waiheke1 4,295 Posted October 20, 2017 Plus at the time of signing Musielak, the points building limit had dropped to 42 points rather than the original 50 point limit built to which took account of the 1.2 multiplier to bring the league's averages into line. For example, at the time of signing Musielak, Poole had Zengota in their declared 1-7 on his 2016 7.79 average. They didn't have any wiggle room to change things with a 42 point limit, but Swindon did and made the most of it. The initial multiplier was 1.4 not 1.2. Thats why it was a farce that no multiplier applies to Musielak (And any other rider introduced to the league later in the season). If the initial multiplier was 1.2 there would have been no issue with the multiplier being removed when the limit dripped Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,314 Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) I've said for years now that with the play offs in place the best way to win them is by losing early doors thus reducing the team average then strengthen back up before reverting to true form and riding off into the sunset. If you can take advantage of any loop holes left by the thicko's at the BSPA then all the better. Another way might have been to ride well, increase the team average, get Sedgman up to a decent average, then, after sacking him, sign Musielak instead of Tungate. The loophole was Musielak's average. Belle Vue missed it. It's often been raised as an issue in the past that teams such as Poole have found it easier to strengthen when doing well duebto higher averages. Edited October 21, 2017 by grachan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DC2 11,150 Posted October 21, 2017 Musielak's average was no more of a loophole than any other unsigned rider! Other clubs could have signed him, but didn't. He could have ridden poorly, but didn't. Hindsight is quite wonderful at identifying bargain riders and making other fans feel aggrieved! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,189 Posted October 21, 2017 I agree about the loophole. The sooner theres an all inclusive list of available rides and what average they come in on the better. It wouldnt then be down to who gets tipped the wink or more importantly those that get quietly ushered away from such advantageous loopholes. Loopholes, why have them anyway in a sporting contest? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan_Jones 1,005 Posted October 21, 2017 Where's the loophole in a rider being available and having an average? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,314 Posted October 21, 2017 Where's the loophole in a rider being available and having an average? By loophole, I meant his average was an old average obtained in a league before the multiplier was added in 2017. But he was there for anyone to sign if they wanted him. He was probably signed on the basis that if he rode to his average it would plug the gap in Swindon's team. I don't think many people expected him to do as well as he did. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noggin 1,388 Posted October 21, 2017 All teams made changes, Swindon's worked, Rye nearly worked, that's the risk you take if you wish to be successful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,314 Posted October 21, 2017 All teams made changes, Swindon's worked, Rye nearly worked, that's the risk you take if you wish to be successful. Swindon actually made less changes than anyone apart from Belle Vue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,189 Posted October 21, 2017 Makes you wonder why there has been pages and pages about wrong average, x1.2, x1.4, no increase, assessed etc, etc. Fact is with a lack of clarity especially on a none complicated subject as this you have to think why it is done this way and who can and cant benefit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
noggin 1,388 Posted October 21, 2017 Swindon actually made less changes than anyone apart from Belle Vue. Exactly, and it's not like we signed a gp ringer. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A ORLOV 8,628 Posted October 21, 2017 Makes you wonder why there has been pages and pages about wrong average, x1.2, x1.4, no increase, assessed etc, etc. Fact is with a lack of clarity especially on a none complicated subject as this you have to think why it is done this way and who can and cant benefit? If the bspa make things so complicated it is no surprise that riders slip through the net or one or two very sharp managers can sign a rider at a good average. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,189 Posted October 21, 2017 Why didnt you sign him at the beginning of the year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,314 Posted October 21, 2017 Why didnt you sign him at the beginning of the year? Because he would have been on an average of about 6.5. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,189 Posted October 21, 2017 I think this is where I came in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites