Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

So how come the bspa couldn't see the team didn't fit?  Does Cook have mates on the bspa?

Well done to the SCB for keeping their eye on the ball.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO its either the Lakeside calculator needs batteries, or the BSPA don't know their own rules regarding averages, either way its a mess that makes the sport of speedway look very amateurish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, screm said:

IMO its either the Lakeside calculator needs batteries, or the BSPA don't know their own rules regarding averages, either way its a mess that makes the sport of speedway look very amateurish.

Amateurish to who?  No one out side of the ever decreasing speedway family probably gives it a second thought.  But yes it's very amateurish...a word that's used alot when talking speedway..along with embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, speedway fans amaze me. One of the biggest complaints from speedway fans is the rules are too confusing, the rule book needs cutting down. So the SCB cut out a few rules and now suddenly speedway fans are in uproar. FFS.

What has happened here is the BSPA have give their interpretation of the rules to a promotion, they are wrong. The SCB have subsequently come along as said so. Its the SCB who write the rule book and are judge, jury and executioner, the BSPA are just a rtade body who advise.

Many of us "thick or biased" or biased fans (remember that quote Jon Cook? You silly twit, coming back to haunt you now eh?) pointed out months back that Lakeside were wrong. Maybe the issue here is that Jon Cook was "thick or biased"? Maybe if he was intelligent and unbiased (like, say, the fans or the Workington promotion) then he'd have know the rule was was removed.

The issue here is for years the BSPA have been allowed to do what the hell they like and the sport has been shooting itself in the foot. So the SCB (about as independent as we're likely to get) has decided to start taking action, they gave Peterborough (quite rightly) a kicking last year, despite what the toothless, useless, "thick or biased" BSPA told them. Gone are the days of the BSPA being allowed to make things up as they go along, the SCB are actually making sure the actual rules are stuck too.

In short Jon Cook was wrong, the BSPA were wrong but the SCB ARE right the the SCB are all that matters. What Cook, the BSPA, Baldyman, jenga, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv, all the Lakeside fans and I think is right/wrong is irrelevant, the SCB are the "law" when it comes to speedway, they write the rule and they control them, they say that Lakeside and Cook are wrong (rightly IMO).

It's about time that someone (the SCB as it happens) started making sure that the rules we have are being stuck to. Good for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 1:15 PM, HAMMER180 said:

they are only bored because their teams are not complete yet liam

soon as they are they will go to their threads for a moan

Ouch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SCB said:

Honestly, speedway fans amaze me. One of the biggest complaints from speedway fans is the rules are too confusing, the rule book needs cutting down. So the SCB cut out a few rules and now suddenly speedway fans are in uproar. FFS.

What has happened here is the BSPA have give their interpretation of the rules to a promotion, they are wrong. The SCB have subsequently come along as said so. Its the SCB who write the rule book and are judge, jury and executioner, the BSPA are just a rtade body who advise.

Many of us "thick or biased" or biased fans (remember that quote Jon Cook? You silly twit, coming back to haunt you now eh?) pointed out months back that Lakeside were wrong. Maybe the issue here is that Jon Cook was "thick or biased"? Maybe if he was intelligent and unbiased (like, say, the fans or the Workington promotion) then he'd have know the rule was was removed.

The issue here is for years the BSPA have been allowed to do what the hell they like and the sport has been shooting itself in the foot. So the SCB (about as independent as we're likely to get) has decided to start taking action, they gave Peterborough (quite rightly) a kicking last year, despite what the toothless, useless, "thick or biased" BSPA told them. Gone are the days of the BSPA being allowed to make things up as they go along, the SCB are actually making sure the actual rules are stuck too.

In short Jon Cook was wrong, the BSPA were wrong but the SCB ARE right the the SCB are all that matters. What Cook, the BSPA, Baldyman, jenga, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv, all the Lakeside fans and I think is right/wrong is irrelevant, the SCB are the "law" when it comes to speedway, they write the rule and they control them, they say that Lakeside and Cook are wrong (rightly IMO).

It's about time that someone (the SCB as it happens) started making sure that the rules we have are being stuck to. Good for them!

1. Just to point out and separate fact from fantasy for the umpteenth time that Cooks infamous "thick or biased" comment was not aimed at fans but at certain promoters who sat through an AGM where a "one 8 point rider" rule was discussed, voted in favour of it then said they didn't understand it when they fell foul of it.

2. No dispute about the fact that the SCB have authority over the rule book and can add or delete a rule, but that's not the point. The issue is that the AGM was in November 2017 and it has taken them until the end of January 2018 to start juggling around with it. Team building starts right after the AGM. The SCB are aware of that. How difficult can it be to go through the rule book the day after the AGM and say yes we agree or no we don't. It's entirely due to the dithering of the SCB that a team is not built as strong as it might and a young rider is out of a job. Lakeside didn't announce their team until towards the end of last year and none of this would have happened if Vatcher and Co were quicker off the blocks in rescinding the rule if that was their intention. No reason why they couldn't have sorted this within days of the AGM. Speaking of which, does anybody know if the 2018 rule book is published yet ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do not understand about this ridiculous situation is this...there has been a rule in the rule book about how to calculate a

riders average when putting a team together for a long time.  So far as I know, it has not change. So I would like to hear Jon Cook's

explanation of how he got it wrong ?  As a promoter and organiser, I admire Jon Cook. He has been in the game a long time and  often

talks sound common sense...so that is why I am curious about this silly mistake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, East End Fan said:

What I do not understand about this ridiculous situation is this...there has been a rule in the rule book about how to calculate a

riders average when putting a team together for a long time.  So far as I know, it has not change. So I would like to hear Jon Cook's

explanation of how he got it wrong ?  As a promoter and organiser, I admire Jon Cook. He has been in the game a long time and  often

talks sound common sense...so that is why I am curious about this silly mistake.  

All riders started 2017 with a Championship average - converted for those with only a Premiership figure (meaning a few were actually over 12)

The limits for both Premiership and Championship were recalibrated to accommodate revised league strengths

Any fixtures from 2016 then became redundant with rolling averages being dropped. ALL riders were then awarded brand new averages upon completion of 4 home 4 away meetings

A new conversion ratio of 1.2 was introduced for switches between the leagues during the season. At the AGM it was decided this was inaccurate and amended to 1.3

2016 averages (for those riding in Britain in 2017) were consigned to the dustbin when those decisions were made along with any rule relating to previous years team building arrangements

I dont think Cook is to blame (was he even involved in the discussions at either conference?) Looks like he has been given misguided assurances based on an out dated scenario

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As all riders were given CL aves maybe those who are returning should also be reassessed accordingly e.g. Woryna Sundstrom Sczhzpaniak ... 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said:

All riders started 2017 with a Championship average - converted for those with only a Premiership figure (meaning a few were actually over 12)

The limits for both Premiership and Championship were recalibrated to accommodate revised league strengths

Any fixtures from 2016 then became redundant with rolling averages being dropped. ALL riders were then awarded brand new averages upon completion of 4 home 4 away meetings

A new conversion ratio of 1.2 was introduced for switches between the leagues during the season. At the AGM it was decided this was inaccurate and amended to 1.3

2016 averages (for those riding in Britain in 2017) were consigned to the dustbin when those decisions were made along with any rule relating to previous years team building arrangements

I dont think Cook is to blame (was he even involved in the discussions at either conference?) Looks like he has been given misguided assurances based on an out dated scenario

YES! Someone has posted about what I have been saying for this last5 or 6 weeks in that once you have achieved an average in 2017, everything else is irrelevant(racing in different leagues.

I also pointed out that riders with older than a 2016 average ie Musielak  should have NEVER used an old average but assessed on current form.

I also agree with 2nd bendbeerhut in that those riders should have reassessed averages.

 

There have been a few issues which were not thought out thoroughly at the AGM, but Rome was not built in a day, so we now have to go with what we have got & hope that Supplementary Rules, made by the SCB, that will come along in 2018, are for the benefit of British Speedway & not individual clubs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27 January 2018 at 6:53 PM, Baldyman said:

Well done to the SCB for keeping their eye on the ball.  

Yes, almost 3 months after the BSPA release averages to start building teams with, the SCB have spotted 2 mistakes!  On the ball that lot(!)

Surely these organisations agree on the averages before team building takes place?!  Are the SCB only now checking the averages that teams are using for riders?  If so, why so late?!!  Isn't their job to govern the BSPA and insure things are done correctly?  Not briefly check what is going on every few months!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the saying goes....

Better late than never

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was involved, you submitted your team when it was complete and waited till the BSPA looked at them near the start of the season when anomolies were raised for solution. I don't think the SCB looked at them, but the BSPA Office manager gave the nod it was accepted. Sounds like the SCB are now acting in the vacuum of not having an independant adjudicator which the sport can't really afford, especially with all the extra clerical work and other overheads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the cheats get caught or mistakes are corrected..then anytime is a good time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Chris Louis get caught ?:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy