Tyrion

I assume the biggest difference between Bellego and Sedgemen will be how often Sedgmen has let Rossiter down where as Bellego hasn’t. There is probably only so many times you can watch a rider do the same thing before they eventually just burn your head off and you fancy a change. Bellego will be quite hit and miss – capable of winning races against just about anyone in the league (not an exaggeration) but will turn in moments of daftness. A gamble well worth taking though from a manager who clearly does his homework on PL riders. If Doyle fires and puts in 13 most weeks (he will) it only takes Ellis and Bellego winning 2/3 races between them (both are capable of that) and Swindon meetings will be interesting, league winning no, but interesting - as that is likely 7/8 races (at least) where you won’t be taking an advantage out of them. If the general theme is the Premiership is the new Premier League, and across the season it likely will regress to that in terms of general performance v the structure of sides - then sides with big hitting Number 1s tend to do ok.

That doesn’t even begin to make sense, nor do I think it is a perception anyone would actually have.

"Manchester doesnt need another Rugby stadium" would work a lot better

Tsk, no point - I already know, your word is as credible as your speedway know how.

You might as well edit it and change it 20 now you vainglorious fool.

I agree to a certain extent. I hope promotions don’t take the same desperado stand fans are (in both leagues) and try and squeeze riders in on a 2.00 average just because, well, that means the side can sign a better heat leader or second strings. There has to be a logic and thought process or it will just ruin a lot of young riders. There also appears to be a mentality of “well they were in the side last season so have to be better next year” there are more than enough examples that don’t validate that thought process.

I don’t know if this is the reason or not – just saying a thing I think – would it be that healthy if Belle Vue were the standalone host of events each season. It surely makes sense to stretch and test the business model/vibility of the stadium as a stand alone “league” venue in the short term?

Watt is an excellent signing on that average. Rye have done very well thus far.

No, not in a million years – just like most teams you post on this forum - Peter Ljung at Redcar = you on the >>>>

Manchester - the place where there is a custom built Rugby stadium with a larger capacity than the NSS that hosts Avivia games every other week and where the Under 20 World Cup was played - Manchester the place where they hosted a Rugby World Cup game at the Ethiad…..Manchester the place where they hosted the Rugby Under 20 World Cup thus evidently displaying they have suitable Rugby hosting facilities - Manchester the location of the Super League Final each year? That is the Manchester you mean?

Nope - probably further away from home than he has been before

I can understand why the sport feels it has to adjust to the audience it does attract, rather than pander to an audience it no longer attracts, or simply doesn’t attract in the hope they might return purely based on rider strength. It has done that for too long now and fans haven’t returned or began to follow the sport in the numbers to justify any sort of pandering. There is little point having running costs that you need 3 or 4,000 fans to pay for them when you are only attracting 1 or 2,000 – and there is now a large enough sample size to suggest that is somewhere around par for British tracks. The question that has to be asked and answered is where Speedways (this cake shops) place is in the market and what the target/core audience is and the standard this season is around about that mark IMO. It is best to run it at a cost that possibly affords clubs cash reserves or at least the chance to finish the season with a clean face rather than running at loses hoping for fans who will never come. I think a lot of ego has to be dropped re Speedways market place in this country. It appears promoters have made that decision it is possibly time fans do and then riders might follow. It is now evident that clubs/fans can no longer pay the wages of riders the ilk of in particular Hancock, Pedersen and co and thus they can no longer be here and nor should the product be geared towards them as the fans don’t turn out to justify their existence in this country - and if new fans come (and in the long term they have to) what does it matter to them who they are watching per se thus the "Elite" riders aren't really doing that much for new fans either. This season does feel key/big there is now a visible and tangible drop of the “Elite” tag, yes for branding purposes - but it also feels like a subconscious “look this is the standard we can offer now” – it will be interesting to see if attendances massively differ as a result of this watering down of the product, my though is they won’t and thus the cost reduction (if that is what some see it as) will hopefully be justified and more money will find its way back to the clubs rather than riders – it is then on the promoters to justify that extra income (if that does occur) the hope has to be this season sees things on a steady footing, and then moving forwards funds can possibly be invested into infrastructure (stadia, facilities etc) - which is an absolute bag of scrap and won't improve much while so much money seemingly drips out to riders or the continent (not meant in a little Englander way).

Sorry "assets"? The asset base of the club isn’t that good and the best rider and asset doesn’t seem overly willing to ride for a Saturday track (Bellego) the next best asset (Alden) has been seriously injured and doesn’t live in this country so how “cost effective” is he as an addition? Putting together a weaker team for the sake of assets purely to use assets seems a strategy that is just as likely to stretch financial limitations (medium/long term i.e when racing actual meetings) as a side with competitive riders who would likely outperform said side of assets – which would likely have 2 or at best 3 “assets” anyway - so swap the 2 point rider out for a Berwick youngster and you meet a comparable quota. It also appears that most clubs have accepted the idea that assets are dead and there is a level of gentleman’s agreement (Brian Havelock apart) with regards to where riders race each season – and generally riders show a level of commitment and performance that doesn’t live up to repute of a “loanee” eg Jorgensen or Doolan who have been as “Berwick” as any rider over the last few years with their performance level, professionalism and commitment. The one minor plus the “asset” system has going for it is the idea of selling on a progressive rider to another club for a fee, that system also appears to be completely broken based on reputation, thus one wonders what financial savings/benefit their actually is to “assets” or the utilisation of them, a lesson most clubs appear to have learned – purely because the idea is good, the execution of the system is horrible.

I disagree The traditional idea of a second string or top 5 rider will be broken next season. The teams put forward on here for all clubs up and down the league are by fans but they are suggestions that show how much the landscape has shifted in terms of sides being assembled under the new points limit. It does look like riders the ilk of Ayers, Ashley Morris, Perry and Carr are going to be top 5 riders for a lot of clubs, and as a result there will be a clutch of riders in the same boat when it comes to racing in the top 5. And that is before considering the probability of watered down reserves eg Phillips, Bailly, Greaves retaining places due to their attractive 2 point averages as well as the addition of new riders to the league. All of this evidence suggest Carr (Or Perry) will be a par top 5 riders per se and thus more than worth their place if they perform to the level expected of them, which should be the same level irrespective of the race jacket number on the back IMO as that doesn’t change the standard of rider either (Perry or Carr if signed) should be expected to beat, and it looks like that list will be large enough to merit the inclusion of either (or both) A team build from the following would be my "ideal world" side albeit that's not always possible. Garrity Carr Kerr Robson/Howarth Doolan Perry Greaves/AN Other 2 point rider in the hope they can hit their 2 points and be the best of the rest.

I dont necessarily agree - if it so happens the likes of Harris drop down the PL it means the rider he is replacing at a Glasgow for example, drip down to the likes of Workington and Redcar the more riders created the better it is for the likes of Workington and Redcar as it affords them more options.

I think the idea of huge changes at the first chance is a slight fallacy/natural knee jerk/panic on the back of the AGM. Even if sides are to drop 4/5 points from team building averages where are the riders coming from who are going to be replacements? The majority of riders will be committed to the continent by the time changes can be made, or will still have the excessive demands that will have seen without a team in the winter. The purpose of this AGM has evidently been to lower cost, I doubt there will be wide spread abandon of that system as most teams simply cannot afford to make the changes being suggested.

I don’t think the changes are “radical” but the notion “radical” changes have ever been required has always been quite farfetched IMO. Those expecting radical changes will naturally always be left disappointed irrespective of progressive announcements and IMO, for the most part this statement is.

As a first statement – quite happy with it – affords the top flight the variety it requires – my only minor gripe with the PL is the geographical logistics of the league, feels like Ipswich and Peterborough might have a tough time of it long term as they are like a standalone island per se. Assume things such as DU/Double Down will be clarified over time.

I find the words in the above post a fallacy, a misconception and a massively incorrect positioning of actual circumstances and quite unfair on promotions. It (speedway) is their (the promoters) business! It’s the thing they invest far more time and money into than the vast majority of fans (not something fans like to hear, but a truth none the less) so why would they (promoters) invest time and effort to consciously “not please anyone” and damage their own business? What you are attempting to say doesn’t make one ounce of sense – it isn’t considered, weighted or logical - it just sounds like the thing people think they should be saying on this forum now, mainly because it has turned into an echo chamber of the same voices saying the same false truths. Some fans have imagined the idea (wrongly) that promoters have attempted to drive a wedge between the sport and fans – the situation that is closer to the truth is that individuals tend to impose their own views on situations and then pass that scenario of as a truth, reality, actual event – even though said situation hasn’t actually occurred…but say thing often enough you might start to make people believe it. While it is a feeling and no one should be told to change how they feel, there are fans on here who should stop trying to pass their feelings of so strongly, so much so that they have created a promotional boogeyman that doesn’t even exist, and thus people on here are fighting the case for and against situations that never actually occur (eg your post)