szkocjasid

I feel like Harrison should be RS & Hodder shouldn't be in the Prem yet. Are the new rules "forcing" riders into the wrong positions too soon?

This is the frustrating thing, if clubs are making signings, points limit & rules must be known. Why hide it from the fans?

Assuming the points limit stays at 40.00, every club bar Workington will have to weaken. So having a similar strength team is a positive.

The longer it takes Plymouth to declare, will riders look elsewhere to avoid being left without a team spot?

I would go to 6 rider teams, 5 rides each. Encourage unattached riders to take guest bookings. Ideally the NL & Champ should be closer together to help riders stepping up, so don't lower the NL points limit. Having such a weak NL won't help riders make the step up to the Champ. I don't mind experienced riders like Lambert or Bowtell in the NL, give the next generation someone to aim to beat, once you can beat them, you know you have a chance at stepping up?

Totally agree

I agree, I think Cairns would be a good signing for any team & put a point on his average.

If Poland wants riders to give them priority over Britain / Sweden / Denmark, they'd only have to pay them 2 or 3 times the amount. It appears they pay them 10 times the amount, which seems a waste of money to me. Obviously they are trying to outbid their fellow Polish clubs to be successful. If the Prem wants to limit doubling up, look to the lower end riders who maybe don't ride every week?

I saw Shanes a few times at Armadale in the NDL & he was awesome. Certainly on a par with Loftus, Wood & Foord. Obviously Champ is stronger, but on a 3 point something ave, is a no brainer for me. Only has to reach a 4 point ave to be a good signing.

I like the rule, bit think 8% a season is far too much. Should've just said 2.5% every season missed. Shanes would be a great signing on that average.

They could simply change the 8 point cut-off higher or lower, based on who wants to ride in the Champ in 2027, top 9 riders split amongst the 9 clubs? If a club opts out & wants to go strength in depth, top 8 riders split amount the other 8 teams?

I'd be surprised if they built a team like that, having 3 reserves didn't work in 2026, so would assume they wouldn't do the same in 2027. Granted it does look a good top 4.

All very good suggestions for the rules, so expect the opposite to be voted in 🤭

Unlike many, I liked the RS scheme. But think the changes they are making will make it far worse. Like you say, more likely to mean you sung riders well out of their depth, especially if the league is stronger. Could get a 3.5 Champ rider gaining a Prem spot because he's 20, but a 5.5 Champ rider missing out because he's 21 already! Don't think they've thought this through at all, at least the consequences.

This is one of my biggest frustrations in Speedway, fans (or clubs) not wanting riders to come back because they did "too well"

Agreed, should be due a fine. Which I believe is in the rules.

Sounds a strong team, so far, but I thought Foreign teams could get promoted to the Extraliga(s)?

It's hard to plan teams without knowing the points limit / rules. But if it is a stronger league Ben Cook would be a good signing. Would fully expect him to up his average with the NSS as his home track.

They always use a riders most recent average, so that'll be 8.64 (Ipswich average converted). Once Brennan has ridden in the Champ his old Poole average will be used for his rolling average, so expect it to jump up.

It all depends how a team is built how much of a gamble it is. For example Workington & Glasgow's foreigners not matching their starting average was costly as it pushed Foord & Hagon into the top 5. But the likes of Bowes struggling at Poole was less harmful as they always had strong reserves, even if Bowes didn't get injured & dropped down, they'd still have Newman. If the plan was Ace Piper or Dayle Wood with a 4 point foreigner, I wouldn't call that such a gamble, as they'd still have a decent reserve. I guess I feel they could have a good team without a gamble?

If they are aiming to pay out what comes in without going into debt, that doesn't make them "bad payers" imo. I'd argue clubs paying out more than they can afford is bad for the sport. If not enough fans come in to afford riders having multiple bikes tuned to greatness, then so be it. Riders can't demand what's not there. I remember hearing Jordan Jenkins left Redcar for Oxford because Oxford paid a lot more, what did that gain then? Besides once the other clubs are filled the rest will know it's Workington or bust (if it came to that).

I'd be less keen to do that, if they picked another Mario Hausl, Anze Grmek or Niklas Jakobsen then the strong reserve plan is gone. The thought of Jenkins starting at reserve is too good an opportunity to miss imo.

While I agree with that, if Palovaara had been above par, his average would be too high to fill one of the final 2 spots. Because he underperformed, he now seems worth another shot - such is how the points limit works. He'd actually be a second strong with Etheridge a 3rd heat leader. Could potentially end up a heat leader or reserve, such is the potential make up of the Bandits team.

Knowing theyll always have a strong reserve, I'd go for a 2 pointer & the strongest 3rd heat leader they can find. Jake Allen seems a good idea.

I always hoped when the asset system disappeared, it would be easier for Brits to get team places? You could spend a lot of money flying an Aussie over, or spend time & effort sorting out a visa for a European, they can be poor meaning a waste of time or good & leave to go to another club. In theory the likes of Alfie Bowtell, Ben Morley, Danyon Hume (when fit) should get team spots every year? It wasn't that long ago Dan Thompson started without a Champ team.