arthur cross

On the good side, Nottingham's one of the longer-length dog tracks so fitting in a speedway track of about 300-to-320 metres would be theoretically possible and you'd probably end up with something in between Birmingham's Perry Barr and Stoke's Loomer Road for the speed/size of the track. But ... there's currently quite a sizeable and rather scruffy pond where the 4th bend of the speedway track would be so I don't know whether that's part of the dog track's drainage set-up which would need sorting out as part of any plan to introduce speedway. As "hans fan" has already mentioned, it's a lousy venue for outdoor viewing of the dog racing because the spectator facilities are even more heavily set-up than usual for that sport to suit the indoor bars/restaurant needs of a greyhound crowd ... even the stadium bookmakers are housed in an indoor shelter rather than the normal row of trackside betting boards. Most awkwardly, there are loads of long-established houses in the district of Sneinton only about half-a-mile to the west of the site so good luck getting entirely new noise-permission for a speedway track given that amount of likely residential opposition. For those who don't know the horse/dog racing layout of Nottingham, put "Colwick Park" into a google-map search and you'll see the dog track halfway along the outside of the horse racing home straight ... they're both part of one of the most closely-situated clusters of sports venues anywhere in the country with all of Notts County's Meadow Lane (also now Nottingham rugby union), Nottingham Forest's City Ground and Nottinghamshire cricket's Trent Bridge just over a mile to the south-west and rowing's Holme Pierrepont National Watersports Centre only a mile away to the south-east.

Nothing "stubborn" about the PL's stance last winter (or, indeed, since then) towards a Fast Track Draft at its level ... instead, there remain several extra real obstacles to successfully undertaking a PL-version of such a draft. Firstly, the PL & NL fixture-lists clash much more with each other than any EL & NL fixture-lists simply because (with the exception of Peterborough's 2014 switch to Tuesdays) the PL is entirely a Thu/Fri/Sat/Sun league for regular home nights whereas the EL has far fewer clubs with weekend home nights. Secondly, at the time a draft like this was being debated last November, there were 12 PL clubs compared to 10 EL clubs so the pool of riders for any PL draft would have had to be bigger than a similar pool for the EL draft to make sure there were enough riders to go round ... Peterborough's subsequent inclusion as the PL's 13th team would've stretched the pool of draft riders at that level even further. Thirdly, and not to be under-estimated when working out any young rider's workload in terms of travel time as well as the racing itself, the PL teams are scattered across a far greater map of Britain than the EL clubs. In fact, over half of the PL clubs (7 of 13) are more than 100 miles away from their nearest EL club (all of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Berwick, Workington, Newcastle and Redcar in relation to Belle Vue and then there's also Plymouth in relation to Poole or Swindon). Why that's very significant is that such extra distances were likely to put off some of the younger riders better suited by a PL draft from entering such a scheme simply because they couldn't commit themselves to the risk of being drafted by a club based too far away from their home ... you must remember quite a few of the potential PL draft candidates would've been relying on parents/friends/mechanics to drive them to-&-from meetings so even if the rider himself wants to commit to speedway full-time, there's still the need to rely on that sort of help from others who do have jobs away from the sport and, therefore, might not be able to spare the time required to help a PL draft rider reach all that league's far-flung outposts. I can understand "stevebrum" (clearly with much more of an EL-background) reckoning the PL hasn't pulled its weight on this whole draft concept ... what's your response to the obstacles I've just explained above.

There have been lots of good vibes around this year's Derby (including from William Hill as sponsors) thanks to the much-increased entry of 222 greyhounds with plenty of Irish contenders taking on the best of the British runners. But ... and it's a big but ... there were some rather downbeat quotes from the William Hill chief executive Ralph Topping in this morning's Racing Post just when you'd be expecting him to be so upbeat about his company's massive involvement on this particular sport's biggest occasion of the year. With regard to continuing with the Derby's biggest-ever first-prize next year, Topping said: "We're still working that through. It's been a tumultuous year for the business with significant financial implications for all. It would be difficult to commit to a £200,000 investment again when we have been forced to close shops. Savings will have to made in 2015. We'll have to work out where from." The backdrop to Topping's comments is that all the main bookmaker chains are reviewing the profitability (or not) of their least-lucrative shops after the Budget's unexpected rise a few weeks ago in the tax on their gaming-machine profits. But from a PR point of view, for someone like Ralph Topping to be prepared to be quoted like that (or indeed the Racing Post to publish a quote like that) on the day of the Derby final is a real eyebrow-raiser.

A few odds-&-ends worth a mention without any headline-grabbing developments. The planning inspector's report from January's hearings into the various future plans for the site hasn't yet been published despite originally being anticipated around Easter. Immediately after those hearings, the planning inspector proposed the local community should be better consulted by any prospective developers of the site and that recommendation required its own consultation period until 8th April before the inspector could settle down to write the report. There's a general webpage about Merton Council's role in the future of Wimbledon Stadium ... http://www.merton.gov.uk/environment/designandconservation/design/wimbledon_greyhound_stadium.htm Meanwhile, Labour captured Merton Council (previously "no overall control") in last week's local elections ... back in 2010, it was Labour-28, Conservative-27, Residents-3, LibDems-2 ... now it's Labour-36, Conservative-20, Residents-3, LibDems-1 and that new majority for Labour probably improves how much the social and community aspects will be considered within any future proposals for the stadium. The Greyhound Derby Final is this Saturday, after which everyone will await any information from both the Greyhound Racing Association (about whether the Derby will still be at Wimbledon next year as it owns the rights to that competition) and William Hill (as the current sponsors of the Greyhound Derby who've traditionally aimed to grab some headlines about next year's prize-fund only a few days after the previous final's been run). The "We Want Wimbledon" greyhound campaigners followed up their "Show of Passion" at London's City Hall back in February with a "Night of Passion" commemorating Wimbledon's 86-years of dog racing so far that was a special theme at the track for the Derby quarter-finals meeting last Tuesday-week ... just like February's trip to City Hall, it was enthusiastically supported by those within the greyhound industry but appeared to make little impact on any wider level of London media. Bearing in mind the huge influence the Irish-banking debt-collecting agency Nama retains over the current ownership of Wimbledon Stadium (see many previous posts on this thread for lots more details !!), We Want Wimbledon's next suggestion is another "Show of Passion" outside Nama's headquarters in Dublin on Friday 12th September because that's the day before the Irish Greyhound Derby Final in that city at Shelbourne. Finally for now, the sale of the freeholds of both Belle Vue and Hall Green in recent weeks have probably gone a long way to keeping Nama happy in the short-term about recovering the multi-millions owed to them by the GRA or Galliard Homes or Risk Capital. All of which sets everything up for the two big bits of news on the horizon (in no particular order), namely the planning inspector's report from January's Merton Council hearings along with any planning or prize-fund for the 2015 Greyhound Derby.

Yes, King's Lynn only had a couple of hours to complete the remedial work. But because it's also their track and stadium, they have much more flexibility in terms of preparing that track to cope with any forecasted downpours in the build-up to any meeting ... in effect, they've a much better chance than most of using plenty of time before it rains to help reduce the amount of time and remedial work needed once that rain's arrived.

Biggest problem could be getting used to seeing 2 different start times for the same meeting because if Scotland goes independent, it could well be the trigger for England & Wales to adopt Central European Time whereas Scotland (& Northern Ireland) have always been much more reluctant about doing that due to plenty of sunrises after 9am during the winter that far north or northwest. For example Berwick, despite being just a couple of miles inside England, draw plenty of supporters from the Scottish Borders towns inland so might end up advertising their meetings as 7pm local (6pm Scotland) to make sure the whole crowd turns up at the same time !!

So you'd prefer me to privately reach a conclusion while also reckoning it's ok to publicly patronize me by recommending I have a thought of my own !! No wonder you've shown in other posts lately that you're willing to be treated like a doormat when it comes to customer relations ... I suspect the doormat in my hallway has got more to offer than you when it comes to any sensible debate.

And when are you going to register that it's very easy to spout phrases like "understand the anger" but such phrases only keep on building up that anger if there's still no detail a week after the initial bland explanation. Even you're using phrases like "badly handled" and "p'd off" about this farce yet still trying to defend the situation.

If a meeting still goes ahead, despite lousy weather making too many of the crowd thinking it'll be either off or dreadful to watch, the home club still has to pay the same amount of bills (riders' wages, stadium rent, ambulance cover, etc) as if the meeting had gone ahead in weather good enough to tempt everyone to turn up without any fear of a rain-off. The only problem is there's a significant difference between the crowd receipts from a good-weather day or a lousy-weather day ... and too many lousy-weather gate receipts over a season is going to make a hefty difference in a club's profit-or-loss situation. What's certainly affected the balance of how many supporters are reluctant to turn out in lousy weather is the cost of petrol/diesel (or bus/train fares) getting to-&-from meetings on lousy-weather days. At least you get a rain-off ticket for your speedway turnstile-money once you've got to the track ... try getting anything similar from the bus-driver or the petrol-cashier by explaining you're only going to get value-for-money from what they're selling you as long as the speedway's still on after you've used their bus/fuel !! If more meetings are now being called off earlier, it's because enough clubs have finally worked out how stupid they were being in previous generations trying to get every meeting on at all costs regardless of what the weather was throwing at them. Also, far more of the clubs across the rest of Europe either own their own track facilities or rent them on a municipal basis from their local council ... however, most UK tracks rent their tracks from private stadium landlords and so their stadium rent is a bigger percentage of their overall bills and, therefore, a bigger burden on a lousy-weather day than would be the case for those European track-owning or council-renting clubs.

If yourself as an individual (or the Kent Kings as a club) have such a dim view of this forum, why are you still adding to your tally over the years of more than 11,000 posts on this forum ? !! All it takes for you to leave what you regard as this "utterly bankrupt" place is for you to send this forum's administrators a quick message requesting your account to be closed. But to acknowledge in your post this evening that some of the contributions to this thread are worthy of a response, yet still choose not to make any response to those contributions, shows you up for a spectacularly blinkered and narrow-minded attitude of either yourself as an individual or the Kent Kings as a club.

Sheffield's website confirming Proctor can ride for them tonight as well as for the rest of the season ... it also says: "The club are also pleased to note that our efforts to assist Adam Roynon in being fixed up with another Premier League club have proved successful." So that just leaves Adam's tweet this afternoon to be properly explained !!

You might not mind being treated like a mug. But that puts you in a small minority of speedway fans ... and an even smaller minority of the general public.

My instinct would be Proctor's arrival at Sheffield remains blocked, maybe permanently, by the visa hassle so Sheffield's previous 1-to-7 (including Roynon on a 7.09 average) remains intact and therefore Roynon has to ride for Sheffield tonight or risk a 28-day ban for withholding his services ... meanwhile, bang goes Plymouth's new lineup for Saturday !!

While I'm still critical of the Panthers' handling of Tuesday's postponement and also note that it appears the track wasn't the problem, I wonder if the "health and safety" problem was that the Truckfest's action caused too much damage to the fittings for the speedway airfence. Now that airfences are compulsory throughout the Premier League, if you can't safely fit your airfence then you can't stage your meeting even if the track surface is ok.

Sheffield aren't trying to "claim" Roynon as still theirs because Proctor's move isn't completed ... they're actually stuck with Roynon because he's in their current 1-to-7 that remains in force until they successfully get any new 1-to-7 that doesn't include his name approved !! Where this whole saga has got bogged down is that it's almost certain the BSPA would've approved Proctor's arrival at Sheffield for speedway reasons without any problem at all but, as Proctor's an Australian on a work-permit, the BSPA can't approve his arrival at Sheffield until UK Visas & Immigration are also satisfied. While I'm often critical of the BSPA, it may well be Sheffield's stubbornness in still pushing for Proctor's arrival that makes them much dafter than the BSPA on this occasion because if Sheffield simply nominated a different new signing who ticked all the right boxes for speedway-rules or work-permit restrictions, then everything's tidied-up immediately and Roynon's no longer in Sheffield's 1-to-7 so he's then free to join Plymouth (or anyone else in the Premier League). As I've mentioned already, it's very unusual for a team to submit a new 1-to-7 that relies on a new signing becoming available during the 3-day gap between submitting it and using it. But only the Plymouth Devils will know whether they've been advised by the BSPA that it's worth taking this unusual route given this strange situation ... or whether Plymouth have simply seen the headlines about Sheffield sacking Roynon, therefore think he's available, and therefore are in for a nasty shock when they discover that he's still listed in Sheffield's 1-to-7 despite the news of his sacking. You'd be amazed how many players and officlals in all sorts of sports (not just speedway) think they know the rules just by all the experiences they've built up over the years, only to be caught out when they wrongly think a bad decision's been made. A prime example was in the recent Sunderland-Cardiff football match where the referee gave Sunderland a penalty for a defender starting to tug a striker's arm outside the penalty-area and still having hold of that arm as they moved into the penalty-area ... most players, coaches, fans, commentators or pundits instinctively thought it was a free-kick because the offence began outside the penalty-area only to find football's laws clearly state it's a penalty when that type of offence continues into the penalty-area.

Nothing's actually cleared up yet !! We now know the Plymouth Devils and Adam Roynon want to link up with one another on Saturday night but that link remains subject to BSPA approval. As I've explained a few minutes before your own post, any BSPA approval for Roynon going ahead with Saturday's meeting (and beyond) for Plymouth relies on him no longer being listed in Sheffield's 1-to-7 which is where his name has to remain until Sheffield successfully get any successor for him approved !! If Proctor's not in tonight (thus assuming there's no change to Sheffield's 1-to-7), I agree Sheffield's only options should be a National League guest or persuading Roynon to ride for them despite publicly sacking him 10 days ago. There were so many conflicting bits of rules, advice and reassurances going into Saturday's 1st-leg at Berwick that I can just about understand the fudged-verdict that Sheffield could use R/R for Roynon's 7.09 average in that meeting ... at least, it was some sort of middle ground between either R/R for Proctor's 9.22 average or using a National League guest. But, even allowing for the bank holiday on Monday, there'll have been enough office-hours time to iron out Sheffield's lineup by the time tonight's action begins.

It's all very well either the Plymouth Devils or the Plymouth Herald announcing Adam Roynon's return to that team ready for Saturday's meeting (and the Herald does note it depends on BSPA approval). But until Sheffield successfully replace Roynon in their 1-to-7, whether that's with Ty Proctor or anyone else, Roynon has to remain in Sheffield's 1-to-7 even if that club doesn't want him there. You're not allowed a blank space in a 1-to-7 while the ideal new signing's arrival remains in limbo ... any failed or awkward redeclaration of a 1-to-7 forces the previous 1-to-7 to remain the correct one. Hence it's the Sheffield Tigers' responsibility to get BSPA approval for Roynon's successor so that Roynon can leave their 1-to-7 before Roynon himself becomes available to be signed by any other Premier League club. Plymouth have done the right thing by submitting a new 1-to-7 that includes Roynon for Saturday's meeting against Edinburgh by yesterday's redeclaration deadline (3 days before the first meeting in which you want to use that new lineup). But the approval they need from the BSPA actually boils down to Sheffield successfully having a new name approved into the Tigers' 1-to-7 ... otherwise Plymouth are seeking approval for their new lineup when it'll still include a rider already featuring in another Premier League 1-to-7 !! I can't recall any situation where one team has submitted a new 1-to-7 that relies on an incoming rider becoming available during the 3-day gap between the deadline for submitting that new 1-to-7 and the first chance to actually use that new 1-to-7 !! In among all of this, I've plenty of sympathy for Adam Roynon who appears (certainly by his tweets) to have kept a very dignified attitude to the increasingly daft saga of Sheffield's attempt to sack him.

A quick bit of google-searching confirms it's now "UK Visas & Immigration" as part of the Home Office that does whatever the "UK Border Agency" used to do before the Home Secretary Theresa May did indeed bulldoze that organization last year. So who's your money on in a fight when it's BSPA versus UKV&I And can it be resolved while Proctor's average remains so well suited to Sheffield's reshuffling ? !!

Very fair comment and there's a simple explanation for it ... Speedway's full of either elderly administrators or younger ones who've easily become used to their elders' way of doing things, one of which is an attitude to PR and customer relations that's still rooted in the dark ages of the 1970's when it was far easier for any authorities (not just in speedway) to keep the lid on their awkward situations because any tricky information travelled so slowly that it rarely built up much momentum. Then along came brick-sized mobile phones to make it easier to speak to someone away from their home or desk ... then came text-messaging on increasingly smaller mobiles as well as the widespread use of e-mail ... then our mobiles became more powerful than our home computers from just a few years earlier ... and now, we're so used to all the mobile technology around us in 2014 that it's downright hilarious to think back to situations like my father having to queue up in the 1980's for a train station's pay phone to ring my mother to tell her to delay cooking their evening meal because of a travel delay !! Meanwhile, far too many speedway administrators are woefully poor at understanding that a story can leak out from another angle even if they think they're still keeping the lid successfully on their own angle. All of which leads us onto yesterday's Peterborough Panthers shambles ... For the venue to announce the postponement on Twitter at 9.55am but the Panthers not to inform the Monarchs until more than 2 hours later is bad enough ... even worse, judging by Edinburgh's version of events, there appears to have been no effort to apologise for this 2-hout gap when the Panthers' promotion caught up with the shock postponement. Most of all, shame on Neil Watson, often in the past someone willing to drag speedway's PR out of the medieval ages, for having the nerve to issue the blandest of press releases simply blaming a "health and safety issue" for the postponement without making any effort to explain whether this was all the information given by the venue to the Panthers or whether it was the Panthers' own choice of reason for the postponement. If this was all the info given by the venue, then at least have the guts to make sure everyone in speedway knows it's the venue drip-feeding that info rather than the Panthers themselves. But if Neil himself, or the Panthers as a club, think they can get away successfully with creating such a vague explanation of yesterday's postponement, no wonder the general public of Peterborough don't visit the East of England Showground in anything like the numbers the actual track surface and racing deserve ... that general public will prefer to spend their leisure money on other activities that welcome and care for their customers rather than a speedway club that, on this occasion, has treated its visiting team, never mind its spectators with utter contempt.

It does appear the Border Agency are having a much more detailed look at how work-permit speedway riders use those permits once they've been granted. For example (but without knowing for certain), Ty Proctor's work permit may have covered him riding for either Wolves or Somerset during 2014 as those would have been the two clubs (and therefore in the Border Agency's view, the 2 different businesses or employers) he expected to be riding for when he was applying for the permit. Speedway fans and officials can understand why Proctor and Sheffield would want to link up with each other ... Proctor's looking for a Premier League team place thanks to Somerset's last-minute pre-season team reshuffle while his current 9.22 Premier average is fantastically ideal for Sheffield who've 9.50 to play with if they drop Adam Roynon but also want to keep Simon Stead as their number-1 on his current 9.29 average. But it looks like someone at the Border Agency's digging their heels in about Sheffield being a totally different employer to Somerset (even though they're competing in the same league) and could therefore be forcing Proctor to apply for a totally new 2014 work permit that would now identify "Wolves & Sheffield" as his employers instead of any previous reference to "Wolves & Somerset". All of which might be leaving Proctor in a very awkward dilemma ... either carry on using his original 2014 "Wolves & Somerset" work permit while knowing it only really now means he can ride for Wolves ... or risk missing meetings in the short-term for Wolves (never mind being stuck on the Premier League sidelines) while he goes through any time-lag (perhaps even including the briefest of trips back to Auatralia) during the process of being granted the new 2014 "Wolves & Sheffield" work permit he needs to be able to fit into Sheffield's 1-to-7 On a wider basis within all of Elite & Premier speedway (rather than just this matter affecting Ty Proctor replacing Adam Roynon), are the Border Agency also now paying much closer attention to work-permit riders taking guest bookings because the Border Agency could then reckon such a guest is briefly being employed by a business not identified on his particular permit ? !!

It wasn't just at Sunday's Newcastle-Workington meeting that another visa "can of worms" was a hot topic ... either earlier on this thread or in the Berwick-Sheffield thread, there was a similar note about it being a hot topic at Friday's Edinburgh-Scunthorpe meeting. Today's confirmation that it's Proctor's visa status at the root of this saga doesn't surprise me and it also clears up why there's been no mention whatsoever by either the BSPA or among the plenty of recent tweets by Adam Roynon that he was under any threat of a "withholding services" ban despite R/R being used in his name on Saturday at Berwick. Strictly speaking, the BSPA rulebook forces a team to use their previous 1-to-7 if their newly submitted 1-to-7 is rejected (however awkward that is for either the frustrated-team or the dumped-rider) ... however, that's on the assumption that it's the BSPA themselves justifying the rejection rather than an outside force's rejection overriding the BSPA's approval !! PS ... Thanks to both "salty" & "jenga" for acknowledging in various ways my much lengthier post that was on here for about 20-minutes but which was in-depth speculation about a work-permit problem ... the only snag was that all my careful (and as it's turned out, fairly accurate) speculation was being written at exactly the same time as Sheffield were confirming the actual situation !!

I'm sure even Coventry's 4x4 has quite a bit of crucial medical kit inside it to make sure it still satisfies the most basic level of "rapid response" requirement within speedway's rules for medical cover. What was scandalous about yesterday is that it appears the whole combination of co-promoter, stadium landlord and referee allowed heats to still take place (and therefore the potential for dreadful crashes to occur) while fully aware that there couldn't be any rapid response by any medical vehicle. All of which meant the actual level of rapid response amounted to how fast any medical staff could run to the wreckage while carrying what they'd had to assess in a matter of moments would be the right equipment to deal with the damage they were expecting to find. I know of one crash a few years ago where the track doctors and ambulance crew expected to find broken bones only to discover a rider bleeding very badly from a deep cut ... thankfully they had all the right equipment available to deal with either broken bones or serious blood loss and what was briefly an extremely scary situation was successfully dealt with (albeit with the rider concerned needing several days in hospital). I dread to think how horrible that scenario could've become if that rider's crash had occurred with yesterday's level of medical cover in place.

About a decade ago, wasn't a Conference League meeting between Rye House and Newcastle correctly delayed for a few minutes when the referee of that meeting noticed the ambulance was developing a flat tyre ? I wasn't there myself but remember a few who were in attendance reporting the referee on that occasion wouldn't let the action resume until the ambulance crew and pits mechanics had fitted the ambulance's spare tyre so that it would be fully operational in the event of being required to deal with any further crashes ... it was one of the most unusual delays, even by speedway standards, but fully understandable and appreciated once it was explained to the crowd. In contrast, today's reports from Sittingbourne that races were allowed to be run after it was clear the trackside ambulance would not be venturing onto the track itself is a scandalous state of affairs for which both the promoter and the referee should face separate serious investigations by the SCB ... the promoter being responsible for providing the correct facilities for the ambulance to be able to get onto the track while the referee's ultimately responsible for the running of the meeting in as safe a manner as possible given the obvious dangers of the sport. The insurance and legal repercussions would've been horrendous from a career-threatening (or worse) accident in which a rider's long-term health could clearly be proved to have been affected by ambulance kit not being available quickly enough to assist the victim because someone had decided that the ambulance couldn't be brought onto the track. In the short-term, whoever's the next referee at Sittingbourne must be instructed not to let that meeting go ahead until the ambulance driver, the promoter and the stadium landlord can all agree that there is smooth access for the ambulance onto the track ... meanwhile, I wouldn't blame any rider refusing to take part if today's scenario with the ambulance crops up again.

You're right about everyone wanting to help in a situation like this when you just want to be left alone but the key thing is to split all those potential helpers into two categories ... Firstly, work out which of those helpers are prepared to listen to your frustrations (and make the effort to understand them even if they don't always agree with them) so that they can target their help far more accurately to suit your particular circumstances ... they're the ones worth keeping in touch with even when you don't particularly want to do so. From that group, you'll usually find one or two who can even help you in due course with constructive criticism because you've already trusted their constructive help. The rest of the potential helpers, while clearly being well-meaning, are usually wasting their own time as well as yours because they make the wretched mistake of reckoning they know the depressed person better than he/she knows him/herself ... they impose what they think is the right help rather than listening and adapting to the specific case. That can only add to the depressed person's despair ... worse still, the further unhappiness caused by such misplaced assistance can switch the depressed person off remaining willing to receive the useful targeted advice from the worthwhile helpers.

A few riders clearly produce better results if they're left to just concentrate separately on each race they're taking part in rather than have that concentration affected by any impact from the scoreline ... such riders often end up at number-2 in the 15-heat format still used in the Premier & National Leagues because then their scheduled rides are out of the way by heat-10 (home) or heat-11 (away), leaving riders who don't mind knowing the score to take part in the later heats where the scoreline's more likely to influence any team tactics.