StevePark Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 But - by the same token - if 'we' scapped the points limit, then the teams with money (and we all know who they are ) would be able to sign 4, 5, 6 or even 7 number 1's/heatleaders and thrash everybody out of sight (Newcastle Diamonds under Ian Thomas for example). The big question is, would anyone turn up to watch that, when that team was riding on an away track (home supporters that is)? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 hard to argue Wigg wasn't a number one when he averaged 11+ in 1986, which put him 3rd in the averages I believe (behind Hans and Eric). i know he dropped a couple of points riding as number 1 in 1987, but he was hardly the worst number 1 in the league even then. Averages don't tell the whole story. Wiggy could be rather a selfish rider, and often seemed to put long track and grasstrack commitments ahead of team commitments. Moreover, he could have bad rides at crucial times, which is less important if you're second or third heat leader, but not so great if you're carrying a team. TYPICAL speedway ... weakened the strong to help the weak. That philosophy has damaged British speedway for decades. Well what's the alternative? Just let the weak sink without trace? Speedway isn't like other sports which have an underlying pyramid of competitors trying to break through. There's only a relative handful of top-flight performers to go round, and due to the heat-based nature of speedway, if they're all concentrated in just a few teams it's going to lead to some terribly one-sided contests. Few would suggest the points limit has worked properly let alone well, but it has resulted in success generally being shared around over the years, unlike something like the Scottish Premiership that's been tediously dominated by Celtic and Rangers for the last who knows whoever long. Only if they want to make changes should that track be subject to whatever the points limit is. You need to think it through. So one team inflates to 50 points or more (not beyond possibility for strong side), but then gets an injury to their top rider. So then through no fault of their own, they suddenly have to shed 8 points which would in practice mean dropping another one or two riders. It would be farcical and lack any credibility at all. I haver lost count of the times I have been told by a promoter that there is little point in trying to develop young riders if at the end of the season they are shunted off elsewhere to a track that cannot be bothered to do likewise. Yes, but that's a failure with how the system is implemented, not the points limit itself. You could very easily provide incentives within the system to encourage teams to develop riders and keep them on a minimum average for a certain number of seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DEAN MACHINE Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 But - by the same token - if 'we' scapped the points limit, then the teams with money (and we all know who they are ) would be able to sign 4, 5, 6 or even 7 number 1's/heatleaders and thrash everybody out of sight (Newcastle Diamonds under Ian Thomas for example). The big question is, would anyone turn up to watch that, when that team was riding on an away track (home supporters that is)?like who , one Brit , maximum one GP rider and 2 u21 reserves , leaving teams to sign 3 riders whoever they want , who are these 3 heatleaders ? There isnt the riders out there that want to ride here that are not in the GPs , people seem to think teams will just sign these superstars that in reality dont exsist , do an actual example ,write down all the teams , give them 1 Brit and 1 GP rider and just see who they could sign as there other 3, it wont be much different to the teams they have this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevePark Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 like who , one Brit , maximum one GP rider and 2 u21 reserves , leaving teams to sign 3 riders whoever they want , who are these 3 heatleaders ? There isnt the riders out there that want to ride here that are not in the GPs , people seem to think teams will just sign these superstars that in reality dont exsist , do an actual example ,write down all the teams , give them 1 Brit and 1 GP rider and just see who they could sign as there other 3, it wont be much different to the teams they have this year I was talking more about the Championship (PL) rather than the Premiership (EL), but the principle is the same. A team in the Premiership could sign as their 7 (as perhaps a poor example) - Jason Doyle, Scott Nicholls, Max Fricke, Chris Harris, Kenneth Bjerre, Robert Lambert and someone like say Adam Ellis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve roberts Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 like who , one Brit , maximum one GP rider and 2 u21 reserves , leaving teams to sign 3 riders whoever they want , who are these 3 heatleaders ? There isnt the riders out there that want to ride here that are not in the GPs , people seem to think teams will just sign these superstars that in reality dont exsist , do an actual example ,write down all the teams , give them 1 Brit and 1 GP rider and just see who they could sign as there other 3, it wont be much different to the teams they have this year Personally I don't think the present, or indeed past, economics would allow for strong teams indefinitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Personally I don't think the present, or indeed past, economics would allow for strong teams indefinitely. Sport seems to transcend economic principles, and speedway is unlikely to be any different. Plenty of top football teams can't afford the players they sign, and inevitably head towards bankruptcy as a result. It's just lucky there's usually always a sugar daddy able to bail them out until the next sucker comes along. Speedway is even more susceptible to this with its prevalence of hobbyist promoters nowadays, but there's less of preponderance of sugar daddies waiting in the wings when teams do fall. There are some speedway teams that have been run on sensible economic lines for years, but we've also seen promoters come-and-go after throwing around money that made no sense at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Sport seems to transcend economic principles, and speedway is unlikely to be any different. Plenty of top football teams can't afford the players they sign, and inevitably head towards bankruptcy as a result. It's just lucky there's usually always a sugar daddy able to bail them out until the next sucker comes along. Speedway is even more susceptible to this with its prevalence of hobbyist promoters nowadays, but there's less of preponderance of sugar daddies waiting in the wings when teams do fall. There are some speedway teams that have been run on sensible economic lines for years, but we've also seen promoters come-and-go after throwing around money that made no sense at all. Sorry to go off Topic. But there isn't at Sunderland Football Club sadly. We have the sucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 TYPICAL speedway ... weakened the strong to help the weak. That philosophy has damaged British speedway for decades. There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, which is what the BSPA thought might happened when Stuart Bamforth, bank-rolled by his business, came along. Any team that wants to continue from one season to another we the riders it has should be allowed to do so. Only if they want to make changes should that track be subject to whatever the points limit is. I can be endlessly critical of the promoters and some of their philosophies. But then again the alternatives offered by some on the sidelines are just so dangerously naive that we must be truly thankful they have not been in a position to implement them I haver lost count of the times I have been told by a promoter that there is little point in trying to develop young riders if at the end of the season they are shunted off elsewhere to a track that cannot be bothered to do likewise. I am amazed at how often you have listened to such complete Horlicks without challenging it's voracity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_martin Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 ...There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, ... There may have been a lot more money "in the system" if 40% of the Sky money over the many years of their lucrative sponsorship, had gone into the sport instead of into Terry Russell's back pocket to pay his mortgage off. Classic example of someone becoming "all right jack" whilst the the sport that they were supposed to be serving floundered. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DEAN MACHINE Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) There simply isn't the money around to buy up all the talent, . there simply isnt the talent around to buy it up , the quality from the 80s just isnt around in numbers , people keep saying the richest teams will just buy the best riders , who are these riders ? Where are they hiding ? Cause pretty much every top rider thats wants to ride here already does , so lets hear some names, pick pooles team for 2018 , remember must have I Brit and no more than 1 GP rider and there must be a chance they want to ride here so you can rule out riders like zmarzlik, Laguta and if Poland extend their rider ban there will be even less to choose from Edited October 2, 2017 by THE DEAN MACHINE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy cookie returns? Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 Okay, I can see that you were disappointed with the uncompetitive meeting and poor crowd, the two sort of go hand in hand, plus the double tr bollox. Saturday's meeting was probably the only meeting when you could be confident of those negatives not reoccurring. It's probably a good job you weren't watching Ipswich in their heyday, there were lots of unmatched sides hammered out of sight, lots of 000 scores from visiting riders as well, although I've no idea if they were giving 100% or not. I expect doubling up will end soon but that could actually make meetings less competitive, so it's a curates egg. I'm not expecting guest riders to end anytime soon though despite the obvious lack of credibility it brings to the sport it does help to keep meetings competitive, another curates egg? Uncompetitive meetings are always less interesting but how can you tell what's going to happen? Leicester came to Belle Vue a few weeks ago and won, Somerset did it earlier in the season. Anyway, at least promoters have something to pick out of your experience. You will go even if there's a guest and double uppers provided the racing is good between two teams giving 100% in a good atmosphere. Does it have to be a big meeting or will a regular league meeting still cut it or is the double tr bollox a deal breaker? I don't follow cl racing at all so I don't know how the season panned out for Ipswich but looking at the fixtures and results I'm baffled as to why you didn't go the previous meeting against Sheffield? Two top teams racing for the championship, same number of guests and (afaik) double up riders to put you off, it looks like a must see meeting to me? You see how difficult it is for promoters, two meetings between two top teams and the only significant difference between them is one was a cup final. I want to be able to support my team so for that reason the doubling up rule needs scrapping so that the named seven riders are your team and they are not committed to other clubs. The guest rule needs amending so its use becomes rare I remember the old NL in 89/90 banned guests all together. I remember Ipswich 98 when we were winning week in and week out however they were my team. Also we lost the NL title chance in 89/90 because of poor form and injuries however again those 7 were committed to Ipswich they rode for no one else. This year King Schilen Greaves Mountain Newman and Heeps all have other clubs. This along with guests have taken the team aspect away you might aswell pull 7 names out of the hat each week. So for me no doubling up preferably no guests definitely no double points and I'll come back on a regular basis. This coming from an Ipswich fan from 84 to 2012 and neutral from 2014 to present. Okay, I can see that you were disappointed with the uncompetitive meeting and poor crowd, the two sort of go hand in hand, plus the double tr bollox. Saturday's meeting was probably the only meeting when you could be confident of those negatives not reoccurring. It's probably a good job you weren't watching Ipswich in their heyday, there were lots of unmatched sides hammered out of sight, lots of 000 scores from visiting riders as well, although I've no idea if they were giving 100% or not. I expect doubling up will end soon but that could actually make meetings less competitive, so it's a curates egg. I'm not expecting guest riders to end anytime soon though despite the obvious lack of credibility it brings to the sport it does help to keep meetings competitive, another curates egg? Uncompetitive meetings are always less interesting but how can you tell what's going to happen? Leicester came to Belle Vue a few weeks ago and won, Somerset did it earlier in the season. Anyway, at least promoters have something to pick out of your experience. You will go even if there's a guest and double uppers provided the racing is good between two teams giving 100% in a good atmosphere. Does it have to be a big meeting or will a regular league meeting still cut it or is the double tr bollox a deal breaker? I don't follow cl racing at all so I don't know how the season panned out for Ipswich but looking at the fixtures and results I'm baffled as to why you didn't go the previous meeting against Sheffield? Two top teams racing for the championship, same number of guests and (afaik) double up riders to put you off, it looks like a must see meeting to me? You see how difficult it is for promoters, two meetings between two top teams and the only significant difference between them is one was a cup final. I want to be able to support my team so for that reason the doubling up rule needs scrapping so that the named seven riders are your team and they are not committed to other clubs. The guest rule needs amending so its use becomes rare I remember the old NL in 89/90 banned guests all together. I remember Ipswich 98 when we were winning week in and week out however they were my team. Also we lost the NL title chance in 89/90 because of poor form and injuries however again those 7 were committed to Ipswich they rode for no one else. This year King Schilen Greaves Mountain Newman and Heeps all have other clubs. This along with guests have taken the team aspect away you might aswell pull 7 names out of the hat each week. So for me no doubling up preferably no guests definitely no double points and I'll come back on a regular basis. This coming from an Ipswich fan from 84 to 2012 and neutral from 2014 to present. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'm hoping what Buster told us at our end of season meeting about SGBP going Mondays and Thursdays and SGBC all other nights is set in stone, the end of all doubling up woes He said that all the clubs are prepared to work with the decision ............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I'm hoping what Buster told us at our end of season meeting about SGBP going Mondays and Thursdays and SGBC all other nights is set in stone, the end of all doubling up woes He said that all the clubs are prepared to work with the decision ............. While that would certainly make fixture planning easier and it does now seem to be set in stone, it will actually increase the likelihood for doubling up. Some might have no problem with that but there are a lot who dislike it (as various threads on here seem to prove). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 There may have been a lot more money "in the system" if 40% of the Sky money over the many years of their lucrative sponsorship, had gone into the sport instead of into Terry Russell's back pocket to pay his mortgage off. Classic example of someone becoming "all right jack" whilst the the sport that they were supposed to be serving floundered. It's not 40% BTW and the initial contract was about 1999/2000, so it was 17 years ago and passed. Time to move on, and it isn't the same circumstance now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) It's not 40% BTW and the initial contract was about 1999/2000, so it was 17 years ago and passed. Time to move on, and it isn't the same circumstance now. 1999, the year Panthers won the title whilst Sky were at King's Lynn showing Poole run-up. Edited October 2, 2017 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 I want to be able to support my team so for that reason the doubling up rule needs scrapping so that the named seven riders are your team and they are not committed to other clubs. The guest rule needs amending so its use becomes rare I remember the old NL in 89/90 banned guests all together. I remember Ipswich 98 when we were winning week in and week out however they were my team. Also we lost the NL title chance in 89/90 because of poor form and injuries however again those 7 were committed to Ipswich they rode for no one else. This year King Schilen Greaves Mountain Newman and Heeps all have other clubs. This along with guests have taken the team aspect away you might aswell pull 7 names out of the hat each week. So for me no doubling up preferably no guests definitely no double points and I'll come back on a regular basis. This coming from an Ipswich fan from 84 to 2012 and neutral from 2014 to present. I want to be able to support my team so for that reason the doubling up rule needs scrapping so that the named seven riders are your team and they are not committed to other clubs. The guest rule needs amending so its use becomes rare I remember the old NL in 89/90 banned guests all together. I remember Ipswich 98 when we were winning week in and week out however they were my team. Also we lost the NL title chance in 89/90 because of poor form and injuries however again those 7 were committed to Ipswich they rode for no one else. This year King Schilen Greaves Mountain Newman and Heeps all have other clubs. This along with guests have taken the team aspect away you might aswell pull 7 names out of the hat each week. So for me no doubling up preferably no guests definitely no double points and I'll come back on a regular basis. This coming from an Ipswich fan from 84 to 2012 and neutral from 2014 to present. Whether fans like it or not, there will always guests. The reason for guests, because of conflicting nights, can be arranged if the will and agreements can be made. If the reason is to cover multi riders missing, there is no alternative, as most fans would then walk out because they are not prepared to put up with a poor team with NL riders filling in the gaps. Fans can't have it all ways. Surely it is better to watch a guest in a team and have a chance of decent and even racing, than to watch NL riders struggling against genuine team members and opposition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Whether fans like it or not, there will always guests. The reason for guests, because of conflicting nights, can be arranged if the will and agreements can be made. If the reason is to cover multi riders missing, there is no alternative, as most fans would then walk out because they are not prepared to put up with a poor team with NL riders filling in the gaps. Fans can't have it all ways. Surely it is better to watch a guest in a team and have a chance of decent and even racing, than to watch NL riders struggling against genuine team members and opposition. I fully understand the reasons for guesting but can see the credibility issue when one team's rider rides for another team helping that other team to finish higher than his parent club. I always remember the situation the year of my previous post, 1999, when Poole's #1, Mark Loram, guested and scored a maximum for Panthers at Belle Vue helping Peterborough to take the League Championship (pre-play-offs) by a point from his own club. With so much guesting going on now, how many times has it happened, I wonder, that a team has been deprived of a play-off spot by points scored by one of their own riders riding for a rival team? Edited October 2, 2017 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Poland and Sweden don't use guests..... Therefore there is an alternative to having guests... Why don't Poland and Sweden use guests? Because all teams in the same League ride (in the main) on the same night, so riders cannot be in two places at the same time... Simply British Speedway facilitates guests through its several different race nights... Basically because they can have guests, they do have guests.... It's much easier than running the sport properly isn't it? And if the other argument is that there are not enough riders to go round then reduce the numbers in teams.... That would then produce excess riders to replace missing riders.... There are loads of foreign riders who don't earn fortunes riding in Poland, so I am pretty sure they would happily be on 'standby' over here and ride as and when the opportunity arises... What the Sport got away with 10/20/30/40 years ago it simply cannot anymore with today's instant social media... If it wants to carry on with 'guestfest' after 'guestfest' in isolation from other leading Speedway nations then fine... But by doing so, those who run the Sport forfeit the right to ever moan about poor crowd levels or complain about never being taking seriously by the mainstream sporting media.. Edited October 2, 2017 by mikebv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy cookie returns? Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 But - by the same token - if 'we' scapped the points limit, then the teams with money (and we all know who they are ) would be able to sign 4, 5, 6 or even 7 number 1's/heatleaders and thrash everybody out of sight (Newcastle Diamonds under Ian Thomas for example). The big question is, would anyone turn up to watch that, when that team was riding on an away track (home supporters that is)? Agree a points limit for 2018 and stick to that for the next 5 seasons at least. If the 2018 champions or any other side who are over the limit then wants to keep their 2018 together allow them to. However as soon as changes are made then they have to comply with the points limit. If you are running a team sport the supporters need to identify with their team. Under the current set up that cannot happen! Whether fans like it or not, there will always guests. The reason for guests, because of conflicting nights, can be arranged if the will and agreements can be made. If the reason is to cover multi riders missing, there is no alternative, as most fans would then walk out because they are not prepared to put up with a poor team with NL riders filling in the gaps. Fans can't have it all ways. Surely it is better to watch a guest in a team and have a chance of decent and even racing, than to watch NL riders struggling against genuine team members and opposition. That reply just about sums up speedway it will always happen regardless of if the fans like it well the fans don't just look at all the empty spaces on the terraces! This once fine sport needs to wake up and change otherwise you'll be left with one man and his dog waiting to get in that's if the dog doesn't get fed up and walk away! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 If the SCBPL goes Monday - Thursday and all others any other night, what exactly is the problem with doubling up. To me there is no issue to be had. All everyone has said is they don't like it without giving any real reason. Just "I don't like it" isn't an argument if there's no clash of fixtures in 2018 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.