Shale Searcher Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 I reckon it's probably 2 to 3 points to high, considering the riders available..? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Disagree. More to do with certain promoters inability to work and negociate prperly and early enough with riders. The main problem being the agm being held far too late. Why nit have it ib June/July for the following season meaning planning can start far in advance. To be honest both Kings Lynn and Leicester have brought the problems on themselves. Leicester could have has Josh G for 2016, he agreed to ride for them for the money offered, then they didn't send the contract and so Rosco then came in with a contract and snapped Josh up. Edited February 7, 2016 by Steve Shovlar 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Disagree. More to do with certain promoters inability to work and negociate prperly and early enough with riders. The main problem being the agm being held far too late. Why nit have it ib June/July for the following season meaning planning can start far in advance. To be honest both Kings Lynn and Leicester have brought the problems on themselves. How can you plan in june and july when you don't know the amount of teams there are going to be ? if a myth that the amg is held to late there is loads of time to plan before the start of the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 How can you plan in june and july when you don't know the amount of teams there are going to be ? if a myth that the amg is held to late there is loads of time to plan before the start of the season Riders want continuity and to know where they are as far in advance as possible. If they know they have a guarenteed team berth in the UK they are likely to agree, especially if there is slight doubt they might not get a ride in Sweden or Poland. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remembertheracers Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 This shows how the stock of the Elite League has plunged in recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Disagree. More to do with certain promoters inability to work and negociate prperly and early enough with riders. The main problem being the agm being held far too late. Why nit have it ib June/July for the following season meaning planning can start far in advance. To be honest both Kings Lynn and Leicester have brought the problems on themselves. Leicester could have has Josh G for 2016, he agreed to ride for them for the money offered, then they didn't send the contract and so Rosco then came in with a contract and snapped Josh up. How can you have riders signing for teams for the following season when only half way through the current? Bonkers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daytripper Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Riders want continuity and to know where they are as far in advance as possible. If they know they have a guarenteed team berth in the UK they are likely to agree, especially if there is slight doubt they might not get a ride in Sweden or Poland.Steve you know as well as I do that Matt Ford is one of the promoters that start making their plans and lining up riders from about mid season. It's pretty obvious that Belle Vue were getting sorted early on, lining their riders up and at the Lakeside dinner and dance Jon Cook told us 5 riders were offered jobs at the Coventry away meeting in August and they all said they were interested. Kings Lynn and Leicester seem to have dropped a major clanger in dithering too long. Having said that it's difficult to see how these things can be firmed up earlier than the AGM on October.It is common knowledge that they have a pre-AGM a few weeks before that to sketch out their general plans. Edited February 7, 2016 by Daytripper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIRKYLANE Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 If top riders had not deserted GB then it would have been OK. Now we have three teams struggling to name their 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INCOGNITO Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 The forward planning should have been a drastic change and instead of drawing up a list of 36 possible heat leaders they should have drawn up a list of which riders actually wanted to ride here. With Darcy Ward sadly lost to the sport and a clear indication that the likes of Neils K Iversen were not going to be back it left a 40.5 limit hard to achieve and virtually impossible when you are restricted to 3 heat leaders from the list without some even below a six average. In the end less than 20 from the list were willing to return so teams were going to start with one heat leader while some will have 3 and a rider much better than some on the list and with a higher average. The 2016 season should have been a new look for the Elite League with either a fixed race night or a squad system for heat leaders so some could return for half the meetings or made it possible for teams to have a regular team with no doubling up riders apart from the fast track riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tellboy Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Disagree. More to do with certain promoters inability to work and negociate prperly and early enough with riders. The main problem being the agm being held far too late. Why nit have it ib June/July for the following season meaning planning can start far in advance. To be honest both Kings Lynn and Leicester have brought the problems on themselves. Leicester could have has Josh G for 2016, he agreed to ride for them for the money offered, then they didn't send the contract and so Rosco then came in with a contract and snapped Josh up. There seems only a small pool of riders that seem willing to race here now.You mention Josh G but if he had signed for Leicester then Swindon would have been in the same situation.What you need is a bigger pool of riders willing to race.It seems to me the top riders will stay away unless a very good contract is presented to them.To which I don't blame any promoter for not offering money to which they cant afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Maybe as well as putting together the HL list they should also have had confirmation of riders intentions to ride too? If they want to use what is effectively 'semi rider control' by putting a restrictive list together which only allowed three per team from that list, then maybe they should have gone all the way and not allowed any further team building until all teams had their top three riders from the list in place? This could have also ensured that riders of heat leader quality not on the list, who suddenly 'appear' could have gone to teams needing riders, and not instead, making already strong teams even stronger Typical of the way the sport is run in this country that, for the best intentions, a rule is brought in but then badly administered.. What should have delivered a 'level playing field' once again hasn't.. Edited February 7, 2016 by mikebv 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 This shows how the stock of the Elite League has plunged in recent years. Really, perhaps you would care to explain in full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwatcher Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 It is by far the worst line up that the EL teams have ever fielded. If next year gets any worse that this year is, then I see no option for the clubs to call it a day with going any further with the EL. Maube now is the time to just have what has been put forward on here, one league, with a North/South split and at the end of the season, a decideder of the top 4 teams from each league coming together to see who wins a trophy, nothing like the play ofs we have now, but a genuine winner of the league. If there are still 8 teams left next year, I think they will be finding it even harder to get 7 riders per team, without the majority of those riders being made up of PL lads. So if that happens it defeats the whole reason of having an El. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpuss Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Several posters said straight away that the limit was too high, was quite obvious that the number of available riders was inadequate to make all teams competitive. Hence the lopsided nature of team strengths this year. Quite possible that Lynn hung on too long for an answer from Iversen as other 'top' riders had signed up elsewhere, and it would be fair to say that our promotion have had a bit of a nightmare winter. But the limit was still too high. Edited February 7, 2016 by Gordon Bennett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game On Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Really, perhaps you would care to explain in full. Matt Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Really, perhaps you would care to explain in full.are you saying you think the elite league is strong then? Because it's pretty obvious the best riders don't race here and the league is weak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Really, perhaps you would care to explain in full. It would be better and more funny if you explained why it has kept it's stock . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Panda Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 The reason it was increased was because this year the reserves actually have averages.................they can move in and out of the main team...........had and you only have to look at who is riding for who at reserve to see why it was increased to 40............. Planning for the following season starts before the season ends of course it does but that does not mean riders are signed.............which cannot really be done (perhaps apart from one or two lower end ones) before the AGM which should be as soon as the play offs are completed............ RP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 Lets be honest. A bunch of bent, corrupt, thick, and biased retards could never have been expected to see this one coming could they? They lucked out that Swindon didn't blow up spectacularly last year (ie the rider who couldn't give a rubbish got injured a meeting one!) and that Troy was oh so terribly unlucky when a few EFs in a meeting. Or last year would have been as big a cock up too - probably thought, "fluked it one year, we'll do it again". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tocha Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) The reason it was increased was because this year the reserves actually have averages.................they can move in and out of the main team...........had and you only have to look at who is riding for who at reserve to see why it was increased to 40............. Planning for the following season starts before the season ends of course it does but that does not mean riders are signed.............which cannot really be done (perhaps apart from one or two lower end ones) before the AGM which should be as soon as the play offs are completed............ RP I don't know what the originator of this thread had in mind, is it the 40.5 points limit for 2016 or the 34 set in 2015? If it is the former, then that set in the 1 -5 for 2016 is lower than that in 2015 for seven of the current eight clubs, the exception being King's Lynn. In other words, if the reserves' combined averages exceed 6.5, clubs will have had to build lower than that set in 2015. So far five (possibly six once Lakeside decide which is the 1 -5 next season) are close to the limit with just King's Lynn and Leicester falling short, the former caught out by the late withdrawal of NKI and the latter having dug in their heels opting for an alternative race-night. Edited February 7, 2016 by tocha 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.