Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted July 21, 2017 Final word from me on Roynon's average : heard it from two sources that Peter Morrish has admitted he made a 'mistake'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Islander15 1,062 Posted July 21, 2017 Final word from me on Roynon's average : heard it from two sources that Peter Morrish has admitted he made a 'mistake'. He did. It should never have happened in the first place and how no other clubs complained for it to be officially picked up on is strange. Or they did and it fell on deaf ears. But now every other club should be allowed to build their team an extra 0.2 more (or whatever the difference in Roynon's figures are). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonnybegood 257 Posted July 21, 2017 He did. It should never have happened in the first place and how no other clubs complained for it to be officially picked up on is strange. Or they did and it fell on deaf ears. But now every other club should be allowed to build their team an extra 0.2 more (or whatever the difference in Roynon's figures are). Good point guys , adams actual average is 9.60 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) He did. It should never have happened in the first place and how no other clubs complained for it to be officially picked up on is strange. Or they did and it fell on deaf ears. But now every other club should be allowed to build their team an extra 0.2 more (or whatever the difference in Roynon's figures are). They did. Deaf ears I am reliably informed, although 'Shut Up' would probably be more accurate. Good point guys , adams actual average is 9.60 Now, it is indeed. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the correct average as per the SCB rulebook when he was brought in. Had that been applied, Plymouth would have been about 1.4 over the limit. Edited July 21, 2017 by Halifaxtiger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandelion 775 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) What IS the conversion? Because I thought it was whatever his CL average is... Multiplied by 2... Which is 5.12 x 2, which is 10.24, which is the average he came in on? Thanks in advance for any explanations Edited July 21, 2017 by Dandelion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Islander15 1,062 Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) They did. Deaf ears I am reliably informed, although 'Shut Up' would probably be more accurate. Now, it is indeed. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the correct average as per the SCB rulebook when he was brought in. Had that been applied, Plymouth would have been about 1.4 over the limit. I can believe it was deaf ears. 1.4! That's more than I remembered tbh. It's a massive difference in speedway terms. What IS the conversion? Because I thought it was whatever his CL average is... Multiplied by 2... Which is 5.12 x 2, which is 10.24, which is the average he came in on? Thanks in advance for any explanations It's Championship average x 2 or current NL average from 2012 onwards, whichever is higher. Edited July 21, 2017 by Islander15 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandelion 775 Posted July 21, 2017 I can believe it was deaf ears. 1.4! That's more than I remembered tbh. It's a massive difference in speedway terms. It's Championship average x 2 or current NL average from 2012 onwards, whichever is higher. Thanks for the information Never knew the 2012 bit... Is that a new rule? Or what stopped Richard Hall riding last year? Either way, I'm just glad to see Roynon get a team place... Always been one of my favourite speedway riders... All his injuries and bad luck and he's still going... Hats off How many meetings did Adam do in 2012? Was it enough for a 'proper average'? I dunno Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Islander15 1,062 Posted July 21, 2017 Thanks for the information Never knew the 2012 bit... Is that a new rule? Or what stopped Richard Hall riding last year? Either way, I'm just glad to see Roynon get a team place... Always been one of my favourite speedway riders... All his injuries and bad luck and he's still going... Hats off How many meetings did Adam do in 2012? Was it enough for a 'proper average'? I dunno Yeah it's always been there. Just they ignored it for Hall. The rules said Hall was eligible for Birmingham but that's another story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dandelion 775 Posted July 22, 2017 Yeah it's always been there. Just they ignored it for Hall. The rules said Hall was eligible for Birmingham but that's another story. Hmmmmm, strange... Maybe someone has it out for Birmingham or Hall Think he would make a good addition to the league, an older/more experienced 'captain' kind of figure... Maybe with a bit on an anger problem, but that could be controlled... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) Hmmmmm, strange... Maybe someone has it out for Birmingham or Hall Think he would make a good addition to the league, an older/more experienced 'captain' kind of figure... Maybe with a bit on an anger problem, but that could be controlled... It seems to me that where the NL is concerned the rulebook can be roundly ignored or bent beyond reason on occasion to the benefit or detriment of one club and the benefit or detriment of all the others. I can only put that down to a culture of jealousy, spite and one-upmanship with a weak decision maker being bullied or influenced by interested promotions. I can believe that the Roynon decision was a mistake, but to my knowledge it was pointed out by others who were, basically, told to mind their own business. The recent history of the NL is littered with examples of bent, crooked and, within the terms of the SCB rulebook, illegal decisions. What's more any discretion that is allowed is applied wildly, inconsistently and without precedent or reason. Even when rules are correctly used they can be subject to criticism by promotions. Birmingham's attempted signing of Hall was legal, but it was blocked. Cameron Heeps did not fit the qualifying criteria for riding in the NL but was given permission to do so. I can remember a certain promoter expressing extreme displeasure about Eastbourne's signing of Daniel Spiller, but it was entirely within the relevant criteria. This season, we have had the Roynon decision and the recent one to grade Matt Marson as a 5.00 when that figure doesn't even exist in regulations. Pure speculation on my part, but I believe that was overturned only when legal action was threatened (given the guarantees given to the Marson family and the specific rule, there was only one way a court decision would go) . The one that tops the cake, though, is Paul Hurry's average reduction. I have been told that one club asked after Hurry last season and two more did so during the winter. All were told an average of excess of 10.50 (they were all told different figures). Somehow, Lakeside got him on about 3 points less than that, a truly extraordinary reduction that simply cannot be justified in anyway whatsoever. What's even worse, though, is the random and utterly inconsistent way that decisions are made. Some get advantages, some don't. The real point is a ruling can make or break a club as it can significantly affect on track success and financial security off it. It simply has to be the case that this cycle of corruption is broken, the completely discredited current system abandoned and its co-ordinator replaced and teams are dealt with on the basis of legality, fairness and precedent. Edited July 22, 2017 by Halifaxtiger 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gazzac 1,013 Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) Spot on post Halifaxtiger,you've said what most of us thought! Edited July 22, 2017 by gazzac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
East End Fan 426 Posted July 22, 2017 Halifax Tiger...I have to say that you seem very knowledgeable and any right thinking follower would have to agree everything you have said. What you have not mentioned is the basic illegality of the rule imposed on the league by the BSPA so that contracts cannot be owned or riders contracts able to be sold at whatever the going rate is. It is truly amazing that this has been allowed to continue almost without complaint so far as I can see. There is also the unfairness of priority of use when a doubling up rider has a clash of fixtures. The basic rule on this, as I understand it, was changed only a few short years ago to take the priority from the lower club to the upper club. In my view a detrimental step as a doubling up rider MUST be more important to the lower club, so it makes sense for them to have priority. Can anyone throw any light on when or how this got changed ? Seems to me that over the years, the politics of speedway have become more and more complicated and unfair while the actual racing that we see seems to get better and better ! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gee jay 234 Posted July 23, 2017 blimey HT , that's what is known as a damning report . not much to argue with either. you might add BWD as well . as far as i remember at least 3 teams incl kent and birmingham had questioned his average but were told no that's his average before the dugards proved to them they were wrong which prompted the rule change for the following season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noaksey 343 Posted July 23, 2017 The NL requires a management committee rather than 1 man administering everything Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete cc 322 Posted July 24, 2017 Didn't bwd reply on here saying how proud he was to be British.lots of lies told that day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
