Parsloes 1928 nearly

Oh dear, I feel shockingly guilty now.. I wrote in my programme notes for tomorrow's Buccs' meeting that it'll be Barrie Evans' Heathens' debut; then realised that in fact, that won't be the case coz of the IoW match the evening before... I'm sorry that in the end my words have proven correct after all... Forecast better for tomorrow (I hope...)..

I could be wrong but personally I doubt that they'd be any particular arrangement in place to allow someone to come in and pay separately for the NL match. 'Normal' double-header arrangements would apply I'd imagine....

Not to mention that there's a good symmetry betwen this 'Saxons' moniker and your other team being the 'Vikings'.. Good luck with this Kelvin - sounds good.. If I be reassured by the Met Office that the weather will be fine I may well brave the holiday traffic and drive down for this one...

Here's a weird 'un on the fixture list for this Friday.. So come on then, who's gonna be lining up for 'Tamworth'..?

Doesn't appear yet to be any news of a restaging date for this one..

Well your lads do have a chance to size up the Wimborne Rd. circuit on Wednesday. A win for the Buccs then I'd say, is basicaly essential in the race for 4th. place...

King's Lynn have already knocked out the Buccs...

Ken: I have indeed noticed the same thing myself..!!! I could always buy myself a Charlton season ticket now I've spare time on my hands...

The Buccs have to date a 100% home record over last year and this. But I do agree it'll be a very close encounter! Should be a cracker!!

Bloody hell, the weather forecast for this on Friday is simply awful!!

Hmm, you WOULD remember that!!! Don't suppose a young Ronnie Allen was the ref was he..?!

The statement from the BSPA today confirms Mildenhall have withdrawn from the NL (and NT) and their results expunged.. They HAVE updated the league table and it looks now like this: 1 Newport 13 7 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 644 527 30 2 Dudley 12 5 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 600 503 29 3 Buxton 13 5 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 633 550 28 4 Bournemouth 13 5 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 4 611 575 25 5 Rye House 10 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 483 429 22 6 Plymouth 14 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 667 628 20 7 Isle of Wight 14 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 593 681 15 8 King's Lynn 13 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 556 645 11 9 Weymouth 13 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 5 539 656 10 10 Scunthorpe 13 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 529 661 10 So the battle for the 4th. place in the play-offs now looks between the Buccs and Rye House with Plymouth in the mix too...

Most infamous must be Peterborough vs. Reading in that Play Off Final - but that was the crazy 'Golden Double' rule which allowed that injustice to occur...

You've lost me - how is commenting on what was truly shockingly bad coverage by Sky in any way not relevant to this thread.. It was after all the method by which over 90% of us commenting on here (I'm guessing...) saw this meeting... As for the comment that it's a British coverage so it should concentrate on the GB position.. Well, that's like saying that the commentary on the 2012 Olympics 100 metres Final should ignore the race between Bolt and Gay for the Gold medal and concentrate only on the GB athlete finishing sixth or seventh... It wouldn't happen in that sport and frankly it insulted our intelligence as Speedway fans that Pearson & Tatum did what they did yesterday...

Come on - you really WEREN'T listening if you didn't notice that for the last five or six heats the commentary team gave virtually no mention to the battle between the Danes and Poland for the title, whilst instead screaming and shouting about whether or not 'Team GB' could overhaul Sweden for what they called 'bronze' or 'a place on the rostrum'. Quite the most extraordinary commentary I've ever heard for a televised sports event...

Hmm, well the 'race for bronze' (sic) seemed to excite our Nige and Tatum...! To the exclusion of even bothering to mention the battle for the title itself!!!

Hmm, that's true.. Just wishful thinking on my part as am coming up to see Buzz ride next Friday and fancy a double-header for me journey!!!

Er, so you haven't actually been to see a home Bournemouth meeting but you're confident enough to assert that the track for them isn't "decently prepared"..?! Hmm, funny enuff if I hadn't seen a track I'd have no comment to make about it... In this case I've seen numerous Buccs home meetings and they've always been excellent from a track and a racing perspective. And then there's the programme..! Strange that the Buccs' stand-alone prog. walked off with the Star's NL prog. of the year last season (ahead of the one I edit, Mildenhall's). The stand-alone Buccs effort this year has maintained such high-standards.. Yet you believe that this too isn't a "decent programme"... Let me guess, you've not seen that either....

Abandoned after six or seven heats I hear... I wonder if there's any chance of this being re-staged as part of a double-header with the IoW match next Friday..?

Hmm, not for the first time a totally out of order comment.. You follow a club which operating in a higher league (PL) also wholeheartedly supports the third tier. Poole alone of ALL Elite clubs does so too. You are the first to (over-) react to any slight criticism of Scunny (though actually it's more often you criticising virtually every other club..! ), yet you constantly stick the knife into the Bournemouth promotion... I for one will be very upset if Poole abandon this initiative but I sympathise with Matt, as there HAS been nothing but criticism from certain quarters. The Buccs won the League last year just like Scunny and Mildenhall and others have done in the past - with a strong team, but by no means an 'obviously' strong team from the off... This year they've again been a credit to the NL and to its credibility. It's disappointing to see the disproportionate and misguided criticism of the Bournemouth operation on here...

Fair enuff - and of course we shan't fall out over this!! The ironic thing is I was MEANT to be going to the KL meeting (but a bloody work commitment prevented me at the last minute.. ) and was already planning if I did, to get you a prog. (knowing as I did, obviously, that the 'double edition' was planned to include the Devils meeting three weeks' later!) and post it to you!! This was coz I still felt guilty that LAST season when a not-dissimilar thing happened, using a Poole prog. from the night before, these sold out (the visitors had been Swindon) and so Devils fans that meeting couldn't buy a prog. at all! And my 'perfectly crafted' words in that prog. on their club were never read by anyone from Plymouth!!! So I do accept that things have been a tad unfair on Plymouth fans visiting Wimborne Rd. on a couple of occasions now. Which I apologise for...

Can anyone explain how the funding of this sort of meeting goes..? Who pays the points money and mileage expenses for the competing teams..? Is it the staging club or is it each indiv. team..? Only, if the latter (which I assume's the case..)this COULD surely still be staged at Mildenhall..? Albeit without the home team... Could pick the remaining top eight in the division, restage and get fans from all over the country to rally round to attend West Row for it, with all NL clubs forsaking the normal 'perks' of a 'shared' event to contribute the takings instead to a new Mildenhall club which could be used to build for next year... Some will attend on the basis that, yes, it may yet still be the last Speedway meeting ever at the track (like 'first' meetings, some "collect" last meetings too...! ) More, one hopes, would attend on the basis of helping out in securing a future for this famous venue. Should be a really bumper crowd... I can't see many obstacles to staging a BSPA meeting (as this is...) under such auspices... Is this a crackpot idea or could it be raised with Mr. Morrish do people think..?

Don't know the exact details but I'd be astonished if the amount being asked for the licence was anything like the amount you refer to here... Probably approximating to between a third and a half of those sorts of figures... The issues are probably as much about crowd levels; the threat hanging over the stadium in terms of the (spurious but apparently being listened to by the LA) noise complaints; and, I guess, the other costs in running a meeting...

Gosh - never thought of West Row as being a place to inspire a trip to Italy!!! Let's sincerely hope, with the double-threat hanging over the place, the stadium doesn't end up like the Coliseum of old Roma in years to come...

Hmm, but surely another way of looking at this is that for those who went to the KL KOC match three weeks earlier and bought a prog. they already had the copy needed and so didn't need to buy another one. Meaning for Buccs' regulars the cost of the progs for the two meetings was £1.25 each NOT £5.00!! Why would anyone with the prog. for 8/7 be buying another one yesterday!? For Plymouth fans and for others who attended yesterday but not on 8/7, there was a prog. to buy which contained more NL-specific info. than the majority of progs in this division. There may have been one I've not seen but from my experience there, Rye House haven't - for example - printed an away team profile for a third division visitor for years!! I agree that it would've been better to produce a race card insert to slip into last night's issue... I'll bring that up with Nigel. D.