Newbie65 4 Posted June 4, 2017 Thought I read somewhere that Extance has given up due to injury ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Islander15 1,062 Posted June 4, 2017 Thought I read somewhere that Extance has given up due to injury ?? Yeah he's not riding now due to injury but I don't know whether it's permanent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ommer Mon 381 Posted June 5, 2017 I think it's fair to say Royno is one of the most popular Heathens of the modern era. Hope he has a great injury free season. I honestly think if it hadn't have been for all the injuries he could be in the Grands Prix now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
*JJ 510 Posted June 6, 2017 I think it's fair to say Royno is one of the most popular Heathens of the modern era. Hope he has a great injury free season. I honestly think if it hadn't have been for all the injuries he could be in the Grands Prix now. Indeed. When he rode for the Brummies in 2008, he was obviously going to the top; he was faster than Jason Lyons, and not many people can say that! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GiveusaB Posted June 6, 2017 Unluckiest rider ever! One of the most naturally talented riders never to make it in to the big time! Hope he stays injury free.... Good luck Adam ! (you're old FGT and Referee buddy ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ommer Mon 381 Posted June 6, 2017 Unluckiest rider ever! One of the most naturally talented riders never to make it in to the big time! Hope he stays injury free.... Good luck Adam ! (you're old FGT and Referee buddy ) Couldn't agree more. I don't think any of the crashes have been his fault. He's always struck me as quick, stylish and totally in control. He just has a terrible habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Looking forward to seeing him against the Heathens. He will be sure of a great reception especially after his heroics in the Play off Final (2012?). Won't forget the ovation he got at a social after discharging himself from hospital just to attend. Absolute legend! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted June 11, 2017 2012 NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM DECLARATIONS ISSUE 28 (Final issue) Adam Roynon 11.64 2017 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE Issue 14 Adam Roynon 10.24 19.8.2 A Rider’s MA will be based upon their latest (attained during the seasons 2011 – 2016 only) NDL or PL MA (multiplied by 2 and subject to a minimum / maximum converted MA’s being 3.00 / 12.00. NB. Where a rider has both a previous PL and NDL MA, the highest will apply. Can someone (hopefully Laurence) tell me why Roynon's average is 10.24 (or double his Workington one) and not 11.64 (the Dudley one) ? The extra point or so takes Plymouth over the limit. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greyhoundp 990 Posted June 16, 2017 Im only surprised no-one signed Richard Hall on his converted Championship average of 3.00, probably to late now he has signed for Peterboro i think i saw this week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TurnTwo 317 Posted June 16, 2017 His average is 3 x 2 it's his old nl avg from 2008/09 I believe! Isn't that should read Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adz_mft 230 Posted June 16, 2017 2012 NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM DECLARATIONS ISSUE 28 (Final issue) Adam Roynon 11.64 2017 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE Issue 14 Adam Roynon 10.24 19.8.2 A Riders MA will be based upon their latest (attained during the seasons 2011 2016 only) NDL or PL MA (multiplied by 2 and subject to a minimum / maximum converted MAs being 3.00 / 12.00. NB. Where a rider has both a previous PL and NDL MA, the highest will apply. Can someone (hopefully Laurence) tell me why Roynon's average is 10.24 (or double his Workington one) and not 11.64 (the Dudley one) ? The extra point or so takes Plymouth over the limit. I believe it's called making it up as they go along. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted June 17, 2017 I believe it's called making it up as they go along. In truth, Adz, I think this is a matter of incompetence rather than something a bit more malign. Whoever made the decision to allow Roynon to ride simply didn't check the regulation and/or the averages. The real problem is that they can't admit to their mistake, because I am aware that two clubs have questioned it and, basically, been told to shut up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nudge 0 Posted June 17, 2017 2012 NATIONAL LEAGUE TEAM DECLARATIONS ISSUE 28 (Final issue) Adam Roynon 11.64 2017 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE Issue 14 Adam Roynon 10.24 19.8.2 A Rider’s MA will be based upon their latest (attained during the seasons 2011 – 2016 only) NDL or PL MA (multiplied by 2 and subject to a minimum / maximum converted MA’s being 3.00 / 12.00. NB. Where a rider has both a previous PL and NDL MA, the highest will apply. Can someone (hopefully Laurence) tell me why Roynon's average is 10.24 (or double his Workington one) and not 11.64 (the Dudley one) ? The extra point or so takes Plymouth over the limit. Hello Halifaxtiger, I agree this rule appears to be unclearly written. However, surely the key word is 'latest'? Is the highlighting of the second sentence your own? If so then, without highlights, it reads as if the second sentence would apply only if the rider held averages from both leagues in the same season. It would appear to make more sense that way. As a hypothetical example, a rider might have been at the peak of his form in a Premier league side in 2011 but over the course of 5 years (a long time in a rider's career?) picked up injuries, got older (!), semi-retired to a NL side and performed less well. Why then should his earlier average apply if he is no longer the rider he was? (Casting no aspersions on Adam Roynon of course ) John Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted June 17, 2017 (edited) Hello Halifaxtiger, I agree this rule appears to be unclearly written. However, surely the key word is 'latest'? Is the highlighting of the second sentence your own? If so then, without highlights, it reads as if the second sentence would apply only if the rider held averages from both leagues in the same season. It would appear to make more sense that way. As a hypothetical example, a rider might have been at the peak of his form in a Premier league side in 2011 but over the course of 5 years (a long time in a rider's career?) picked up injuries, got older (!), semi-retired to a NL side and performed less well. Why then should his earlier average apply if he is no longer the rider he was? (Casting no aspersions on Adam Roynon of course ) John Yes, it is my highlighting. For once, I don't think it is unclear. What it says is that if a rider has an average in the Championship or NL between the years 2011-16 then his average for 2017 is either double the PL one or the NL one, whichever is higher. That is precisely the interpretation used in the Richard Hall/Birmingham decision last year, although in that case Hall's NL average was from 2004 so how they came up with that one your guess is as good as mine. Latest refers to the year it was obtained - so if a rider has a 2016 average in the Championship or NL, that is preferred to a 2015 one. It doesn't refer to the same season, and I think there are sound grounds why that is the case. The reasoning for the inclusion of both Championship and NL averages is wholly justifiable because many riders struggle to cut it in the Championship while remaining kingpins in the NL - one glance at greensheets for riders doubling up will tell you that their averages in the NL are up to 4 times as much as they are in the Championship. If Jack Parkinson-Blackburn, for example, had chosen to ride Championship only this season but dropped down in 2018, he'd come in on 4.00 if the NL rule was not there (rather than his present 11.00 plus figure). James Shanes is the other example. Calculating his present Premiership one to be an NL for 2018, he'd be on 5.60. I am sure we can both agree that would be ludicrously low for a rider of his ability. If a rider has been out of the sport (for injury or otherwise) there should be some sort of reduction allowed depending on how long that is. What we cannot have, though, is precisely what we have got : some riders getting reductions, some not and the reductions themselves being totally inexplicable, wholly unjustifiable and turning out to be ridiculously inaccurate (Paul Hurry springs to mind). Edited June 17, 2017 by Halifaxtiger 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barncooseboy 237 Posted June 24, 2017 yesterday I saw a van in Plymouth stickered up for Demon pressure washers heading towards Estover, got to be worth an approach fot some sponsorship, even if they just sponsor the under 19 championship meeting. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikebendone 39 Posted June 26, 2017 I speak for myself after a few weeks of dust in my eyes plus last Friday the loud commentary going on while they were racing! A few of us had a speedway break away at the week end,first to see Ben Barker at Berwick,what a meeting and what a performance from him (track was watered 3 times ).speeds of over 80mph!! On Sunday back down to Peterborough to see Jack Holder,once again what a performance from him,once again track watered 3 times! A first class week end of speedway this is what the sport is all about (both these riders ex devils). We meet up with supporters from each of these clubs at each meeting ,even going back into the club house bar at Berwick for a snack and drink we were made very welcome. Getting back to Plymouth speedway the lack of a main sponsor is a big factor,plus you have only got to look around down at the track sponsorship is quite thin on the ground. Plymouth needs sponsorship in what ever form it comes in,being at these other two clubs over the week end showed this. It was the best week end of speedway for me for quite a few years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
