RHayes Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 Bournemouth have made the Play Offs after getting the point they needed at King's Lynn I imagine that newport will choose Bourenmouth and it will then mean Dudley v Buxton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedy bill Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 Bournemouth have made the Play Offs after getting the point they needed at King's Lynn I imagine that newport will choose Bourenmouth and it will then mean Dudley v Buxton cant believe the devils have missed out but hey best of luck to the Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shad176 Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 with jay herne scoring an excellent max against weymouth theres a chance that come play off time things might look brighter for the buccs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 with jay herne scoring an excellent max against weymouth theres a chance that come play off time things might look brighter for the buccs Would have thought that his average is too high unless they make another change as well and not sure that would be allowed at this late stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted September 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 Would have thought that his average is too high unless they make another change as well and not sure that would be allowed at this late stage. Hmm, not sure that this can be the case at all. Let's look at the facts. Jay is the Buccs' number one last year and retained as such at the start of this season. He suffers a bad (at the time consdered career-threatening and indeed worse than that...) injury. Place in team taken by firstly Chris Mills and then when available after Mildenhall's sad mid-season closure. Jerran Hart. Now Jay is fit to return which is somthing we should all be celebrating and infinitely better than the Buccs using a guest in the play-offs; and yet you are saying he'll not - in your opinion - be eligible. Frankly I think that's one of the most disgraceful things I've ever heard written/said at this level of the sport... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Nick Posted September 12, 2010 Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 Hmm, not sure that this can be the case at all. Let's look at the facts. Jay is the Buccs' number one last year and retained as such at the start of this season. He suffers a bad (at the time consdered career-threatening and indeed worse than that...) injury. Place in team taken by firstly Chris Mills and then when available after Mildenhall's sad mid-season closure. Jerran Hart. Now Jay is fit to return which is somthing we should all be celebrating and infinitely better than the Buccs using a guest in the play-offs; and yet you are saying he'll not - in your opinion - be eligible. Frankly I think that's one of the most disgraceful things I've ever heard written/said at this level of the sport... I think thats a bit unessesary Parsloes, Jayne was only putting forward her opinion. I think she's right as well, Jays average would be too high to fit in without wholesale changes. I think the Buccs will probably have to go with guests for the playoffs (isn't there a transfer deadline)? On a lighter note may I say how good it was to see Jay in fine form at Weymouth and I'm sure he will be an asset to someones team next year (shame it looks like it won't be the Buccs ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stressed Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 Jerran Hart 9.04 BOURNEMOUTH 42.29 Jay Herne 10.16 So another change in the team would be needed. I think it would be unfair pressure on Jay at this late stage in the season after only one meeting back, realistically a few open meetings with no pressure would help him regain race fitness. I hope he has a good winter back in Aussie getting race fit and ready for an injury free 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 Congrats to Newport and Bournemouth on doing what was required of them to take their respective positions in the POs. I was hoping Rye House could do us a favour and beat Newport, but it was not to be. The battle is well and truly on between Dudley and Buxton now. We face each other in the KOC semi first leg tomorrow, we seem likely to face each other in the semi of the PO and one of these two clubs will ultimately top the league table too. Currently Newport sit top with 45 but have an inferior points difference to their two rivals who can both finish on 45 too. Dudley hold a slender advantage on points difference at +176 compared to Buxton's +170. With the exception of the expunged Milldenhall result it's Buxton that have pushed Dudley the hardest at home when it took a last bend move by Smart to secure all the league points at Monmore back in April. Dudley then went one better and took a loser's league points away from their east Midlands rivals (league aggregate was 94-88). So it could be some rivalry over the next few weeks. Bring it on!! Thanx. So one would have to assume that Newport will choose the 4th. finishers regardless; with Buxton/Dudley reprising their KOc semi with palay-off semi too!! I wonder if indeed if that's the case whether the Cup & P/O matches might be reversed..: ie hold the P/os first..?? No mention of that on the Dudley website, and there's a preview for the KOC fixture tomorrow. So I suspect a late change is extremely unlikely. Simple solution, (probably too simple for the BSPA,) - - - One match, 15 hts, 2 competitions, ie match winner wins semi of both Play-off and KOC . Its been done before. Not for me mate. I would be totally against that idea. Two difference competition and two meetings for me please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted September 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 I think thats a bit unessesary Parsloes, Jayne was only putting forward her opinion. I think she's right as well, Jays average would be too high to fit in without wholesale changes. I think the Buccs will probably have to go with guests for the playoffs (isn't there a transfer deadline)? There IS a transfer deadline, but Jay wouldn't be an incoming transfer - he started the season as a Buccs rider and has only been absent at any point due to injury... The other changes could be 3.00-pointers...: again not incoming transfers (well not if they're unattached ATM). I accept that it probably WON'T happen (for the reason Tim states more than anything...) but I hold by my view that to suggest Jay would be ineligible is an underhand comment to make... And counter-productive, as surely anyone caring about the league would rather see a team go into the play-offs able to use their own rider at number one rather than utilise guests.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 There IS a transfer deadline, but Jay wouldn't be an incoming transfer - he started the season as a Buccs rider and has only been absent at any point due to injury... The other changes could be 3.00-pointers...: again not incoming transfers (well not if they're unattached ATM). I accept that it probably WON'T happen (for the reason Tim states more than anything...) but I hold by my view that to suggest Jay would be ineligible is an underhand comment to make... And counter-productive, as surely anyone caring about the league would rather see a team go into the play-offs able to use their own rider at number one rather than utilise guests.. Parsloes - I think that you are overstating my post, I'm not sure why you think that by stating a rider is ineligible under the current points limit and Bournemouth's team average is underhand. At the end of the day my understanding of the rules is that you can only build up to the points limit and any subsequent team changes must ultimately be like for like or adhere to the points limit. As for a rider being allowed to return from injury (on a higher average) again my understanding is that is within 28 days which may be extended on application to the MC. So as Jay's average is higher than Jerran's I would not expect that change to be allowed without Bournemouth making additional changes. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you or I think it is down to the management committee to approve any team changes in line with the current regulations. As for implying I don't care about the NL you are way off target there. If that was the case why run a team in the third division for the last 16 years, as we have, which takes a considerable amount of time and commitment on a limited budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 Parsloes - I think that you are overstating my post, I'm not sure why you think that by stating a rider is ineligible under the current points limit and Bournemouth's team average is underhand. At the end of the day my understanding of the rules is that you can only build up to the points limit and any subsequent team changes must ultimately be like for like or adhere to the points limit. As for a rider being allowed to return from injury (on a higher average) again my understanding is that is within 28 days which may be extended on application to the MC. So as Jay's average is higher than Jerran's I would not expect that change to be allowed without Bournemouth making additional changes. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you or I think it is down to the management committee to approve any team changes in line with the current regulations. As for implying I don't care about the NL you are way off target there. If that was the case why run a team in the third division for the last 16 years, as we have, which takes a considerable amount of time and commitment on a limited budget. Jayne.... Would the words, "Oops, sorry pardon!" from Parsnips suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted September 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 Jayne.... Would the words, "Oops, sorry pardon!" from Parsnips suffice? Hmm, no - that won't be happening... 1) I stand by the point that everyone SHOULD be wanting to see Jay rather an anonymous 'guest' riding; and 2) apologies are fine IF reciprocated - and I did NOT appreciate being reported to the authorities last year for simply requesting the one to seven of a team for the purposes of a programme printing deadline. As a serial prog. editor yourself Bryn I doubt you'd appreciate that either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century heathen Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 The rules should be adhered to not an idealist view of who we would like to see ride for each team. Otherwise can we bring back Taylor and Armstrong as replacements for Morris and Franklin as they're only out of the Dudley team due to injury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 As 21st CH states the rules should be adhered to else we will have a free for all and I'm sure you dont want that Derek. As for last year perhaps you want to have a look at your own part in that but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jay Herne or the deadline for NL fixtures. If you want to get into it further or rake over old ground then take it off the forum as I'm sure no one else is interested. I don't want/expect an apology but it would be nice if you stick to the facts and not alter them to fit your own agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted September 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 There's no agenda. Just seems rather harsh that riders returning from injury(and of course I'd include, for example, Jon Armstrong in that...) can't apparently go back into their original teams without it being deemed in contravention of a 'transfer deadline'. I'm sure most people looking in from the outside would consider that a very strange and regrettable state of affairs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbler Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 I'm sure most people looking in from the outside would consider that a very strange and regrettable state of affairs Yes - attacking Malcolm Vasey and then Jayne in this thread is a strange thing to do... They are two people who come on here and discuss and inform - and have a great knowledge of the NDL... and previously the CL. I always appreciate the time they take to write in this section - and admire the pair of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules m Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 Merely as a matter of interest if Jay could fit back in average wise is it not the same scenario as Tim at Newport and would be allowed to ride? Jules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoaty Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 The other changes could be 3.00-pointers...: again not incoming transfers (well not if they're unattached ATM). You have a strange definition of the word 'incoming' if you think it doesn't apply to unattached riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted September 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 Yes - attacking Malcolm Vasey and then Jayne in this thread is a strange thing to do... ?? What on earth are you on about now..?! If you're referring to the mention about the play offs, it IS the case that in defending them previously Malcolm HAS been extremely forceful in dismissing the contrary opinion. That's a FACT. It's not "attacking" Malcolm as I'm sure he'd concur that over the play-offs being in the NL he thinks he's 100% right and that I talk rubbish!! Interesting that our friends from Dudley (whose opinions I also respect very much btw...) are nearly all in agreement that in the NL there really shouldn't be P/Os. Malcolm with bigger fish to fry these days, this time probably hasn't seen this latest debate...: he's certainly not steamed in like the third tier supremo of old... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted September 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 You have a strange definition of the word 'incoming' if you think it doesn't apply to unattached riders. If a rider is "unattached" (ie rides for no club at all...) then he is NOT covered by the transfer rule... Surely that's the case isn't it...!!?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.