RobMcCaffery Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I completely agree with the decision to fine them, we all remember meetings in far worse conditions and fans are continually being short changed by promotions not giving value for money, Coventry still wanted 18 pounds for a meeting that was never going to go the distance and on monday i watched 15 heats for a tenner with a pretty decent programme too which is rare in itself and why is it that clubs produce a programme that covers two meetings and expect us to pay extra, when especially away fans, we are unlikely to attend both meetings. I remember a meeting at Rye House way, way back in the late 70s which was raced in a mud bath. Riders were covered from head to foot in wet shale , yards apart, just able to keep upright. I remember seeing the late Ashley Pullen, as determined and gutsy a rider as you could ever watch battling to see, all tear-offs used, goggles removed and shaking his head as the muck covered his face. The supporters were crowded under what little cover there was at Rye House in those days. A result was achieved, one less match to stage and all gate monies kept. It wasn't speedway though. At least we were only paying a fraction, in real terms as well as absolute, of what those poor disregarded supporters did at Brandon. We were still ripped-off....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 And I suggest even if the price were £5, given the weather conditions that day there would have been very few, if any, extra bodies thro the turnstiles which kind of negates your argument about 15 heats for a tenner And the ones stupid enough to go got stung for !8 pounds, i would suggest there would have been quite a few more if the prices had been reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 You never got call offs back in the 70s, hence the difference. You knew that speedway would be on. Apparently riding bikes with no breaks back then wasn't dangerous , it only is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Lady Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 And the ones stupid enough to go got stung for !8 pounds, I wouldn't have dreamt of calling you stupid lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I completely agree with the decision to fine them, we all remember meetings in far worse conditions and fans are continually being short changed by promotions not giving value for money, Coventry still wanted 18 pounds for a meeting that was never going to go the distance and on monday i watched 15 heats for a tenner with a pretty decent programme too which is rare in itself and why is it that clubs produce a programme that covers two meetings and expect us to pay extra, when especially away fans, we are unlikely to attend both meetings. So Coventry were right to be fine 4 grand in total for wanting it off at heat 9 but it was totally acceptable to call it off at heats 10 and nobody gets fined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 You never got call offs back in the 70s, hence the difference. You knew that speedway would be on. Apparently riding bikes with no breaks back then wasn't dangerous , it only is today. Obviously there were degrees of danger, even back in the 'Olden Days' .... The main difference now, relates to the greater speed of the bikes, rather than the skill of the riders. When there was limited power and even less grip from the used tyres, the skill of the rider was to home all their ability to find that magic ingredient to get more speed from those low torque motors. Today the skill emphasis, is on balance and the ability to keep the motor revving and the wheel spinning. Once a rider eases off he losses so much of his momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) So Coventry were right to be fine 4 grand in total for wanting it off at heat 9 but it was totally acceptable to call it off at heats 10 and nobody gets fined? They only wanted it called off in heat 9 because they were losing, do you think if they were winning they would still have wanted it called off, they should have ridden heat 10. If they didn't fine them it opens another can of worms for meetings to be manipulated. What they did was against the rules and were rightly fined. Edited July 17, 2015 by foreverblue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj350z Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 You never got call offs back in the 70s, hence the difference. You knew that speedway would be on. Apparently riding bikes with no breaks back then wasn't dangerous , it only is today. You did get rain-off's in the 70's Steve but you would get a re-admission ticket up to heat 6 if I remember correctly. The difference was that you didn't a result by heat 10. I think I remember meetings being called off at heat 11 on the old 13 race format and the result did not stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 I wouldn't have dreamt of calling you stupid lol I wish i hadn't!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 They only wanted it called off in heat 9 because they were losing, do you think if they were winning they would still have wanted it called off, they should have ridden heat 10. If they didn't fine them it opens another can of worms for meetings to be manipulated. What they did was against the rules and were rightly fined. But lets assume no result could be called at heat 10. Do you think Coventry would have wanted it off? If you could only call a result at heat 15 do you think Coventry would have carried on? Bearing in mind that 8 months earlier, in a play-off final, Coventry were losing at home after heat 10 and GSI/sky/meeting co-ordinator decided to call the meeting off. Coventry, with this still fresh in their mind thought, "we played fair that day, we carried on. But someone called that meeting off while we were still battling for a win. Like hell are we going to have that happen again". The issue is that meetings are far to easily called off at heat 10 and DONT carry on. But nobody in power will admit to this, they'll all claim this "safety" bullrubbish. Because 50% of the time when its raining at heat 10, it suit the promoter to call it off and pay a few ££ on points money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 But lets assume no result could be called at heat 10. Do you think Coventry would have wanted it off? If you could only call a result at heat 15 do you think Coventry would have carried on? You tell us ? Would both teams had carried on, and risk injury ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 If only the SCB were as rigorous in pursuing ALL contraventions of the regulations as they were in this case! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) But were they so rigorous? Wasn't this hearing a result of Coventry raising the issue with the SCB. Isn't it only Belle Vue they pursue of their own initiative? Edited July 17, 2015 by Aces51 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz01 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) People are missing the point that an inspection was promised after heat 9 by the SCB official, it never happened! At that point the club had every right not to send the riders out until an inspection happened. It was a huge failure from the meeting coordinator. He compromised safety to hurry through to get a result, that cannot be right or acceptable. Edited July 17, 2015 by woz01 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 But lets assume no result could be called at heat 10. Do you think Coventry would have wanted it off? If you could only call a result at heat 15 do you think Coventry would have carried on? Bearing in mind that 8 months earlier, in a play-off final, Coventry were losing at home after heat 10 and GSI/sky/meeting co-ordinator decided to call the meeting off. Coventry, with this still fresh in their mind thought, "we played fair that day, we carried on. But someone called that meeting off while we were still battling for a win. Like hell are we going to have that happen again". The issue is that meetings are far to easily called off at heat 10 and DONT carry on. But nobody in power will admit to this, they'll all claim this "safety" bullrubbish. Because 50% of the time when its raining at heat 10, it suit the promoter to call it off and pay a few ££ on points money! The issue being discussed is about this meeting when the rules are known and meetings can be completed with a heat 10 cut off, if meetings had to be all 15 heats we would never get the season finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodgy Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 But lets assume no result could be called at heat 10. Do you think Coventry would have wanted it off? If you could only call a result at heat 15 do you think Coventry would have carried on? Bearing in mind that 8 months earlier, in a play-off final, Coventry were losing at home after heat 10 and GSI/sky/meeting co-ordinator decided to call the meeting off. Coventry, with this still fresh in their mind thought, "we played fair that day, we carried on. But someone called that meeting off while we were still battling for a win. Like hell are we going to have that happen again". The issue is that meetings are far to easily called off at heat 10 and DONT carry on. But nobody in power will admit to this, they'll all claim this "safety" bullrubbish. Because 50% of the time when its raining at heat 10, it suit the promoter to call it off and pay a few ££ on points money! If Coventry had the meeting won after heat 9. In my opinion both teams would be debating exact opposite. Speedway is full of self agenda's with little consideration for supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWatson Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Because 50% of the time when its raining at heat 10, it suit the promoter to call it off and pay a few ££ on points money! No matter how many times you repeat this, you are WRONG! As a staging Promoter, I am able to postpone a meeting if necessary up to two hours before the meeting (SR 14.7.1). Once the referee (or the Meeting Co-Ordinator in the case of a Sky meeting) is in attendance it is their decision, and their decision ALONE to abandon a meeting. (SR14.9) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Coventry refuse to ride v Poole and get a fine. Belle Vue refuse to ride v Poole and get a fine (and 3 points docked). Poole refuse to ride v Lakeside and get a .......... wait minute. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 Nice write up in todays Local bournemouth Daliy Echo by Neil !!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted July 17, 2015 Report Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) No matter how many times you repeat this, you are WRONG! As a staging Promoter, I am able to postpone a meeting if necessary up to two hours before the meeting (SR 14.7.1). Once the referee (or the Meeting Co-Ordinator in the case of a Sky meeting) is in attendance it is their decision, and their decision ALONE to abandon a meeting. (SR14.9) It's all well and good quoting the rules to us. Everyone knows they are abused left right and centre every week and rarely applied in the same manner from one meeting to the next. Edited July 17, 2015 by Dave Jones 1 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.