Sir Sidney

David Lowe is the Leicester rep. He has a piece in the programme regularly I believe Yes, they do exist.

Just go back to who ever finishes top of the league is the League Champions and cut all this nonsense of play offs out. Play offs are simply a commercial decision in any event. This is just an extension of that. Presumably any one of the 4 clubs could have said they were not in agreement and the rules should be followed, but they didn't

He's a visionary

If his average remains above 4 (and assuming the rules don't change next year), then Anders will not qualify as a rising star next year.

If official car parks are sold out and you don't fancy street parking, then I have booked parking at the Asda Longsight store before. About a 10 - 15 min walk. I used the Just Park app to book. Another option if you need one

If a side picks a strong top 5 then inevitably number 6 is going to be weaker than other teams. It's a numbers game.

It is still a rule. That's from the regulations for this year, downloadable from the SCB site.

Yes 012.1.14 Foul, Unfair or Dangerous riding

It's set out in the regulations section 010.2.2 You can download the regs here https://www.scbgb.co.uk/regulations

Although, of course, the housing at Swindon was never an issue when the track was running.

That's a matter of opinion. Now we have the consequence that a number of teams are entering the last portion of the season, including the playoffs, where using guests is inevitable even if other riders may be available to replace genuinely injured riders.

It was an entirely predictable outcome. Whether we agree with Belle Vue signing Lambert to replace the injured Fricke is down to personal views. However, there was such an outcry that SCB changed the rules - and now we have the current position. Sometimes speedway reaps what it sows.

That's as a direct result of the negative comments when Belle Vue signed Robert Lambert to replace the injured Max Fricke. We can argue all we like about that and whether there is more credibility or fairness in using a guest rather than an unattached rider - but that is now the situation we have.

Not lost on me. UK speedway has plenty of issues but this isn't really the place to discuss those

Frank would have had it completed and been home by 8pm

But this isn't UK speedway rules

Public meeting to be held over Peterborough Showground redevelopment plans (peterboroughtoday.co.uk)

No changes allowed after 75% of league fixtures completed so can't leave it too long

A pity to hold it on a Wednesday

All in the Regulations under 011.4 Facilities. Where the RS is riding in positions 1-5 in the team the options are R/R, or a guest from the RS list with a lower match average

Can you provide the rule you would rely on to back that up? I can't see one. Contrast that with 010.5 d - facility available when a rider is competing in his own national championship.

My point is that if someone at BSPL gave them permission, even if they were not entitled to, and KL say they relied on that then they might try to use that in mitigation. SCB don't publish any evidence from the investigation so we can't see that. KL did breach the rules, so whilst the one quoted may not be the strongest then it still applies. Will Buster engage lawyers to represent him when that incurs extra costs with no certainty of success, and the potential for a bigger sanction ( when I reality KL have got away with no real sanction), and bearing in mind SCB tribunals work on the basis of probability not strict rules of evidence?

I think it already has. No fine. Able to re stage the meeting when his full team are likely to be available. Unlikely to make play offs so the league point deduction is of no consequence. Quite likely to finish up bottom in any event, especially now Birmingham have signed Freddie Lindgren

It's a bit of a circular argument really. In my view King's Lynn don't have a leg to stand on, given their press release said the postponement was related to rider availability not weather related, unless they were given permission by BSPL to postpone. SCB should have quoted the correct rules in it's judgement, but that's not to say their ruling is incorrect. However, if the judgement is turned over on appeal others will use that as a precedent (and probably consult lawyers if taken to task). We all know the rule book is littered with inconsistency and interpretation.