Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Super Blue

Mildenhall V Eastbourne NLPO Final 2ng leg 25-10-18@7-30pm

Recommended Posts

What Mildenhall have done is totally unacceptable, although this particular meeting should and could have been run in June. It just enhances my opinion that apart from maybe a challenge match first off, ditch the NT, get on with league fixtures which would help get over the problem of average manipulation keeping a high scoring reserve in that position for half the season by delaying league fixtures, run fixtures properly through the summer, not a 6 week break,  finishing them by the end of August or 1st week of September, call this a cut off date but can't believe fixtures wouldn't be completed if there was no NT, solving the problem we're presented with ref this fixture. Should be able to fit Ko cup matches in that time frame as well with no NT. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:40 PM, adz_mft said:

In the NL a rider can be missing for any reason.We had lads with work commitments.If they can't ride,they can't ride.It wasn't like we told Eastbourne on the day that we couldn't get a team together.They knew about it 

What about compensation for the fans who had booked hotels and travel for the fixture that got cancelled for the footy?? 

Question is, when did Eastbourne know about it ?

While all speedway fans accept that NL riders have commitments,according to the Eagles website this fixture was made on 15 October. Presumably at that time Mildenhall agreed to it and its hard to believe that they did so in the knowledge (or possibility) that they would have one rider available. 

Less than a fortnight later, however, (and after they have lost the NL Grand Final) only Marson can ride in what is essentially (to Mildenhall at least) a nothing meeting. 

Its not difficult to draw the conclusion that Mildenhall just weren't bothered (especially taking into account the fact they have done this before) and that's simply not good enough. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me there's only one question anyone need to be asking themselves , and that's eastbourne  , mildenhall or any neutral fans . if the 1st leg had been rained off so thurs' meeting had then become the 1st leg would it have still been the 'matt marson southern developement select all stars' heading to arlington on friday if they were 2 up going into the 2nd leg , i assume the rest of the teams 'work commitments' would have been the same ? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gee jay said:

for me there's only one question anyone need to be asking themselves , and that's eastbourne  , mildenhall or any neutral fans . if the 1st leg had been rained off so thurs' meeting had then become the 1st leg would it have still been the 'matt marson southern developement select all stars' heading to arlington on friday if they were 2 up going into the 2nd leg , i assume the rest of the teams 'work commitments' would have been the same ? 

What an excellent post, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the same on Mildenhall Facebook page on Friday. No one challenged the point either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all the direct result of the BSPA's nonsensical ruling that riders be allowed to miss matches "for whatever reason." Why oh why do they not think these things out before adding such rules to the book? A child of five could have worked it out that a rule like this would be blatantly abused - and so it has been - and in this particular instance in a shameless and disgusting way. A swingeing penalty is clearly needed - but won't be forthcoming since it is the BSPA's rule that riders can miss meetings as and when they wish, so no rule has been broken or even bent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STATEMENT FROM MILDENHALL SPEEDWAY - 

Statement from Mildenhall Speedway – Eastbourne v Mildenhall National League fixture Friday 26th October

With the recent comments on social media and in some areas of the press concerning the Eastbourne v Mildenhall fixture which was cancelled on Friday, the club wish to make the following statement.

The original National League fixture between the two clubs scheduled for 14th July was called off by the host club some 48 hours prior to the fixture date due to a football match! This act caused considerable costs to our travelling fan base who had booked a mini bus to travel to Eastbourne for this meeting and in some cases hotels. When we next visited Eastbourne on 21st October this fixture was in their programme as provisional, and that evening we advised Eastbourne we would be unable to confirm that date due to work commitments. We advised Eastbourne that we could most likely bring an acceptable team on the following Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday but were told this was not possible due to the fence being packed away, although the season does not end until Wednesday (it should be noted we have to put up and pack down our fence after most meetings!).

The reasons for our unavailability on the 26th October was as follows, Danny Ayres and Jordan Jenkins had suffered season ending injuries, Ryan Kinsley and Josh Bailey who are both in full time employment at garages in Norfolk were unable to get time off work and Drew Kemp had college followed by a long standing event to attend for his contracted club Ipswich. Kevin Jolly contacted 27 riders in an attempt to put together a viable team but to no avail, riders were either working, packed up for the season or did not want the meeting. An official of the SCB also tried to help with the search for riders but he was unable to source suitable riders either. We would also question why Eastbourne are allowed to have three league fixtures outstanding after the Play Off final.

It has been our understanding that a club should be offered three dates to choose from for a fixture, this has not been the case and we have been unable to obtain a satisfactory reason as to why this was not the case in this instance. It was not our intention to send a weakened team to this meeting and other dates were offered by us. It should be noted that at the annual meeting to discuss fixtures Mildenhall’s representatives put forward a strong case that fixtures should be more structured with the National trophy being completed by July, the KO Cup by August and the League (including playoffs) by the end of September. This was clearly ignored, and in all cases Mildenhall have been left awaiting their opposition in the season’s finals after completing their meetings in a timely manner. 

We are disappointed by the attacks on Mildenhall Speedway which have attempted to besmirch the clubs fine name and hope this statement clarifies the situation in a more considered manner.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think factually Eastbourne are only responsible for one of the "three league fixtures outstanding after the Play Off final" and that's the one at home against Mildenhall. The other two are away at Stoke and Buxton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brianbuck said:

This is all the direct result of the BSPA's nonsensical ruling that riders be allowed to miss matches "for whatever reason." Why oh why do they not think these things out before adding such rules to the book? A child of five could have worked it out that a rule like this would be blatantly abused - and so it has been - and in this particular instance in a shameless and disgusting way. A swingeing penalty is clearly needed - but won't be forthcoming since it is the BSPA's rule that riders can miss meetings as and when they wish, so no rule has been broken or even bent!

While I agree that the rule can - and indeed has - been abused  there has to be some leeway for NL riders who are at best semi-professional. 

The question is whether that is the case here. On the face of it, it has but I'll await the outcome of the SCB investigation first. 

What I would point out is that Mildenhall went into the play off final with Kelsey Dugard guesting for Jordan Jenkins and rr for Danny Ayres. That strongly points to the fact that there are indeed difficulties getting replacements, because there's no way they would have gone into that meeting so weakened had they been able to get other riders.

To me, the important question is whether Mildenhall agreed to the 26th fixture on the 15th. If they did, then they are culpable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Mildenhall  inferring in their statement that between the 12th July(original meeting called off) and the 21st October- there was no dialogue with Eastbourne about a date for the fixture to be re-run. Sorry but i don`t believe it !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

Are Mildenhall  inferring in their statement that between the 12th July(original meeting called off) and the 21st October- there was no dialogue with Eastbourne about a date for the fixture to be re-run. Sorry but i don`t believe it !!!!

No.They offered another date a few weeks later but we were unable to make that due to other fixtures I believe 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mildenhall can come out with a such a statement knowing exactly why their riders weren't going to be available, then why couldn't they have announced this either 2 days prior or even on the evening they hosted Eastbourne. This is just a worded piece of bullrubbish, as it is obvious it was pre-planned as a pay back for the earlier meeting back in July. And surely they would have been in touch with Eastbourne asking when they intend to re-stage it. As for their good name, they lost that years ago. Also, having a pop about Eastbourne not fulfilling their fixtures until after the cut-off, why don't they create a fuss about Coventry refusing to fulfil their NT matches.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rocket007 said:

If Mildenhall can come out with a such a statement knowing exactly why their riders weren't going to be available, then why couldn't they have announced this either 2 days prior or even on the evening they hosted Eastbourne. This is just a worded piece of bullrubbish, as it is obvious it was pre-planned as a pay back for the earlier meeting back in July. And surely they would have been in touch with Eastbourne asking when they intend to re-stage it. As for their good name, they lost that years ago. Also, having a pop about Eastbourne not fulfilling their fixtures until after the cut-off, why don't they create a fuss about Coventry refusing to fulfil their NT matches.

According to the statement, they notified Eastbourne on 21st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, racers and royals said:

Are Mildenhall  inferring in their statement that between the 12th July(original meeting called off) and the 21st October- there was no dialogue with Eastbourne about a date for the fixture to be re-run. Sorry but i don`t believe it !!!!

That's why I think the announcement on the Eagles website and facebook page on 15/10/18 about the meeting on 26/10/18 is important. 

It would be surprising if Eastbourne simply went ahead and announced a date without any consultation with Mildenhall but, if they did (and there is nothing on the Mildenhall website or facebook page), then I would say that it is Eastbourne that are most at fault here.

Edited by Halifaxtiger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

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