1 valve

I am presuming that Norrie or somebody from the Lions challenged the SCB/BSPA decision as soon as it was known about. if so does anybody know what was the reason given by the SCB/BSPA for blatantly approving a breach of the rules?

Heat 12. Lions (guest) Sarjeant brings down hammers (guest) Hall on the 3rd/4th bend of lap one and is excluded. Lions (guest) Greenwood returns to the pit entrance whilst Hammers rider Elis returns in to the pits. The referee excludes Ellis for leaving the track as per rule 15.2.2 which specifically states "no return into the pits is permitted" however this rule is applicable only when the race has been stopped and no riders have been disqualified i.e. a "flying start" Rule 15.2.3 which covers the situation where a rider is excluded and a re-run is required does not specify that riders cannot return to the pits and this is the rule that the referee should have used. Hence after being told by the Hammers manager and then another referee that he had used the wrong rule he reversed his decision of penalising Ellis.

I am happy to stand corrected re Hall being booked by Hammers weeks ago...good research by them. also agree that Swiderski is not delivering as he needs to. Also agree that lions were beaten by a better team on the night....I just don't agree that Hammers should have been allowed to field Harris and that 4 guests in one team is simply too many. Yes Lions beaten by a better team, just that the team in question wasn't really "The hammers" just a line up who plundered the league points for the team in question.

According to the speedway regs. 14.4.1 the away team must inform the home team of their line up 4 days before the meeting. Subsequent changes are allowed if circumstances change i.e. a rider is injured and therefore unavailable (the full list of acceptable reasons are given in the rules) In this particular instance after the 4 day cut Hammers adjusted their line up to accommodate Harris. Now this may not be cheating in the true definition, but this action does not follow the rules. So lets say Hammers did not follow the rules (which I think some people do call cheating) but because their action was endorsed by CVS of Wolves (by the way does anyone know which team is in danger of Lions overtaking at the foot of the table?) the Hammers late change was deemed as permissible....Of course since such changers are now apparently arbitrarily allowed, one could question why we bother having rules in the first place. Speedway promoters...please grow some balls and start acting like responsible custodians of a sport in need of some tender loving care rather than feeding it with the drugs of despair, greed & deceitful manipulation - and start by using a truly independent body regarding rules and regulations to police the sport in the UK..i.e. one that does not involve a promoter from the very league youa re involved I......

or as a politician would say.."His opinions are inconsistent"

Lions didn't field their team nor did the Hammers so hardly a fair comparison. In reality with 50% of the combined line up being guests this meeting should have been listed as a challenge match so that at least after a long lay off the promotion had a meeting fro the fans to watch. Interestingly, Hammers had the larger portion of the guests which apparently was finally arrived at after rule bending (a polite way of saying they were allegedly allowed to cheat by another promoter) to allow Harris in as a guest meaning that 57% the Hammers final line up was made up of guests who collectively scored 65% of the teams total score. I am also prepared to say that Norrie in his role of team manager failed to field a suitably strong team particularly at reserve, where although hard to explain Richard Hall being seen as an up and coming rider Norrie was slow off the mark to book Hall for the Lions. Sorry but clearly 1 up to the Hammers management. Overall, a truly bad advert for British Speedway capped by a referee who had to admit publically that he did not fully understand the rules.

every team bar Leicester have won at Lakeside this year. I think the tactical rider rule needs looking at as clearly that was the main reason for Robins getting back into the match. Hammers off to a flyer, Swindon get use to the track and required settings and then wham..big points and no real chance for Hammer to do likewise. My suggestion would be limit the use of tactical rides to heats 11, 12 & 13.

Lions will not finish bottom - unless they suffer even more injuries. will be ahead of Wolves and most probably Lakeside although tonight's fixture may prove difficult considering the strengthening of the Hammers via the guests from Coventry. They may also pip The Aces. so having finished bottom last year, they will improve on that result this year which will be a good base to plan for next year when hopefully Doyle, Walasek & Wozniak will continue as full time Lions. It would be great to see Masters come back too but I agree with the concept of trying to build a team around full time riders rather than double ups as clearly this does disrupt the flow of the team when PL fixtures interfere. two things we do need for next year 1. riders who do not quit once their domestic season starts, 2 a great reduction in the number of injuries. The backward step of going into PL gains zero respect, as there is no guarantee of the Lions being able to build a competitive team as all good riders are spoken for, whilst the intention of building on this year performance will see Lions competing for a play off position. So three seasons one an inaugural wooden spoon, followed by a mid tablei(sh) season two and then a play off birth is a better set of circumstances than retreating back to the lower divisions. I am sure the continued ambition of the promoters will be rewarded with both increased support and a winning team

The report which is a very good read refers to rumors of a "long lease" being quashed. I recall that mention had previously been made of the CO inserting a restrictive covenant in the sale agreement/title deeds. if this was the case this is far stronger than an extended intended use lease agreement. Or was this wishful thinking from the outset?

Does anybody know to what extent there is truth and scope of a supposed restrictive covenant placed on the Brandon site by the late Charles Ochiltree? If one does exist how is it being used to challenge the plans of the current owners?

If there was (or is) a land covenant applicable to the land the local council cannot overturn it. Such decisions are subject to the Upper Tribunal - Lands Chamber - based in London.

Coventry only scored 2 points from Robson's programmed rides. Good tactics by Havelock in switching the reserves around to make use of Garrity's form had a major impact on the final score.

I agree that things look tough for the Lions, but maybe the three Polish lads will take a liking to the track and provide backup to Jason D which will keep things interesting. Can anyone comment on how well the two guest reserves have done on recent visits?

Leicester will have recieved a fee for being the host of the televised meeting and so in all reality will have made more money than normal meeting. However, the point is a good number of people turned up who would not have normally attended which means the Lions have prospects of gaining more fans. This is a perfect example of using TV money to promote the sport. The other consideration is the amount to be charged and I think there is an argument that Elite speedway is too expensive and the possibility is that a reduced entrance fee could attract more fans. But will a 25% reduction attract 30% or more fans? I dont know but it might be worth a try/

On Monday Leicester lowered their prices and had their largest crowd of the season. Also consider, a) the match was on sky & b, Monday was not the Lions regular race night and without doubt some regulars did not go because of the next day being a school. so yes lower prices do mean higher crowds, if the event is promoted which the Lions did.

Intersting stat. Guest riders made up 29% of Lions and scored 27% of points. on a comparative note. Walasek's average for home meetings is 9+ and Lambert only scored 6. I am pretty sure Auty would have scored close to the same as Wilko (who rode very well) given the opposition. so whilst agreeing the guests had a part to play Swindon on this occasion were indeed just fodder. Howver, I think some folk on here would have prefered the Lions to have let the Robins pass them to make the meeting more interesting!! 7 Newbies to speedaway stood next to our group last night and age range looked around 20 - 25. All said they loved the night, couldn't believe the riders rode without brakes and thought it great money for 15 quid. i.e. for admission and cost of food and drink & a shared programme which we helped them to complete. said they would come again but not every week if it was £17 ...a lesson worth considering?

Is this a fact or something you think happens?. If it's fact, do you know the reason behind it?

No lets stay and support the efforts being made to ensure top flight speedway remains in Leicester and recognise that to make progress takes time to build a strong and reliable team. I remember at the start of the season the Lions looked strong enough to be more than capable of being well away from the footof the table. but as we all now know some of those riders were not in it for the season and we need to recognise it is just not that easy to rebuild once the season has started. throw in the injuries we have had plus the Bridger situation is there no wonder the Lions have struggled. but those matters are in the past and I applaude the efforts of the riders & promoters to come through all of the challenges and move on to more positive outcomes which dropping to the PL is not one of them.

I guess you are a Coventry fan then. As somebody who isn't one (and have no dislike of the Bees) I think the statement a reflection from somebody who just does not want to accept what happened because he came out on the wrong side of what was a difficult situation. Poole (no I am not a Poole supporter) on the other hand got on with the task in hand, namely getting past heat ten and by doing so ensured they obtained a victory rather than lose the benefit of the lead they had built up both when the track was capable of being raced on and when conditions became less so. Contrary to Coventry promotions view that "Allowing Poole to retain the four league points gained in such unsatisfactory circumstances" should not be allowed, I would point out that the group of individuals who had the best chance of doing that were in fact the Coventry Bees...but they chose not to race...ah but they were behind anyway so now they need a plan B and I for one hope it does not pay off, they have had their chance and lost!

No they didnt because the meeting officials agreed that the meeting could not continue - and of course weather played no part because it was indoors

The officials are the only people who can call a match off. AKA pro football, the referee is the only person who can call off the match. Sky do not have the authority to call off a match although in the interest of the sport it would be good if televised fixtures could go ahead but as we have seen over the years sometimes meetings are called off before the scheduled start and also during teh meting itself. We speedway loving folk should treat Sky as our friends and not some dark murky bogeyman hellbent on ruining our sport.

Of the seven originaly declared riders 2 (both Danes) have "jacked it in" 2 are injured. In addition 1 (Bridger) did one meeting and retired (again) so I guess its more poor selection although I dont see that the promotion can be blamed for not having a chrystal ball.

Interesting although I see Harris had only 8 metings. Meanwhile from the stats it looks like Leicester have landed the best prospect in Wozniak who managed 8 points on Saturday in the ELRC as a late replacement not bad for a No. 4 rider. Could be heat leader material by end of year once he has seen all of the tracks?

No rain due...or do you live in hope that it does?