MrMungo Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I bet whne it does all those rider who said they'd like 1 meeting a week or whatever will find another excuse. Some of them may be honest and admit the money isn't good enough. Or may want the same meetings, eg meetings at start of the season? This could get a bit complicated, so looking forward to seeing what they come up with next year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g13webb Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Wolves confirmed at their talk in that Howarth rides on his EL average  If that be the case, why cant all the other riders use their EL average. ???? More importantly only one of the EL promoters are against the 'Shared Number 1' concept, due to currently being in discussion with a potential number 1 rider for a full season.  Should come in to being for 2017!! Finally!!  Why is that 'More Importantly' than the basis rules. Not like you to brush over something, that is always to Poole's advantage..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil The Ace Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 More importantly only one of the EL promoters are against the 'Shared Number 1' concept, due to currently being in discussion with a potential number 1 rider for a full season. Â Should come in to being for 2017!! Finally!! Any idea who this is??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Any idea who this is??? At a guess either belle Vue, Coventry or Poole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil The Ace Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 At a guess either belle Vue, Coventry or Poole. Yep I'd go with one of them 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Perhaps I'm not understanding this but why is it a problem if one team is negotiating with a no.1 for the whole season. Surely, we can have a system whereby teams can choose either to job share or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Perhaps I'm not understanding this but why is it a problem if one team is negotiating with a no.1 for the whole season. Surely, we can have a system whereby teams can choose either to job share or not. Absolutely, huge self interest. The answer given was that the shared role might make the mystery rider want to also only do part a season and force the promotion to look elsewhere for another number one. What, like every other team you mean? !!!!! Short sighted and self interest seems the case and minority wins by the sounds of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I bet whne it does all those rider who said they'd like 1 meeting a week or whatever will find another excuse. Some of them may be honest and admit the money isn't good enough. I have thought that all along, and I am surprised people can't see it. Â It stands to reason that a riders fixed overheads ie setting up a British base with bikes engines mechanic etc will be remain pretty constant irrespective of whether he does 20 meetings or 40 so the less meetings he does the less net profit he makes, which in turn makes it a less attractive destination. Whatever area of life you look at there are always plenty of people that say they will do something then find some excuse not to. Â Of course some will come for a bit of practice before the continental season starts or for some extra money if their Polish/ Swedish teams get knocked out of the play offs in those countries but what commitment will there be ? You only have to look at the way Nicki P couldn't be bothered when he was brought over to Peterborough a few years ago, just here for some easy money. Â I can't believe people see this as some kind of panacea to put the EL back on its feet. I can't see KL fans being very happy for example if they got a high scoring No 1 like Neils for half a season then he was replaced with someone averaging a point less. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 I agree. Also, as you say the setting up costs are the same whether you do 20 or 40 meetings and you can be sure that both job sharing riders will expect those costs to be covered, thus increasing costs for the clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenspoon Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Some teams are finding it hard enough to find just one No1 this year, so where the hell are they going to find two to share the same position. I just do not see riders clambering to set up over here for just part of a season, and you can guarantee that they will want a kings ransom if they do come. Seems to me it will only suit say Poole. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Any idea who this is??? Â Who? the Number 1 rider or the promoter? Â No idea on the rider but would suggest the promoter is either Leicester or Kings Lynn?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Â Who? the Number 1 rider or the promoter? Â No idea on the rider but would suggest the promoter is either Leicester or Kings Lynn?! Why? At the time of the AGM it could have been Lynn/Puk, Coventry/KK or Swindon/Doyle. Even Ford/Magic and BV/Zagar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Perhaps I'm not understanding this but why is it a problem if one team is negotiating with a no.1 for the whole season. Surely, we can have a system whereby teams can choose either to job share or not. We already have one. No reason why a club shouldn't release a No1(or any other rider) replace him with someone else as long as the averages fit. Not unlike what Poole did with Miedzinski / KK a couple of years ago. Â The problems arise with averages, I suppose, even if they job share. Let's say for example that Liindgren who underperformed last year was due to be replaced by high scoring No 1 it makes a bit of a mockery of team building averages. Â It will probably be the usual thing, someone suggests it at the AGM and presents it as a half baked plan, the rest say "Ooooh that sounds like a good idea" without thinking it through and if comes in under some cobbled together rule that creates a bigger mess 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Its not as if its a new suggestion though is it?! Its been on the AGM table for 5 years at least - plenty of time for promoters to decide how it will work. Â I understood CVS's comments from his forum was that several more GP and European riders had been sounded out and thought it (not for the first time) a good idea. Clubs would just need to nominate and agree which 2 riders at the start of the season would share the Number 1 role. Â The rider with the higher average is what is used for team building or they are all graded the same?!. It wouldn't actually matter if one ended up doing more than half of the meetings if that suited both riders and the respective team. Edited November 25, 2015 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathen chemistry Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 omg ....shared number ones..... what a disaster that will be......  whats gonna happen when riders get injured and theres no more number ones available , there a bit light on the ground already....  clubs will always want to go with the better of the 2 riders making it a mockery , poole will chop and change there number ones as and when to suit track specialists etc  8 teams = 16 number ones ........where are they?  april fools come early 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) At a guess either belle Vue, Coventry or Poole. Why Coventry? We've already got our team sorted out, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the topic. KK was keen to get an E.L. place this season so why would he only want to do half of it? Â Â Â ......Heathen chemistry...... omg ....shared number ones..... what a disaster that will be......whats gonna happen when riders get injured and theres no more number ones available , there a bit light on the ground already.... clubs will always want to go with the better of the 2 riders making it a mockery , poole will chop and change there number ones as and when to suit track specialists etc 8 teams = 16 number ones ........where are they? april fools come early If this is what is planned for 2017 I think I'll be quite relieved that next season is Coventry's last and I can opt out of E.L. Speedway. Edited November 25, 2015 by Gemini 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted November 25, 2015 Report Share Posted November 25, 2015 Why Coventry? We've already got our team sorted out, unless I'm completely misunderstanding the topic. KK was keen to get an E.L. place this season so why would he only want to do half of it? Â Â Â Â Why not? You need to remember we are talking of discussions at the AGM, well before KK was signed, zagar plus Doyle wasn't announced at Swindon. In truth it can be any of the teams that hadn't made announcements of top riders prior to the AGM. Maybe you misunderstood me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Maybe I did but I didn't misunderstand your 3 quoted teams ~ Belle Vue, Poole and Coventry ~ although typical man you're now saying it could be any of the teams that hadn't made announcements. Probably all 8 then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted November 26, 2015 Report Share Posted November 26, 2015 Maybe I did but I didn't misunderstand your 3 quoted teams ~ Belle Vue, Poole and Coventry ~ although typical man you're now saying it could be any of the teams that hadn't made announcements. Probably all 8 then? Obviously not Wolves, or Lakeside (AJ announced before AGM ) so maybe 6 at most? Male logic tho. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathen chemistry Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Transparency is what the fans want ! .. 1. All promoters ideas that are tabled for scrutiny should be made public of what they are and by who....then 2. If put to the vote .... who voted for and against..... 3. heat leader list .... what promoter proposed the idea... who voted in favour etc and most importantly what rules were used in deciding who featured on the list 4.same goes for draft reserves  WE THE FANS HAVE THE POWER ---------- ALL OF US STICK TOGETHER LOBBY YOUR PROMOTER ASK QUESTIONS DEMAND ANSWERS ! 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.