Grachan

Those years when Cradley/Coventry/Oxford were winning it was clear from about 1 month into the season which side was going to win the league. I don't think play-offs would have made much difference either. Everyone would still have been clear who was going to win as all 3 teams had no realistic competition. That was, probably, down to the points limit being too high more than anything. If we had a points limit of about 45 nowadays I don't think anyone would get close to Poole in any season. When Swindon won the league in 67 they won it on the final match of the season with an away win at King's Lynn. I also remember being at an amazing night at Reading when Ipswich clinched the league title. Plays offs are good. I like them. Both methods of winning are eqully valid in my opinion, as long as the rules are clear from the start and stuck with all year so everyone knows them.

Oxford won the league by 10 points in 1985. That, in itself, is 5 matches. Cradley won by 7 points in 1983.

I remember in the 80s in particular, when we had a high points limit, one club would often run away with the title. Cradley, Oxford and Coventry all come to mind as winning pretty much unopposed in various years.

Been tried. Wasn't a success. Craven Shield was just a secondary competition that meant very little.

There is a shield already. The Craven Shield. Give them that if it actually exists. Plus everyone already knows that it comes second to the championship

Doyleyyyyyyy!!!!!! Wooohooo!!!! Why on Earth did he change his set up? He could have gone through the card tonight.

Come on Doyley! Definite changing of the guard in my support happening. I was all for Woffinden to win. I don't think it even crossed my mind that Jason Doyle could be World Champion. But now he could. He really could. I'm no rider so I'm not an authority on riding a bike, but those early falls looked like lay-downs to me. It's irrelevant if there is contact. What's relevant is if a rider is actually knocked off and I don't think they were.

In answer to your question, it can't be slander if it's written on here. Slander has to be spoken word.

It's funny. Even the payment issue seems to divide opinion. Some think being paid per point is fair. Some think expecting a larger percentage is greedy. Let's face it. No way is everybody going to agree.

Personally I'm not surprised that a rider scoring 16 out of 29 (excluding Joker points) would expect to receive 55% of the total. This is what, normally, we would call points money. Is that not how riders are normally paid? If the money is split 4 ways (assuming the reserve gets paid nothing - which wouldn't surprise me!) each rider is paid for 7.5 points. So they all got paid for more than they earned except for one. I bet the other riders were well pleased with the arrangement. Interesting, also, that Greg Hancock (the other rider who scored the vast majority of his team's points) opted out.

What a bizarre exclusion. Is the ref drunk?

Not with double uppers. It used to be a shared position where you used one or the other. There needs to be some sort of grading system with guests. Surely.

Nothing to do with how good Masters might be. A GP rider for a double upper makes no sense. A PL rider would, of course, include other double uppers also. Although I'd call Cook a double downer if there is such a thing.

Grand Prix rider guesting for a double-upper? Am I correct? The guest situation is getting ridiculous. Surely, at the very most, it should be a PL rider for a double upper?

You can have 2 passports. My own suspicion is that he just holds a British one but if he ever got Aussie citizenship through his parents applying for it for him then he could hold both. I've never seen it ever confirmed he holds Australian citizenship though.

So does Tai have an Australian passport then? If so, how does he qualify for one? Oh, and, by the way, if Tai does have an Aussie passport then Jason Doyle was correct. There were 3 Aussies on the podium because he would have 2 nationalities.

Suppose the governing bodies are paid for the number of points scored by the team, and they then distribute the money to the riders equally. Suppose the riders are asked and themselves decide how the money will be distributed. Taking away the joker points (presumably unpaid), GB scored 29 points. Each of the 5 riders gets paid for 6 points, so every rider bar one gets paid for more than they earned. It seems something of a coincidence that the two riders who pull out are the two who score a massive percentage of their teams' points.

How does he qualify for an Australian passport? And why did he have visa problems for last year's Australian Grand Prix? And, even if he does have an Aussie passport (and I've yet to see anyone give a valid explanation about how he has one) so what? Is it really a sin to have links to more that one country? It's a positive thing to have.

It actually looked to me like Tai was trying to stop himself from singing it. At one time he even put his hat over his mouth. What an amazing final. With Hancock missing it, that was two riders both looking to gain some advantage of the situation. For the first time, I now think Jason can do it. I'd be happy with either him or Tai as world champ, and think one of them will be.

I'm a few notches down the grapevine chain these days, so I wouldn't take it as a given, but from what I hear it's all to do with points money - or rather the lack of it. Apparently the riders are paid a flat fee to ride, and all get paid the same regardless of whether they score 0 or 21. The rumour I heard is that Tai believes they should be paid per point. This could, of course, also have had an influence on Greg's decision not to ride.

Hopefully Belle Vue will finish top, because if Swindon qualify they would probably pick us and that would be be our best chance of reaching the final (long shot though it still is). Belle Vue and Poole have not looked too impressive lately, although Poole still held Swindon to about 8 despite not riding well. Wolves are, I feel, the favourites at the moment with Woffinden in the side and their notorious home advantage. Don't rule out Swindon though. They are a very strange side. If (that's a big IF) they all click together they could be hard to beat. All 4 riders from 2 to 5 are capable of a big double score. All 4 are equally capable of being hopeless. They could win. They could be dumped unceremoniously in the semis. They may not even qualify! Wolves for me, though, at the moment.

I was sat in pub with a speedway promoter once, just chatting away. He said that he regularly posted on here, but in a way that nobody would guess it was him. He also told me of others who posted on here too in the same manner. This was a few years ago, though, when people tended to post about speedway rather than just insult each other or try to guess which posters are the same people using different names, so they probably gave up bothering a long time ago.

The Tungate factor!

Blimey!! Who is Tungate guesting in place of?

The post said that Tai was not only paid but was asking for more money. I thought it was fake until I checked the profile and it looks real as it has Rosco, Middlo and Lizzie Turner as friends. I suspect it is a wind up. Could even be Tai writing it as he a similar thing with Rosco's account a while back pretending to be Rosco slagging him off.