Belle Vue Aces 2025

[BluPanther]

1 hour ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Subsequent events have proved I was right.

No they haven't, and others were well aware Danny was always in the plan...

[BluPanther]

Anyway, this is an Aces thread, so let's leave them to it...

Edited Sunday at 06:05 PM by BluPanther

[Bash]

On 11/22/2024 at 12:03 PM, ouch said:

Great post and a clear description of the situation. 

The only not the same is point 2 where Ipswich by choice strengthened so Keynan had to go whereas Belle Vue had to de strengthen and not by choice (but due to the rules) a rider had to go. 

If you are a witch, I’d be interested to know if you think Keynan was dropped due to money or due to the signing of Tom. 

So you would be happy for Ipswich to keep the same team but be well under the points limit. Teams change every year to fit below the points limit. Rules are rules, all teams have a choice what they do to fit to the points limit. So if the rumours on here are true and BV drop Mulford when Cairns becomes 16 is that not by choice?

[ouch]

23 minutes ago, Bash said:

So you would be happy for Ipswich to keep the same team but be well under the points limit. Teams change every year to fit below the points limit. Rules are rules, all teams have a choice what they do to fit to the points limit. So if the rumours on here are true and BV drop Mulford when Cairns becomes 16 is that not by choice?

I don’t consider 0.49 under the points limit to be “well under”. They were a whole point under the limit and were rated as favourites last season. 

It’s a choice if we decide to give our youngsters half a season each (I like the idea, if we do it). That’s the point I’m making, as you say teams choose to drop/sack/conscious uncouple riders but some play the innocent card when they are anything but. If you want to make changes, that’s fine, just own it. 

[PersonalResponsibility]

14 minutes ago, ouch said:

I don’t consider 0.49 under the points limit to be “well under”. They were a whole point under the limit and were rated as favourites last season. 

It’s a choice if we decide to give our youngsters half a season each (I like the idea, if we do it). That’s the point I’m making, as you say teams choose to drop/sack/conscious uncouple riders but some play the innocent card when they are anything but. If you want to make changes, that’s fine, just own it. 

"give our youngsters half a season each"

That is the funniest way of describing a move like this I've ever read. You'd be sacking Mulford because Cairns would give you a better chance of winning (meetings + the POs), it's zero to do with giving them half a season each.

[AceBelle]

Mulford may have Agreed conditions to ride until July no one knows apart from those involved 

[ouch]

5 hours ago, PersonalResponsibility said:

"give our youngsters half a season each"

That is the funniest way of describing a move like this I've ever read. You'd be sacking Mulford because Cairns would give you a better chance of winning (meetings + the POs), it's zero to do with giving them half a season each.

The fact is, if we made that move they’d have about half a season each whatever motive you want to spin. Plain English. 

World champion Jake more than held his own in the play offs with his heat 8 win v the tigers securing the win and the heat 2 paid win at Leicester effectively knocking the wind out of their sails. 
If we feel it beneficial to share the season for the greater good we will. Having a squad of junior riders on our books gives us that option - which is nice. Keep an eye on them as you might want to tap them up once they become more established. £££££
FYI. Not all clubs are the same. 

[SaddlebowRoad]

6 minutes ago, ouch said:

The fact is, if we made that move they’d have about half a season each whatever motive you want to spin. Plain English. 

World champion Jake more than held his own in the play offs with his heat 8 win v the tigers securing the win and the heat 2 paid win at Leicester effectively knocking the wind out of their sails. 
If we feel it beneficial to share the season for the greater good we will. Having a squad of junior riders on our books gives us that option - which is nice. Keep an eye on them as you might want to tap them up once they become more established. £££££
FYI. Not all clubs are the same. 

if you're not a politician you really should be 

[Trotter65]

Regarding Rew at Ipswich, once Brennan became available and they could fit him in then it was a no brainer for them to sign him and an equal no brainer that Rew made way…I don’t think his progress has been great and for me King and Ellis are potentially a far stronger middle order than Rew

[Bash]

On 11/25/2024 at 2:06 PM, ouch said:

I don’t consider 0.49 under the points limit to be “well under”. They were a whole point under the limit and were rated as favourites last season. 

It’s a choice if we decide to give our youngsters half a season each (I like the idea, if we do it). That’s the point I’m making, as you say teams choose to drop/sack/conscious uncouple riders but some play the innocent card when they are anything but. If you want to make changes, that’s fine, just own it. 

But we wouldn't be 0.49 under the limit when you take away the 2.5% reductions for the british riders and the 25% reduction for Dan Thompson. 

[Bash]

18 hours ago, ouch said:

The fact is, if we made that move they’d have about half a season each whatever motive you want to spin. Plain English. 

World champion Jake more than held his own in the play offs with his heat 8 win v the tigers securing the win and the heat 2 paid win at Leicester effectively knocking the wind out of their sails. 
If we feel it beneficial to share the season for the greater good we will. Having a squad of junior riders on our books gives us that option - which is nice. Keep an eye on them as you might want to tap them up once they become more established. £££££
FYI. Not all clubs are the same. 

No you just pay lawyers to get your own way with Robert Lambert  a few seasons ago. ££££££

[ouch]

4 hours ago, Bash said:

But we wouldn't be 0.49 under the limit when you take away the 2.5% reductions for the british riders and the 25% reduction for Dan Thompson. 

That included the reductions you mention. 

[ouch]

4 hours ago, Bash said:

No you just pay lawyers to get your own way with Robert Lambert  a few seasons ago. ££££££

You’re right there. Playing by the rules is a solitary Aces thing. Still can’t believe an outside source was required to ensure the rules were adhered to, extraordinary behaviour for a “professional” sport. 

[ouch]

4 hours ago, Bash said:

No you just pay lawyers to get your own way with Robert Lambert  a few seasons ago. ££££££

There was a not right witches fan recently saying how “fans” like it when opponents get injured as it gives them an easier ride to potential victory. I didn’t get it but seeing your latest post I guess it’s a topic of discussion at the Foxhall clubhouse. If you look back I bemoaned the way the rule makers had gone this season and said I’d prefer a witches team with say Zmarzlik covering for Doyle. I bit of a reach for you to grasp. 

As someone who looks out for people in general and riders in particular, I cannot in good conscience discuss our wonderful sport with someone who takes umbrage at a club trying to cover for an injured hero as it effects your results or not wanting the sport to play by the rules. I’m sure other witches fans will take you to task over this but yourself and the other grim individual, several buttons short of a full cardi or whatever it is are being shunted off to the ignore list. 

[Roger Jacobs]

5 hours ago, Bash said:

But we wouldn't be 0.49 under the limit when you take away the 2.5% reductions for the british riders and the 25% reduction for Dan Thompson. 

41.22 🙂