Barney Rabbit

Peterborough track record is 58.4. Krzysztof Kasprzak set it in heat 1 of the play-off semi, 2nd leg last year. (20/09/'10).

Now I believe it. http://www.speedwaygb.co/elteams.html

Jumped the gun? Some would say they merely beat another team to him.

Andersen could well have agreed a deal with Coventry since Panthers had agreed a deal with Bjerre before the AGM. Birmingham could have been given permission to talk to him after the AGM.

Mr Frost's statement is perfectly clear. It says exactly what he means.

On BSPA site too. http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.9768

http://www.peterboroughpanthers.co/news.php?extend.1181.2 http://www.coventrybees.co/news.php?extend.1439

It needn't have been somebody from Coventry Bees. Last time I looked at a map, Rugby was in Warwickshire.

Is 'would' in this case a suggestion or a catagorical statement that three teams will definitely refuse any altered points limit should that be the case?

And very warily with an eye to possible alterations I'd say. Which rider currently signed wouldn't have been signed regardless of points limit?

The important part of the message is on the tree - the red tape that's preventing Coventry putting out the real statement.

With Andersen and Batchelor still not signed (and Rooboy if Coventry don't use him) there's still scope for an EL team without those signed elsewhere.

Your answer came over as a statement of fact correcting a suggestion made by another poster - it WOULD have been because, not it MIGHT have been because.

I understand there's a three year qualification period before a promoter can vote. That being the case, and bearing in mind Peter Oakes' situation, the case suggested by Doc61 might - just might - be a possibility for action. Why not answer him rather than comment that Mr Frost might not even be a member of the BSPA.

The bit you highlighted was no more than a flippant comment. You conveniently ignored the crux of my posting - the fact that Poole ALLOWED one of their top two to move but that Coventry HAD to release one of their top two under the new ruling.

Eh? What happened to the 9 riders 8.01 or above, more than enough for one per team? I thought the 8.01 rule was brought in so that every club could have a #1 ABOVE 8.00 not ON 8.00. As you say, Poole CAN keep their top two (but have elected to let one go probably to allow them to get a GP rider currently without an EL average) but Coventry CAN'T keep Harris and KK - the rule was changed to not allow this. Why are Eastbourne not running with a rider in the 8.01 or above category (enough to go round, apparently) but using a #1 who could be another team's also-runner?

To you, maybe. Not to me. Let's just wait and see what caused the rift before deciding who's right and wrong in this.

Whilst exiled up in Yorkshire I regularly watched CL racing at Scunthorpe, Sheffield and - my favourite venue after Peterborough - Buxton. I've also been a regular at Mildenhall since returning home. I found most of the meetings enjoyable and, at Buxton especially, I've seen meetings raced and completed in conditions an EL rider wouldn't even consider taking his bike out of his van in. I also enjoyed Pumas matches back then - winning the Championship at Stoke pleased me just as much as any of the EL/PL Championships. If that's where Panthers operate next year, bring it on, I'll be there.

The rule actually reads :- In the EL, that Teams #8, or a PL Rider (with a PL CMA of 6.00 or less) and in conformity to SR 18.3. The brackets make a difference or why put them in. It could be read that the rule means whichever non-facility is used (the team's #8 or a PL guest), he must have a PL CMA of 6 or less. Take the hypothetical case of a #8 who's PL average has risen to, say, 9.8. In the event of n unauthorised no-show his team can use a rider with a PL average of 9.8 whilst a team without a #8 are restricted to a PL guest of 6 or less. Maybe, maybe not. That's if somebody in the BSPA even knows the rules. The 180 hour rule was broken this season (4/8 and 11/8) with no apparent problem so either nobody actually knows the rules or they're not particularly bothered if (some) teams transgress.

Oh, a missprint! Yeah, right. Probably only since Pratt wanted to use it to have a squad system. Why have a #8, let eastern wolf answer that:- Is the right answer. Why is the only reference to a #8 in Rule 17 contained within the section concerning double-uppers (apart from the next one about re-declaration)? That's the crux of the matter - was the rule meant as eastern wolf posts or that a team can operate an any 7 from 9 policy to circumvent average regulations?

Where does it say that? 17.4.5 ........ A Declared Line-Up may include a pair of “Doubling-Up Riders” and a #8, both of whom at the at the time of (re)declaration must be in a Premier League Declared 1 – 7. In the case of the Doubling-Up Riders, both must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 8.00 or less and the CMA of #8 must not exceed that of the lowest declared Rider (by CMA) and in any case must have a final 2008 PL CMA of 9.00 or less. 17.4.5.1 May = optional Have to = compulsory.

But as you say, the EL doesn't operate a squad system so how can Coventry be right utilising one. It compounds the fact that speedway rules are constantly broken/circumvented with impunity.

He somehow missed 13 chances to ride his twelfth match. Stitched up? No way - if ever there was a case for the Joe Screen Amendment to be implemented this is it!

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on whether the EL is use your declared 1-7 whenever available or a squad system of any 7 from 8 (or 9 if operating d/uppers). For me, I can't recall the change to a squad system, but the rules read however you want them to. Not specifically a reply to the above quoted post, I agree with SS that there is a lot of 'up yours' feeling on this thread and I'm willing to bet that once Coventry declare their team for 2011 with Pawlicki at reserve there will be many posts on here complaining about the use of a rider who only has a suitable average because he was held back from riding his twelfth match.

I would make that 'declared' rather than strongest. and add 'barring authorised absences'. I would say that, with that one word changed, it makes Steve's point.