Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Ipswich 2017


Bash

Recommended Posts

 

It is simple. A multiple team change is actually a set of 1-for-1 changes all being done together. You can stay above the points limit, as long as each 1-for-1 change is legal. I can't see how it can be much simpler.

 

All the best

Rob

Perhaps to stop this sort of spectacle occurring again riders should be contracted for whole season and only allow changes for injuries and retirements which in turn would give riders a little bit of security and a bit of faith under the management they are being employed by , I think riders are entitled to this. Then it's up to promotions to get there team building correct from the off.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

louis is a dummy .

 

keep yor scores really low and get back to headinbra next season .

 

but in the meantime .score what you want , especially in those must win races for the fikshall watches .

 

hit em where it hurts sedgy... .

Edited by jenga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ecus a professional

 

If I was Sedgmen I'd score 000 in every meeting for the rest of the season 😂😂

Hardly likely to do that as he would be paid by the point as despite what some numptys thing he is a professional rider, be good if he was in the position to tell them to jam it though.

 

Junior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahahaha oh dear Ippo promotion, how silly do you look now :lol: absolute nursery school stuff, as Rob has said, changing 2 for 2 has been like that for years, if a promotion don't know that, it's worrying!

 

Welcome back Sedge and Conor anyway....... frosty pits next time round for the summer I feel......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks very much like the BSPA had approved the change otherwise why would you tell riders that they were being dropped? Then the BSPA did a u turn after it was pointed out the change was illegal. Both the BSPA & Ipswich look like clowns. Hats of to Connor in the way he has conducted himself in public.

 

My main concern now is how this will effect us signing riders for next season & the chances of Connor coming back as he & Hume should both be dead certs.

 

It would be interesting to know who was coming can rule Gino out after the comments Louis made last week about not enough time to complete the paperwork for him?

Or was that a smoke screen & Gino & another certain young yank were both coming in?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks very much like the BSPA had approved the change otherwise why would you tell riders that they were being dropped? Then the BSPA did a u turn after it was pointed out the change was illegal. Both the BSPA & Ipswich look like clowns. Hats of to Connor in the way he has conducted himself in public.

 

My main concern now is how this will effect us signing riders for next season & the chances of Connor coming back as he & Hume should both be dead certs.

 

It would be interesting to know who was coming can rule Gino out after the comments Louis made last week about not enough time to complete the paperwork for him?

Or was that a smoke screen & Gino & another certain young yank were both coming in?

 

I don't think it had anything to do with the BSPA. They simply seem to have turned down Ippo's illegal team.

 

At the end of the day, it is down to the promoter to know the basic team-building rules.

 

All the best

Rob

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think it had anything to do with the BSPA. They simply seem to have turned down Ippo's illegal team.

 

At the end of the day, it is down to the promoter to know the basic team-building rules.

 

All the best

Rob

and this one is the most basic of all and very plainly written 😩

 

Unbelievable shambles!

 

Edit

The only way the BSPA has any question to answer is if they originally indicated acceptance. Wouldnt make the request anymore ridiculous though.

Edited by dontforgetthefueltapsbruv
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if they were using last year's rule book and trying to fit into a 42.5 limit?

 

Nah probably not.

 

Probably just thought we'll replace 2 riders who total n.nn with a different 2 who total no more than n.nn and we'll be good to go.

 

Err no, read the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing about the rules. But reading what you lot have said, wouldn't it be sensible to replace one rider one day, then the other one 2 days later. Or does rule 15, section 13B, sub section 47K not allow this?

You're average is 44.30, if you replace Sedge (6.67) for Tungate (eg) (5.72) that makes your team average 43.35 you cannot then upgrade Connor Mountain to a better averaged rider it has to be to the same average as him as you are over 40 points.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Mike Smillie still there? There isn't a single thing that bloke doesn't know about stats and the rule book and I know that everything Ipswich do goes through him before any plans are submitted. There is simply no way that Mike would have made this mistake.

 

My only guess is that he somehow was not involved in this debacle and the results are quite frankly embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, even though it ended up being a total f*** up I for one actually applaud the attempt to change the team to hopefully improve it. Although I would have loved to know exactly what the changes would have been.

 

Obviously something went wrong somewhere with the proposal, we may find out but we may not. We just need to make the most of what we have now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps to stop this sort of spectacle occurring again riders should be contracted for whole season and only allow changes for injuries and retirements which in turn would give riders a little bit of security and a bit of faith under the management they are being employed by , I think riders are entitled to this. Then it's up to promotions to get there team building correct from the off.

The idea this season of dropping back to 40 with changes was to dissuade promotions from wholesale changes. I wonder how many teams would have changed more, but decided for a simple one for one or just stuck by what they had. I think the latter would be Newcastle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea this season of dropping back to 40 with changes was to dissuade promotions from wholesale changes. I wonder how many teams would have changed more, but decided for a simple one for one or just stuck by what they had. I think the latter would be Newcastle.

Okay... I have to ask... Why didn't you "stick with what you had" in Dan Greenwood then rather than change him for Alfie Bowtell following the decent meeting he had guesting for Berwick?

  • 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