brianbuck

The asset system is a total nonsense. Every club wishing to join the Premiership League is obliged to have a fixed value of rider "assets" before they can be considered for membership. I once had a sight of Birmingham's asset list and it included names like Charlie Venegas, Charles Ermolenko, Steve Mann etc. Clearly all of these riders have a nominal value even though none are ever likely to ride in Britain again in the future, so in reality, the whole thing is meaningless.

I would be very sorry if the report about Tom Perry retiring turns out to be true. Tom has been a great servant to both the Brummies and Cradley Heath and has always been one of the most approachable and entertaining riders in speedway.

Match Races seem to have become and anachronism, and have very little appeal to spectators these days, so I can't see any mileage myself, in trying to bring them back.

Trying to find my copy of the rule book to check it out. I thought riders with a Championship average of over 4 (or it might be 5!) couldn't ride in the National League unless they were under a certain age or had signed on for a NL club before joining a Championship club. (Something like that anyway - but who can fathom out speedway's infamous rule book?) Danny Ayres fulfills that criteria as to my knowledge he hasn't yet signed for a Championship club, and in the case of Adam Roynon last season, no Championship club apparently wanted him, so he would have been free to join Plymouth. No doubt someone with a mind-boggling knowledge of the rule book will correct me on this.

When I first began following speedway in the early 1950's, matches were over 14 heats with teams of 8 riders. Two of the riders were reserves, and the top six each took 4 rides and the reserves 2 each. The two reserves could each take an additional two rides as replacements for the top 6, but the crucial point was that a team manager could name any two of his riders who had scored less than 50% of possible points over the previous six matches, as his reserves. This gave a Team Manager genuine scope to select his team tactically without being hidebound by averages or being forced to name his team in a particular sequence like they do today. Restricting the reserves to having no more than four rides (the same as their "upper" colleagues) meant that there was no way that an in-form reserve could unfairly influence a meeting like sometimes happens these days, and no nominated heat meant that top-heavy teams would get the advantage of a "free" 5-1 in the last race. Time perhaps to look at bringing back something similar?

I can appreciate the misgivings that many Coventry supporters will have about this proposal, but I really hope that a good number do eventually decide to support it. Boycotting your own team cannot possibly do any good. As a lifelong Birmingham supporter, I can remember the Bordesley Green era. The facilities there were appalling and many supporters genuinely believed that if they stayed away they would somehow force an improvement, but all that they achieved was to hasten the end. I agree that using Leicester will do little or nothing to help the club get back into Brandon or find another venue in the Coventry area, but at least it will keep the club's name alive, and this is vital if something concrete is to eventually be realised. If Mick Horton gets no support he will give it neck and won't have much joy in finding a taker if he tries to sell it on. I'd say to Coventry supporters - keep up the pressure and let the promotion know how you feel - but don't withdraw your support.

Personally, I find Porky at Wolverhampton extremely irritating and especially so when he keeps shouting away whilst a race is in progress. The PA system at Monmore is way too loud anyway so most of the time it is almost impossible to make out what he is saying - that's if you want to listen to him anyway! The problem with many centre green presenters is that they seem to regard themselves as the stars of the show and don't know when to shut up. Overall, I can't say I am a great fan of centre green presenters at all. A good announcer who is articulate and knowledgeable is all that is needed and those I can remember from the past include Dave Richards at Cradley, Allen Walker at Coventry, Frank Bellfield at Birmingham, Ted Sear at Rayleigh etc.

The "National League no assets" rule has always rankled. It is unfair and totally unreasonable for the upper league promoters to be allowed to cherry pick any promising young rider that has been developed by a National League club - without having to pay any kind of transfer fee. (I am reliably informed that a nominal fee is actually payable - but that is is so minimal as to be not worth having.) The biggest beef is the fact that the National League Promoters had absolutely no say in the introduction of this rule, and personally, I can't see any reason why they shouldn't band together and produce a contract form of their own and get their riders to sign it. The BSPA rules can't over-rule the law of the land, and in legal terms, a contract is a contract surely?

Although it is great news that Coventry supporters will have a team to follow again, this move does give Brandon Estates some leverage with their planning application. They must know by now, that Rugby Council won't ever approve a planning consent so they are likely to take their application to appeal, and they will then be able to not only inform the Planning Inspector that Coventry Speedway DO have an alternative venue, but can also present themselves as a pillar of society who are sponsoring the Coventry team. I wonder then, whether this move really is a good idea?

I never collected programmes, but I used to have a huge collection of speedway magazines (mostly Speedway News and Speedway World) dating back to 1934, all wrapped in brown paper parcels and indexed. When I got married in 1969 and came back from my honeymoon, my mother informed me that she had had a clearout for me "and had thrown all those old papers into the dustbin!!!!!!"

My apologies to Eastbourne supporters for that wholly uneccessary, offensive, and unwarrented comment.

The only long term solution is to exclude "tape jumpers" without a warning. Either they have committed and offence or they haven't so the rules should be hard and fast - if you jump the start you are out - and there should be no reserve replacement and no 15 metre handicap.

I accept what you say Hunter but the bottom line is still the same. If a rider is allowed to miss fixtures because of "lack of equipment" then you can be sure that more and more riders will jump onto the same bandwagon. I sympathize with Jake Knight to some degree but there is the need to have a hard and fast rule and for it to be enforced every time - which isn't the case at the moment.

Couldn't agree more. Belle Vue have put together a cracking young National League team and deserve to win the championship. It just concerns me that teams and/or riders can just play the system as and when they like. Everyone agrees in principle but there is usually a big outcry from supporters on the occasions that the rules are enforced and it adversely affects their own team. Eastbourne supporters for example are up in arms over the two match ban imposed on Jake Knight for opting out of the NLRC - but the rule book says that riders cannot opt out of this meeting so why should anyone be shirty when the rule is enforced? I notice that some are saying that Knight should have been informed that action would be taken against him if he didn't show - but he like every rider, has been supplied with a rule book so the onus has to be on him to read it! I'm not knocking at Eastbourne or any other club - I just want speedway to be run properly and in line with the rules.

I wasn't suggesting that Belle Vue had broken the rules. Just saying that they are being abused (and I acknowledge that plenty of other clubs have and are still, doing the same thing.) What I'm saying is that the rules should be clearly set out and rigidly enforced - and this is far from being the case at the moment. Perhaps someone from Belle Vue could say definitely whether Lee Payne is injured or whether he has given it neck (maybe just for the season.) I appreciate that it is unfair to single him out from the others, but I'm just picking up this instance as an example.

The one-sided scoreline from the Belle Vue v Lakeside play-off semi-final has emphasised abuses of the rules which urgently need to be investigated. Lakeside, like plenty of other clubs, have blatantly abused the ridiculous rule which allows riders to opt out of matches they don't want to ride in for the flimsiest of reasons by sending a six man team for this match, and Belle Vue have also unashamedly continued to use rider-replacement for a rider who has been absent for virtually the whole of the season through a relatively minor "injury." which seems to be taking an inordinately long time to heal, and their already powerful team has become even stronger because of it! Perhaps I am being unfair to Lee Payne in saying this. I don't know for certain whether he is genuinely injured or whether he has retired - but no one from his club is saying, and it's worth pointing out that the rules stipulate that if he has retired, then his club are only entitled to use rider-replacement for 28 days, but if he is "injured" then they can use it indefinitely. Therefore, it suits Belle Vue for him to be "injured." If I have got this wrong, then I apologise to Lee and to Belle Vue, but there is far too much of this kind of rule bending going on - particularly in the National League and I think it is high time that it was investigated and stopped.

This is news to me!!!!

The bottom line, and still the biggest reason why track covers are not widely used is the indisputable fact that people will not venture out if the weather is bad. Promoters will say with justification that there is little point in covering a track at huge expense, if they are only to get a fraction of their normal attendance, and lose money as a consequence. At Perry Barr for example, there is room to accomodate 1,500 people in a comfortable, air conditioned inside area with excellent viewing, but still, on a wet night the crowds won't turn out.

The big difference in this particular instance is that the NLRC is a BSPA meeting so clearly the BSPA want all of the riders booked to be there. The inconsistency lies in their apparent indifference to riders missing NL matches for pettifogging reasons, so although I agree with the action they have taken against Knight and think it is justified, my gripe is that this sort of action isn't universally applied.

Yes, things seem to be looking a bit bleak for the Heathens at the moment. As a lifelong Birmingham supporter whose interest in speedway goes way beyond that of my own team, I take no pleasure whatsoever in reading this news and very much hope that a way can be found to keep Cradley Heath in action next season and beyond. There are some very juvenile comments about Birmingham on Facebook, but we should ignore these - they do not represent the views of the majority of Cradley people. We all have the odd few who go out of their way to be offensive, and this will probably never change. Very best wishes to Cradley Heath and their loyal fans.

Many thanks to all of the supporters of other clubs who have taken the trouble to wish us well. It has been an anxious time for us, and although I was always confident that TM would see us right, there was always the niggling worry that things might go awry. Tony, Denise and Graham should not go without knowing how much their efforts on behalf of our Brummies has been appreciated. I wish all three of them good luck in their retirement. They have earned it!

The riders all get paid - so whether the BSPA or anyone else likes it or not - it's professional! (Although you would never believe it the way it is run!!!!)

I notice that Knight's name did not appear in the Eastbourne team for their away match against Cradley Heath last Wednesday (which was rained off as it happens). Perhaps there was a genuine reason for this, but more and more riders are jumping on the "ride when I please" bandwaggon, and it is not acceptable and wouldn't be tolerated in any other professional sport.

I wouldn't criticise the action taken against Knight, but there is a need for consistency. The BSPA have created a "please yourself when you ride" scenario by by allowing riders to opt out of their commitments through "work commitments" "pre-booked holidays" "lack of machinery" etc, and now seem surprised when riders abuse the rule left right and centre. Any rider missing a match through any reason other than a genuine injury should get a similar two match ban anda fine - and there should be no exceptions. Only when the rules are clearly set out and rigidly enforced will speedway begin to regain some credibility.

The Brummies have had two great seasons but it had to come to an end sometime, so we wish the four play-off qualifyers all the best in their efforts to win the title.