barrow boy

1) Agree part one but disagree part 2 2) Agree in principle but can't see it working. 3) Disagree. Successful teams ought not be punished for their success by having to de-strengthen. Teams above the previous season's average should be allowed to maintain their strength and those below should be allowed to increase up to the average. 4) Agree but who decides what is affordable 5) Agree to part one but disagree with part 2 6) Agree. Have always advocated this. 7) Totally disagree. One of the worst things allowed in the sport. 8) Agree but only for any missing top 3 rider whose rides may be taken one each by 4 other riders. 9) Agree but can't see this one happening. 10) Agree. Have always advocated this also. 11) Possibly agree ????? Can't see many promotions agreeing though 12) Disagree 13) Would like to agree but Dummies & Prams comes to mind

Don't think it was average based. Think it was a case of taking a rider away from the top teams and reallocating them to the bottom teams.

No idea. We're talking about Bonnie Tyler

Just hope the track is better by then. You know how Ole likes slick racing surfaces but Monday's track was slick and in places dangerous

Fantastic of course

One of my other hobbys is being a National Amateur Swimming Official and in their set up they allow swimmers to be members of more than one club. Normally young swimmers would join a small local club and if they are considered to be good enough they are encouraged to also join a club in a higher standard of competiton. They are however allowed to compete for both clubs but with the higher standard club being allowed first claim on their services. Usually all parties agree the terms of such an arrangement, details of which are closely observed by the respective leagues. Eventually the lower standard clubs lose such swimmers but they accept this as being in not only the swimmers, but the sports bests interests for this type of pyramid progression to the top to be encouraged.

Have we had an explanation from BSI for this piece of jigary pokey (sorry if not spelt right). As I've said before on the Hans Andersen thread, by reinviting Lee Richardson everybody that finished in front of him should also be included. I've nothing against Lee R. My beef is with the decision of BSI.

Interesting!!! The idea of promotion and relegation though is to provide and create more interest and at the same time give out messages to the media etc that speedway can be taken seriously again.

When Swindon were taken into the Elite League they were given, and are still being given some of the more lucrative and prestigeous meetings. This is presumably to allow their owners to recoup some of their not inconsiderable outlay incurred whem joining. Is this not the case at Reading? There might not be more than 7 or 8 teams currently operating at Elite League level if this sort of arrangement is not in place. We now have 11 teams and if say Sheffield or any other leading Premier club is one day added to the fold I would think they to would be treated the same.

I take this comment of yours seriously 'HS' and I would think that many others agree that the majority of competitors should be qualifiers. Perhaps though to have won the title during say the past 10 years ought to deserve an invitation if any such rider fails to requalify and said rider is still competing in a major league.

The tactical ride is just as stupid and Mickey Mouse as the WTC joker that can enable, and has done, a team to become world champions by not cheating I suppose,but by using a cheating stupid facility that should be outlawed in such a so called serious competition. The old tactical substitute facility was much more sensible but I agree ought not to be necessary if our sport is to be taken seriously again. Perhaps it would work without any false aids if the losing team were always given their choice of starting gate positions.

If say promotion and relegation were in operation and if say it was Swindon who were relegated and if say it was Kings Lynn who were promoted obviously the likes of Adams,Richardson & Ulamek would not be able to ride in the Premier League,.Could they not be allowed to ride for Kings Lynn whose surplus riders in return being allowed to ride for Swindon. Just a thought.

I agree, but if it could have been kept closer it would have been much more interesting. Last year it turned out to be a series of one off finals because it was obvious that the best rider was going to win from the outset. When Mark Loram won his title he may not have been the best rider because he never won a GP but because of the points system it went to the last one and the interest was maintained until the very end and because he proved overall the most consistent he deservedly was crowned World Champion if only for one year. Do not misunderstand me, I am happy that the best rider becomes World Champion I just feel that the old system was much more entertaining but if the present system has to be then more big points should be available at least to the losing semi finalists.

If TR is as good this year as he was last it will be another one sided affair. There has got to be more big points available for the also rans to keep it closer and appear more interesting even if the result is the same. Before it was changed TR was just as good but the format seemed to benefit the others resulting in more individual winners and the overall variety of results was more entertaining.

I would like to see the last 3 races formats changed. The best riders having to race each other in heats 13 & 15 means that top riders have to finish third and 4th in these heats which gives them a lower average than say a good reserve or second string. Such riders do not have to face the top boys very often. Last seaon only one rider ended with a 10 average and as such was the only A or Top Grade rider. Crump, Adams, Hancock etc are better than 9 point riders.

But wouldn't races 1 to 20 be just as important as trying to get in the top 8? They would instead be for tryng to finish in as high a final as possible.

How about reintroducing the 4 finals that featured originally? The top 4 to contest the A Final, the next 4 the B Final etc. A Final points to be 25-20-18-16.B Final points to be 15-13-12-11, C Final points to be 10-8-7-6, D Final points to be 5-3-2-1

My apologies for referring to this old item but I have honestly only just noticed it. I agree with it entirely, in fact it could have been me saying it. Thank you 'Drop A Cog' for brightening up my day. Keep up the good work.

In October I wrote to John P at BSI regarding GP wild cards and qualifying. I said that in future the top 8 continue to requalify automatically but that the remaining 7 should be allowed to race off against 9 others. These 9 could be decided by the forthcoming GP qualifiers. The eventual GP Challenge or Race Off could then provide the 7 riders required to join the 8 that have pre qualified. If promoter's Wild Cards are still to be used then the number of Race Off qualifiers just have to be reduced accordingly. Based on last year's results such a Race Off could comprise the likes of Hans Andersen, Ryan Sullivan, Tomasz Chrzanowski,Scott Nicholls, Lee Richardson, Jarek Hampel, Antonio Lindback, Mark Loram, Piotr Protasewicz, Peter Karlsson, Greg Walosek, Rune Holta, Matej Zagar, Simon Stead, Kenneth Bjerre, Kristov Kasprzak, Neils K.Iversen to name but a few. Such a meeting would certainly make good dramatic TV and be an honest selection method not open to abuse.

But the Semi finals and Finals in each GP would count towards the overall result because there are better points to be raced for. You are quite correct to point out however that it is possible to be worse off and I therefore concede that if any qualifying score is not improved then this should be retained. Also do you mean if the same rider top scores in all the GP's up to the Semi's and fails to win the title overall?

You could be right but each occasion really deserves a climax that is provided by the final and top 3 presentations.

Last year the best rider won but because it is now easier for the best riders to reach the last 8 and with the big points only being available in finals I would suggest to BSI that they consider providing more big points as follows. Ist 25pts, 2nd 20pts, 3rd 18pts, 4th 16pts, each 3rd placed semi finalist 14pts, each 4th placed semi finalist 12pts, others to keep their scores. The best rider will still win but the overall competition would be more interesting. What does everyone else think?

19.H.Andersen 20.R.Sullivan 21.T.Chrzanowski Nothing sinister here. These are all the riders that failed to qualify from last time. Still think that having picked Lee Richardson every one that finished ahead of him should have been picked also.

It doesn't matter how many chances he's had the simple point is that if Lee Richardson gets in then everyone who finished in front of him should be invited also.