Noelinho

The only thing you're missing is the promoters' agreement.

The biggest issue with that is, most of the teams we have left to race are also Friday tracks. This is another advantage of the Premiership, as they have two protected days. The more this season goes on, the more I come round to the idea of the Premiership setup, even if I prefer the Championship teams/tracks.

Anyone here tonight should qualify for the winter fuel allowance. It's disgustingly cold.

He does, but it's a tougher gig at #1. It'll be interesting to see how he does.

I've heard he's not interested in signing a Championship contract, although that's a much better average than last month, so maybe someone might twist his arm.

I’d like to suggest Vissing’s home scores haven’t really hurt Workington, but his away scores have been valuable - 11 at Plymouth was a great contribution to a tight road win.

I really liked the look of him in the Under 21s at Glasgow.

Oh, Bomber would've been excluded, no doubt about that. It was a hard move, and not one he usually pulls. He knew how important it was to make the move. And yes, Jim McGregor is a tool. He excluded Jack Smith before the two minutes expired! Not that Jack would've made them anyway.

As a nation, we are not good at things that require clarity and conciseness. We like to think we are, but we are hopelessly wrong. It’s not a speedway thing, it’s a cultural feature.

He's been better than people like to give him credit for all season, he's just a bit unloved because he's a bit dull, combined with replacing Basso. Not really his fault.

Well, the rules aren't completely in agreement on this, just as they aren't on protected heats, because in both cases, the rule is stated twice, but differently. In this case, it says: But it also says: Garrad's ride was not programmed (but the second mention of this rule says that's irrelevant, it resulted in disqualification, and he was not replaced. The rule does not specify this ride should be treated on account of the rider already replacing a disqualified rider. The second mention of the rule doesn't mention RS rides, so although it doesn't specifically include them, it also doesn't preclude them.

My thoughts are he's put nearly a point on his average, so he's not doing badly. But he is particularly handy around Ashfield and we'd be delighted to have him back next year.

Plymouth can barely be bothered to run home matches half the time, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Exactly this.

The standard refund is pretty rubbish. I also suspect the league had a word with promoters who were more generous and told them not to, but I might be wrong. It's also a great reason for fans who can, to get a season ticket. It's possibly the best reason to get one, not having to worry about this kind of thing!

He did in the Championship Pairs last year, although it would've been better if he'd not bothered because he nearly put him in the fence every time! It's probably best to say, it's not a skill that comes naturally to him.

I was going to say we might have a chance to win on Friday, until you floated that idea. He is in Workington on the Saturday so it would make sense, although Berwick might prefer to seem if they can get a guest who could cover both meetings?

Paco's shooting almost two points above his starting average this year, nice to see him delivering more consistent performances.

One person got the joke

I've heard they've already signed Bradley Wilson-Dean for next season.

Limp on his right foot, but nothing that will keep him out.

Nope. He signed on 7.15, he's scored 9.14 before bonus points through 10 meetings for Poole. (Yes, OK, the signing average includes the 2.5% discount.)

Sam's definitely been brilliant, and winning the Under 21s is also fantastic, but Tom's scoring two points above his starting average this year (which wasn't shabby to begin with) in the Championship, and he's third in the Championship averages so so far. Something has properly clicked with him this year and I'd give it to him.

You're right, he was hit with another financial penalty, although the SCB didn't disclose the details themselves: https://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.166

I don't think that's right. He was fined £1,500, payable by the end of November 2023. Additionally, he must personally pay for regular testing for two months before the ban is lifted. He was banned for 9 months from 5 September, with another 30 day ban added for his social media comments. Therefore, the earliest he can return is around 5 July, if he has submitted to the testing protocol. I would assume payment of the fine is also necessary, but no SCB statement states anything more about this. Only that the fine was sue within 30 days of the original hearing (1 November 2023).