MattK

I took all the Premiership averages from 2017 and compared them to 2016 Elite League averages. There were 45 riders who rode both years, 11 riders dropped (which was surprising), 2 stayed the same and 22 increased. I then took the average of the changes (very blunt approach I know) and it came to 1.079, which I politely rounded up. You could get more sophisticated by removing the extremes, e.g. Holder, whose average dropped by 20% and Schlein whose rose by 50% and riders who rode less than say 20 meetings, but at the end of the day I don't think it would make a fundamental difference. Therefore I concluded that the 2017 league is 8% weaker than the 2016 league.

I'm still unclear what your "100% support" constitutes. Riders have gone on holiday, presumably because they consider the play-off finals to be the end of the season? Are you going to ban riders from going on holiday until after the documented end date of the season (31st October) even though the league has effectively been completed up to three weeks earlier?

Such as? Other that Jack Holder, I can't think of another rider who has chosen to ride elsewhere when their have had a fixture clash with a British league fixture.

Isn't that the same situation we have now? What Midland Red seems to have described is the status quo.

How do you define 100% support? For example, if Robert Lambert has a World U21 meeting which clashes with a league match, is he supposed to forgo his personal ambitions in order to ride in the British league?

I've done the maths and the answer is 1.08

The only thing more stupid would be running league meetings after the play-offs have been completed and the league winner's trophy given to the victors.

Any league meeting not run before the cut-off should be forfeited. it is farcical that league meetings are still being held after the play-offs have been completed.

Thank about it. If a team scores 45 points the cost will be £9k. That is for a single meeting. A team rides two meetings (home and away) for every one amount of income, so they have to pay £18k in points money alone from a single home meeting's gate revenue. Most Premiership clubs only get around 1,000 supporters at about £12 net, so if your average pay is correct teams are losing £6,000 a week in points money alone? I'd say your averages are out by as much as double, otherwise the numbers simply don't add up.

The points limit will be 42, if not lower.

The main problem with that approach is that it significantly reduces the incentive for clubs to offer opportunities to untried youngsters. The ability to make them an asset gives some return on your investment, whereas one year contracts mean richer clubs will simply poach riders once they have proved they are capable.

Congratulations to Nicholas. Next up the Aussie title.

The short answer is yes, however there are more sophisticated ways of doing it by looking at riders who's average was above 8 in 2016 and seeing where they finished this year. NKI would obviously fit into that category. I doubt the BSPA will do either though. They'll simply muddle through and the clever teams will game the system as Swindon did with Musielak.

Not all riders have real averages, that's the point. If riders carry over their averages from 2016 and before when the league was stronger, it creates a race to sign these riders who offer better value. Just look at the influence Musielak had in Swindon's resergence this season.

For me Steve Worrall on 6.7ish, Michael Palm-Toft on 5.2ish, Ellis Perks (4ish) and Danny Ayres (3ish)

Firstly, the league isn't attracting back top riders and secondly every year they reduce the points limit the league gets weaker.

Not Kildemand specifically, but any rider without a 2017 average should be uplifted to reflect the weakening of the league. Although this is the BSPA we're talking about so they will likely let this slip through the net.

That looks very top heavy, unless we can find another rider mid-season on a false average. Surely they'll close that loophole and any rider without a 2017 average will be subject to at least a 20% multiplier?

I think Ellis has potential, but almost certainly bound back to Poole.

Definite no to Bellego IMO. Simply too high an average for me and offers no potential value.

Kildemand would be a great signing on his low average, but he has previously stated he would have ridden this year if not for the Polish restrictions, so I can't see him riding here in 2018.

Nothing is guaranteed, is it? The working assumption is that the track will still be there next season.

I like Jorgensen, but I felt his average was a little high at 5.93. He seems like a 6-pointer, but could potentially improve.

Who knows what the points limit (or even the rules) will be, so rather than fantasy teams, I've gone rider-to-rider: Doyle has to be the first name on the team sheet for 2018 if he wants to ride. I'd keep Morris, as I think he is steadily improving and his away form has been excellent this year. It wouldn't surprise me if Musielak doesn't go back to Wolves, but if Doyle does ride then I think he'd make a good top two with Morris. Otherwise I don't think he'll fit. For me Bellego has no value at his current average and the last few months have started to see his scores declined, so it's a no. Ellis I'd have back, but he'll probably go to Poole. BWD did OK, but there are lots of second-tier riders of his ability and either way, I don't think we'll be able to fit him in, so it's a no. Wajtknecht was showing good progress before his injury, so I'd be happy to see him back. Other riders who I think have value and might be available are Steve Worrall on 6.7ish, Michael Palm-Toft on 5.2ish, Ellis Perks (4ish) and Danny Ayres (3ish).

And yet, no one can point to the clause in any of the planning documents. I think it is just a rumour which everyone wants to believe is true.