Scunthorpe Resign

[lucifer sam]

I think you are missing the point Sam I bet you would not want to pay all the other team wage bill

 

I'm not the one missing the point.

 

If a team used R/R against the Stags and gave their heat leaders an extra ride each, rather than a No 8, then who was it pushing up the wage bill? Or how a team coming at Scunthorpe with a guest in his 40s?

 

Plus Scunny's scores weren't that different from everyone else e.g. Scunny scored a point more than Stoke at Mildenhall, and several other teams only scored just a few more points than the Stags at Cradley.

 

All the best

Rob

Edited November 14, 2014 by lucifer sam

[Halifaxtiger]

 

I'm not the one missing the point.

 

If a team used R/R against the Stags and gave their heat leaders an extra ride each, rather than a No 8, then who was it pushing up the wage bill? Or how a team coming at Scunthorpe with a guest in his 40s?

 

Plus Scunny's scores weren't that different from everyone else e.g. Scunny scored a point more than Stoke at Mildenhall, and several other teams only scored just a few more points than the Stags at Cradley.

 

All the best

Rob

 

You have to be joking.

 

Scunthorpe's average score per match was 27. The next lowest in the NL was Buxton on 37. Over 16 matches, and accepting that the riders are paid £10 per point, that's a cost of £1600 to the rest of the league (or £500 per team).

 

I believed at that time and still believe that the Stags were a financial burden to the rest of the league,. This was evidenced by the number of double header meetings that were arranged when they were in town (undoubtedly due to the disastrous effect that their line up would have on attendances) and I am aware that at least two promoters were very unhappy at how much they had to pay their riders following visits to or from the Stags.

 

The fact there is a lot of speculation that there will be a minimum points limit in the NL this season is a direct result of Scunthorpe's line up last season.

 

I would agree that teams could and indeed should have used a No8 rather than rider replacement against the Stags and using any guest (never mind a 40 year old) was hard to understand. But had that been the case, that would merely have reduced a by small amount costs involved and would certainly not in any way have led to accusations of a financial burden being found to be unreasonable.

[Mike.Butler]

Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV

Edited November 15, 2014 by Mike.Butler

[StevePark]

Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV

 

So (without their own track to race on don't forget) Cradley either don't run at all, or go PL or EL and possibly go bust in the process?

 

The NL always has been effectively 2 leagues in one, with the likes of Cradley, in recent times, having a different agenda to say Scunthorpe (and I'd guess Rye House in 2015). It's just that Scunthorpe (in my opinion) went to the extreme with their 2014 line-up.

[Halifaxtiger]

Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV

 

Cradley built their team to the same points limit that applied to the rest of the clubs in the NL. In doing so, they simply used the financial muscle their attendances gave them to put together the strongest line up they could.

 

That's precisely what any other stand alone club in any of the leagues would do.

 

It is complete nonsense to suggest that a team should be barred from competing simply because their team was better than anyone else's.

[TMW]

Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV

The only reason why Cradley ran away with the league was that Monmore was a massive confidence boost as away riders can't ride the track. Even EL riders don't like it and clocking up 60+ wins boosts confidence that and the fact that 6 of their riders were riding in 2 or 3 leagues averaging 2 -3 meetings a week. Compare that to Kings Lynn Kent Stoke who had 1 or 2 DU riders tops. Everyone knows to keep sharp you have to keep racing and having a place with 1 team in the NL isn't enough.

[25yearfan]

Yes the tricky nature fo Wolves can often be a problem to riders well above NL standard but the main reason why Cradley have ran away with the League was cause they get massive crowds, have a very generous and large supporters club all of which combine to give them more financial muscle than any other NL team which enables them to assemble the strongest team they possibly can!

Edited November 15, 2014 by 25yearfan

[Tsunami]

 

You have to be joking.

 

Scunthorpe's average score per match was 27. The next lowest in the NL was Buxton on 37. Over 16 matches, and accepting that the riders are paid £10 per point, that's a cost of £1600 to the rest of the league (or £500 per team).

 

I believed at that time and still believe that the Stags were a financial burden to the rest of the league,. This was evidenced by the number of double header meetings that were arranged when they were in town (undoubtedly due to the disastrous effect that their line up would have on attendances) and I am aware that at least two promoters were very unhappy at how much they had to pay their riders following visits to or from the Stags.

 

The fact there is a lot of speculation that there will be a minimum points limit in the NL this season is a direct result of Scunthorpe's line up last season.

 

I would agree that teams could and indeed should have used a No8 rather than rider replacement against the Stags and using any guest (never mind a 40 year old) was hard to understand. But had that been the case, that would merely have reduced a by small amount costs involved and would certainly not in any way have led to accusations of a financial burden being found to be unreasonable.

Quite agree. Not everyone can track a team that is going to be competitive, but surely it has to be a gimmy that with a weak team in opposition, the other team is picking up the tabs for the increase in points gained. Only a fool, or the publicity officer of a weak team, would argue otherwise. Oh, hang on...

[TMW]

Yes the tricky nature fo Wolves can often be a problem to riders well above NL standard but the main reason why Cradley have ran away with the League was cause they get massive crowds, have a very generous and large supporters club all of which combine to give them more financial muscle than any other NL team which enables them to assemble the strongest team they possibly can!

 

I believe that the DU apart from Worrall being signed on a bargain average as he found his confidence, after breaking his leg, toward the backend of last season played it's part ot gave the riders track time. Although it has to be said Perry Greaves Clegg Williamson didn't do terribly well in the upper leagues it contributed enourmously to their NL performances. Lets hope they are all given PL places next season and the carry on improving.

[DSC67]

As long as there are sufficient teams to facilitate a decent no. of juniors coming through the stags won't be missed. However, there does seem to be a dearth of NL sides in the north. All northern based PL sides should be obliged to support an MDL side in lieu

Berwick already have a NJL team and have had for while

[Guest]

 

You have to be joking.

 

Scunthorpe's average score per match was 27. The next lowest in the NL was Buxton on 37. Over 16 matches, and accepting that the riders are paid £10 per point, that's a cost of £1600 to the rest of the league (or £500 per team).

 

I believed at that time and still believe that the Stags were a financial burden to the rest of the league,. This was evidenced by the number of double header meetings that were arranged when they were in town (undoubtedly due to the disastrous effect that their line up would have on attendances) and I am aware that at least two promoters were very unhappy at how much they had to pay their riders following visits to or from the Stags.

 

The fact there is a lot of speculation that there will be a minimum points limit in the NL this season is a direct result of Scunthorpe's line up last season.

 

I would agree that teams could and indeed should have used a No8 rather than rider replacement against the Stags and using any guest (never mind a 40 year old) was hard to understand. But had that been the case, that would merely have reduced a by small amount costs involved and would certainly not in any way have led to accusations of a financial burden being found to be unreasonable.

Just curiosity - not going to make a major issue of this but :who, when, where, why" in regard to the 40=year-old-rider. Tends to remind me of riders like Wal Morton and Geoff Pymar who were still big scorers when 50-plus!

[Vince]

It's difficult for me personally to have sympathy for Scunthorpe's position regarding team strengths. My lad was part of a Newport CL team that was full of youngsters at the start of their career that was roundly criticised by Rob Godfrey for not being competitive and therefore bad for the Conference league.

 

I thought he was wrong at the time and still do now, if teams are willing to bring riders on and stick with them long enough for them to develop into a competitive team then they should be allowed to do so. It is hard on the top end teams but there is always the option available for them to try out a couple of youngsters when competing against a weaker team.

 

To my way of thinking tracks like Scunthorpe and Rye House who are running training schools and NL teams should be helped financially by those teams that do neither. At the end of the day without these tracks the others don't survive.

[lucifer sam]

Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV

 

So you think a league containing only 9 teams to begin with, would be better without 2 of those teams. Complete rubbish. I very much hope Cradley can run, the more teams at NL level the better.

 

One question: if Scunny hadn't run in 2014, then who would given a team place to Arron Mogridge or Sam Chapman? Both are now established as decent middle-orders riders in the NL, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were heat leader standard (on 7.00-9.00 averages) by the end of next season.

 

Without the opportunites of a team place with the Stags this season, where would they be? Probably still on the outside looking in.

 

All the best

Rob

[TMW]

So you think a league containing only 9 teams to begin with, would be better without 2 of those teams. Complete rubbish. I very much hope Cradley can run, the more teams at NL level the better.

 

One question: if Scunny hadn't run in 2014, then who would given a team place to Arron Mogridge or Sam Chapman? Both are now established as decent middle-orders riders in the NL, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were heat leader standard (on 7.00-9.00 averages) by the end of next season.

 

Without the opportunites of a team place with the Stags this season, where would they be? Probably still on the outside looking in.

 

All the best

Rob

They probably would have been at Buxton.

[lucifer sam]

They probably would have been at Buxton.

 

Neither were set to ride for Buxton. Neither had a team place until Scunny came along.

 

And, in any case, then where would have the youngsters blooded by Buxton then gone? The more teams that can run at this level the better, because the more young riders get a chance. I think it very strange that some people think a smaller league would be better.

 

All the best

Rob

Edited November 15, 2014 by lucifer sam

[Islander15]

They probably would have been at Buxton.

 

Chapman certainly wouldn't have been as he didn't appear in the first couple of Stags meeting, so he could have been in the Hitmen 1 to 7 from the start but they chose not to sign him.

[TMW]

Fair play but Buxton indicated they were struggling for riders at the beginning of the season

[Mike.Butler]

A league as unbalanced as last season is NOT in the interests of anyone. The NL should be about entertainment and developing youngsters. All teams should start as equal as possible. Cradley and Scunny were at two extremes and should NOT have been allowed to enter withy their models. Cradley walking away with the league again would be awful and just drive interest down. Lets face it, they would in a different scenario be in the PL next year, but if they remain in the NL then they should respect their fellow clubs and realize they are at a level that has different objectives to theirs of recent seasons.

[TMW]

A league as unbalanced as last season is NOT in the interests of anyone. The NL should be about entertainment and developing youngsters. All teams should start as equal as possible. Cradley and Scunny were at two extremes and should NOT have been allowed to enter withy their models. Cradley walking away with the league again would be awful and just drive interest down. Lets face it, they would in a different scenario be in the PL next year, but if they remain in the NL then they should respect their fellow clubs and realize they are at a level that has different objectives to theirs of recent seasons.

I disagree. There wasn't much difference between the top 4. Mildenhall would have done bettet but for injuries. Cov were up there. People aeemed to forget when Bourmemouth ran away with the league. Then Scunny fielded a team of Nielsen Worrall's and Birks. There has always been a strong contender and the last 2 seasons that's been Cradley

[greyhoundp]

A league as unbalanced as last season is NOT in the interests of anyone. The NL should be about entertainment and developing youngsters. All teams should start as equal as possible. Cradley and Scunny were at two extremes and should NOT have been allowed to enter withy their models. Cradley walking away with the league again would be awful and just drive interest down. Lets face it, they would in a different scenario be in the PL next year, but if they remain in the NL then they should respect their fellow clubs and realize they are at a level that has different objectives to theirs of recent seasons.

 

Now just a minute Mike, explain what we at Cradley did wrong ?, had we not have signed Stevie Worrall someone else would have done, had we not signed Paul Starke another team would have, as for Max Clegg, Tom Perry both Cradley assetts, Nathan Greaves 4 point average, Matt Williamson 3+ average, Danny Phillips 3 average Im awaiting your explanation of what was wrong in comparison to lets say Kent Kings original Team or Mildenhalls Team both of whom are stand alone Teams and want to win the League. The problem as i see it the points limit was to high for an 8 Team League, and there has to be a minimum limit as well as a maximum limit.