Should the points limit be set to the highest team average from the previous season?

[DC2 11,150]

31 minutes ago, A ORLOV said:

But in many seasons the limit is kept and good riders that have improved are penalised because of the average they have earnt, some of which then just ride abroad and the league is weakened.  The team limit should either be increased or got rid of so that the best riders can ride here.  Maybe the answer is for a starting point then any team can keep the same riders for say 3 or 5 years and it is up to other teams to get stronger rather than weaken the successful clubs.  I want to see stronger riders here, preferably British ones so that we can then compete against the other speedway nations.    

 

That’s a good point.

Lower limits can put successful riders out of a job or cause them to ride somewhere they don’t want to.

 

[Trees 2,814]

10 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

That would be crap.

Can you imagine a sport that allows a few teams to have a massive spending advantage to buy the best players and thrash the poorer teams?

It’d never catch on.

Off to watch the football now.  

 

British football is a farce ....

[Steve0 5,517]

8 hours ago, DC2 said:

 

No points limit would allow a club to buy the title - Man City - and pretty quickly put the lesser supported clubs out of business.

Wouldn’t it?

 

No team can afford to over stretch themselves  but why restrict how a team can be built?  We have one team going down and one coming up - no need to “spread” the riders around.

Anyway - we will continue to have averages and the important thing is to get it right to encourage people to attend not to drive them away

[Bagpuss 10,763]

1 hour ago, Trees said:

British football is a farce ....

A farce maybe but we have a top division which performs in front of multiple full stadiums every week and sells its TV rights for billions!

[DC2 11,150]

2 hours ago, Steve0 said:

No team can afford to over stretch themselves  but why restrict how a team can be built?  

 

 

So that you have a fair competition.

Otherwise it will become like Premier League football. Rubbish.

 

[DC2 11,150]

1 hour ago, Bagpuss said:

A farce maybe but we have a top division which performs in front of multiple full stadiums every week and sells its TV rights for billions!

 

That’s because it’s football.  A popular game played by everyone everywhere and part of British culture.

It’s not because it’s a brilliantly run minority sport supported by 1,000 fans a match.

It’s pathetic that only a third of the clubs have a chance of winning it.

 

[Bagpuss 10,763]

If you mean the Premier League I think a third is being generous. I agree, it’s a bit of a circus which has too much money sloshing around but you can’t argue with the demand for it. 

[DC2 11,150]

12 minutes ago, Bagpuss said:

If you mean the Premier League I think a third is being generous. I agree, it’s a bit of a circus which has too much money sloshing around but you can’t argue with the demand for it. 

 

If you think the Premier League is successful and in demand, how about the UK Parliament?

It’s the Mother of all Parliaments and admired across the democratic world. It’s so popular that there are 650 participants, men, women, LGBTs, dames and knights of the realm.

They’re voted in by 30 million followers, have billion pound budgets and their every move is scrutinised everyday by the British press and they have far more coverage than Premier League football.

Errrr ...... see how number of followers, money and press coverage still doesn’t polish a turd?  

 

[Skidder1 7,632]

Although in general terms it should be good to retain riders from a winning team, one danger of setting the new points limit to that of the winners is that it might well deter clubs at the bottom of the league from carrying on in the Premiership if they believe they will not be competitive - not from any lack of riders but a lack of finance to afford the top ones.  Its a careful line to tread in order not to lose any more Premiership numbers.

Clubs who are unable to consistently perform well at home will lose fans no matter who is in their 1-7. If they get consistently hammered away that will also have an effect on home attendances and therefore income - unless they have some sort of financial benefactor. But those tend only to be a temporary solution.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Skidder1

[Grachan 7,314]

Really, a simple bit of rider control would solve everything.

Assuming Poole become Sheffield,

Troy Batchelor goes to Peterborough to replace one of their reserves.

David Bellego comes in at Swindon.

That's it. A pretty even league, which is a lot simpler than working out team averages to the decimal point.

[brianbuck 928]

I can understand the logic of this suggestion up to a point - but saying that clubs should be allowed to strengthen to the limit of the previous season's highest averaged team would totally defeat the objective of having a points limit in my opinion - this objective being to both keep even team strengths and keep costs down. Every club building up to Swindon's 46.something would huges increase costs, so despite what clubs might flannel on their websites to try and keep their supporters happy, when it comes to the crunch, I doubt that many would vote in favour of a change that would do this.

I can't say that I am in favour of a points limit (or rather the way it is continually chopped and changed) but until someone comes up with a better alternative, it has to stay.

[Chris116 755]

Maybe a scheme where riders staying at the same club have a discount of 0.5pts or a suitable %. So if a team had a total average of 45.2 and the team building average was 42.5 the teams above the team building average would get an advantage by keeping most of last year's team. 

[Aces51 2,778]

The simple fact is that regardless of how much we might want to improve the strength of teams in the PL there are not the riders or the money to allow every team to build to 46.34.

The average this year, as it is every year was close to the inevitable 42.5 at 42.43. Teams struggled last season to find replacements because all of the suitable replacements in the CL had been used and foreign riders were either unwilling to come or unaffordable. It will be impossible for every team effectively to to find riders to add 4 points to the existing average team total. Even more so if any more teams decide to join the PL. In fact increasing to 46+ will deter any others from joining.

[DC2 11,150]

4 minutes ago, brianbuck said:

I can understand the logic of this suggestion up to a point - but saying that clubs should be allowed to strengthen to the limit of the previous season's highest averaged team would totally defeat the objective of having a points limit in my opinion - this objective being to both keep even team strengths and keep costs down. Every club building up to Swindon's 46.something would huges increase costs, so despite what clubs might flannel on their websites to try and keep their supporters happy, when it comes to the crunch, I doubt that many would vote in favour of a change that would do this.

I can't say that I am in favour of a points limit (or rather the way it is continually chopped and changed) but until someone comes up with a better alternative, it has to stay.

 

That’s the point though.

Should a points limit be imposed with the aim of equalisation, or the aim of saving costs, or should it be 46.34 to allow Swindon and every other team to keep as many of their current riders as they like with the aim of encouraging rider and fan loyalty?

Which is the most important aim? Equalisation, costs or loyalty?

If costs were an issue for a club there would be nothing to force it to change its current team. It wouldn’t have to build to 46.34.

After all, the only club that wasn’t competitive this year was Peterborough. With a little bit of luck, better form from one or two riders or an injury or two for Swindon and any one of six clubs could have won it.

Does imposing a 42.5 limit every year and forcing most clubs to lose one or two riders actually reduce costs or does it reduce revenue by causing disillusioned fans to leave the sport or go less often?

 

[Skidder1 7,632]

Costs - or more importantly operating to an acceptable budget - are the most important. No money = no club so loyalty and points limits won't mean diddly squat!!