Scunthorpe V Cradley (national League) 13th April 2014

[Halifaxtiger]

The difference to my mind is, the likes of Godfrey, Chapman, have the greater good of British Speedway at heart. Winning things at that level is not the main priorty. Other teams at this level have a different agenda. Ok, Lynn aint gonna produce 3 riders like Rose, Kerr and Lambert every season, the same goes for Scunny, But at least you can see what they are trying to acheive as a bigger picture. I am not sure the same could be said for certain other clubs at this level.

 

Again, that's nonsense.

 

The greater good they have is for Scunthorpe and Poole, nothing more. True, what they are doing may benefit British Speedway in the future but it is rubbish to suggest that that is their principle motivation.

 

Of course their agenda is different, it simply has to be. Viability must come first for others.

 

Its all a question (as BP has said) of balance and compromise. If, for arguments sake, Malcolm Vasey's 36 point limit is used but there is a lower limit of 32, Cradley will compromise by 4 points. Scunthorpe would have to by 9.

 

so stoke mildenhall ,cradley all move up because they all believe its about winning ,where does that leave the national league? 5 teams left =no national league. You can knock cradley all you like but the national league will be a much poorer place without them. I just dont get this fixation with young riders . I want to see good speedway at all levels and quite frankly i dont care if a rider is 15 or 50 as long as its entertaining cause thats what im paying admission for

 

I disagree, Dean. I firmly believe that the NL is the place for young British riders to develop and hence that there should be restrictions on the number of more experienced riders competing.

 

What I would say, though, is that the presence of one senior rider is a very good thing.

 

As far as I am concerned, it was a bad day when you chose to pack in riding because you had (and indeed still have) an awful lot to offer.

 

The trouble you have is the likes of Scunny can do what they are doing with no problem.They can bring in 6 new riders to the sport in 1 go.They have the luxury of a main PL team to fall back on for finances.If Mildenhall for example didn't build a team that could win on track at home and the odd meeting away,we would close as the crowds would drift.The hardcore base would stay I've no doubt about that,but you'd lose the people who only come every so often.

I think Mildenhall have got the balance right this year.Competitive team and a chance to bring on some youngsters.Our oldest rider I believe is Halsey and he's only 25/26.4 riders under 20 aswell.I couldn't be happier with the 7 we have.

 

Very good post, Adz.

 

The point about being a commercial business that has to offer a decent product to remain viable is far too easily brushed aside by those who insist on very low points limits (usually from a club whose team at one time had a starting average of around 60 points and didn't hesitate to sign PL riders if their team was weakened for some reason).

 

I also agree that Mildenhall have got the balance dead right, although I'd say Cradley have too. Both full of young riders yet attractive enough to bring in the paying customers.

 

I just ask one question, my final one on the subject. Why doesnt Mr Godfrey run the NL meetings as single meetings, rather than as double headers ?. I believe the answer is because not many will come to watch them at the present time. Yet other people on here expect supporters of other NL Teams to pay hard earned cash, to watch the self same team that the majority of Scunthorpe supporters dont want to watch.

 

 

I believe even Rob Godfrey has admitted that they run double headers for that specific reason.

 

Double headers are nothing new at Scunthorpe and not just something that have been introduced for this season. Yes there is an increase in ther admission price but £2 for an extra 15 heats of racing as to be good value in anybodies book. As for the support I have been at double headers in the past and seen the ground empty as soon as the Premier league meeting as finished. Yet this season despite the results of the Stags more people do seem to be staying behind to watch the lads and seem to be getting behind them. Yes all but one of the team have stated the season with an assest avarge of 3 but these are lads who have raced in amature meetings and are not that far of the pace of the seasoned riders they are up against. Lets also not forget Scunthorpe as given chances in the past to less experianced riders only for other clubs to steal them once they have proved themselves. It looks to me than those promotors who are complaining would do well to give such youngsters a chance in their teams as opposed to waiting it they have gained some expriance and then poaching them

 

I would say that the majority (or near majority) of those who watched the Scorpions also watched the Stags when I have been there. That was good to see.

 

As far as I am aware, only Buster Chapman has said something. However, if they do say something I think they have fair point because their gates could be affected by the weakness of the Stags team. To me, that's unquestionable.

 

Its very easy for a club like Scunthorpe (or one of its supporters) to say pack your teams with young, inexperienced riders to the stand alone clubs when they make their meetings double headers and charge people for the NL match whether they want to see it or not. Such a policy at Stoke, for example, would see the track close in weeks.

 

As I have said before, when they start running NL meetings as stand alones (and so run exactly the same financial risk that the likes of Cradley and Mildenhall would) they can crow as much as they want. Otherwise, they don't have a case at all.

 

Has it ever occured to you that we also maybe short on dates,Full PL season,12 stock car meet,7 Amateur meets,various tracks days etc

 

when could we actually run stand alone meetings? Running two meets in a week in financial suicide---Double headers work so that why it is

 

 

You could easily run meetings on Fridays (Scorpions) and Sundays (Stags) but, you're right, it would be financial suicide because no-one would pay on Sundays.

 

The reason you have double headers is so that people going to the Scorpions match pay extra for the NL match whether they want it or not and thus the NL match is funded.

 

I should say I don't blame Scunthorpe for that, but there has to be an acceptance on the part of their promotion and supporters that the line up of their team will affect others attendances.

[lucifer sam]

 

.The greater good they have is for Scunthorpe and Poole, nothing more. True, what they are doing may benefit British Speedway in the future but it is rubbish to suggest that that is their principle motivation

HT, read the press release in Post 7, and you'll see the Scunny promotion are not trying to claim anything other than that. As you say, if the by-product is that British Speedway benefits, then that's absoutely great, but the principle motivation is to provide riders for the Scorpions and Pirates in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

You could easily run meetings on Fridays (Scorpions) and Sundays (Stags) but, you're right, it would be financial suicide because no-one would pay on Sundays.

 

The reason you have double headers is so that people going to the Scorpions match pay extra for the NL match whether they want it or not and thus the NL match is funded.

 

I should say I don't blame Scunthorpe for that, but there has to be an acceptance on the part of their promotion and supporters that the line up of their team will affect others attendances.

 

 

Scunny have been running double-headers since 2008, it's the best way to run two teams at the EWR. Personally, it's what got me up there on a regular basis. It works - why change it?

 

As for affecting others attendances, it depends what most fans are after. I think most are happy as long as their (main) team wins. You, I and other who take the time out to post on here are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

All the best

Rob

No what I did was to actually post a comment on the subject in hand instead of cherry picking an odd ocacasion and trying to score points , having to second guess every patheitic loophole someone will find in every post makes posting on the BSF hard work rather than an amusing pastime , and getting embroiled in sidetrack arguments with cretins is no lopnger my bag I' m afraid . so I'll just say , Kings Lynn did not turn up with a training school team , and no one would have been put off attending because they were the opposition . so your weak point is completlely irrelevant and wasted here .

 

There's been a lot of interesting stuff on this thread, sadly your posts are the exception. As soon as you starting throwing pointless insults, you lose the argument by default.

 

All the best

Rob

[Falcon Hammer]

HT, read the press release in Post 7, and you'll see the Scunny promotion are not trying to claim anything other than that. As you say, if the by-product is that British Speedway benefits, then that's absoutely great, but the principle motivation is to provide riders for the Scorpions and Pirates in the future.

 

 

 

 

Scunny have been running double-headers since 2008, it's the best way to run two teams at the EWR. Personally, it's what got me up there on a regular basis. It works - why change it?

 

As for affecting others attendances, it depends what most fans are after. I think most are happy as long as their (main) team wins. You, I and other who take the time out to post on here are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

All the best

Rob

 

 

There's been a lot of interesting stuff on this thread, sadly your posts are the exception. As soon as you starting throwing pointless insults, you lose the argument by default.

 

All the best

Rob

I have to agree with Halifaxtiger. I am happy if my team wins, but I don't really want to pay to watch them against a team, who cannot compete. I like to see some competitive racing.

 

I would still watch Rye House v Plymouth 2012, because Ben Barker was racing; ditto Glasgow 2013 because of Joe Screen. Last year at Kent we weren't such attractive opposition away from home, but Steve Boxall was definitely worth watching. Unfortunately I can't see the attraction of going to Kent v Scunthorpe.

 

The addition of one or two more experienced riders will also help the younger ones immensely, especially with lines and setups. The EL draft system is a good example of this.

 

As much as I applaud the Scunthorpe/Poole promotions in bringing on British youngsters, I think some compromise is needed.

 

Halifaxtiger is not the exception

[jim the whipper]

HT, read the press release in Post 7, and you'll see the Scunny promotion are not trying to claim anything other than that. As you say, if the by-product is that British Speedway benefits, then that's absoutely great, but the principle motivation is to provide riders for the Scorpions and Pirates in the future.

 

 

 

 

Scunny have been running double-headers since 2008, it's the best way to run two teams at the EWR. Personally, it's what got me up there on a regular basis. It works - why change it?

 

As for affecting others attendances, it depends what most fans are after. I think most are happy as long as their (main) team wins. You, I and other who take the time out to post on here are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

All the best

Rob

 

There's been a lot of interesting stuff on this thread, sadly your posts are the exception. As soon as you starting throwing pointless insults, you lose the argument by default.

 

All the best

Rob

OK I wont post anything else , feel free to just post your view without being challenged ,

[semion]

Halifax to quote you, that is nonsense....Actually no its not its just a different opinion to the one that you hold. Or maybe you think people do not have the right to post on here something that doesnt fit in with your thoughts ? Just a question you understand. If we take Scunny as an example. How many riders have they produced for the general good of British Speedway. Woofy, Birks, Worrells x 2 to name just a few. Lynn have also produced the 3 in their current line-up which will hopefully be for the great good of British Speedway.

[Ommer Mon]

I don't think anyone is challenging Scunny's past record of producing good riders. All that, however, was achieved whilst having some team members who could put on a show and lead by example. Unfortunately that is not what is happening this year and that is what people are concerned about.

[Mike.Butler]

this is a devlopment league. I'd say Cradley were more at fault for the lopsided scoreline than Scunthorpe. If the stand-alone clubs didn't have the likes of Scunny to race against there would hardly be a league at all..Winning the damn thing shouldn't be the aim IMV... I won't be going to Cradley this season as they are too strong.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Mike.Butler

[Falcon Hammer]

this is a devlopment league. I'd say Cradley were more at fault for the lopsided scoreline than Scunthorpe. If the stand-alone clubs didn't have the likes of Scunny to race against there would hardly be a league at all..Winning the damn thing shouldn't be the aim IMV... I won't be going to Cradley this season as they are too strong.

I guess Kent were also too strong (21-52), King's Lynn (24-67 & 37-56) & Coventry (18-71)!

[semion]

As the saying goes its not where you start its where you finish. Lets wait and see how this squad develops. I seem to recall Scunny had a 2 year plan with the last lot. Year one no great shakes, year 2 was somethign else. cannot remember who was in the side, But i am thinking Birks and the 2 Worrells were part of it. Not bad a trio are they ? You only have to look what they Richie is doing for Ippo and Belle Vue and Steve is doing for Cradley and Edinburgh. Looks like other teams are also reaping the benefit of Scunny's development programme. Yet people want to come on here and knock it. Amazing.

Edited April 16, 2014 by semion

[Mike.Butler]

it's was formed as a development league...there have always been stronger and weaker teams with different agendas..ok so at the start of this season it is more pronounced I concede, but there is no minimum points limit so if clubs at this level are relying on putting out winning teams (and using their budgets to attract riders on attractive avarages) to support their business model, then they have to expect some results like this. This is the problem with Cradley (in particular) being the wrong sort of club to be in this league... It probably doesn't bother Coventtry and King's Lynn that the scores above have happened since their primary income is from their BL sides...I see this as a Cradley problem that will remain until they move up (track or no track notwithstanding).. Nothing against them whatsoever but history shows that sides repeatedly winning leagues at levels other than the top one isn't sustainable.. (ie Eastbourne in the late 70's)

Edited April 16, 2014 by Mike.Butler

[semion]

I guess when Scunny are putting their team together they have to ask themselves are they better to go with a young 3 pointer who may improve given time, encouragment and track time, or do they go for a 6 pointer who has been around and is only likely to hit that 6 point average at best ? No brainer for a track like Scunny. Ok, That comes at a price. If the other clubs dont want the likes of Scunny in the League then they could discourage them by laying down a min points limit. Did Scunny enter the league get the green light by declaring that they were going to run with a team full of raw talent, or did they mislead the rest of the League ?

[Heathen1984]

Yeh mike I agree it's always cradley's fault. Haha gotta laugh.

 

U all go on like cradley dont give youngsters a go, team is just as young as every team in nl. Keep blaming cradley thou if that's wot you makes you happy!

 

Fair play to scunny for doing what they are anyway!

[Albert]

I don't blame Cradley (or Mildenhall or Kent)..given their support they have to build a strong team. Likewise, I don't blame Scunny either, its in their interest to build a team with development as the main aim. The other teams may have to take a different direction. That's what makes it such a diverse league, ten teams with perhaps ten different agenda's... I say we have to live with it, stop moaning and let them get on with it.

 

I do feel a tad sorry for Cradley fans though.. their support is tremendous, they deserve better. For the good of speedway, the sooner they can move up a league (or two) the better.

[Wanderer]

As the saying goes its not where you start its where you finish. Lets wait and see how this squad develops. I seem to recall Scunny had a 2 year plan with the last lot. Year one no great shakes, year 2 was somethign else. cannot remember who was in the side, But i am thinking Birks and the 2 Worrells were part of it. Not bad a trio are they ? You only have to look what they Richie is doing for Ippo and Belle Vue and Steve is doing for Cradley and Edinburgh. Looks like other teams are also reaping the benefit of Scunny's development programme. Yet people want to come on here and knock it. Amazing.

I am sorry you cannot count Birks and the Worralls as development riders. They were all established bike riders/ racers although not speedway but they knew there way around racing and bikes well before Scunthorpe.

Could be Scunthorpe was used as a stepping stone because it is also a practise track.

Scunthorpe have had many a good rider but what confuses me is They Don't Stay

[lucifer sam]

Did Scunny enter the league get the green light by declaring that they were going to run with a team full of raw talent, or did they mislead the rest of the League ?

 

No-one was misled. Scunny were accepted into the league, with the NL fully aware of Scunny's plan to track largely a team of novices.

 

There's actually been very little criticism from the other teams; one other promoter has complained, I think that's about it.

 

Scunny's current side is within the 2014 NL rules. Cradley's current side is within the 2014 NL rules. It's debatable whether those rules need amending for 2015 and beyond, but in the meantime let's get on with what is bound to be an intriguing 2014 season. It looks like no-one can stop the Cradley juggernaunt, but I thought the same in 2012, and instead it was Mildenhall who swept the board that season.

 

All the best

Rob

[Hunty]

I do feel a tad sorry for Cradley fans though.. their support is tremendous, they deserve better. For the good of speedway, the sooner they can move up a league (or two) the better.

 

As I stated before, the club is running well in the NL. We have good support because I think the price we charge is value for money at £11. However if we make a step up to the PL then you would see a nearly all British side as the club wont want to pay the flight fees and they would keep the costs down in everyway possible. It would be intresting to see how if our finances are as healthy as we all think and where the money were making is actually going if we are making any at all.

 

Id sooner ride in the NL untill we get our own track and even then our first season in a new stadium should also be in the NL. Big steps lead to big mistakes!

[Mike.Butler]

Fully respect that.

[June]

I am sorry you cannot count Birks and the Worralls as development riders. They were all established bike riders/ racers although not speedway but they knew there way around racing and bikes well before Scunthorpe.

Could be Scunthorpe was used as a stepping stone because it is also a practise track.

Scunthorpe have had many a good rider but what confuses me is They Don't Stay

Don't know why you should be confused... Most riders, if not all riders will go to the club that offers the most money. SIMPLE! and yes your right the Worralls and Ashley were good on their bikes when they started at Scunny but hell they've had some track time to become experienced speedway riders!......Thats why they come to Scunny for unlimited practice. Speedway will miss out if ever Scunny stop the training sessions.

[Halifaxtiger]

HT, read the press release in Post 7, and you'll see the Scunny promotion are not trying to claim anything other than that. As you say, if the by-product is that British Speedway benefits, then that's absoutely great, but the principle motivation is to provide riders for the Scorpions and Pirates in the future.

 

 

 

 

Scunny have been running double-headers since 2008, it's the best way to run two teams at the EWR. Personally, it's what got me up there on a regular basis. It works - why change it?

 

As for affecting others attendances, it depends what most fans are after. I think most are happy as long as their (main) team wins. You, I and other who take the time out to post on here are the exception, rather than the rule.

 

All the best

Rob

 

There's been a lot of interesting stuff on this thread, sadly your posts are the exception. As soon as you starting throwing pointless insults, you lose the argument by default.

 

All the best

Rob

 

Once again, Rob, my problem is not with Scunthorpe are doing but with what some of their supporters (and indeed others) are saying that the other NL clubs should (or should not) be doing. It was stated that Ford, Godfrey & Chapman have the 'greater good' of British speedway at heart; at least you have set the record straight (which I never doubted anyway). I should say good luck to Scunny & Poole because, again, I have no issue with that at all.

 

I also have no problem with Scunny running double headers (I have been to two so far, enjoyed the PL meetings in particular enormously and will be back next Sunday). Its the comments about clubs running the same standard of riders while utterly disregarding the financial implications of the likes of Mildenhall doing so (Adz has very eloquently made the relevant point earlier) that I object to.

 

Only on your third point would I say that you are definitely wrong, because that implies that the quality of the opposition makes no difference to attendances. It does.

 

As to your final comment, well said indeed. You and I might cross swords on this subject occasionally but there's never been one single word of personal abuse and there's no need for it at all.

 

If teams don't like what Scunny are doing they could always move up a League, instead of buying this League.

 

 

The difference to my mind is, the likes of Godfrey, Chapman, have the greater good of British Speedway at heart. Winning things at that level is not the main priorty. Other teams at this level have a different agenda. Ok, Lynn aint gonna produce 3 riders like Rose, Kerr and Lambert every season, the same goes for Scunny, But at least you can see what they are trying to acheive as a bigger picture. I am not sure the same could be said for certain other clubs at this level.

 

 

Halifax to quote you, that is nonsense....Actually no its not its just a different opinion to the one that you hold. Or maybe you think people do not have the right to post on here something that doesnt fit in with your thoughts ? Just a question you understand. If we take Scunny as an example. How many riders have they produced for the general good of British Speedway. Woofy, Birks, Worrells x 2 to name just a few. Lynn have also produced the 3 in their current line-up which will hopefully be for the great good of British Speedway.

 

Its not because I disagree with your point of view that I have described your views as nonsense (although I won't deny that I do disagree with them) its because I regard them as precisely that.

 

First you state that if teams disagree with Scunny's team they could always move up. Buster Chapman apparently does, so your view is that the Young Stars should think about going into the PL. Then you say that Godfrey and Chapman have the 'greater good' of British Speedway at heart, suggesting that their primary motivation for blooding youngsters is for our country's future prospects. As Rob has confirmed, in Scunny's case that's just not true and I'd say it most definitely isn't in King's Lynn's either.

 

As I have said, Rob and I have crossed swords on this subject (although, as I have also said, my problem isn't really with Scunthorpe at all) and we have disagreed on occasion. I nevertheless have a healthy respect (for the most part) for the position he has taken and have indeed acknowledged that.

Nothing against them whatsoever but history shows that sides repeatedly winning leagues at levels other than the top one isn't sustainable.. (ie Eastbourne in the late 70's)

 

That, too, is nonsense. Eastbourne, in fact, were extremely successful at NL both on and off track and it was only when they went up a level in 1979 (due to the closure of White City) that the club fell apart.

 

When they returned to the NL in the mid 1980's they were again extremely successful both on and off track.

 

Good post

 

I dont give a rats ass what Dudley pay or how they attract riders to them,good look to them ,thats the way of the world,if they can afford it then so be it,and fair play to the 7 riders they have,,no problem

 

Just dont moan when you rack up a huge wage bill in the process,that their problem not Scunnys, Lynns or Mildenhalls---alot of teams will get a right tonking at Monmore this year,i guess CVS/Patchett wont be able to shove a Grand in their back pockets on a Tuesday night much this year

 

Word I got is that they pay the riders out of the programme sales.............

 

I am sorry you cannot count Birks and the Worralls as development riders. They were all established bike riders/ racers although not speedway but they knew there way around racing and bikes well before Scunthorpe.

Could be Scunthorpe was used as a stepping stone because it is also a practise track.

Scunthorpe have had many a good rider but what confuses me is They Don't Stay

 

In my view, the way to judge it is if the rider was heard of before they came into NL speedway. Auty, Lambert & Haines are examples that were. Birks and the Worralls were not, neither was Scunthorpe's biggest success, a certain Mr Woffinden.

 

Whatever anyone's view of what Scunny are doing this season, their success at bringing into speedway talented young riders is unquestionable.

I don't blame Cradley (or Mildenhall or Kent)..given their support they have to build a strong team. Likewise, I don't blame Scunny either, its in their interest to build a team with development as the main aim. The other teams may have to take a different direction. That's what makes it such a diverse league, ten teams with perhaps ten different agenda's... I say we have to live with it, stop moaning and let them get on with it.

 

 

 

I think this is spot on and exactly how all fans should look at the NL. There has to be an acceptance that the different type of teams (ie stand alone or double up) have different agenda's, that those differing agendas will lead to different approaches, values and intentions, it is perfectly reasonable that that is the case and that there has to be a degree of compromise if the league is to grow and prosper.

 

Personally, and unlike some, I have absolutely no problem with what Scunthorpe or Cradley are doing and indeed have done in the past.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Halifaxtiger