National League Agm

[bruno]

Although I agree it's a sensible rule and Ash really as no choice but I don't think it will do anything for his career dropping back to the no.hes to good for it.what I don't get is how he didn't get a pl place.he had a decent season after a bad injury

[gee jay]

Although I agree it's a sensible rule and Ash really as no choice but I don't think it will do anything for his career dropping back to the no.hes to good for it.what I don't get is how he didn't get a pl place.he had a decent season after a bad injury

because some promoters will still go for foreign riders first , but i think things are starting to change with the british n.l. and the youth championships and pinching a few grasstrack and motocross youngsters who've been racing since they were 5 or 6 yrs old.

[Islander15]

Stefan Nielsen and Ben Wilson are 2 more riders that this rule could benefit.

 

I agree that it helps the NL but for rider development Ash should have a PL place from the start! The PL number 7s rule has helped a lot of riders but then ones like Morris, Nielsen, Branford, Wilson, Hawkins & Bowen can't get a place.

[21st century heathen]

I see there was at least one other rule change at the AGM: The rule was changed at the NL AGM. A rider with a PL average under 5 without a EL/PL team place can accept an NL position safe in the knowledge that he doesn't have to relinquish that place if a position in a higher league subsequently becomes available.

 

So that allows young ​British riders without a PL team at the start of the season, to get a NL Team place and stay with the NL Team even if he gets a PL Team place later in the season, a common sense decision, which allows riders like Ashley Morris to continue there riding careers. Had this rule not been in place it could have meant Ashley (and maybe other riders) may have been without a Team place anywhere, and in the ludicrous situation of being British, 21 and basically left on the shelf, with nowhere to go, and loads of none British riders riding in other so called British Leagues.

 

Agree. It's probably the most sensible decision the BSPA have made in the modern era.

 

Although I agree it's a sensible rule and Ash really as no choice but I don't think it will do anything for his career dropping back to the no.hes to good for it.what I don't get is how he didn't get a pl place.he had a decent season after a bad injury

 

 

Stefan Nielsen and Ben Wilson are 2 more riders that this rule could benefit.

 

I agree that it helps the NL but for rider development Ash should have a PL place from the start! The PL number 7s rule has helped a lot of riders but then ones like Morris, Nielsen, Branford, Wilson, Hawkins & Bowen can't get a place.

 

The problem lies with the majority of PL clubs not giving a toss about British riders. These riders should be in a tier 1 draft with the number 7 rule in place too. We all know it but they simply refuse and prefer to sign a crap foreigner on the off chance they'll find the next Pedersen, Iversen or whoever. Pathetic self-interest will always outweigh common sense or any sense of 'Back the Brits' with that lot.

[Jayne]

I see there was at least one other rule change at the AGM: The rule was changed at the NL AGM. A rider with a PL average under 5 without a EL/PL team place can accept an NL position safe in the knowledge that he doesn't have to relinquish that place if a position in a higher league subsequently becomes available.

 

So that allows young ​British riders without a PL team at the start of the season, to get a NL Team place and stay with the NL Team even if he gets a PL Team place later in the season, a common sense decision, which allows riders like Ashley Morris to continue there riding careers. Had this rule not been in place it could have meant Ashley (and maybe other riders) may have been without a Team place anywhere, and in the ludicrous situation of being British, 21 and basically left on the shelf, with nowhere to go, and loads of none British riders riding in other so called British Leagues.

Not quite correct - this rule was in existence prior to last year but somehow got omitted from the rule book in 2015. It has now been reinstated but the rider must still be under 25 as it was brought in to help the younger British riders.

[uk_martin]

Not quite correct - this rule was in existence prior to last year but somehow got omitted from the rule book in 2015. It has now been reinstated but the rider must still be under 25 as it was brought in to help the younger British riders.

Now I'm all for developing British talent but I hope this rule doesn't get used to clog-up the NL with riders who are approaching their mid-20's and are going nowhere with their careers at the expense of teenagers eager to get a foot on the ladder.

 

In an international perspective we need to be nurturing the rivals to the Zmarzlik's and Pawlicki's and not keeping a 24 year old PL sub 5-pointer in a team berth who is never going to make it at a higher level.

 

The NL is supposed to be a development league not a stagnation league.

[Islander15]

Now I'm all for developing British talent but I hope this rule doesn't get used to clog-up the NL with riders who are approaching their mid-20's and are going nowhere with their careers at the expense of teenagers eager to get a foot on the ladder.

 

In an international perspective we need to be nurturing the rivals to the Zmarzlik's and Pawlicki's and not keeping a 24 year old PL sub 5-pointer in a team berth who is never going to make it at a higher level.

 

The NL is supposed to be a development league not a stagnation league.

But indirectly that isn't the NL's problem. The NL needs to keep itself competitive and make sure it has enough riders to go round and upping the average to 5.00 helps with this. The NL is doing it's bit for rider development but these riders can't get PL places, look at Ellis last year and Morris, Nielsen & Branford this year. It's better for them to race NL than nothing at all or just Elite League. Edited December 7, 2015 by Islander15

[iand]

 

Stefan Nielsen and Ben Wilson are 2 more riders that this rule could benefit.

 

I agree that it helps the NL but for rider development Ash should have a PL place from the start! The PL number 7s rule has helped a lot of riders but then ones like Morris, Nielsen, Branford, Wilson, Hawkins & Bowen can't get a place.

Add Kyle Hughes to that list.

[*JJ]

Now I'm all for developing British talent but I hope this rule doesn't get used to clog-up the NL with riders who are approaching their mid-20's and are going nowhere with their careers at the expense of teenagers eager to get a foot on the ladder.

 

New riders are not necessarily teenagers; there are plenty in their twenties.

[Ben91]

By the age of 25 there are riders going into their tenth season of racing. Perhaps this should be governed on years of experience as opposed to age. Simple solution.

[uk_martin]

As Ben91 has said, riders in their mid-20's have often been at it for 8-10 years, and if by that age and after that time they still can't get to a 5 point average in the 2nd division, then something is wrong if extra privileges are granted to them like this one. Let them get a team place on their own merits, and let the resources and privileges go to those youngsters coming through the system.

Yes occasionally there's a late starter, and very very occasionally these turn out to be good, BUT on the whole, if a rider hasn't made it out of the reserves in the PL at 25 then they should be left to their own devices. I mean, to say that this rule will be of benefit to Ben Wilson (which it won't as he's too old) harbours sentiment to Ben Wilson that is not justified. He's had his innings. He's peaked and he won't peak again. Riders like him and Jon Armstrong should be coaching the next generation, not blocking their slots in the team rostas.

We need to concentrate on riders with an extra 10 years in their innings, the youngsters that we need to go out in Team GB colours in the near future to compete with the likes of the Pawlicki's the Zmarzlik's, the Janowski's, the Przedpełski's of this world (not to mention young Danes, Swedes etc) some of which have won GP's at an age years before some British riders are half way ready for a step up to even the PL let alone the EL, and woe betide, donning the Union Flag. This is why the NL should be a breeding ground for talent, not a retirement home for those looking for a paying hobby in their near-retirement years.

[szkocjasid]

Definately needs to be a couple of points higher this season you should not have to carry more than two 3 pointers..It was demoralising for the fans at kent knowing we could not win because of the points limit and unable to strengthen the side..

I wouldn't say Kent couldn't win because of the points limit, they chose to go for a strong top 4 followed by 3 X 3.00 riders! Rye House did the same though and reached the play - offs (by finishing 5th)!

I agree with the last couple of posts. This season worked well with Birmingham rightly crowned champions and Eastbourne rewarded richly for their form as the season drew to a close. The right teams took the major honours while interest was maintained for most clubs right up until the last few meetings.

I'm dissapointed that the playoffs are back, at the end of this year JPB rode for Buxton but guested for Birmingham in the gold cup, what's to stop a team signing a great 3 pointer who has just turned 15 and winning the league!

 

Also i wouldn't agree with people saying the 40 point limit is too high, the average team should be 42 points at the end of the season regardless of how many teams or what the starting Ave is. so technically next years NL is weaker than this season's!

Edited December 25, 2015 by szkocjasid

[Leicester Hunter]

Also i wouldn't agree with people saying the 40 point limit is too high, the average team should be 42 points at the end of the season regardless of how many teams or what the starting Ave is. so technically next years NL is weaker than this season's!

Technically is the operative word here. Of course next season's NL should be 'technically' weaker than this year's, as it's still a development league. That's the whole point. Certain riders should have to move on, others can take the plunge if they feel they can cope in a higher league without recourse to doubling down. Riders such as Adam Ellis and BWD have effectively been barred from NL racing now, and for consistencies sake, I can't see why Rob Branford, Max Clegg and Ben Morley weren't classified the same. They were all No1's for their respective teams, and all averaged over 9.5 points a match. Besides, they've all been around for a fair few years, so if they're not ready to move now, they never will be. It should also be remembered that in Branford's case, he won the Junior Championship some time ago, beating no lesser a person than Jason Garrity, who is now classed as good enough to graduate from the EL draft.

 

 

Rye House did the same though and reached the play - offs (by finishing 5th)!

 

This is one reason why I hate the play offs. Imagine the uproar that would have occurred last season if the play offs had existed to determine the League Champions. The Control Board (or whatever they're called this week) stepped in and awarded the abandoned match on which fourth place depended to Coventry, thereby giving them the necessary points to qualify, but crucially after the cut off date. I've no doubt that outcry would have been louder if the Raiders had gone on to win the Gold Cup.

 

This isn't an anti Rye House post, BTW. I'm just pointing out some of the inconsistencies which continue to plague speedway. It's still a reactive sport rather than a proactive one. Something I didn't associate with the National League last season. Sadly, I feel that is no longer the case, with certain decisions that were made at the last AGM.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Leicester Hunter

[guitar_art]

Technically is the operative word here. Of course next season's NL should be 'technically' weaker than this year's, as it's still a development league. That's the whole point. Certain riders should have to move on, others can take the plunge if they feel they can cope in a higher league without recourse to doubling down. Riders such as Adam Ellis and BWD have effectively been barred from NL racing now, and for consistencies sake, I can't see why Rob Branford, Max Clegg and Ben Morley weren't classified the same. They were all No1's for their respective teams, and all averaged over 9.5 points a match. Besides, they've all been around for a fair few years, so if they're not ready to move now, they never will be. It should also be remembered that in Branford's case, he won the Junior Championship some time ago, beating no lesser a person than Jason Garrity, who is now classed as good enough to graduate from the EL draft.

 

 

This is one reason why I hate the play offs. Imagine the uproar that would have occurred last season if the play offs had existed to determine the League Champions. The Control Board (or whatever they're called this week) stepped in and awarded the abandoned match on which fourth place depended to Coventry, thereby giving them the necessary points to qualify, but crucially after the cut off date. I've no doubt that outcry would have been louder if the Raiders had gone on to win the Gold Cup.

 

This isn't an anti Rye House post, BTW. I'm just pointing out some of the inconsistencies which continue to plague speedway. It's still a reactive sport rather than a proactive one. Something I didn't associate with the National League last season. Sadly, I feel that is no longer the case, with certain decisions that were made at the last AGM.

They would not have done that.In 2007 Birmingham were excluded from the play offs because a match at Glasgow (I think) had not been run and that meant we were outside the top 4. (We actually finished second in memory serves.) We still had to go to Glasgow and run what had become a meaningless match.

[uk_martin]

They would not have done that.In 2007 Birmingham were excluded from the play offs because a match at Glasgow (I think) had not been run and that meant we were outside the top 4. (We actually finished second in memory serves.) We still had to go to Glasgow and run what had become a meaningless match.

 

Correct - the year of the two Supporters Club coach trips (remember them?) that were both aborted at the Hamilton Service Station.

 

That said, don't put it past the BSPA to take a perfectly sensible rule and to twist it in any way that serves some other purpose.

[Leicester Hunter]

They would not have done that.In 2007 Birmingham were excluded from the play offs because a match at Glasgow (I think) had not been run and that meant we were outside the top 4. (We actually finished second in memory serves.) We still had to go to Glasgow and run what had become a meaningless match.

The situation I highlighted and ours in 2007 do not bear any comparison whatsoever. They were two completely different scenarios. You are mostly correct in what you post, we did go on to finish second in the PL that year, but two matches, not one, were completely meaningless.

 

We were at Newcastle on cut-off day, and our rivals for a play off place, Isle of Wight were at Newport. As Newport's match started at around 2pm, one of our number (uk martin, if I remember correctly) was following Updates on his phone, and we knew by 5 o'clock at the latest we were out of the play offs, as the Islanders had won in South Wales. We did go on to win both on Tyneside and at Glasgow and finish second in the League table. So why should anyone have awarded us anything, as a wheel had not been turned in either match.

 

What faced both Coventry Storm and Rye House Raiders on 11th September this year was simply this: Coventry win by more than seven points and qualify for the Gold Cup. The match was the second part of a double header involving Buxton as well. With hindsight, I suppose, and given the importance of the fixture, Mick Horton could, and should IMO, have put the Raiders on first. But he didn't, and suffered the consequences. Rain set in around Heat 6, and the match got to Heat 8 before being suspended. With the Storm leading 32-19 and Rye House having used their tactical ride, Coventry were two races from qualification, and it looks like they wanted to continue, to at least the 10th race, anyway. During the suspension, the rain got worse, leading to an abandonment. Contrast that with the Coventry v Poole fixture some weeks before....

 

It still doesn't alter the fact that the SCB awarded the match to Coventry some weeks later, presumably after Rye House had refused to go back to fulfil the fixture. Imagine that scenario if the League title was on the line. The team that had all but lost on the night get off on a technicality and qualify. The team that had all but won loose out completely. That can't be right. And neither would the page after page of bitching about it on here be either.

[TMW]

TBF Cov did only run their home fixtures in the last 6 weeks of the season. Maybe if they'd run them in the main season they may not have been in the position !!!

[uk_martin]

TBF Cov did only run their home fixtures in the last 6 weeks of the season. Maybe if they'd run them in the main season they may not have been in the position !!!

 

To be even more fair, remembering the parlous state of the Coventry track at the start of the season, maybe it's only fit for purpouse for 6 weeks out of any given season? Putting speedway toddlers out on that track at other times would contravene more Health & Safety, Geneva and Human Rights conventions as to make the situation totally inhumane.

[TMW]

 

To be even more fair, remembering the parlous state of the Coventry track at the start of the season, maybe it's only fit for purpouse for 6 weeks out of any given season? Putting speedway toddlers out on that track at other times would contravene more Health & Safety, Geneva and Human Rights conventions as to make the situation totally inhumane.

You need to ride all kinds of tracks.

 

To be even more fair, remembering the parlous state of the Coventry track at the start of the season, maybe it's only fit for purpouse for 6 weeks out of any given season? Putting speedway toddlers out on that track at other times would contravene more Health & Safety, Geneva and Human Rights conventions as to make the situation totally inhumane.

You need to ride all kinds of tracks.

[uk_martin]

You need to ride all kinds of tracks.

 

You need to ride all kinds of tracks.

 

And if you do it twice, you learn all the quicker? Saying that is like teaching a kid to drive by putting him in the middle of Picadilly Circus and then telling him what the steering wheel does and what all the foot pedals do. Haven't we seen enough serious injuries last year? How many more are needed?

Edited December 29, 2015 by uk martin