Lions v Glasgow 17th August

[Gazc 7,087]

Jenga on another Glasgow thread should have done a double.

[Paulco 7,072]

10 hours ago, Gazc said:

Jenga on another Glasgow thread should have done a double.

Poor bloke is obsessed 

[Big Al 708]

16 hours ago, stevethelion said:

If it's 2 guests, surely it'll be Masters & Palm Toft, whose average is exactly the same as Vissing (6.80). That won't weaken Glasgow at all ( probably strengths them, if anything). Masters already has a 15pt max. at BP a couple of weeks ago & Palm Toft usually goes well at BP & will have ridden there many more times than Vissing, who I can't recall seeing there recently.

Completely and utterly absurd situation, this is the sort of thing which makes the sport a shambles and laughing stock. Giving these riders bans instead of fining them from earnings was so obviously going to create these issues, I hope the goons who made the decisions realise what they have done, but I doubt it somehow.

[HGould 2,213]

7 minutes ago, Big Al said:

Completely and utterly absurd situation, this is the sort of thing which makes the sport a shambles and laughing stock. Giving these riders bans instead of fining them from earnings was so obviously going to create these issues, I hope the goons who made the decisions realise what they have done, but I doubt it somehow.

agreed 100%

If Cook had biggest ban and biggest earner should have fined him £5000 and ban until paid

If Kennett and Vissing has same ban and probably similar earners should have fined them £3000 and ban until paid.

No Guest facility either.

That's fair to the other 9 Teams in the League.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by HGould
got names right

[GiveusaB 1,128]

Unattached NL rider should be their only option to replace a banned rider ?

To think that  a 'punishment' makes a team stronger really is the most laughable sports product going!

[Big Al 708]

1 hour ago, GiveusaB said:

Unattached NL rider should be their only option to replace a banned rider ?

To think that  a 'punishment' makes a team stronger really is the most laughable sports product going!

I think some balance and sanity would mean either r/r, or a replacement rider with an average 50% lower than the "banned" rider, but really this shouldn't have come about at all if the matter had been dealt with properly. But probably there are no rules in place to properly cater for this situation I thought there was a resolve by BSPA to reduce the number of guests riders, well that seems to have been scrapped to judge by this fiasco.

[Solidmango 188]

4 minutes ago, GiveusaB said:

Unattached NL rider should be their only option to replace a banned rider ?

To think that  a 'punishment' makes a team stronger really is the most laughable sports product going!

In football you wouldn’t have an unattached youth player take the place of your star man would you?! 

 

Yes the guest situation isn’t ideal but it does mean fans still see a competitive fixture, unfortunately this country doesn’t have the privilege of having squads where a suspension/injury to one rider means another from that squad take his place. 

 

This is not a new rule re suspensions, it has been the case for years in this country. 

[jenga 2,998]

1 hour ago, HGould said:

agreed 100%

If Cook had biggest ban and biggest earner should have fined him £5000 and ban until paid

If Kennett and Vissing has same ban and probably similar earners should have fined them £3000 and ban until paid.

No Guest facility either.

That's fair to the other 9 Teams in the League.

 

i remember Danny Bird getting a ban from racing . i am not too sure , but his fine was also quite large . Danny could have returned to racing when his fine was paid .

i dont think Danny paid his fine and walked away from speedway . meetings NOT days is the fairer way of doing things . 

is Shrek in charge of the BSPA/SCB ?

 

[Gavan 5,049]

1 hour ago, GiveusaB said:

Unattached NL rider should be their only option to replace a banned rider ?

To think that  a 'punishment' makes a team stronger really is the most laughable sports product going!

Glasgow will never be stronger going into any meeting without Cook and i would hazard a guess that Eastbourne would be the same without Kennett

So in reality its the replacement for Vissing that could be the only issue

[1 valve 558]

2 hours ago, GiveusaB said:

Unattached NL rider should be their only option to replace a banned rider ?

To think that  a 'punishment' makes a team stronger really is the most laughable sports product going!

Masters would be a great replacement for Cook but most probably not better as both would be fancied to go through the card on present form. Whoever comes into the team for Vissing may be better than him around BP but the Lions top order should be able to cope with that particular threat given they have on the whole done so with every other visiting rider this season. So with no reason for excuses from either team for this match up  the meeting should be good and competitive to say the least with only the three riders paying the price (no meeting no pay) for their unacceptable behavour at Eastbourne , which is as it should be.

Edited August 13, 2019 by 1 valve

[Robbobee 144]

May well be Sam Masters as a guest for Craig Cook - as you say not much difference as both are pretty nigh unbeatable at Beaumont Park anyways .... guest for Vissing will be interesting unless r/r ?  Can't be Palm Toft as his average is too high ( has to be 6.80 less 5% = 6.46 max )  Lasse Bjerre just too high at 6.47  .... who else ?

 

 

[Solidmango 188]

15 minutes ago, Robbobee said:

May well be Sam Masters as a guest for Craig Cook - as you say not much difference as both are pretty nigh unbeatable at Beaumont Park anyways .... guest for Vissing will be interesting unless r/r ?  Can't be Palm Toft as his average is too high ( has to be 6.80 less 5% = 6.46 max )  Lasse Bjerre just too high at 6.47  .... who else ?

 

 

Nope, MPT has the same average as Vissing so that is fine. At home Glasgow can have a guest with an average of 6.8 plus 5%

[Robbobee 144]

2 hours ago, Solidmango said:

Nope, MPT has the same average as Vissing so that is fine. At home Glasgow can have a guest with an average of 6.8 plus 5%

Apologies - didn't realise that was the case ....

[Diamondlil 33]

7 hours ago, Big Al said:

Completely and utterly absurd situation, this is the sort of thing which makes the sport a shambles and laughing stock. Giving these riders bans instead of fining them from earnings was so obviously going to create these issues, I hope the goons who made the decisions realise what they have done, but I doubt it somehow.

Handing out fines won’t work  as riders followers/fans usually have collections and pay their fines for them. 

[Big Al 708]

5 hours ago, Diamondlil said:

Handing out fines won’t work  as riders followers/fans usually have collections and pay their fines for them. 

So are you really saying these "backers" would chip in to make up riders' reduction/ loss of earnings over a number of meetings, if that were to be the sanction instead of a ban?