szkocjasid

They always use a riders most recent average, Vissing has a 2023 Champ ave, so a conversion for that is used.

I'd have put Holder at 2, to take the r/r in heat 13, plus counters Harris in heat 8?

When Sheffield made their latest change, it only fitted using Woffy's average, not Holder's. So at that point Holder can't come back in. Now the transfer window has passed can't sign anyone else.

Looking at the September averages, Plymouth look to be far weaker. Worrall now above Barker in the averages, so if r/r for Barker, Howarth doesn't get an extra ride. Dan T now above Gilkes, so if using r/r for Gilkes, guest for Barker doesn't get an extra ride. Plymouth certainly need their injured riders back to avoid the wooden spoon imo

If I was Killeen, I'd have told Oxford to stuff it! Even if he averages over 2.00 he's very likely to find another Championship club. I'd even be tempted to walk out of the Oxford NL side, while I was on a 3.00 average.

What about Thomsen or Clegg who are based in this country?

Pretty embarrassing line ups by a couple of clubs. For Edinburgh's point of view there must have been doubt over Cook as he's missed quite a few meetings recently. This is no dig on Cook, as I can fully understand why. But I can't imagine any club going into a play-off final with a back up if they had riders possible returning from injury, so why should the pairs be any different?

It makes total sense to do what keeps the club as a whole alive, dropping out of the NL doesn't mean they are moving away from developing new riders, can still take part in the NJL for example. But I do question mentioning a "sporadic fixtures list" as part of the issue, they've ridden several double headers, often with two separate opposition teams, whose fans would likely have no interest in paying extra to watch their own team. If they wanted a more complete fixture list, don't run double headers.

Being the day before Cardiff, it has to be somewhere nearby(ish) but if it was elsewhere at another time, I'd totally agree with the Workington suggestion.

On Nicholls form, be passed by him is no big surprise

Not really, the riders championship is taking place on a day no clubs race on (Sunday), while the pairs is the day before Cardiff, I'm sure no club would want to race on that day for fear of small crowds. Nevertheless, pre-season the authorities wouldn't have seen a situation with league fixtures still needing run, as clubs only had 8 home league meetings to fit in?

Good point, when Leicester meet another NL club then lol! I know it's not likely, but highlights the issue of Champ clubs getting priority, Boughen has ridden for Leicester all year, but once he signed for Oxford they automatically get priority

Too risky imo, Lawson has done his job & after the mistake of dropping Harris, not sure i'd want to make another team selection error

Should never change the rules once a competition has started. I'd prefer no play-offs, top team are Champions, means there's no rush to race double headers / or on off-race nights as you have till the end of October to complete your fixtures. Also would mean KOC not being out back on the rush to complete league fixtures. But I know they are here to stay (sadly)

Can't say I feel sorry for the management, they could have made changes, but stuck with them. While that's commendable giving riders the opportunity to ride themselves back into form, it also means the management must take the blame for not strengthening up when they had the chance. They chose loyalty / development over success, but for that reason can't feel sorry for them, because it was thier choice. For the same reason if Oxford dropping Dugard costs them the league title (could have meant Scott & Clouting at reserve) I'll commend them for choosing to run with a 7 man team, but wouldn't call them unlucky if it didn't work out.

Oxford have with Garrard, they could have continued using r/r for Dugard.

There may not be enough fixtures for stand alone NL clubs though, Kent & Mildenhall struggling financially, with the doubling up clubs not wanting many fixtures.

No idea of the finances, just pointing out they didn't have to drop Laguta for Lambert due to points limit.

Part of that is because of lack of riders, often the only riders available to strengthen a team are ones dropped from other teams.

But Buster didn't drop Laguta to get Lambert, he could have used them both? But what are the alternatives, using guests even more so riders don't swap clubs? Not allowing promoter's to run more than one club, meaning more clubs close down?

Happens all the time tbh teams making transfers before the averages change & they're no longer allowed. i.e Sheffield signing Pickering before the end of June as the July averages wouldn't allow the change.

In place of who? He couldn't replace Cook!

r/r wasn't particularly strong though, Harris, Sedgmen & the two reserves available to take the rides. Although that looks decent now we've seen Batchelor & Cook struggle, it didn't look a strong option at the time. Of course dropping Harris has been the biggest mistake & it's hard to justify it. One other issue Leicester have was their insistence on using Morris at 5, when he wasn't one of their top 3 riders. Had he been at 3 or 4 with Harris or Lawson at 5, then his average would likely be higher (no heat 13s) & possibly better replacement options would have been available?

But Peterborough fans have been non-stop complaining, that Lynn have made all the good signings & Peterborough left in the lurch. Seems Buster can't win, no matter what he does?

Why is it a farce, if a rider is dropped by one club, he's allowed to sign for another, has been done many times probably every season since I can remember. Was it a farce when Hook went from Edinburgh to Berwick, when Clegg went from Scunthorpe to Edinburgh, when Pearson went from Birmingham to Plymouth, Joe Thompson - Scunthorpe to Birmingham to Poole, Dan Thompson - Birmingham to Plymouth, Starke - Plymouth to Birmingham?