szkocjasid

Shows why the 42 limit works out, on a lower limit, a "developing" rider would've likely be frozen out of a "development" league team spot. Agree doesn't sound a great signing on his average, when it comes to winning the league - if that was the priority.

I haven't looked at the fixtures in detail, but just assumed every team picked the same week to have the later rounds of BSN & KOC competitions, so whoever goes through they'll be available the same day as their opponents?

Worked for Poole as Starke upped his average. I'd have Lambert ahead of Starke, got a higher average, spending at least half the season in the top 5, compared to Starke at reserve all year. I wasn't impressed with Lambert when I saw him last year, but his average is attractive enough to give him a chance to show last year was a one-off poor season?

Given it's a "development" league, would fans not turn up to see a weaker team, if the club were obviously building for the future?

With everything happening so late, it would probably make sense for Northampton (if they run) to start in 2027. Have a few open meetings this year in preparation. But obviously they are so desperate for a 6th Prem team, they may be letting their hearts rule their heads?

I don't mind the points limit, just keeps the level at last year, but totally agree that minimum average should have been left at 3.00

If the job of the NL is to bring on future Champ riders, then riders who can't get anywhere near Lambert won't cope in the Champ. These riders should be at the lower end of the NL, not an alternative option to the Lambert signing. If the NL was weakened further, it's be much harder for rider stepping up, how do you know if you've reached Champ standard without riding against lower Champ riders? There's a reason riders don't jump straight up from the NJL or MDL to the Champ as they'd be miles off the pace, hopefully a stronger NL bridges that gap?

I agree it's a shame after his efforts last season, but which riders would you swap to fit him in?

They've really not got the average rules right in the NDL for me. Kenzie Cossey races 4 matches as a guest so gets a new average (3.25). When they lowered the minimum average to 2.00, that could've ended his NDL carter before it started, but thankfully King's Lynn have given him a chance. Nathan Ablitt rode 3 NL matches for Steelers & 2 NT matches for Kent Eagles, but doesn't get a new average. Despite averaging 8.92 & 9.33, he'll keep his low 8.33 average for 2026. If they're so desperate to have accurate averages, that they give guests averages, why not combine NL & NT for riders who didn't ride enough meetings? It's not like they won't count NT matches at all, as any rider who doesn't have a NL average will use the NT one for 2026. I just find it bizarre that 4 matches gains you a new average, but 5 doesn't!

Kenzie Cossey got a 3.25 average from guesting last year.

I'm sure Connor Mountain is thinking like that, he got dropped for Zischke the previous year when averaging above 4.00!

I think this is a league where the old elite league fast track format would work best i.e heat leaders against heat leaders & reserves against reserves more often. I don't actually see the need for a 2.00 minimum average. The downside of the 3.00 minimum is a rider with a 3.5 average gets dropped for a 3 point rider to fit under the limit. Now it's even worse a 2.5 averaged rider could miss out because clubs need a 2 pointer. Surely someone running a 2.5 NL average should have no barriers to finding a team spot?

Personally the likes of Mulford (too good?) & Lambert (experienced) spearheading Lynn doesn't bother me. Mulford is still only 21 & has a sub 5 Champ average, almost surprised the Jack Smith singing didn't get more negativity, I'd suggest Mulford has more development on him than Smith? As for Lambert, I'd hope his experience would be helpful to his teammates, likewise with Smith at Buxton. I like that the points limit was raised to 42, which is only equal to last year's standard, as everyone's average should rise in a low limit, to stop improving riders missing out (ideally). Even if I considered Mulford & Lambert to be taking places away from more "deserving" development riders, I still appreciate that Lynn would be giving 5 team spots & 10 league matches to "genuine" development league riders, which is more than every club who didn't enter the NDL!

By my sums Perry doesn't fit. Not sure who would be the next best available. Think this Workington team looks a bit top heavy. Maybe relying on Cook & Zischke to show real form?

While I get the point you're attempting to make, that's a bit harsh on Starke who upped his average & won the treble with Poole!

Kemp should be the strongest reserve in the league.

It seems Kent are not running in the development league due to not being able to commit when the NL meeting was on, maybe didn't have permission to use the track? (This is all guesswork). If that's true how can the BSPL leave a space open for a Premiership side but not a development league side? Surely there's much less of a rush to get the NL sorted than the Prem?

A 42 point limit isn't actually a particularly strong league imo. Every year then limit is below 42 then the league is weaker than previously, so technically last season was the weakest ever development league. Even when clubs sign a 3 pointer who doubles or triples their average, the league should average out at 42. All a 42 point limit does is stop improving riders missing out in team spots, which is a good thing. It's a shame there's only 6 teams, but at least there's still a development league running. If clubs lose money on the NL, perhaps every Prem & Champ team who don't enter should pay a nominal "training fee" to be shared amongst the clubs that do? After all in future years they'll want to use riders other clubs spent money on training (Cairns / Rushen etc). 😉

Very frustrating to see this reason. I want to know who to blame!

Could just do the fixtures now with 5 teams. Every Monday & Thursday there will always be at least one team not racing, they could race the 6th team on that date if needed?

To me it would be logical to say a Brit who didn't ride in the Prem or Champ qualifies for the reduction. But the BSPL announcement talked about riders returning to the sport, that doesn't sound like the Ablitt scenario.

Lynn's bottom two have great potential, but I wouldn't say they are better than Gilles just now. Maybe by the end of the season? Whoever Leicester have at 6 (Kemp, Sedgmen, Jeppesen) will be stronger than Castagna. So having a reserve stronger than an opponents second string is a good position to be in. I certainly think it's interesting to see which team building philosophy works out best.

I treat it as an equal chance as last year. Last year lowest qualifier had 3 teams above & 3 teams below them. This year lowest qualifier will have 2 teams above & 2 teams below them.

I wouldn't have thought they'd get a further British reduction after the 8% reduction?

It makes sense being a Champ only rule, means a rider like Nathan Ablitt who upped his average then doesn't get a team, gets a better chance if returning etc. Not sure it'd be ideal of a rider like Robert Lambert could come back on a far lower average in the Prem if he missed multiple seasons just racing abroad.