Barney Rabbit

OK, let's go back to November 2001. Play-offs will be introduced into the EL (only the EL) next season. Why do you think this move was instigated?

Something that had never started can't carry on, that is fact. Whether we'd have them now if they hadn't started back then is conjecture. My opinion is that they would not have - some clubs have had the opinion, in the past, that there were already too many matches so would hardly have been keen on running some more and two cup competitions have already been axed to keep the number of matches down. People wanting less matches would hardly vote for having even more. Polish speedway has a squad system, do we? Sweden and Poland run on one day of the week, do we? Do the Poles or Swedes have guests? Just because another country has something doesn't mean we would necessarily follow.

The point being made is that Sky wanted them so they were introduced. The PL play-offs were also instigated by Sky who actually wanted to see promotion and relegation introduced between the PL and the EL. Had they not have been introduced by Sky we have no way of knowing whether or not they'd be in now but, knowing how speedway works, I'd say most likely not specially as several promoters weren't keen on them in the first place seeing the scenario of finishing top and not being champions or, as one put it (to me), winning the thing and getting f**k all. Had they been seen as a money spinner at the time of their inception, wouldn't the PL clubs also have wanted them, but it took a few years for that to happen and again, on Sky's request. As it happens, right back then, I was with one of a club's hierarchy between the league finishing and the play-offs starting and he said 'we've already won the bloody thing once now we've got to win it again. How fair can that be?' How do you think his club would have voted if they'd had a free vote? Ok, fair enough, most qualifying clubs make a few quid from the play-offs and they're now a fixture, but that is after the financial aspect became clear (and Sky still want them). However, had they not have been more or less forced on the sport back then they may never have happened so the benefits would not have been discovered. It follows then, that, if they had never started they couldn't very well carry on so making the point that we have play-offs because Sky wanted the decider live.

Forget the PL play-offs for a few seconds and answer a simple question:- If Sky hadn't sponsored or shown speedway back at the turn of the century, would speedway be having play-offs now?

If Sky had never sponsored or shown speedway, would we have play-offs now?

At second tier level and in those numbers? I recall four guests for Panthers in the 70s and, on checking their website, it turns out I'm nine out. That's 13 in a decade. Of course, Panthers might not have wanted to use guests and the others all did in greater numbers but I wouldn't bet on it. Riders riding for more than one team, both world-wide and domestically, has gone through the roof and with it the number of guests being used.

I don't know if the old grey matter is playing tricks or not but, in the first year (or two) of the golden double wasn't a tac sub allowed but had to start 15 metres back? I seem to recall one or two #1s refusing these rides because of the handicap.

Or you were at an away track, seeing your team work hard to get into a 6 point lead by heat 8, then watched your #2 and #7 demolished by the home team's top two riders, the home team going on to win by a couple of points.

First rider I saw in green leathers was John Bowerman of Scunthorpe in a World Championship qualifier at Peterborough. As did Todd Wiltshire, if I remember correctly.

There was an asset system back in the early seventies. At Peterborough, I remember John Harrhy being recalled by Coventry in 1972, and John Davis on loan from Oxford for most of two seasons. Alan Witt was also loaned to Long Eaton, in the same division, in 1973.

Lucky, I don't know, but he certainly showed Stoney how to ride Owlerton in the Panthers' PL victory there earlier in the season. A maximum, beating Stoney from behind three times - once when almost stalling at the start and having the distance from starting line to first bend to make up. The best display I've witnessed by a Panthers' rider in team competition.

Phil Crump. Absolutely magnificent with an 11+ average and 25 maximums in Crewe Kings' double winning year of 1972.

I like to think there's more to speedway than just 'four riders riding round a track'. I had a cat once that sat on the arm of the settee watching the cars go round a scalextric track. He watched 'two cars go round a track', getting down when they stopped but was up again when it was obvious the cars were going to 'go round the track' again. I prefer to think I got more out of a speedway meeting than that cat got just watching things 'going round a track'. And to answer your question it wasn't a particular rule that stopped me going (although the play-offs turning the league programme into a long-winded qualifying group nearly did) but the unfair way the rules were administered. The rules or the administration of them - same thing.

What a load of cobblers!! After many years of watching Panthers home and away, their riders in individual events, sponsoring the occasional rider, going to many neutral meetings a year, visiting new tracks as soon as possible after their opening, fitting in meetings whenever I could when travelling, arranging holidays especially to be able to visit tracks, going to Australia, USA and Poland on speedway-specific holidays, going to most GP venues for GPs I now discover that, because I got peed off with the rules and the way they are administered I was never a speedway supporter in the first place! I wish I'd have known that years ago. Think of the money I'd have saved by not attending a sport I didn't follow.

I always saw 'support your team' as more than just watching the racing and shouting for red and blue at home etc. I wanted my team to be on the same playing field as the opposition, at least when teams were put together, but that was not the case. I wanted the powers that be to treat my team the same way they treated all the others but again, it was patently obvious that was not the case, that all are equal but some more equal than others. I wanted the team that finishes top of the table after the home and away matches to be League Champions not merely top of the qualifying group, thus relegating league matches to qualifying matches. In short, speedway, to me, was more than watch fifteen heats, go home, come back another day and watch fifteen heats....What went on between those sets of fifteen heats was just as important.

I know two who have. See answer above.

Roy Carter and John Davis, 1971 - 73 round EoES. OK, probably not the best ever riders to ride as a pair for Panthers but they were virtually unbeatable round the Showground when riding together - and they team-rode. It wasn't just first and second, disappearing out of sight of the opposition, as per NIgel Pearson's view of team-riding these days.

What I tried to say was that the referee decided, by excluding an opponent in an incident in which the 'injured' rider was involved, that any future rides can be taken by R/R if the doctor declares that rider unfit to carry on. The excluded rider's rides can't be covered by R/R should he also be declared unfit to carry on.

The person having the final say as to which rider pulling out of a meeting can be replaced by R/R must be unbiased with no allegiance to any team and that can only be the referee. That's why only a rider crashing out in an incident for which an opponent is excluded should be covered by that rule. Okay, it can still be taken advantage of if said rider isn't actually injured but having a 'mare, but that's hard luck - don't knock opponents off their machines. I would add, though, that once replaced by R/R the rider can't take a subsequent ride.

Not what happened at Mildenhall though, they're still running. And I wouldn't swear there's been no objections from residents at EoES since houses have been built there. There will always be the fear that if they stopped running they wouldn't be allowed back.

Might be worth having a look at how the '71.4%EL,28.6%NL' works before even contemplating a return to the 'higher' level.

Was certainly the case in a previous purchase. Mick Horton, I think, since he couldn't raise the money for the whole kit and caboodle, was given the option of which assets he wanted and opted for Zdenek Tesar and Shane Parker. The others were sold elsewhere by the previous owners.

After many years of attending speedway at all levels, season tickets and the odd rider sponsorship, I gave up on EL speedway because of the 'some are more equal than others' way it is run and getting fed up with the way my club was being shafted time after time. This year proved no different. I do, however, attend the odd match at Mildenhall. The right changes here and there will get me and Mrs R back at Alwalton, no problem, and I believe many people in the ex-attender bracket see things the same way - sort the problems out and we'll be back. We're lucky since we can at least attend NL meetings (not every ex-attender has that available to them) as without them we wouldn't attend at all but the same situation exists - sort it and we'll be back at all levels. Against that, you've got folk who, in various numbers of years have decided not to go to speedway for whatever reason. They either have no interest, don't think the cost warrants them attending something they possibly won't enjoy, may have problems getting to or from a track because of poor or non-existent public transport, or whatever has kept them away in the past. What I don't see is how the never been bothered type is a better bet to attend speedway in future than somebody who is just off the sport at the moment.

I think he's put it in a nutshell. Poole were there, complaining about the call-off whilst Lakeside did, well, what did they do?

It's only a couple of teams, maybe only one, that spoke out against the asset system per se last year so why would someone challenge it in court? Very costly and no guarantee of winning.