BurntFaceMan

Or a mutual deal Anton will storm it at BV no doubt, but will probably flounder at Wolves Having said that, would be a real shame for both teams fans to miss out on seeing a rider of Anton's calibre.

It's not me trying to dispute the definition of long term. The fact is unless long term is defined exactly, and the way you can ensure a rider is going to be injured for that time is defined, then it's basically an open invitation to be used by any team who want to replace any rider before the play offs.

So? That's how the league works with these rules. That's why we had a load of reserves spending mid season in top 5 positions. It's been that way all season and every team have had their ups and their downs. Stupid league format and obvious this was going to be outcome.

Spot on!

Good. This is the only way to force change. The more leaving the merrier. Hopefully they will change in a few ways: 1) Get rid of the ambiguous rules. If you're going to leave them open to interpretation, somebody is going to interpret them in their favour. 2) More promoters like Matt Ford who get the biggest crowds, the biggest riders and know how to make the most of the rules. 3) Make the league transparent. Clear formulas for averages, clear comprehensive rules, a little clarity for the supporters.

It's not illegal at all. If this were a legal case it would never make it as far as court! Hans Andersen: "...as you can see it's not just a tip of a finger which is broken, and now 6 days after my hand has been plated I'm making process daily BUT to be honest I don't know if I'm a week or 3 away from getting back on the bike." "Long term" was not defined. I could say that it's fine to go without water short term, but in the long term you would die. The short term being a couple of days, the long term being a couple of weeks. I could say that it's fine to leave the EU short term, but long term it could be very damaging. The short term being a few months and the long term being a few years. Did you have a hand in writing the rules BWitcher? Some of these rules seem to be just as ambiguous as your posts! To sum up: Completely legal. If you want to stop it happening again, define long term. Rules are part of the game, and you must look at the rules simply as another way to get the most from the game. Change the rules or do a better job playing it yourself.

Would rather have R/R than Bomber...

Literally spent the last 5 minutes chuckling to this at my desk!

Why was this meeting called off so early? Was the track really that bad?

Lol... I'm predicting Chris Holder, Antonio Lindback, Brady Kurtz, Rohan Tungate (G), Josh Grajczonek (G), Kyle Newman, Adam Ellis

Not a chance in hell does it weaken us! It's pretty much sealed our position in the final. Not sure what the rules allow but would have preferred R/R.

Tungate clearly the much better rider.

Stupid comment.

To be fair, it's not very clear either way. 16.3.4.1 A 7-day window, prior to the scheduled date of the first EL Play-Offs will enable EL Clubs only to replace long-term injured riders, not with riders in other EL Team Declarations. NB. Art. 16.3 does not apply, but riders must be fully licensed, have current Start Permission and be eligible to participate in UK Speedway. This is the rule that Matt used to bring Antonio Lindback into the side. As the rule clearly states, the rider has been replaced. The only part of this rule that is open to interpretation is the definition of "long-term injured". Who decides this? If a rider cannot confirm when he will be back on the bike, but knows that he will at very least be off the bike for the foreseeable future, then surely this must count as a "long-term injury"? The only alternative would be to define within the rules what does and does not count as a long term injury. Unless you're going to name specific injuries, or can see the future, it's impossible to define "long-term injured". The only interesting point is the rule that proceeds it: 16.3.4 No Team changes will be allowed after 28th August with effective date being 31st August, except for riders returning to the Team after injury. This actually suggests that Matt is allowed to sign Hans back to the team, but doesn't say that he must. It seems that he is quite within his right to keep Antonio Lindback in the team, regardless of whether Hans is now fit to ride. I can't see how there can be any sort of penalty for Poole this season as "long-term injured" would need to be properly defined.

No, he shouldn't. The rules state there is a 7 day window to sign a rider who would not recover in time to compete in the play offs. Seeing as the rider could not confirm that he would recover in time a new signing had to be made. Antonio Lindback has signed for Poole. He is not a guest. For Hans to now be back in our side we'd need to sign him to the team again, which the rules do not allow. Ignoring the assessed averages debacle, the rules have been followed to the letter. Bringing Hans back would be the only contravention of the rules. Bjarne said he wasn't feeling well last week. I don't think this had any impact on him not competing tonight.

Do you see what I mean now about the vague ambiguous statements? The fact of the matter is that nobody has any complaints but some of the fans who are sick and tired of their promotion sitting back and doing nothing, whilst other promoters like Matt Ford are working around the clock to make the most of every single match, race, rule and regulation. Or, as you're suggesting, there is this massive secret culture of fear, where all the promoters, sponsors, media and riders are simply too afraid to say anything bad about Mr Ford, out of fear that his contacts in the hair care and child care industries might seek retribution. Bull droppings. Excuse after excuse. Don't hate the player, hate the game. How simple is that? Don't get p1ssed off because somebody is playing the game better than you. If you don't like it, stop playing the game or change the game.

Again, that's not explaining anything. That's making an ambiguous reference to answer a lot of questions.

But surely there has to be at least a handful of argumentative w@nkers like you and I who have the balls to pipe up and say something? I mean the forum sure has a good few of us with some balls to speak out and stand our ground. What I'm seeing is a bunch of whiny fans, making generic ambiguous statements about various aspects of the sport, with nothing more than implied general consensus, and a complete lack of protest from the guys at the very top! Sky, Speedway Star, local rags, sponsors, riders themselves? I don't think the little boys club argument makes any sense at all. There is either a very good reason they are not saying something, or they simply don't have anything to complain about.

What about you BWitcher, can you explain why nobody running the sport has any problem with Matt? I mean the promoters don't complain, the board doesn't complain, the sponsors don't complain, the TV coverage doesn't complain, the riders don't complain... Any idea why? Genuine question. The poster before me just said "The BSPA really need to grow a pair", but it seems to me like they aren't the only ones that need to grow a pair. It seems just about everybody from the top of the sport to the bottom needs to grow a pair, as none of them are complaining. Is there a culture of fear? What do they fear? A bad haircut?

You're talking out your bottom I'm afraid. Can you, or anybody else, explain why none of the other promoters say anything about Matt Ford cheating, if that is the case? Are they all taking back handers from Matt? Do they all owe Matt? Do they all fear Matt? The guy used to own salons. He now owns a speedway club and a children's day care nursery. The way you lot go on about him you'd think he was mafia.

Nonsense, as expected from some. All I got from your post is that not only are there idiots running the league, but plenty supporting it too. Ok, you're right. A blanket 8 pt average is the most appropriate way to assess GP riders. Chris Harris and Tai Woffinden are both basically as good as each other. Tai Woffinden's 7.03 pt average is fair and Antonio Lindback's 7.00 pt average is not. Let's all keep bleating on about how unfair it is, but not suggest any reason why it's unfair or any way to change it. Wow! What an intelligent post! Ok, from now on if a rider is injured we will run the play offs without him, and if he doesn't recover before the end, it will be clear that a new signing was justified and we'll rerun the play offs all over again with a new rider in his place. You and Freddy would make a fantastic addition to the BSPA!

Henry, I appreciate you're upset with the situation, but writing a condescending post to try and discredit me, without applying any logic whatsoever is not going to change anything. I appreciate it may make you, and other fellow fans (who are just as disillusioned with the management of this sport as you or I) who liked your post, feel better, but it's not the answer. In fact all of the points you made were incorrect. I've addressed each of your condescending remarks directly. No. That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying there are 8 GP riders racing in our league. 50% of them have an average of at least 8 pts. Additionally, only 37.5% of them have an average in excess of 8 pts. I think that the really basic arithmetic you were searching for has failed you a little bit. Let's take a look at the 4 GP riders racing in our league with an average of at least 8 pts. Jason Doyle - 9.81 - Top half of the GP Chris Holder - 8.00 - Top half of the GP Niels Kristian Iversen - 8.99 - Bottom half of the GP Andreas Jonsson - 8.78 - Bottom half of the GP So can you explain the "really basic arithmetic" you used to determine that any rider in the top half of the GP standings should be assessed an average of 8pts? It actually makes perfect sense, but I'll try and explain it again for you. There are 4 positions available in the play offs. This year, the team that finished in 4th place won 13 of their 28 matches (as did the teams in 2nd and 3rd). So based on this years league, a team has to win 46% of their matches to make it into the play offs. In general, a team would need to score 46pts (at least) to win a meeting (it can actually, of course, be higher if the opposing team uses a tactical ride), however, the team building limit is only 40pts. This means you'd need each rider in the team to perform 0.86pts better than their average for at least 46% of their meetings to ensure that enough matches are won to compete in the play offs. Of course that doesn't mean a rider needs to add 0.86 pts to their average, as they only need to do so in just under half of their meetings. So let's say that over the course of a season, a rider needs to add about 0.4pts to their average if their team is to be in the winning half of the league. This means that if you were to bring a GP rider into the league, they'd need to achieve an average of approximately 8.4pts over the course of the season to be worth their initial assessed 8 pt average. Currently, only 37.5% of GP riders in the league are actually achieving this average. That means that any promoter who wants to bring a GP rider into the league, on an assessed 8pt average, has a 62.5% chance that their rider will fail to deliver the goods required to warrant that average. This makes bringing a GP rider into the league bad business, as it is an unattractive risk to a promoter and means the fans are less likely to see more GP riders in our league. It is actually exactly the same thing. The fact that the rider is being brought in to replace an injured rider is irrelevant. The assessment formula should be black and white and applied to all riders equally. That is exactly the problem with our league. It shouldn't be down to any person to decide they feel these circumstances are different, it should be fair and equal for all. Yes, it makes perfect sense. The fact that a rider isn't good enough to be in the GP series doesn't mean that they are not better league riders. For example, the lowest average GP rider in our league is Chris Harris (6.77). The current world champion is Tai Woffinden (7.03). Without even including Chris Harris (we'll just stick to the world champion to prove a point), let's look at all the riders in our league who "aren't good enough" to be in the GP, but are still out performing the world champion. Krzysztof Kasprzak - 7.91 Sam Masters - 7.46 Hans Andersen - 7.15 Max Fricke - 7.14 All of these riders are "not good enough" to be in the GPs, but all have an average better than the world champion. Then let's take a look at all the riders "not good enough" to be in the GPs, yet are still out performing GP rider Chris Harris (6.77). Krzysztof Kasprzak - 7.91 Sam Masters - 7.46 Hans Andersen - 7.15 Max Fricke - 7.14 Robert Lambert - 6.92 Jacob Thorssell - 6.88 Danny King - 6.87 Kim Nilsson - 6.86 8 different riders, all "not good enough" to be in the GP's and all out performing a GP rider in the league. So to answer your question, yes it does make sense that a rider who isn't even good enough to be in the GP series can be replaced by someone who is in the top half of the GP standings. No, I do not, but that is not why you, I or any other fans are upset. You are upset because you, like many others, are quite rightly so upset that the blanket rule of assessing any GP rider as 8 pts has not been applied fairly. The argument I am making is that it is clear that the rule (made in a time where heat leaders had averages 0.5pts stronger than they do now) is outdated, unfair and counter productive to the growth (or even just survival!) of the league. Only half the GP riders in our league have managed to attain that average, and only 37.5% have managed to beat it. If we're going to have a blanket rule as stupid as "all GP riders get assessed as XX pts average", then 8pts is not the correct choice. With all these factors taken into account, a 7pt assessment is more fair, more realistic and more beneficial to the sport in that promoters need not take such a large risk when signing a GP rider. However, a blanket assessment of any sort is, by it's very nature, bound to be incorrect. I do not agree that 7 pts is a fair assessed average for Antonio Lindback. I do not believe that a blanket assessment for GP riders is fair or accurate. What I believe is that their should be a fair and transparent formula to convert a riders true and current ability into an accurate and fair average. The point I have been trying to make this entire time is that the problem is not with the assessment, it is with the lack of transparency of the formula or decision making used to determine this average, and the disrepute that doing such things behind closed doors brings to our sport. It leaves fans like you and I feeling, QUITE RIGHTLY SO, that their is foul play at hand.

Because the rules should be there to strengthen the sport, not to bottleneck it. There needs to be plenty of incentive for world class riders to race in our "so called" Elite League. GP riders HAD previously been assessed at 8pts, but that rule was made when our league was stronger, when our reserves weren't in protected races and when heatleaders have an extra 0.5pts on their average to what they do now. The problem isn't the 7pt assessment, the 7pt assessment is the most sensible option for our league and the level of the riders competing in it. The problem is that this has all happened behind closed doors, that no such reasoning has been passed on to the fans and one club appears to be benefiting whereas others are not. It's not the 7pt average, its the complete lack of transparency within our league that leaves regular fans like you and I feeling disparaged and unable to have any faith in the leaders of our sport.

My mistake, there are 8. However, there are still only 4 GP riders on an 8pt + average, which means there is a 50% chance that a GP rider will not achieve the 8pt average he has been bought in on, besides actually exceed that average. For a team to win the league they need their riders to exceed their averages. When there is only a 50% chance that a GP rider will even attain that average, there is no incentive to bring the rider into the league. Based on this years league, each team needs to win at least 46% of their meetings to make it into the play offs. On the assumption that 46pts are required to win a meeting (although obviously this can be higher with tactical rides), you'd need your riders to each increase their average by 0.86pts for 46% of the meetings, just to make the play offs. Let's say this averages out to be 0.4pts per rider, per season. This means that if you were to bring a GP rider into the league, they'd need to achieve an average of approximately 8.4pts to be worth bringing into the league. Currently, only 37.5% of GP riders in the league are actually achieving this average. That means that any promoter who wants to bring a GP rider into the league, on an assessed 8pt average, has a 62.5% chance that their rider will fail to deliver the goods required to warrant that average. Doesn't that logic make sense? If you were a promoter, would you risk bringing one of the top 15 riders in the world into our league, when there is a 62.5% chance that they will not score enough to warrant their average?

There are 10 GP riders in our league at the moment (that's not including Lindback), and only 4 of them have an 8pt average or higher. That means only 40% of GP riders in our league at the moment actually attain an 8 pt average. So how is 8pts a fair assessment? And how would a rule like that encourage any team to sign a GP rider when there is a 60% chance he won't achieve his average? The fact of the matter is 7 pts is a far more appropriate assessment than 8 pts. I think the reason people are upset is because this logic seems to have been applied to Poole and nobody else, not that 7 pts is an unreasonable assessed average, because sensible logic says 7 pts is far more reasonable than 8 pts.