Woffinden Or Harris

[B.V 72 1,054]

Opens a can of worms if an asset is allowed to come in for the final.

Even if all the riders were fit with Woffinden on a low 7 point average Adams might have thought about hitting Schlein with a hammer if that is what would take to get Woffy to ride in the final.Or a bad case of hemeroids etc.

 

On a serious note it would not be fair because in the same position most other clubs don't have a rider in Woffys class as an asset so the guest rule covers every team and every team is then in the same boat.

Edited October 5, 2017 by B.V 72

[semion 2,192]

Opens a can of worms if an asset is allowed to come in for the final.

Even if all the riders were fit with Woffinden on a low 7 point average Adams might have thought about hitting Schlein with a hammer if that is what would take to get Woffy to ride in the final.Or a bad case of hemeroids etc.

 

On a serious note it would not be fair because in the same position most other clubs don't have a rider in Woffys class as an asset so guest the rule covers every team and every team is then in the same boat.

Schlein a pain in the ass ? surely not

[noggin 1,388]

I don't think it's such a bad idea to allow club assets to ride instead of a guest, but certain rules should be stipulated, ie: a max of say 3 named riders, to be nominated at start of season with their averages known, have to do minimum 4 meetings to be available for the play-off.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

There aren't many seats at Monmore Green

 

 

Discussion, yes - but not through bait dangling which the Shoveller continually carries out, which your post showed many similarities to

YOU don't have to take the bait if that is what you think is.

[BWitcher 12,453]

Opens a can of worms if an asset is allowed to come in for the final.

 

 

I really don't see how it opens up any cans of worms, people really do seem to be misunderstanding things.

 

Under no circumstances should a replacement be allowed for one rider missing, however, in the case of last night ( and 1st leg) if a team is missing both of their top two riders with 100% genuine injuries (not colds, stomach upsets etc) then a replacement should be allowed, it doesn't have to be an asset. The sport actually would look more credible if that replacement was from outside the league rather than another teams rider.

 

The chances of the same situation cropping up again are extremely slim.

[stevebrum 6,820]

I don't think it's such a bad idea to allow club assets to ride instead of a guest, but certain rules should be stipulated, ie: a max of say 3 named riders, to be nominated at start of season with their averages known, have to do minimum 4 meetings to be available for the play-off.

It has some merit so long as there are some easy to enforce regulations.

Rider has to be no more than a 5% increase on the injured rider would make it fairly easy to man manage.

 

The only downfall is how would you make if fair for teams who don't have a rich asset base?

 

Seeing as numbers ones can be replaced by a guest there should be more done to ensure in a final that both teams have a fair chance.

[noggin 1,388]

It has some merit so long as there are some easy to enforce regulations.

Rider has to be no more than a 5% increase on the injured rider would make it fairly easy to man manage.

The only downfall is how would you make if fair for teams who don't have a rich asset base?

Seeing as numbers ones can be replaced by a guest there should be more done to ensure in a final that both teams have a fair chance.

Regulations would have to be Ironclad, i.e.: for genuine Injury not an out of form rider. Edited October 5, 2017 by noggin

[OldRacer 84]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does the asset system survive in a post-Bosman era?

[waiheke1 4,295]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does the asset system survive in a post-Bosman era?

I'd say purely because no one has challenged it through the legal system. If anyone did I would say it has 0% chance of continuing. It's basically a system where there is a zero hour contract scheme but restraint on working for anyone else

[stevebrum 6,820]

Regulations would have to be Ironclad, i.e.: for genuine Injury not an out of form rider.

Absolutely. Long term Injury replacement ONLY.

If a riders rides again before season end the club should face a fine.

That should stop any club trying to feign a riders injury due to poor form.

A long term injury should mean season ending injury, with no hope of riding the rest of the season. A given seeing as the play offs start late September.

Edited October 6, 2017 by stevebrum

[hyderd 1,216]

 

I really don't see how it opens up any cans of worms, people really do seem to be misunderstanding things.

 

Under no circumstances should a replacement be allowed for one rider missing, however, in the case of last night ( and 1st leg) if a team is missing both of their top two riders with 100% genuine injuries (not colds, stomach upsets etc) then a replacement should be allowed, it doesn't have to be an asset. The sport actually would look more credible if that replacement was from outside the league rather than another teams rider.

 

The chances of the same situation cropping up again are extremely slim.

 

Rules were changed for this season simply because of what happened last season, Wolves were extremely unlucky to lose their best 2 riders when they needed them most.

 

Wolves fans and all team members should feel proud of the way the team responded, losing to the best team in the league, without their best 2 riders and by only 1 point is something to be proud off.

 

Hopefully at the next AGM this issue will be looked into and a new rule will be announced to suit ALL teams equally.

[Starboy118 237]

 

I really don't see how it opens up any cans of worms, people really do seem to be misunderstanding things.

 

Under no circumstances should a replacement be allowed for one rider missing, however, in the case of last night ( and 1st leg) if a team is missing both of their top two riders with 100% genuine injuries (not colds, stomach upsets etc) then a replacement should be allowed, it doesn't have to be an asset. The sport actually would look more credible if that replacement was from outside the league rather than another teams rider.

 

The chances of the same situation cropping up again are extremely slim.

 

With regard to genuine injuries, how about a "hurty" wrist?

 

With regard to genuine injuries, how about a "hurty" wrist?

 

Perhaps a "genuine injury" could be confirmed by the existence of a medical certificate!

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

Pardon my ignorance, but how does the asset system survive in a post-Bosman era?

EXACTLY

[Trees 2,814]

Rule of the BSPA?

[ray c 2,299]

Wolves so unlucky to lose both there top two riders in the playoffs.and strangely they nearly won it if woffinden had been able to ride they would have done