secsy1 Posted February 11, 2021 Report Share Posted February 11, 2021 Connor Bailey not on the list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Najjer Posted February 11, 2021 Report Share Posted February 11, 2021 I’ll say it again, it is beggars belief a good idea that should have been so simple to implement has turned into an absolute car crash already. Wait until 2022 when the grades are revised and promotors try and shoe horn in certain riders then. What a mess. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuxtonTiger Posted February 11, 2021 Report Share Posted February 11, 2021 (edited) So, who issued the list without checking it? (See Birmingham thread) Edited February 11, 2021 by BuxtonTiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Najjer Posted February 11, 2021 Report Share Posted February 11, 2021 3 hours ago, BuxtonTiger said: So, who issued the list without checking it? (See Birmingham thread) I repeat.... What a shambles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted February 11, 2021 Report Share Posted February 11, 2021 3 minutes ago, Najjer said: I repeat.... What a shambles. It'll be ok,,, it might change again for next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillwhitewasmad Posted February 11, 2021 Report Share Posted February 11, 2021 5 hours ago, BuxtonTiger said: So, who issued the list without checking it? (See Birmingham thread) In fairness riders do have until the 15th respond to whether they want to be included so no need to panic just yet it's only the 11th 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotallyHonestJohn Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 On 2/11/2021 at 9:17 AM, secsy1 said: Connor Bailey not on the list? Neither are the Thompson Twins from Leicester... nor one or two others... However as stated below... On 2/11/2021 at 6:53 PM, phillwhitewasmad said: In fairness riders do have until the 15th respond to whether they want to be included so no need to panic just yet it's only the 11th Why they felt the need to release the list when they have is beyond me... Regards THJ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillwhitewasmad Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 8 minutes ago, TotallyHonestJohn said: Neither are the Thompson Twins from Leicester... nor one or two others... However as stated below... Why they felt the need to release the list when they have is beyond me... Regards THJ maybe to keep a general interest going amongst supporters. but if it was me i would of kept it quiet because it just leads to the usual its wrong, id of done it different it wont work brigade whining about it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotallyHonestJohn Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 33 minutes ago, phillwhitewasmad said: maybe to keep a general interest going amongst supporters. but if it was me i would of kept it quiet because it just leads to the usual its wrong, id of done it different it wont work brigade whining about it Ya right Phil and to be fair I have been one of those detractors as I am not struck on the proposal... however its in and I do hope every club gives it a good go to try and make it work... next year I would suggest will be the make or break of the proposal; and ultimately if it doesn't work folks on the other side cant get the opportunity to say it only failed because there was no "good will" to make it work... if that makes sense? it needs to be embraced fully... It needs to to be given a good run to see how it pans out... if it works out great and if it falls flat then there is always the next daft idea for us to moan about... Regards THJ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillwhitewasmad Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 3 minutes ago, TotallyHonestJohn said: Ya right Phil and to be fair I have been one of those detractors as I am not struck on the proposal... however its in and I do hope every club gives it a good go to try and make it work... next year I would suggest will be the make or break of the proposal; and ultimately if it doesn't work folks on the other side cant get the opportunity to say it only failed because there was no "good will" to make it work... if that makes sense? it needs to be embraced fully... It needs to to be given a good run to see how it pans out... if it works out great and if it falls flat then there is always the next daft idea for us to moan about... Regards THJ your right in your assessment i have said all along year one is a fudge due to certain teams demanding they kept previous unused team where ever possible. year two will be the deciding factor . only time will tell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skodaman Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 On 2/11/2021 at 9:17 AM, secsy1 said: Connor Bailey not on the list? Connor is Australian! born in Western Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac101 Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, Skodaman said: Connor is Australian! born in Western Australia also has a full british passport Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 2 hours ago, phillwhitewasmad said: your right in your assessment i have said all along year one is a fudge due to certain teams demanding they kept previous unused team where ever possible. year two will be the deciding factor . only time will tell What reason do you think makes the year one a fudge.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillwhitewasmad Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 46 minutes ago, Fromafar said: What reason do you think makes the year one a fudge.? My personal opinion is the ratings were set at the levels they are so teams in the main could keep the riders they had already signed . I do believe it's a good thing going forward though as long as the clubs stick to the spirit of it and don't start manipulating it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted February 15, 2021 Report Share Posted February 15, 2021 32 minutes ago, phillwhitewasmad said: My personal opinion is the ratings were set at the levels they are so teams in the main could keep the riders they had already signed . I do believe it's a good thing going forward though as long as the clubs stick to the spirit of it and don't start manipulating it. Thanks,as for Clubs sticking to the spirit of it, that’s another story 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
False dawn Posted February 16, 2021 Report Share Posted February 16, 2021 The determination of what is a rising star does seem a bit arbitary. In particular, the CMA(s) previously achieved. The Premiership average cut off of 5.50 does seem rather high to me. And the CMA achieved in the Championship vs the Premiership makes no sense. There is an established multiplier between the two leagues i.e. 1.5 Yet you're allowed to have a Championship CMA up to 6.50 as opposed to a Premiership CMA of 5.50. Either it should be 5.50 x 1.5 = 8.25 in the Championship which is silly. Or it shoud be 6.50 / 1.5 = 4.33 in the Premiership. Maybe it's just me. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilWatson Posted February 16, 2021 Report Share Posted February 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, False dawn said: The determination of what is a rising star does seem a bit arbitary. In particular, the CMA(s) previously achieved. The Premiership average cut off of 5.50 does seem rather high to me. And the CMA achieved in the Championship vs the Premiership makes no sense. There is an established multiplier between the two leagues i.e. 1.5 Yet you're allowed to have a Championship CMA up to 6.50 as opposed to a Premiership CMA of 5.50. Either it should be 5.50 x 1.5 = 8.25 in the Championship which is silly. Or it shoud be 6.50 / 1.5 = 4.33 in the Premiership. Maybe it's just me. It’s not just you..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted February 16, 2021 Report Share Posted February 16, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, False dawn said: The determination of what is a rising star does seem a bit arbitary. In particular, the CMA(s) previously achieved. The Premiership average cut off of 5.50 does seem rather high to me. And the CMA achieved in the Championship vs the Premiership makes no sense. There is an established multiplier between the two leagues i.e. 1.5 Yet you're allowed to have a Championship CMA up to 6.50 as opposed to a Premiership CMA of 5.50. Either it should be 5.50 x 1.5 = 8.25 in the Championship which is silly. Or it shoud be 6.50 / 1.5 = 4.33 in the Premiership. Maybe it's just me. It really wouldn't be UK Speedway without a rule already in situ, and it not being followed, would it? I presume there must have been some glaring example(s) where certain teams couldn't then get certain riders if they followed the conversion rules? So they didn't... In the interest of Speedway obviously Edited February 16, 2021 by mikebv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted February 16, 2021 Report Share Posted February 16, 2021 11 minutes ago, False dawn said: The determination of what is a rising star does seem a bit arbitary. In particular, the CMA(s) previously achieved. The Premiership average cut off of 5.50 does seem rather high to me. And the CMA achieved in the Championship vs the Premiership makes no sense. There is an established multiplier between the two leagues i.e. 1.5 Yet you're allowed to have a Championship CMA up to 6.50 as opposed to a Premiership CMA of 5.50. Either it should be 5.50 x 1.5 = 8.25 in the Championship which is silly. Or it shoud be 6.50 / 1.5 = 4.33 in the Premiership. Maybe it's just me. While Josh Bates qualifies as a "rising star" it's believable the restrictions put in place were designed to allow him entry! 1) 24 as of the 1st January of the current year (Bates turned 25 in February) 2) have an average under a Premiership League CMA of 5.50 (Bates is 5.07), or under a Championship League CMA of 6.50 (Bates is 6.19). Now if these regulations stay in place for 2022, I'll trust all is above board, however if the "rising star" requirements change It'll be very suspicious! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted February 16, 2021 Report Share Posted February 16, 2021 12 minutes ago, szkocjasid said: While Josh Bates qualifies as a "rising star" it's believable the restrictions put in place were designed to allow him entry! 1) 24 as of the 1st January of the current year (Bates turned 25 in February) 2) have an average under a Premiership League CMA of 5.50 (Bates is 5.07), or under a Championship League CMA of 6.50 (Bates is 6.19). Now if these regulations stay in place for 2022, I'll trust all is above board, however if the "rising star" requirements change It'll be very suspicious! All in the” best interest of the sport rule” comes into play. 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.