Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Birminghams (ex) Riders


SCB

Recommended Posts

Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham Lakeside on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average.

 

What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams.

 

So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben?

 

Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final.

 

So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too.

Edited by SCB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to add I'm not accusing anyone of cheating, just pointing out that there is zero consistency. And annoying it looks like Coventry lose out 3 times due to it!

Hopefully the club are disputing this and bring to the meeting that's planned in January. It's maybe the reason we have not announced our last rider yet. King at 6.11 would be a great signing.

Edited by woz01
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average.

 

What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams.

 

So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben?

 

Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final.

 

So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too.

I would love for you to write to them asking to explain, just to see what their response would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average.

 

What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams.

 

So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben?

 

Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final.

 

So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too.

If that proves to be the case then the penalty (as in previous similar cases) is the deduction of the 4 points he scored!! What a game changer!! :D

Edited by Skidder1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average.

 

What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams.

 

So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben?

 

Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final.

 

So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too.

You could ask them Shawn, but I bet you dot get a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average.

 

What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams.

 

So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben?

 

Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final.

 

So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too.

I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated.

 

You see my point (I hope) that if Danny's scores for Brum are removed then so should everyones scores against Brum , but if everyone scoring against Brum are left as they are then so should Danny's. Is that about right or am I being obtuse ?

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated.

 

You see my point (I hope) that if Danny's scores for Brum are removed then so should everyones scores against Brum , but if everyone scoring against Brum are left as they are then so should Danny's. Is that about right or am I being obtuse ?

Could it be the timing of the removal. Maybe the Brum meetings weren't removed till after the season finished, when it was theoretically not able to run the meetings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated.

 

I think I know someone on this very thread who might!!! ;)

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love for you to write to them asking to explain, just to see what their response would be.

I gave up contacting them years ago when they ignored me for the 10th time. I got a few "thanks for your email" emails but no answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that proves to be the case then the penalty (as in previous similar cases) is the deduction of the 4 points he scored!! What a game changer!! :D

Didn't King guest for Milik in the semi at Poole against Lynn.If this was the case and King was on a 6.74 he couldn't guest for Milik who was on a 6.34 average.He scored 6 that night and Poole won by 5 overall.Now that would have been a game changer :wink:

Edited by tellboy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham Lakeside on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average.

 

What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams....etc

 

 

 

Like the rolling reference. When I've seen him at Cov, his rolling average was about 3 starts out of 4. I'm actually really pleased that we've got the King of the rollers, 'cos we usually have a team full of racers (i.e. blokes who need a week's notice in writing to make the gate..!!).

 

:o;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love for you to write to them asking to explain, just to see what their response would be.

 

 

You could ask them Shawn, but I bet you dot get a reply.

 

I think bigcatdiary has got it spot on. they dont tell us the rules, why would they answer an email pointing out the error of their ways?

 

I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated.

 

 

 

I know a few have had a wee dig at Shawn for doing this but it is not actually that difficult or time consuming to do for anyone who is collating the data in even a basic manner - something even the BSPA must be doing to keep a note of averages throughout the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is what this forums all about imo. Fan discovers abnormalities at b.s.p.a headquarters(1950's model double decker in scrapyard somewhere in liverpool) and exposes it in correct place for us to help us over terrible time of year (xmas is amazing love it but still no methanol in air till march). Cheers SCB, philrising should give you a column in SS.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy