Ace_of_clubs

Might be a safer bet that he'll be at Workington, since that's the "Premier League team that has a very strong connection to his Elite League team".

Agreed. I'd said a lap earlier these two aren't going to finish the race. It was indeed six of one and half a dozen of the other. It was just a question of who would be the first to take it just too far and bring the other down. And it was Andersen who did that and was rightly excluded. Apart from that race, I can't say I saw much else dangerous about Andersen's riding. Can't say the same about 'super' Nicki though. Twice first bend incidents were caused by him coming of the inside and then turning right in the first corner and skittling all his opponents. He is THE dirty rider. Andersen isn't in his league.

Major mistake by Benfield to employ an amateur debutant for such an important job. He made an absolute cock-up of the rider introductions by getting them ar$e about. And with no proper announcer I didn't get half of the race times. His jabbering was unclear, and he mixed up attempting to give the race result with attempting to give the line up for the next race. I don't even know whether he gave all the race times. Several appeared never to be given and one came about three races after the event. Ermolenko, forget announcing, stick to what you're good at.

But 'Its a Knockout' is so 1970's. I have a much better modern idea..... "Promoter Idol" (Idle?) Each Promoter comes on stage for 3 minutes, reads his favourite rule book quote, and the public phone in at 60p a minute to vote one out. It could make a fortune in phone calls... VOTE PERRIN

Doesn't really matter whether your gradings (or wherever the came from) are right. Wherever the grading line is drawn there's going to be some lucky chap who is 0.01 below the next highest grade, and some poor sod who is 0.01 above the grade below. Wherever the lines are drawn it seems that Rusty Harrison's 6.99 which converts down to 3.50 would put him in the lowest grade. P.S. Sophie Blake says can we join up with you and Julia and make it a double wedding?

stop there! There is no silly grading in the PL. So if you are 6.99 in PL, then you are 6.99. No silly grading and you build your team to 45 points.....what a wonderfully simple revolutionary idea!! So to come into the EL 6.99 divided by 2 = 3.50 Under the top secret leaked copy of the grading system that would make you a 1 point Grade F rider. 6.99 seems quite a good PL average to move up on. Not as good as the optimum 8.64, but infinitely better than the poor sod on 8.66

Yep. According to Tim Stone at Newport's meeting yesterday. But don't worry, your mighty powerful trio of Andreas Jonsson, Billy Janniro and Simon Stead complies with the limit!

We'll get back to you on that one once Terry Russell and Poole have built all their teams and decided which is most advantageous.

Wouldn't Risager be a 2 pointer? (4.50 ave seems to equate to grade E = 2 points) Still at least you got a good run at the 2003 title to build up your massively overstrong side. Here at Belle Vue our all conquering 2003 side leaves us with a too strong heat leader trio of Crump (6 points), Lyons (4) and Screen (4) which breaks the 13 point limit on heat leaders.

I'm OK with them all except the last one which quite frankly is too silly for words.

By Jove, I think she's got it! Rules so simple that a 7 year old child could understand them. Now, will someone go and get me a 7 year old child. ( © Groucho Marx...not Michael Jackson)

I agree with you entirely RacerX. Personally I don't like the Golden Tactical and would probably do away with that too, but at least I can see some logic behind it. Fans get the added value of seeing a rider come in and have to work for the extra points and the entertainment of seeing him come from behind. The golden joke has no added value, no extra entertainment. Its exactly the same race as programmed, just that some extra points are gifted to the losing side for no reason at all except to make the score artificially closer. Make no mistake. There is no added value, no added entertainment, nothing for the paying fans at all, nothing for the armchair sky fans either. IT IS PURELY AN ATTEMPT TO CUT COSTS. (and a flawed one at that - as the riders will just demand increased points money to compensate for the missing tac sub ride which they're not getting). When Belle Vue visit an away track will the locals say "Oh goody we get to see Neil Collins take his full rides rather than watching Jason Crump once more. And its OK because BV were given 3 extra points for nothing when Crump had his last ride." Will fans enjoy watching an extra ride from Ales Dryml instead of a Tony Rickardsson T/S when Poole come visiting? Rather watch Jason Bunyan than Andreas Jonsson? Magnus Karlsson instead of Peter Karlsson?

Yes. The ludicrous Golden Joker rule is that if you are 8 points behind at any stage you can nominate one of the programmed riders in the next heat to score double points. (you can't bring in a rider to do the joker). So from your Poole point of view, if you are away and go 8 points down at heat 8, with Rickardsson out for his easiest ride of the night in heat 9, you can just say we'll play our joker on Rickardsson and collect 6 points instead of three. There is also the option to do the Golden Tactical where you bring in a replacement rider and he starts 15m back and scores double points. You can use the joker twice, and the Golden tactical once. No other tac subs of any kind are permitted. Its pathetic.

Does the fact that 7 votes have been made in favour of this stupid rule suggest that we have 7 BSPA lurkers on the forum? If so I hope they're taking notice of the 92%+ of supporters. There are just so many reasons why this rule is insane it would take all day to list them. And clearly it is going to encourage 'race fixing' it makes sense to drop a point if you are going to be gifted 3 points back for nothing from your No.1 in the next heat. This rule is just so bizarre and off the wall even by BSPA standards, I cant really believe its true.

Top of the Elite League Averages by a mile. Consistenly the best rider in the world 2003. G

Chris Harris is also around 6.7 (from memory) and would be a better choice due to his age and his better ability around away tracks. I think Screen is on about 7.5 and has a wealth of international experience. Havelock is way out of the equation on about 6.5 and dropping.