RobMcCaffery

Apologies Rob, I remembered it differently. As for whether the puddle affected the riders off gate three I'd ask Vissing who made it quite clear after the first semi what he thought of the situation. by riding up to the puddle, doing a 180 degree turn and looking up at the ref's box. I take it you were involved in the meeting since the Ben fund were present. Sometimes you see things differently when you're an observer than in the middle of things. I believe it had a serious effect based on a few years of watching riders make starts. We'll have to agree to differ. It was a shame because the meeting had run very impressively like clockwork up to that point. I suppose only a rider can give an authoritative answer. Thank goodness I have the right to an unbiased and honest opinion now that I keep myself firmly on the spectators' side of the fence - tonight by the home straight fence just in front of the tapes level with the puddle. I think I had a reasonable view, don't you?

Something that hasn't been reported yet was an incident before the semis that seemed to have affected the outcome. During the track grading before semi-final one the water tank behind a tractor seemed to slip and ground on the track just at the exit to gate 3. One of the Edinburgh riders, Vissing I think, rushed forward to switch the water off, probably because he was due to go off gate 3. The tractor was eventually able to drive off with several staff holding the water tank clear of the surface but a long pool of water was left right on the riding line from gate 3. After quite a few tractor laps the pool was filled-in with shale. Under the scoring system if a rider runs a last his pair loses the heat. In semi-final 1 Vissing off gate 3 finished last and the Monarchs were out. In semi-final 2 Richard Lawson off gate 3 finished last and Workington were out. In the final Jason Doyle off gate 3 gated last - but was able to get past the Scunthorpe pair for an impressive win. Early on it was the Comets' pair that looked superb, the written-off Berwick pair started brightly while Somerset suffered a surprise 3-6 reverse against Scunthorpe.Most pairs were competitive and had their moments but there wasn't the standard of racing that Somerset is renowned for with most of the interest being in the scores. It was a pretty good meeting though and while I do prefer to see these events on neutral tracks it was good to see the Rebels fans finally celebrating a win. Without taking anything away from the Scorpions I do think that puddle robbed us of an even more competitive final.

Some people allow gripes to become obsessions then spend their time trying to justify their dislike by forcing it on others. Naturally the sheep-like mentality of some sees them join in. Everyone has a right to their dislikes but to just keep on ramming their view down everybody else's throats is rather unhealthy. We've just had some wonderful Grands Prix and yet this same depressing sad bunch can only whinge about commentary.

Very reluctantly I can't. There was no intention whatsoever to stir, just to clarify something. I've deliberately kept out of the C&P argument this winter because like many I was so disgusted with the stirring going on, only having to make a couple of postings when I saw a couple of things that thoroughly appalled me - and that was in response to 'stirrers'. Then I saw something tonight that needed a small correction. Yes people do need to move on and I know you've had an appalling winter. Having stated my sympathy to the Coventry and Peterborough supporters I'd have hoped for better from one whose opinion I normally respect! Now, THERE ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS GOING ON. Rob McCaffery

I appreciate that, but it did rather revive the idea that Brum's promotion was part of the C&P situation ;-) Just clarifying. As I said there are more important matters... Rob McCaffery.

Birmingham swapped places with Ipswich so that was nothing to do with the Coventry & Peterborough fiasco. I assume it was meant in fun but it's not the first time that false assumption's been made and it's so easy for this kind of thing to become a 'BSF fact' based entirely on repetition. Anyway, it's all quite irrelevant now, as is the wording of the statement. Two sets of supporters can get on and enjoy their season - anything else takes a remote second place in the overall scheme of things. Rob McCaffery.

I'm pretty sure that between Middlesbrough Teessiders in 1968/9 and Teesside Tigers they rode for a couple of years as Teesside Teessiders, certainly in my first two seasons at Rayleigh in 1971 & 2. I can't comment on 1970. I seem to remember the change to Tigers came in '73. Rob McCaffery.

What shone through in the interview was how much Richard cares still for Exeter Speedway and its supporters and how highly they regard him. I hope the published version does justice. As is often the case wheen looking back to good times, they just didn't last long enough, often for riders as much as the fans. Regards, Rob McCaffery.

This really is so very tiresome. So the qualification to be a promoter is to be psychic and be a winner. I can assure you that some of the most loathsome promoters I have experienced had no back history in the sport and no proven record of success. In my opinion being successful doesn't entitle someone to be obnoxious. Steve's actually a very genuine and friendly guy - amazingly when he's treated appallingly that diplomacy is worn down, as quite frankly is mine. Anyway, I've stated my points as clearly as I can. I was there, you weren't. You clearly thricve on a row - I despise them, as I do relentless attacks on honest, decent people from those hiding behind fake names. Anyway, I'm delighted to talk about Hackney Hawks but on this other, unrelated subject I've said my piece, no doubt to the relief of others trying to read this thread. If you wish to carry on your attacks against Steve please open a new thread and if you really stand by your words why not put your name to them? By the way, I've tolerated this for a long time but it's would HAVE and could HAVE, not of. See, my patience really is exhausted. Rob McCaffery

Steve was ousted after the first meeting which went ahead against his wishes. You can't blame someone for subsequent events when they're not involved. As for relying on a partner, well many many people have run speedways with a partner. Indeed many promoters have run for many seasons over the yearts without any financial involvement of their own, including at the present time. As for diplomacy, well anyone who ever had dealings with several promoters in the past would consider Steve to be a model of reason by comparison. Belle Vue in the eighties was a particular horror story, for example. Like I've said before, it's very easy to take standpoints based on observations - especially if the story's being told, as usual by the winners. I've met some thoroughly disgusting people in speedway over my four decades. Believe me Steve Ribbons isn't one of them. Now back to Hackney.... Rob McCaffery.

Tina, don't worry. It takes passion to achieve something, especially in speedway. The knowledge will follow with experience.I'm very much of the school (a very old one) that believes if it's good speedway the title of the competition or its 'meaning' really isn't that relevant. Sadly we've seen the opposite attitude prevail in speedway for many years which in turn has come close to killing off anything that isn't league racing or the World Championship; challenges, individuals, pairs, four-team-tournaments and even second-half individual racing that did so much to bring on young talent. Enjoy Leicester. The old track was a special place, as was Hackney (crowbarring the discussion back on-topic ;-) ). Rob McCaffery.

Apologies then. The involvement of someone who cannot be mentioned on the BSF aroused my suspicions. Rob McCaffery.

You are of course quite right in most points but please cut Paul some slack over the use of 'Mickey Mouse'. Paul's one of the most genuine people I've met in the sport. I would disagree with him though about this view, but not lose one speck of respect for him. In many wauys this follows-on from my last posting and I apologise for leaving Leicester out of the list of 'nomad' teams, especially since their dream is now coming true. The problem is for every Hackney,, Dudley, or Rye House there was a Southampton - we were told in the latter case it was a serious attempt to get the sport back there but the jury is very much open on that one. It was easy for some promoters to put on challenges against lost teams just to make a few quid out of speedway-starved supporters. I'm sure in many cases the intentions were genuine to give fans 'another night'. Personally I'd have umpteen challenge matches against whatever named team, you like if it gave us back: Hackney, Cradley Heath Wimbledon Canterbury Ellesmere Port Oxford Reading Crayford (yes even them) and so many other tracks. I'd dare to include Rayleigh and I'm sure Paul would include Romford. Yes, it can be dismissed as dreaming but in several cases it's borne fruit as Leicester will find to their joy this year. A few challenge matches are a small price to pay, and anyway, if they're fun what's wrong with them? Rob McCaffery.

It's very simple. I've known Steve Ribbons for years and have been acting as a helpful ear over the phone for over ten years now. I was involved in the 99 Rye House revival and also with him at Wimbledon and Sittingbourne. I would have been helping out at Mildenhall where he wanted me to be the meeting presenter, an offer I hsad to decline simply through the distance involved. I did not get involved with Norwich/Swaffham because I didn't agree with the idea. As for my own credentials - forty years of following the sport, several years as a meeting presenter and announcer, including five years at Rye House, an occasional speedway journalist and for a frustratingly brief spell chief presenter and commentator on speedway for Britain's first dedicated sports TV channel. Yes there is plenty I don't know, and many others know far more than I but I think I've earned a right to be at least heard. Most of all, I've done my time on freezing cold terraces, hundreds of miles from home supporting my team and living speedway since I was first captivated by it in 1971. Of course I don't know everything that has gone with Steve over the years but I do know plenty, and far more than the vast majority of posters on this forum. When Steve came to me to tell me about Mildenhall I stressed to him the need for this one to work - that he needed capital and in turn the Fen Tigers desperately needed stability. Steve's finances now are very different from his days as a willing fan. It's very, very easy on a forum for hearsay and rumour to become 'facts' and indeed that has happened over Mildenhall this year. Now 25 Year Fan may have insight that I do not have but since he like most on this forum hide behind a false name how can I judge, except on what I read here. Make no mistake Rye House's revival was started by Steve, as was Wimbledon's. In the lattter case it is incredibly difficult to tell the story since an individual concerned has a hold over the BSF and has all comment about him banned. This posting may also be deleted for me just stating that. (I'm keeping a copy this time in case it is). It's hard to defend someone when the whole story can't be told. Steve has been harshly treated and yes his combative style has made important, influential enemies. There should be no confusion over an apparent conflict between my forum postings and my support of Steve. Both are based on my sincere beliefs. There is an old line of 'Give a dog a bad name..." Well I am furious that Steve wasn't given the chance to clear his and that the usual ill-informed judgemental rubbish keeps being repeated by those who really haven't got a clue. Now, this is about Hackney, not Steve, but short of transferring these postings to a separate thread I have no choice than to post here. In 1999 we were criticised for creating a nomad team in the form of Rye House, quite offensively and ignorantly by an individual in power within the NL. Well, I see the creation of Hackney as being a natural progression. Many others have been inspired by Steve's vision and supporters of Wimbledon, Redcar, Scuinthorpe, Weymouth and perhaps Dudley can be thankful that he bothered to do something, even though his reward has been so viciously undeserved. All of those were represented by 'nomad' teams following Steve's example. I look forward to seeing Hackney race on their own track again one day and it will be heighterned by the knowledge that I played my part in supporting a friend establish a principle - that someti8mes, if we dare to dream we CAN make a difference even if we get despised for doing so. Rob McCaffery.

Many thanks to you both. I just try to say honestly how I feel. It's very reassuring to know some are listening. I hope you both enjoy the season to come after this quite appalling winter. Rob McCaffery.

I trimmed the post after I'd woken-up.... Now I see that it and my original posting have both been deleted, presumably because I made a justifiably adverse comment about someone in Steve's past who has the BSF management running scared. I defend Steve because he is a friend and has earned my respect. By contrast I cannot respect someone who attacks another while hiding behind a pseudonym. 25 minute fan made a series of witless comments about Steve's past including an allegation that I had to refute: Bear in mind Steve recently had to take this poster to task: 'If the Rye House revival in 99 had to be rescued it was very well-hidden from everyone else involved, but then how would I know what was going on, I was only involved in it all? Yes further cqapital needed to be introduced to actually get the Rockets back to Rye House the following year but it didn't have to be performed the disgusting way it was.' If people prefer to believe the word of an anonymous critic against someone involved in what actually happened then good luck to them. My involvement in the sport is very limited these days and it is quite simply down to people like 25 Minute Fan, anonymous windbags talking what emerges from an ox's behind. The forum's full of them. Thankfully the sport isn't but the stench spreads. Some people try to achieve, others just to destroy. I know which side I'd rather be on. Rob McCaffery.

Firstly i am delighted to see the Fen Tigers saved, but I would think it very unfair to say that Steve was the only stumbling block to the original application, bearing in mind that reports from that meeting suggest that the objections were as much about Dave Coventry. Evidently those reports must have been inaccurate. Now that matters have been resolved I wouldn't want Steve to be the scapegoat yet again, principally for standing up to the same BSPA that so many others condemn and yet do nothing to back their words up. Incidentally the rightly praised link-up with Ipswich was part of the original plan. Time to draw a line under it. Steve has walked away from the sport and some of the Wimbledon people can claim some kind of satisfaction. The Fen Tigers have been saved and I am sure it will be far less of a fight to survive from now on. Rob McCaffery.

Derek, I of course mourn the closure of any track and Crayford's loss was of course far greater than Hacknety's but there WAS a loss for some at Hackney - they lost their team and found their track invaded by strangers, both in terms of management but also on the terraces. I can assure you that my wife wept no crocodile tears, she simply walked away from the sport and only attends very occasionally now to see old friends. As ever in these situations it's shades of grey, not black and white. In some ways my Rockets did the same thing when they moved into Rye House from Rayleigh and I'm sure there were those at Hoddesdon who mourned the previous amateur days. I miss Rayleigh every time I go to speedway. Every track I visit fails to be 'home', including Rye House, even after 37 years. The only track that comes close in terms of location and atmosphere is Swindon but in some ways that just emphasises the loss. For Hawks supporters like Jay the whole set-up had changed at Waterden Road - team name, colours, riders, management and even the circuit itself and the speedway she knew had closed to her every bit as much as London Road had to Kestrels' fans. I'm sure many others took a different view but I suspect some agreed. I didn't agree with her but I respect her opinion. In any case she's an Upton Park girl and they're not known for gentle persuasion ;-) It's all over a quarter of a century in the past now. Perhaps it's time to move on? If Hackney had survived and the Rockets not been revived in 1999 and Hackney were now launching a Rockets NL team I'd be overjoyed to see my team back, in whatever form. I hope Hackney's fans respond in the same way to the new Hawks and that Rye House and Lakeside fans get behind the team in addition to their own. Hackney hsad its tragic side but my memory will always be of some of the finest racing I've ever seen. I'm delighted to see the name return and if, IF, it starts something rolling, like we did with the Rockets in 99 and we see a new Hackney found a space in the post-Olympic East End then nobody will be more delighted than me. The Hawks were my Rockets' parent - the Kestrels were my Rockets' troublesome brother ;-) Rob McCaffery

Yes, you are operating on hearsay, as am I. On that basis I think it unwise to keep repeating, as you have in other threads that the reason Mildenhall was turned down was just Steve when you have no proof of this and have beebn told by two sources that matters were far more complex than that. I would suggest and politely request that you stop repeating this 'fact' on this forum. We constantly see rumour and hearsay repeated on this forum until it becomes 'fact'. I am not going to say for certain what happened at that meeting but I do have strong, credible suggestions that there was a greater problem than a dislike of Steve. Rob McCaffery.

I understand that Steve's role was not at the centre of the objections. As ever there appears to be far more to the situation than people are assuming. There have already been recriminations over the information that has emerged from the meeting so it would be unfair of me to elaborate further. The key point is that it was far from being all about Steve and it would be unfair for that to become a forum 'fact'. Rob McCaffery

I think the key difference for Rye House was that the relationship with Hackney Hawks was very different to that with Hackney Kestrels, although obviously many people supported both. In the case of the Hawks it really was a family link, with the Hawks the parent club, as they had been right from the Rockets' reopening at Rayleigh in 1968. Obviously Len cross-publicised both tracks and you could get to see the world of speedway outside your own division, later league by 'doubling-up'. Riders moved between both tracks and, apart from the occasional inter-league match-up there was no real rivalry. Many trackstaff worked at both tracks. That relationship changed in 1984 with the sale of Hackney to Terry Russell and the Kestrels moving-in. Crayford and Rye House by contrast were strong rivals and there was an edge between them. Hackney weren't now just rivals in the same league they were still 'budgies' to the Rockets fans. After an initial run of success for Crayford after their reopening in 1975, with a side mainly consisting of former Rayleigh Rockets to add insult to injury the tide had turned significantly with the Rockets building-up a formiddable record at London Road. From '84 onwards the Kestrels had the upper hand and attitudes naturally changed to the former 'parent' track. Mind you, Rye House and Hackney can live in relative peace, as my former Hackney Hawk wife would agree, well hopefully ;-) To her though Hackney died the day the Kestrels moved-in. Rob McCaffery

Tony kindly invited me to join the Backtrack team to strengthen the BL2/NL coverage Ian so I'm glad the increase in coverage is noted and hopefully enjoyed. I hope you enjoy the Richard Green piece - he had a great deal to say. Regards, Rob McCaffery.

First of all my sympathies lie with the Fen Tigers' fans here but I'm also very sorry that a good friend of mine in the form of Steve has been once more slapped in the face by the BSPA. Steve's an honest guy and a genuine enthusiast who cares for the sport so perhaps it's just as well that he isn't getting involved with the BSPA. Not for the first time on this forum iris123 and Blazeaway have made postings that are beneath contempt. There is a heck of a lot more to that Wimbledon story than they think they know and it's not printable here. Yes that first meeting at Plough Lane should have been called-off. The plan to lay and lift the track was a tried and proved concept but sadly didn't work on the opening night. Enthusiasm to get the place open overcame what should have been a postponed meeting. It was Steve getting up and forming the nomadic 1999 Rye House Rockets that not only saw Rye House Speedway re-open but also gave inspiration to similar moves at Middlesbrough, Scunthorpe and Weymouth. In the case of Wimbledon it was Steve who persauaded the GRA to allow speedway back in when many others had tried and failed. There was significant opposition to the Rye House revival and some quite offensive comments were reported to me as emanating from a key player in the current situation so I'm not really that surprised at the outcome of this year's plan. Blazeaway and iris123 need to consider that someone had the guts, determination and caring to get their beloved Dons reopened and not to make typically unhelpful, cynical and contemptible postings while cowardly hiding behind false names. Sadly the nature of the net allows anonymity which most people don't abuse. Sadly some do, to everybody's loss. I look forward to seeing Mildenhall speedway reopen and feel very sad that a chance has not been given for Steve to get a fair chance to show what he can bring to the sport. Speedway is going through a shocking period though and we have to hope that those responsible for it will go and inflict playing their unpleasant power games on a far less deserving sport. Rob McCaffery.

It's Christmas - original posting amended. Why not just try to give whoever it is your backing? If you get the Fen Tigers back then surely it's worth it? Sniping as you have in earlier postings before any promotion is even confirmed is surely not helping the Fen Tigers who you profess so much to love. Surely you don't want the promotion to fail even before it starts or is this about you and your opinions than the future of Mildenhall speedway? Of course it needs a stable promotion but undermining any incoming one doesn't exactly give it a fair chance does it? If not well perhaps it would be better for Mildenhall Speedway if you do walk away as you have threatened to do. Also, if you know the identity of an incoming promoter why do you have to make a rather clumsy cryptic comment. Surely it is better to state what you know or keep silent? Rob McCaffery.

I think you can guess who's been hired to do this