Nl Fours 18//8

[Guest]

Gutted Kings just missed out on 1st bit of Silverware.Anyway well done Heathens.

 

So near to succes in the NL4s but a creditable second place proves that Kings are becoming a force to reckon with in National League racing. Deservedly so.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Guest

[vog]

Well. I'm going to start by saying what a waste of money that meeting was.

 

Anyway, as a more in depth review:

 

Semi final one saw KL looking good, streaking into an early lead, and not risking anything in the later heats. Mildenhall took advantage of some mistakes from other teams to steal second place in the group. The IoW must be disappointed with the return from Ellis, while Coventry will be cursing injuries and PL commitments.

 

Semi final B saw Dudley start badly, but then find their feet, while Kent and Stoke battled for the second place. Unfortunately for Stoke, Lee Payne came up against Steve Boxall in heat 8, and that was that. A good effort from the home team, but just not enough.

 

Onto the final, and after a delay while Kings Lynn sorted their team out, we were off. 4 heats later, we were back where we started, without any passing. Always a fun way to spend half an hour. After that, Dudley and Kent pulled away (Even thanks to a bit of help from the ref. Thank goodness that didn't affect the final outcome) and it all came down to the final race. On a track that offered one racing line, and even that wasn't a good one, Steve Boxall came from the graveyard of gate 2 and couldn't overhaul Blackbird.

 

So, the meeting. The racing was terrible. I recall 2 passes (Sarjeant going around everyone, and Charles Wright in one of the first heats) which is terrible. While the dust was controlled, there just seemed to be no dirt whatsoever on the track. The program was a waste of £1, as it was error strewn, and had no score cards for the final. Also, there was no space to put a race off result. Little things that should not occur. From a point of view as a Stoke fan, it was a joke that the program contained no adverts, and that the meeting didn't have a sponsor. Nice to see our commercial manager earning her money.

 

All in all, a meeting bereft of racing, made slightly more interesting by the close score. I feel gutted for Kent as I honestly believed they had a chance of winning, but overall, it wasn't a meeting worth £15.

[TMW]

Well. I'm going to start by saying what a waste of money that meeting was.

 

Anyway, as a more in depth review:

 

Semi final one saw KL looking good, streaking into an early lead, and not risking anything in the later heats. Mildenhall took advantage of some mistakes from other teams to steal second place in the group. The IoW must be disappointed with the return from Ellis, while Coventry will be cursing injuries and PL commitments.

 

Semi final B saw Dudley start badly, but then find their feet, while Kent and Stoke battled for the second place. Unfortunately for Stoke, Lee Payne came up against Steve Boxall in heat 8, and that was that. A good effort from the home team, but just not enough.

 

Onto the final, and after a delay while Kings Lynn sorted their team out, we were off. 4 heats later, we were back where we started, without any passing. Always a fun way to spend half an hour. After that, Dudley and Kent pulled away (Even thanks to a bit of help from the ref. Thank goodness that didn't affect the final outcome) and it all came down to the final race. On a track that offered one racing line, and even that wasn't a good one, Steve Boxall came from the graveyard of gate 2 and couldn't overhaul Blackbird.

 

So, the meeting. The racing was terrible. I recall 2 passes (Sarjeant going around everyone, and Charles Wright in one of the first heats) which is terrible. While the dust was controlled, there just seemed to be no dirt whatsoever on the track. The program was a waste of £1, as it was error strewn, and had no score cards for the final. Also, there was no space to put a race off result. Little things that should not occur. From a point of view as a Stoke fan, it was a joke that the program contained no adverts, and that the meeting didn't have a sponsor. Nice to see our commercial manager earning her money.

 

All in all, a meeting bereft of racing, made slightly more interesting by the close score. I feel gutted for Kent as I honestly believed they had a chance of winning, but overall, it wasn't a meeting worth £15.

 

I was under the impression the powers that be ran the meeting and it was only Stoke supplying the venue. If Stoke don't have a say then should they be blamed?. admittedly the track is the Stoke promotion responsibility but the rest is the BSPA I would have thought. You would have thought the Ref would known a basic rule like can a team line up be changed?

[vog]

I was under the impression the powers that be ran the meeting and it was only Stoke supplying the venue. If Stoke don't have a say then should they be blamed?. admittedly the track is the Stoke promotion responsibility but the rest is the BSPA I would have thought. You would have thought the Ref would known a basic rule like can a team line up be changed?

 

I wasn't really complaining about the delay in announcing the riders, as I appreciate that this is a job that needs doing correctly. As far as I was aware, teams bid however much they want to pay to host the meeting, and then they keep the proceeds? The programs were definitely a Stoke thing, as they had Dave Tattum's thoughts in, as opposed to a neutral program. The fact that there was no meeting sponsor reflects badly on Stoke, and the fact that the program was not fit for the purpose again falls on Stoke. The track not being right is another Stoke issue, whereas the meeting itself was run relatively smoothly. There were obvious delays while the final line up was sorted, and after crashes, but the riders were quickly on 2 minutes after every race, with grading every 4 races. That seemed a very reasonable amount of grading, especially given the fact that the sun came out at one point.

[Halifaxtiger]

So, the meeting. The racing was terrible. I recall 2 passes (Sarjeant going around everyone, and Charles Wright in one of the first heats) which is terrible. While the dust was controlled, there just seemed to be no dirt whatsoever on the track. The program was a waste of £1, as it was error strewn, and had no score cards for the final. Also, there was no space to put a race off result. Little things that should not occur. From a point of view as a Stoke fan, it was a joke that the program contained no adverts, and that the meeting didn't have a sponsor. Nice to see our commercial manager earning her money.

 

All in all, a meeting bereft of racing, made slightly more interesting by the close score. I feel gutted for Kent as I honestly believed they had a chance of winning, but overall, it wasn't a meeting worth £15.

 

After the shambles last year, I decided to give this one a miss and saw an excellent meeting at Glasgow instead.

 

From the contents of this report and knowing how fair you are (in actual fact, if anything, you are slightly (if not reasonably) biased towards Stoke) I made the right choice.

 

It contrasts badly with the reports of the NL pairs at Mildenhall, which by all accounts was very good indeed.

 

One day big meetings will be allocated to those that have shown they can put on a good show, not those that put in the best bid. In the end that will be best for the sport both in terms of its reputation and finances.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Halifaxtiger

[vog]

After the shambles last year, I decided to give this one a miss and saw an excellent meeting at Glasgow instead.

 

From the contents of this report and knowing how fair you are (in actual fact, if anything, your slightly (if not reasonably) biased towards Stoke) I made the right choice.

 

It contrasts very badly with the reports of the NL pairs at Mildenhall, which by all accounts was very good indeed.

 

One day big meetings will be allocated to those that have shown they can put on a good show, not those that put in the best bid because in the end that will be best for the sport, both in terms of its reputation and finances.

 

I was lucky enough to have attended both the pairs and 4's this season, along with the PL 4's from Peterborough. The meetings from Mildenhall and Peterborough both had the same fatal flaw in that, while the track was well prepared to start with, the baking hot sun caused both to be dust bowls by the end of the meeting. They at least provided good racing throughout the first half of the meeting though. With the NL 4's, although the track was safer than last year, it was too dry to begin with, and track grading became a preventative measure to keep the dust down, as opposed to a way of making sure the track continued to be in top shape.

 

Personally, I hope Stoke don't get the NL 4's next season, because we continually show that we are not up to running it. Contrast that with the good meetings I saw for the British U21's at Dudley/Wolves and the NL Pairs, and it shows Stoke up for being a poor promotion.

[Eddie]

It states on page 3 of the programme: "Programme inclusive of admission", yet they were charging £1. I know the wording is standard in every Stoke programme, but if they wanted to charge for it, this wording should have been removed, as surely its illegal to charge for something thats already included.

[TMW]

 

I wasn't really complaining about the delay in announcing the riders, as I appreciate that this is a job that needs doing correctly. As far as I was aware, teams bid however much they want to pay to host the meeting, and then they keep the proceeds? The programs were definitely a Stoke thing, as they had Dave Tattum's thoughts in, as opposed to a neutral program. The fact that there was no meeting sponsor reflects badly on Stoke, and the fact that the program was not fit for the purpose again falls on Stoke. The track not being right is another Stoke issue, whereas the meeting itself was run relatively smoothly. There were obvious delays while the final line up was sorted, and after crashes, but the riders were quickly on 2 minutes after every race, with grading every 4 races. That seemed a very reasonable amount of grading, especially given the fact that the sun came out at one point.

 

Fair enough I was of the understanding that the BSPA ran the meeting and pocketed the admission and the program paying a rnt to the promoter and obviously any beverage and food sales from a large crowd turning out.

 

It is sad to see some of the comments from the Stoke supporters as I love to go to Stoke you can talk to riders and park up on the bends 3/4 and have a brilliant view of the track but i'm not over keen to walk all the way round to the bar now the pit entrance has been closed off. It could be made so much better. Sometimes I wonder what promotions are thinking by not getting their regular supporters to help them promote the set up.

[Skodaman]

 

I wasn't really complaining about the delay in announcing the riders, as I appreciate that this is a job that needs doing correctly. As far as I was aware, teams bid however much they want to pay to host the meeting, and then they keep the proceeds? The programs were definitely a Stoke thing, as they had Dave Tattum's thoughts in, as opposed to a neutral program. The fact that there was no meeting sponsor reflects badly on Stoke, and the fact that the program was not fit for the purpose again falls on Stoke. The track not being right is another Stoke issue, whereas the meeting itself was run relatively smoothly. There were obvious delays while the final line up was sorted, and after crashes, but the riders were quickly on 2 minutes after every race, with grading every 4 races. That seemed a very reasonable amount of grading, especially given the fact that the sun came out at one point.

 

That does not indicate that it was a Stoke programme; he may have been asked to contribute an article because the meeting was being held at Stoke.

[whippy]

Stoke should not be used again as a venue for the '4's as it is not really the best of places. The stand really needs razing to the ground. It is disgusting inside. the entrance, the toilets, carpets are YAK. I would hate to see the state ot the 'kitchen' area. Just not a pleasant place to be, sorry.

[vog]

That does not indicate that it was a Stoke programme; he may have been asked to contribute an article because the meeting was being held at Stoke.

 

It had all the hallmarks of a Stoke programme, in that it was the same layout, same font, copy and pasted from previous programs. If it wasn't a Stoke program, it was a darn good copy.

[griffo]

Fair enough I was of the understanding that the BSPA ran the meeting and pocketed the admission and the program paying a rnt to the promoter and obviously any beverage and food sales from a large crowd turning out.

 

It is sad to see some of the comments from the Stoke supporters as I love to go to Stoke you can talk to riders and park up on the bends 3/4 and have a brilliant view of the track but i'm not over keen to walk all the way round to the bar now the pit entrance has been closed off. It could be made so much better. Sometimes I wonder what promotions are thinking by not getting their regular supporters to help them promote the set up.

 

I think you will find that yuo are right in saying that it is a BSPA run meeting and that the Stoke Promotion only get a payment for Rent of stadium Cheers Griffo

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

I can tell you that the programme for these shared events (eg Sunday's Fours, the Pairs at Mildenhall) are 100% produced by the staging club and the BSPA have no input.

Thiis was the first time out of all the times that Stoke have staged the CL/NL 4s that the pogramme wasn't produced by Speed-away Promotions and the first time I'd not contributed a preview of the teams. I've not seen what the prog was like but it does not sound anywhere up to the standard of those previous progs and arguably, not up to an acceptable standard at all.

Which is a shame...

[vog]

I can tell you that the programme for these shared events (eg Sunday's Fours, the Pairs at Mildenhall) are 100% produced by the staging club and the BSPA have no input.

Thiis was the first time out of all the times that Stoke have staged the CL/NL 4s that the pogramme wasn't produced by Speed-away Promotions and the first time I'd not contributed a preview of the teams. I've not seen what the prog was like but it does not sound anywhere up to the standard of those previous progs and arguably, not up to an acceptable standard at all.

Which is a shame...

 

The program was inadequate. It is that simple. Even ignoring the typos and the sentences that made no sense, we were left with no scorecard for the final, and no space for a run off if it was needed. There was a short write up on each team, and that was about it. It smacked of not wanting to pay to have the extra pages put in to accommodate the score card.

[SCB]

The number 1 reason people buy a programme is for the score card and Stoke didn't bother putting one in? Id have gone back to get my money back!

[vog]

The number 1 reason people buy a programme is for the score card and Stoke didn't bother putting one in? Id have gone back to get my money back!

 

They had it in for the two semi-finals, but not for the final.

 

Also, it contained the fantastic line

 

"Loomer road stadium was built in 1973, and has been ever present at Loomer road ever since"

[greyhoundp]

I hate to say it, but its typical Tatum, penny pinching, and take it or leave it attitude, put simply the BSPA supported Tatum and Stoke, by giving them the 4,s, if Tatum doesnt want to make an effort, then its time they told him, either make an effort, or you wont be getting any more meetings, i feel so sorry for Stoke fans having to put up with this guy, slowly killing Stoke speedway.

[Parsloes 1928 nearly]

Also, it contained the fantastic line

 

"Loomer road stadium was built in 1973, and has been ever present at Loomer road ever since"

 

Sheer quality!!!!

[Guest]

They had it in for the two semi-finals, but not for the final.

 

Also, it contained the fantastic line

 

"Loomer road stadium was built in 1973, and has been ever present at Loomer road ever since"

 

Do they have confirmation of this? It seems hard to believe.

[pete cc]

 

 

Do they have confirmation of this? It seems hard to believe.

whats it going to do!! get up and walk off?

 

Went to stoke twice last year, for the first time for over a decade, sorry stoke fans ITS ON ITS A*SE. needs lots of investment but, its not going to get any soon. I would fear for the clubs future.