two options. 1) Start from scratch again. Go single race-night and tempt some more of the 'world-class' riders back, to get the league back to the standard it was 10 years ago. Hope that, over a steady period of time, crowds improve. I actually believe that, in terms of fixtures, less quantity and more quality will get the crowds back. Look at the Cov v. Poole meeting earlier this season. Bees hadn't had a home meeting for a few weeks, Poole come to town with Holder, Ward and Janowski and the crowd was excellent. Of course, the crowds won't come flocking back overnight. This would also, of course, depend on a new multi-year contract with Sky. It would also probably require the asset system to be re-structured with riders initially allocated to clubs. Clubs who have a large asset base wiped out could be compensated by receiving a greater percentage of the Sky money for a fixed period of time. 2) Strip it right back. Accept the days of the EL are gone. Build clubs without the global superstars unless they are either ACU registered (like Tai) or based over here. On thing is for sure. Dropping the points limit drastically for next season will not in itself fulfill the aims of number 2. When riders like Kildemand, Batchelor, Larsen, Cook are all on 8 point+ averages at the end of 2014, the points limit for 2015 will have to rise to accommodate that. And that is when certain clubs will bring back some of the 'Global Superstars' on their 2013 averages and we will be back to square 1.

Why? Whether they qualified by the meeting by right or were handed a wildcard, it is how they performed in the meeting that counts and whether they like it or not, Bomber finished above them. Anyway, surely it would be no more galling than it would be for a hypothetical rider who genuinely qualified for this seasons GP seeing a rider who was handed a wildcard for the series becoming World Champion. And I bet not a single person on here will begrudge Tai a World Championship win (if it happens - fingers crossed) because he was gifted a position in this year's GP series.

A good way to get the meeting publicised on tv an hour before tapes up!