E I Addio

I see the most unsuccessful professional football club in the land, Hartlepool have now said they don't want him there, so it probably means the end of his footballing career in this country. At the end of the day, if you are a public servant , in the broadest sense of the word , which Evans is (or was) you are subject to the whims of public opinion, rightly or wrongly, but I do find it a bit incongruous that footballers who have killed people through drunk driving are back playing without a whimper from the same public that object to Evans. Still, as the old saying goes there's know't so queer as folk.

That is so true. One of the reasons the EL appears to be weaker than it actually is, is that the top stars get beaten more often by each other. The other thing is that modern engines are so sensitive to getting the, set up dead right that the difference between the top men and the also rans is narrower than it used to be. If Gundersen etc were riding today they would still be very good but would have to work much harder to stay at the top.

I like to think that as well, but I wonder if physical characteristics come into it. With Briggo it was sheer physical strength that enabled him to grow the bike around but I am not sure he would cope with the technicalities of a lay-down any more than Gtreg Hancock would cope with a short stroke J.A.P throwing him all over the place. We have to appreciate them of their era, although thinking about it for this thread I kind of feel that Fundin's iron will would force him to the top in any era. Interesting topic though

That's got nothing to do with it. IF others got away with it there is nothing that can be done about it. If Ward is guilty he should get whatever the appropriate sentence is deemed to be.

Good rider and a nice bloke but don't expect too much too soon. He still has a lot to learn. He has lot of problems last year staying on his bike and has had to,learn that the throttle works both ways. Obviously he is a talent but it might just be that this is a year of consolidation and gaining experience rather than setting the track alight. Well done the Brum for getting him though.

5.50 x 1.40= 7.70. Not Difficult.

All the Criminal Case Review Commission Does does is to decide whether to refer the case back the Court of Appeal for them to consider the matter further.. The CCRC cannot overturn a conviction themselves, almost always they can only refer a case to the Court of Appeal if there is fresh evidence. So the present position is that, the CCRC might refer it to the Court of Appeal , who might quash the conviction IF the is powerful further evidence. As I understand Evans website his girlfriend's wealthy father has hired a fresh legal team and r retired detective to try to find some more evidence, which may possibly relate to things the girl said or did after the incident, Whatever happens I think there are always suspicions, rightly or wrongly in any case when someone with a bit of money turns up and fresh witnesses suddenly appear. So , from the point of view of Charlie Girl and anyone wishing to protest, now is the time to do it because if they wait until the CCRC make a decision, then wait for the Court of Appeal, he would be back playing anyway and impossible to dislodge so its now or never for them. In short the whole thing is a bit of a mess for both Evans and the girl, a pair of complete idiots. I have no sympathy for either of them. There are far worse miscarriages of justice for people who have no control over the situation but unfortunately for them their stories don't sell newspapers so few people care.

That's because an appeal is not proceeding. He doesn't even have permission to appeal at this stage. He has twice applied for permission to appeal and both times his application was refused because the grounds of appeal were inadequate. There are plenty of people in prison waiting for appeals to be heard (including the two men convicted of killing Lee Rigby) but unless and until their convictions are overturned by the Court of Appeal , they stand all stand and guilty men.

Jeremy Bamber is still protesting his innocence 25 years after being sentenced to life for killing five people. Should his conviction be quashed on the basis that he is protesting his innocence ?

Home teams that rack up 60 points will still rack up 60 points whether you have a t/r or not. Having a T/R would simply mean that the losing team would potentially score 36 in your scenario instead of 30, and the T/R woul have made no difference to the quality of the racing.

Well, we are getting off the point of the point of the thread here because sponsorship is not really a matter for AGM announcements, but having said that I have to agree that the British Final would be a good candidate for sponsorship , and now you have mentioned that point it would be interesting to know what if anything is being pursued in that direction, I was, in the first instance thinking of weatherwatchers claim that they are, as he put it sitting on their fat backsides doing nothing when they should be having an advertising campaign. People say these things and others believe it. Now, I am all for constructive criticism, and for those responsible being held to account, but when people make OTT comments it only stirs up more discontent. In many ways speedway , and its ability to attract sponsors is a victim of events and problems that have built up over decades, some of which has been of the sports own doing and other things outside the sports control., and these things cannot be sorted out at one AGM. I think what has been done this year and last is a new direction, which I welcome but whether it is too little too late remains to be seen. But lets be realistic. You make a good point in suggesting sponsorship for the British Final, but what do you offer the sponsors ? A field of riders that consists of a world champion, two riders who were once genuine internationals but now past there best, but those three have dominated the competition for years and still there is nobody remotely likely to give them a serious rune for their money, the rest of the field being riders who are not really even 2nd heatleaders, or riders from the lower league. Not really an attractive product is it ? How much would a sponsor want to pay for that when he probably gets no more exposure than he would for an ordinary league match. ? I remember a few years ago reading in Speedway Star about Castle Cover sponsoring Poole. The sponsorship had all kinds of local benefits even encouraging staff recruitment, which saved the company money but those benefits would not have been as great if it were a national sponsor as it would have meant very little to people in Manchester or Norfolk, so you see my point. I as I follow Lakeside only really see what happens there although I would imagine some other clubs are very similar. The obvious route for Lakeside would be to advertise in the shopping mall a mile away but the costs are horrendous, several years ago someone told me that just to have a stall in the car park for one day would be £120, and to put a tiny advertisement in the toilets would be about £600 a year. A major advertising campaign with costs like that are prohibitive. However the club do take another route. There is plenty of information on the website and programmes about activity in the community. Riders go to local schools and clubs, even hospitals, and several times a year we see groups of school children being taken onto the centre green to watch a couple of races. These are the fans of the future so interest is being cultivated in ways that are not obvious to casual observers especially those who only watch the sport from their armchair I am not trying to defend or excuse the BSPA but much of the criticism I read on threads like this is totally misdirected and misses the point of what is really wrong. If as you say you are involved at grass roots or junior level, I respect you for that and you will be far more face to face with some of the real problems in the sport than some who come on here moaning about helmet colours being changed.

The Sky Sports Elite League denotes where the major income comes from. Given the nature and structure of the sport its difficult to see where a bigger source. of income could be obtained other than from a TV company, The major expenditure in the sport is by the individual riders and the clubs. It makes more sense that sponsorship should be sought on that basis, Speedway , like almost all branches of motorsport could not survive without sponsorship, but relative to it size there is quite a lot of sponsorship already in speedway, The mere fact that someone is a "sponsor" is meaningless without knowing how much money they put it. . In speedway as in many other sports some clubs sell their brand much cheaper than others, and there is also a lot of private or anonymous sponsorship . Chris Harris for example once told me he never pays for anything so obviously has more sponsorship than outward appearances suggest. The same applies to certain clubs,. Far better that sponsorship should, in the main go directly to where its needed rather than the BSPA creating another level of administration before the money gets passed on. Also as HA has pointed out the pointed out the demographics of speedway do not really lend themselves to overall sponsorship not least because of having to use run down stock car stadiums they don't own, but it is an attractive proposition for businesses fairly local to the clubs,. Its not like sports where the competitors have relatively low personal outlay. promotions do work quits hard to get sponsorship in ways that some fans don't realise, and for people like weatherwatcher for example posting they sit on their backsides doing nothing demonstrates a lack of knowledge of sponsorship as a whole. Even in Poland where the sport is very big a lot of Poles have never heard of the sport so the opportunities to reach a wide audience by advertising are limited, and even the Poles these days are struggling to maintain sponsorship levels , such is the modern world. So personally I would say that having got Sky on board (and trying to keep them) I would rather see all promoters trying to keep their clubs afloat financially in these difficult economic times and other sponsors going direct to the riders..

The Elite League has a sponsor. It is the same sponsor as ice hockey. The clue is in the title of the top league in each sport. Go and work it out.

They have to come to the tapes when the start marshal calls them up. A few years ago at a televised SWC qualifier Chris Gay excluded Matej Zagar for wasting time at the start. Everyone else behaved for the rest of the meeting. If more referees took that line the problem would soon be ironed out, but they don't.

That is true and its a good point but the thread is really about the BSPA meeting not wheeler-dealing the rest of the year. I think it would probably be worthwhile having committee members serve a definite fixed term then be replaced by someone else so they all get a go in rotation, then overall it would even out allegations of bias to one club or another, but as I understand the position a lot of them don't want the job/can't be bothered so the same ones keep cropping up all the time. Having read Len Silvers book it seems petty jealousies in the BSPA were if anything far worse in his day as a major promoter 30 or 40 years ago than they are now, but in those days the sport did not have competition for its fan base as it does now, and of course we didn't have the internet than so most of the fans didn't know what was going on.

He can but SCB was simply pointing out the stupidity of Weatherwatchers daft post. They can all put forward their ideas which get hammered out at the AGM. The Vice -Chairman (which is what Cooke was, not Chairman) has little if any infuence over the collective decisions of the BSPA as a whole. Its pretty well known anyway that there pre-AGM meetings ahead of the actual AGM when agenda's get worked out.

No not a question of being blinkered , just pointing out that you quoted Jon Cook as saying something in SS that he didn't say , and that misleads people who haven't read the article. Your quote was that he said all is well with no need for change, but that's not what he said at all. He set out what he sees as the positives and negatives, but he did highlight things that need attention. You might not agree with what was said and, it might be a valid point to say it doesn't go far enough, but that's not the same as saying he thinks all is well and no change is needed. This is the trouble with these sort of threads. It is indisputable that the sport has a long list of deep problems that are worthy of discussion, but then we always get idiots over egging the pudding and making things uo, over and above the actual problems then others start believing them and that does the sport no favours either. As for him standing down from the MC , everyone at Lakeside has seen for along time that being on the MC has been a distraction from running his own club. He has wanted to stand down for some time but none of the other lazy s%ds want to take the job on.

It doesn't say that in my copy. Have you got a different issue of SS or did you just make that bit up to get a bit of attention ?

Its not so much a question of whether she was in a state to say no, more a question of whether she was in a state to say yes. It seems the difference between McDonald and Evans is that she willingly went to the room with McDonald and I presume must have known what she was going there for, but Evans who she had never met, apparently managed to persuade the hotel porter to give him a key to the room and let himself in, so technically he was an uninvited guest as far as the girl was concerned so technically I suppose that is the difference between Evans and Clayton. Until about 5 years ago Evans could have got away with it on the grounds that he honestly believed she was consenting but the government changed the law and he no longer has that defence. The fact remains that whatever he says the jury found him guilty and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal so its difficult to argue with the conviction. The issue is whether he should go back to playing football. I don't think politicians should normally comment on these things but inevitably they do and the First Minister of Wales and a few others have said he should not play again and as for as I know, nobody of any particular fame or authority has backed him so it looks like he has an uphill struggle.

Maybe they'll re-name it the "One Night Stand" instead when Evans comes back

Seems like another Poole fan had swallowed the Darcy line. Re-hydration has nothing to do with the rate alcohol leaves the body. Darcy failed the breath test because he had too much grog the night before. There can be differing opinions on the appropriate punishment but the fact that he failed the breath test was nothing to do with rehydration, it was purely and simply that he had a skinfull the night before and it hadn't left his system when tested. That's all there is too it.

No, that's not what was said at all. Nothing to do with"asking for it" Have all those years of self abuse affected your eyesight ? Try reading it again.

The first three lines are absolutely spot on. The last line is something that may or may not occur in the future and shouldn't affect what is done today.. At this point in time he stands as a convicted rapist and the club , rightly or wrongly are apparently offering his job back. The Criminal Review Commission don't have the power to quash the sentence, they only have the power to send it back to the Court of appeal to look at it again and that almost always only do so if some fresh evidence has turned up. It appears that Evans girlfriends wealthy father has hired a fresh legal team and an ex-detective to "find " some fresh evidence, but the Court of appeal won't overturn the conviction lightly. I am always suspicious of these cases when a bit of money produces fresh witnesses after the original conviction. Neither Evans not the girl involved come out of this well. Difficult to have sympathy for either of them but as far as Cheerful Charlie is concerned there is nothing wrong with her exercising her right to protest if she feels strongly enough but the pictures of her in a lad's mag do sort of undermine her credibility as a moral crusader.

That doesn't follow. . For one thing 48-42 on a slick track with most races won from the gate is never as entertaining as 55-35 with plenty of passing. The TR rule does not automatically make a meeting more entertaining. It can make the scores but as said before it gives an advantage to top-heavy teams who get an advantage by having a TR mid-match when they still have their strongest heats to come ie heats 13 and 15. It works against teams built with strength in depth who need to build an advantage in the early heats before facing the big hitters in 13 &15. Its not more entertaining to fans who have seen their side as the better team on the track but drop league points to a team that gains on the rule book. Times move on. To say we need it simply because it has been around for 50 years is like saying we need the One-off World Final because that was around for years or we ought to have a straight league with no play-offs because that arrangement worked for years. The fact that something has been around for years does not automatically justify it. The only way to test that theory would be to scrap it and see. Speedway is hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to willingness to change to rules so the TR rule could always be re-introduced if it was felt necessary but unless we try a season or two without it we'll never know.

I personally know two people who say they won't go again while the TR rule but frankly I don't believe that is the reason because they never were regular and still watch it on Sky sometimes so the real reason is that they can't be bothered, just as there are many people on the forum who constantly moan about things but haven't been for years and are never likely to go again. . I find it very difficult to believe that people stop going simply because of the TR rule and nothing else. That said , it is generally an unpopular rule and one of a number of things when put together detract rather than enhance the entertainment value in the eyes of many. I have never described the sport as micky Mouse, and I agree with you it is frustrating when people use that expression as a substitute for rational argument, but the fact remains that there are valid reasons why people don't like the TR rule Why do we need either rule ? One of the anomalies of the points limit is that in the nature of things some teams are built with a strong top two and weak tail. Th eTR rule favours those teams by giving them extra points when they have the big heats, 13 and 15 to pull, up anyway. The other point is that the 4-3-2-1 league points system add snterest to the match that wasn't there in the pold days of straight win or lose when arguably the TS or TR rule added interest to a match. So why exactly does speedway have it ? The only reason I get when speaking to anyone in any sort of official capacity is that Sky want it, although I hear that Rosco also likes it . I can understand the argument that Sky money is important and it is a necessary evil to keep the Sky money coming in but in reality how often does the TR rule enhance a meeting ? Not very often in my experience. In what ways would the sport suffer or lose fans if the TR rule were abolished ? You can't please all the people all the time, that is accepted but it does seem to me that getting rid of the rule would please a lot of people and not really upset very mant, at least not in a serious way. I