DC2

And yet only two years ago he wasn’t picked by any team in any league despite having several years’ experience!

Bonkers. That’s what I’m hearing.

Think he’s got bigger plans than riding for Poole in the Championship. Skidder’s hoping for Danny King as your number 1.

Yep, Shovlar’s Sheffield Shunters or, if it’s Kent, Shovlar’s Kent K......ers.

Not sure they’re letting the right people in then.

Spot on. The farce of speedway.

Unless he was talking about Woffinden.

I thought the discussion was about whether seven or eight teams could be built to 46 points on a reasonable budget, not that we had to get the top eight riders in the world!

No idea, but presumably if Swindon can afford those four, another team can afford the other four, even if they cost a bit more? Especially if it means a few more hundred people through the gate and more revenue.

Would it be more than Doyle, Jensen, Musielak and Batchelor?

How many meetings did you go to this year, Lisa?

Not an improvement? As you say, they are 6/7 pointers and there are 23 riders in the PL with averages below 6.

You said “the best riders return”, but I didn’t think you meant the GP top eight, because we haven’t had them for years. Three of the seven I mentioned rode in the top league in Poland and would be respectable heatleaders, while the other four should be six pointers (although you might have to replace Zengota with Woryna, Wozniak or Freddie Jacobsen as he doesn’t appear to have ridden this year).

All true. He did sack Shanes though and if his first choice Lampart had remained rather than Rasmus, would we have won the league?

That sounds like a mantra which isn’t actually true. How did Somerset afford the World Champion in 2018? I’m not saying we can afford the superstar Poles or the top eight in the GPs, but riders like Lindgren, Kasprzak, Przedpelski, Kim Nilsson, Lahti, Zengota and Gomolski were all riding here just two years ago. And Simon Stead seems up for the challenge. Maybe he still has a good relationship with Vaculik: http://www.speedwaygb.co.uk/news.php?extend.37661

Derrrrr ... if you stayed up Sheffield would make it eight teams. Perfect.

Just analyse that though. You assume a 46.34 limit will ”increase costs”: Will it? On the face of it Peterborough could have two new 8 point riders to replace Garrity and Ostergaard and yes, you would expect Zagar and Kildemand (for example) to cost a lot more money, but, boy, what a cracking team would they have (Zagar, Wright, Tungate, Hans Andersen, Kildemand, Nicholls, Proctor), almost certainly title favourites and the crowds should increase considerably as a result. Could such expenditure therefore break even? Swindon’s costs, with the same team, would be about the same, and the other five clubs (with Sheffield replacing Poole) would only have to replace a reserve or two with a five or six pointer, at little extra cost, to be competitive. There were seven 5 to 6 pointers without clubs at the end of the season. That would leave an eighth club starting from scratch, but if it were a financially solid and well supported one, like Glasgow, it could cope. You say “riders are not available”: As you can see above, that’s not the case for a seven team league, there are several riders from this season who could return and strengthen clubs. So we’re back to the eighth club. Could Glasgow get the likes of Chris Holder, Vaculik, Sundstrom and Bech? Are they ambitious enough?

Credit Crunch and recession 2008 to 2012. Poole won the league in 2008 with one of their best ever teams, had their worst ever team in 2009, got turned over by Coventry in 2010, won again in 2011 and were trounced by Swindon in 2012. Mmmmm ... 2012. Forgotten my point.

Exciting. Is he Swindon’s new number 8?

That would be a disappointment but a price worth paying to see Glasgow in the PL. Assuming, of course, that anyone takes notice of assets. Miedzinski, cough.

OK, costs. Which is the optimum points limit to save costs? At what point do you go too low and damage the product, thereby causing crowds to reduce? Something has obviously been done wrongly over the last ten years as crowds have gone down.

Isle Of White are gutted.

Has to be a business decision for the club, but if they think they can get bigger crowds by having better riders and better opposition it is worth considering. It would be great for two big city clubs with huge potential support (Glasgow and Sheffield) to join the PL and bring it up to eight teams.

That’s the point though. Should a points limit be imposed with the aim of equalisation, or the aim of saving costs, or should it be 46.34 to allow Swindon and every other team to keep as many of their current riders as they like with the aim of encouraging rider and fan loyalty? Which is the most important aim? Equalisation, costs or loyalty? If costs were an issue for a club there would be nothing to force it to change its current team. It wouldn’t have to build to 46.34. After all, the only club that wasn’t competitive this year was Peterborough. With a little bit of luck, better form from one or two riders or an injury or two for Swindon and any one of six clubs could have won it. Does imposing a 42.5 limit every year and forcing most clubs to lose one or two riders actually reduce costs or does it reduce revenue by causing disillusioned fans to leave the sport or go less often?

Masters or Ermolenko? Bech only scored 4.