sparkafag

And just ignore his performances around Berwick and Workington? When he raced at Scunthorpe for Plymouth he scored 13 from 5, chuck out the tactical it is still 10 from 5 which is about par for Fisher now around most tracks in the country, to contrast that against one other performance and then state his best meetings come when guesting is hardly solid evidence to validate the claim you are throwing around.

How many people should be attending Speedway meetings in an area like Scunthorpe (not to pick on them) it is an area where unemployment is high and an area of austerity. If there was 700/800/900 + attending would this be enough? What sports are being used as a comparison when it is referenced that 450 people attending?

He was booked to guest (last season) but those appearances came after he scored a maximum for his own club (at Berwick) which realistically meant that he wasn’t ever going to have his best meetings when guesting for other teams as he couldn’t perform any better (at Berwick) than he did for Plymouth . The only other track Berwick booked him to guest (that I recall) was Workington, and again his best meeting at Workington was for Plymouth. I am not seeing the evidence that validates the claim that his best meetings comes when guesting for other teams. I do have a slight feeling of Deja Vu re this conversation though, it was thrown up during the winter and it was as much a fallacy then as it is now.

I wanted to know when he performs better when guesting, he scored a point more than that last season from 5 rides racing for….Plymouth. He is just really good at Berwick it is probably why Newcastle booked him as a guest.

When does he perform better when guesting?

I like the Peterborough side, it will entertain and probably run up big scores quite often home and away but there home track will be the Achilles heel IMO. I think there are a few sides in the league that will go there with riders who enjoy the track (Newcastle, Glasgow, Sheffield, Workington and Plymouth) and it will set a mentality in those sides that they can win there. I think Peterborough will struggle to fend that of during the course of the season which will cost them a top 4/5 place.

I would take the point if it was 2001 when Ford verged on a team building genius irrespective of the budget at his disposal. While they didn’t win the title that season the side built that year was a genuine achievement under those rules and regulations. The way Andersen and Cegieslki arrived and instantly performed was admirable, that side assembly was more praiseworthy than the restructure mid 2007 IMO (and that was also a hell of an achievement) At that time though there was also fair options there for sides to negate Poole’s strength and thus they didn’t actually win the title in 2001, now though the EL just stinks of a league where half the teams start with an arm behind their back. I appreciate the counter is he was a team building genius then and still is now and works the rules well, probably rings true but at least back then the other sides appeared to bother to fight back, and were far more enabled to than they are now. It just appears seasons are settled before they start now barring one or two surprise results along the way. I say all that as someone who doesn’t in anyway hate Poole. I appreciate the dynasty created and look on at most sides (eg 2001 and 2007) with a certain degree of awe, but the last few years it’s hard not look at them with a degree of asterisk placing next to it.

Well this isn’t sarcastic….if my posts bother you….fck off from reading them then rather than coming over in a quite needy way and latching onto people who you openly admit irk you.

Give it time

Yet again attempting to claim what others think in an attempt to validate your thoughts….and now not only following others but actively seeking out posts from people….baaa

Emm anyway. Newman Is being assessed by one person in particular in this strange paradox where he should be things and assessed as a rider based on how it is perceived people react to his performances. People are seemingly hysterical about Newman, they aren’t, and even if they are.....well.......and..... what does it change re how he performs on track? He (Newman) seemingly should beat certain riders anyway, why he “should” beat riders who are theoretically better than him I don’t know. He “should” be getting maximums until they face Belle Vue, that would mean him going undefeated against riders like Masters, Lindgren, Mads K, Schlein, Ulamek… on what logical basis “should” Newman go undefeated against that standard of rider? He now should be judged based on how he performs in British Finals, again, why I don’t know, maybe he just isn’t going to be a rider who performs in British Finals, and again, in the grand scheme of things, if he doesn’t…..well what of it? And if he does perform well in the British Final I assume he “should” do that anyway. I don’t ever remember Newman being hyped up as a rider who would go on to win world titles, British Finals etc…the majority of his career he has had quite a low profile, possibly he has already overachieved in performing as he is and should be praised for that, assessing him against false opposition is hardly fair. If you are of the theory that riders “should “ score EL Maximums every week and perform in British Finals you could make a case for the vast majority of British riders who have ever bothered with the sport being crap, when in reality they aren’t but instead just perform at different levels.

If you ignore all the good riders Newman beats and the points he scores he is actually crap if you really think about it.

True, it is a great service for a regular fan but probably not a new fan who has walked into the sport and only in their initial steps into the sport and probably doesn't know about it, nor is it going to be advertised openly at the track.

Speedway is incredibly weighted in favour of buying a programme and does dictate the cost of match day experience, more so than most sports where a programme is just a magazine. It is all well and good saying just print of a sheet, most people aren’t going to go that hassle and thus you are adding to the cost, or disengaging people right away. A free race card or score board (most teams don't have them) should be a given. If you then want to read about the team etc you should have the option to buy a weekly production IMO. Another alternative would be an online score card that could be accessed via Twitter, Facebook etc during the meeting where fans could add comments re how they see the meeting going, albeit that would likely appeal to a minority in an average speedway crowd.

What is a fair price for Speedway? In Edinburgh (not to pick on them just using them as an example) you could go and see the following.. Top flight football for £24.00 (in very decent facilities and in the city centre) Pro 12 Rugby for £20.00 (in a National stadium in the city centre) Second tier football for £22.00 (in very decent facilities in the city centre) Concert average about £20 (in varying but generally decent facilities in the city centre) Ice Hockey for £16.00 (in decent facilities in the city centre) Speedway for £15.00 (45 minutes from the city with a poorish transport network and poor facilities) Meal in a decent location £10-£15.00 Cinema £9.00

I do understand the point you are making you wish to position it that Speedway clubs cannot afford top riders, it would hold more validity with me if it wasn’t just a sweeping generalisation and also if, as you have already alluded to yourself, you knew whether or not some clubs could or couldn’t afford riders. The story and deficit of 100k is one you have fabricated rather than an actuality, you might want to take a step back and realise that rather than entrenching yourself in your own idea. My point was what about the clubs who can afford riders, it is yourself that has chosen to create a straw man club who cannot afford riders and started to pluck figures from the air. Even taking all that into account, I doubt you will ever get to a stage where clubs wont rely on outside funding, the very existence of a club needing support and payment from fans means they require outside funding, some clubs will be fortunate enough to have more fans than others, and with more fans more than likely more cash rich fans who wish to invest in the club, club aren't going to turn that investment down, and nor should they as attracting sponsors isn't "irresponsible" if the club has carried out due diligence. Re the “I remember a promoter once telling me” line, sorry it doesn’t hold weight with me, the counter would be “I remember a promoter once told me they could afford rider x”…it just comes across a bit like bald men fighting over a comb though..

No, I think the structure of the EL this season is completely ridiculous and whoever sanctioned the grade of FTR, the points limit and heat leader list needs sacked. I would also say though that this season is an extreme example of the utter mess that can be made though, it should be used to point to how things can go wrong. There was no mechanism put in place to balance out disparity between Poole and Kings Lynn as an example, Poole have a better top 5 and better reserves, the theory should be that Poole are at least given Kings Lynns reserves to counter and balance out “strength” I do though think that, if say riders were put in a pot and a form of NFL draft system in place with retained riders, young riders bracketed by age and region etc, that it could, in theory be totally fine for, to use the example again, Coventry to sign Harris with the proviso being they are left with, as an example, Lee Payne and Nathan Graves at reserve, freeing up the chance for a Carl Wilkinson to make his way to reserve at Scunthorpe to counter act balance as they would have the strong reserve to counter the strong Number 1/weak reserve side etc and so on. I appreciate that in any grade or draft system there would be debate and questions re who was placed in which category, but if there was logic, fairness and independence to the draft you could find a way to do to that and include top riders who want to be here and young British kids who want to get better From a personal point of view a build to and viewing of a draft would also be great online content that could be used throughout the winter to keep the sport fresh and in minds eg....North region will sign there Number 1 on week 1 of winter, South region week 2 of the winter working through, allowing time to negate deals for clubs etc (just fantasy promoting though). It could be promoted across the sport, all clubs and allows the chance of cookie cutter promoting to ensure clubs are getting news out in the best way possible, allows eyes to be drawn to the sport and every club in the country rather than......Rye House signed Peter Karger as a tweet that is known days and weeks before it is announced (just an example) Again though, all of this is just adding humps to the original post which was a horse and turning it into a camel, I do agree with the vast majority of points in the original post, so I will back out of the water muddying.

I fail to see even in a merged league, how (short term and probably long term), for example, Berwick or Scunthorpe will ever be able to afford the same standard of rider as Poole or Coventry, and I don’t think that is a bad thing. They sides will always be able to pay more so in theory always drag the price up if they go for a Number 1 irrespective of the standard of league or other Number 1 riders as they will set a precedent for "Number 1 money" If a side builds a better, more sustainable business model they should be able to spend more than other clubs, that’s generally how sport works. As well as building decent 1-7s clubs should be rewarded for building solid clubs. If they have done that through the attraction of fans, sponsors etc, then the cash generated from that should be going back onto the track in some form rather than sitting as cash reserves just because others haven’t achieved the same level of success. But fair enough, if you remove Harris the next best rider would just be the one who was in demand who Coventry could afford and others couldn’t you would only continue a list eliminating names as you go saying “can’t rider here because some can afford and others cannot” IMO, as that is generally how sport works, clubs want better riders. I think that fairness is great, but if the idea is Coventry (as an example) can’t sign someone (eg Harris) despite being able to afford him and have to charge the same as Edinburgh (despite having indefinitely better facilities than them) then I am not sure that is fair but instead manufactured haemorrhaging of a side to the point you might actually a damage sides to falsely build others. I don’t mean this as a cheap shot rather a tip of the hat in praise. There was once a time in the PL when a Kings Lynn side had the likes of Nermark, Doolan and Topinka in it, do I think every side in the PL could have afforded that, no, do I think it was a bad thing or damaged the product, not really, if anything that side was a great draw and something for others to aim at and fans to enjoy when they came to town. I do appreciate the original post was just a suggestion though and a lot of this is probably pedantic nit-picking but at least it is debate with the best intentions of the sport at heart.

They have signed him for 12 seasons (I think) so the suggestion is they can? Is finding a way to pay riders not a massive part of building a sports team? If they (or any club) finds ways to pay riders through subsidiaries and sponsorship is that not a good thing, a part of sport?

That’s partly my point. If Coventry (as an example ) can afford Harris (again example) and Harris can commit to meetings and things aren’t changed to accommodate him, why exclude him purely because he is good? Why not just have both if a world class rider can meet the criteria required re proven attendance etc and so on, let them ride here.

A lot I agree with and I appreciate it’s a suggestion but…. I would find a blanket exclusion of top level riders absurdly harsh for a number of reasons. I don’t doubt the likes of Crump, Adams etc were well paid but they were great servants to speedway in this country and an absolute draw in terms of attracting fans, yes the landscape of the sport has changed since their days but even now the likes of Holder, Doyle and even Harris (who rides at the top level) haven’t done a thing wrong and are in fact great draws in terms of promoting the sport. As well as excluding top level riders from the start you would ultimately be openly accepting and turning the sport in this country into a finishing school would you not, in that rider gets good and wants to leave for more money on the continent? And at what stage do loyal servants of the new model begin to be viewed as top level internationals? If Nick Morris as an example races for Australia at the SWC for the second year in a row this year is he then a top international who has to leave the league? It all sounds a bit like a glorified PL to me, which I appreciate it is and what a lot of fans want but at the same time it sounds like a complete and utter acceptance of A Fish Super rather than Steak when a Sunday Roast could actually be ok.

Whether or not the FTR system has been a success or not would depend on the question and who was asking it as there are so many caveats to the question “progress?” If it is being judged on the riders who were originally included than it indefinitely has. The thing with listing riders from a few years ago is that it creates a natural regression of thought that they are as good now as they were at that time, more so as it is skewed with “still racing PL”. I would suggest Worrall, Kerr, Garrity and Starke have all been an absolute success in terms of progress, all are indefinably better than they were when this begun and actually have a decent crack at becoming something. I appreciate some might argue natural progress might have dictated that anyway, possibly so, but x amount of EL meetings on top of their schedule and the time spent around better riders will have accelerated progress. Others have met “success” via different criteria Lambert, Sarjeant and Morley have resuscitated their careers and will all hold their own in the PL this season. Clegg, Perry, Ellis, Rose and Nielsen remain young riders, with Ellis looking like he could push into the Worrall, Kerr and Co group The remainders are the kind of excess you will find when you introduce a large batch of talent, some won’t make it and some will but it is about the success. The draft system has worked to an extent it has helped create more British riders, the other issues that have spawned from it such as race format, weak top 5s and irregularities in the system are the fault of different aspects that have went against the initial intention which was a good one.

That’s quite unfortunate you don’t have the courage of your own convictions to remain consistent in your counter point.

So by your own admission you reply to the posts over and over again with the same counter point given you are replying to the same point?

Ow yeah, sure…I was being sarcastic in my post as well… I am now as well can you tell? actually all the posts are sarcastic and everyone quoting them is in on them. If you are so into the idea of debate though best not to say things like "is this still going on" and basically implying people who disagree with you are idiots as then it just comes across than you are a bit of a mass debater.