enotian

Exactly why you can't use averages for team building, in that scenario. Wouldn't Woffinden come back in on his previous top division average which was about 7.50 or something ridiculously low. So even if riders did drop points you'd have the likes of Sam Masters on a higher average than him. If they can attract the GP stars back, even if Poland allow it, just grade them. They're already doing it with rising stars. Of course a riders average would play a part in defining the grade but averages to 2 decimal places just aren't accurate enough to rank individual riders. They're only even an indication

where you conjuring the extra higher averaged riders from then? So that all teams can have a team average of 45 points? Otherwise you'll have some teams averaging 45 points whilst others average maybe 39 points, if you're building from the existing pool of riders.

Didn't it have something to do with riders manipulating lower averages from the first six matches of the following season such that a 2.00 rider could then be replaced by a 5.00 as the other six riders had collectively dropped 3 points between them, for example. As at the start of a new season the first set of new averages was based entirely on that seasons scores. Making it easy for a 9 pointer to 'take it easy' over the first six matches and lower their average before miraculously rediscovering their form and finishing the season as a 9 pointer. By introducing rolling averages it was then much more difficult for a rider to reduce their average at the start of the season (or at any time) because they'd need to 'take it easy' over 20 matches which is difficult when points = money. I've really no idea why they'd reduce this to 10 matches? That's worse than pre rolling averages. At least then a riders starting average for the following season was based on their performance across the whole of the last season, in which there used to be plenty of matches. Aside from manipulating lower averages for the start of the following season a team guaranteed a play off spot could actually manipulate their averages to have a stronger reserve for the play offs. Say Belle Vue have a commanding lead in the PL with even six matches to go. Could Charles Wright, for example, have six bad matches and find himself at reserve for the play offs?

well that'll give plenty of riders the opportunity to reduce their average to grab those lucrative Poole and Glasgow contracts in 2023 would love to hear the rationale behind this.

no I have no problem with the play offs. my point is if you only have six teams good enough to make those play offs then why bother with the league competition. There's little or no Jeopardy. Especially if the league competition features numerous massive home wins of little or no entertainment value. I don't follow Poland and Sweden closely enough to know if they have the same problem of uncompetitive teams but some of the Extraliga matches I've watched seem evenly matched.

Heat 15 does count in a riders average. It's just that the riders average is based on 4 rides not 5. i.e. if you score 15 from five every match your average is 12.00 not 15.00. Therefore based on 4 rides each for seven riders the total team average is based on 14 heats. Of which 6 points are available so if you want equal team strengths 42.00 is the magic number. However, I do agree that the averages are a farce. They are certainly not accurate to two decimal places to suitably rank riders in order or ability. On the basis that all riders don't meet each of their opponents an equal amount of times and any rider can benefit from an opponents misfortune. They can only be used as a guide to ranking riders of similar ability.

two teams that I think were expelled from the league for fielding under strength teams. as a result of the league expanding too much due to its success. so yes it wasn't perfect and there'll always be the chance that some teams will be rubbish. I remember Newcastle signing Neil Evitts, former British Champion, as #1 and he was garbage, it can happen. But in divisions of so few teams where the top six make the play offs if you have a couple of teams which aren't competitive it all becomes a bit academic. We can probably name the top 7 in this years CL already. Poole, Leicester and Glasgow have probably done enough to qualify already. To the point that we might just as well skip to the play offs.

Wow. Massive mistake if they have. It's early days for Discovery Sports but they've identified that the product is great but only if you have great riders and they don't want to leave that to chance. Hence SGP2, 3 and 4. And of course that's more content to fill their schedules. You'd imagine they'd want a structure to aid that strategy which would be exactly what is required in this country. I genuinely don't know but do any promoters make money from speedway operations at present? I thought it was basically a vanity project for small businessmen or enthusiast's? Which begs the question, why wouldn't they let someone else take the strain. Especially as I imagine their small businesses are under pressure as it is without having to worry about how much the best available guest wants as a guarantee!!

Agree. And those youngsters progress is totally being stifled by the structure. Of those mentioned only Brennan and Gilkes looked to have made progress this season. The rest are being drained of confidence. As soon as they progress from a CL reserve birth they're up against established riders with, most likely, bigger budgets and far greater experience. I do think the young kids need to earn success but at present it's like putting the winner of the Red Bull Rookies straight into MotoGP, on the same bike. Those are a great crop of talented youngsters but yet again we have zero riders in SGP2 (World U21) so the system clearly isn't aiding their progression. There also seems to be some great talent at 250cc level. Let's hope there's a career path for them before they become disinterested due to lack of opportunity.

not at the minute.

it's definitely a risk. I do think star names will attract more supporters but are there really any riders in the current CL which would generate that interest? Not for me. Seen them all on many occasions. The 2nd tier was always about new riders progressing. Way back it was young Brits and Antipodeans then in later years Europeans making their way to become World stars. The CL no longer attracts as many young overseas riders so making opportunities for young Brits who might progress to become stars would be an obvious way forward. It happened organically in the 70's and 80's as the entry to the sport was much easier than it is now. Where youngsters are competing with riders on much bigger budgets. Hopefully SGP4 will help to increase the number of youngsters entering the sport at grass roots. Provided the cost base reduces, which it should without the double uppers, I think you could have lower crowd levels and still have a sustainable business.

And that's the dilemma. Pandora's box was opened and now nobody can close it. I would say you could reduce the standard of the 2nd tier such that the costs are reduced to make it possible to reduce admission fees and use it as a marketing tool to attract lapsed supporters or retain those struggling in the current climate. The 2nd Tier should be about developing young British riders (who could double up to increase their track time) so they have the experience of leading a team against more experienced riders who only ride in the UK and don't double up. But that's your problem. What happens to the current double up riders? Who subsidises their income if they no longer have 2nd Tier matches? It would seem obvious that they'll ask for more. Can the top tier afford that? I doubt it. So how do you replace the number of matches the current double uppers earn from?

did they give any reason for making the change? presumably averages for the start of 2023 won't be based on those last 10 matches and it's just for riding order heading into October??

It appears that the permission expired on 3 July 1981 and a new planning application was granted on 10 July 1981. It says the expiry date is Not available. Which would suggest there isn't one. So it would appear to have been another cock and bull story by various promoters (not sure if the current promotion have used it tbf) to get punters to fork out to watch rubbish on the premise of use it or lose it, the well established marketing technique. All rather academic anyway as there's no alternative promotion waiting in the wings.

Isn't that the point though. Neither of us know what the permission to operate speedway at Newcastle is. Other than Newcastle supporters have been told numerous times that any break in the sport will result in the end of speedway at Brough as a new planning permission is unlikely to be granted for the sport to return to Brough. Hence the "farewell track walk" at the end of last season when the sport was thought to be lost. Now planning permission might be a clumsy use of terminology but meaning a council approved permission to operate motorsports at Brough Park. Now we can speculate that those statements from various promotions are untrue but I'm only quoting what has been stated. My comment re Brandon was a question so not a misunderstanding (i only have a passing interest) which @noaksy has cleared up. So is planning for football stadiums given ad infinitum? I don't think St James' Park is but it's council land with something like a 200 year lease to the football club such that it doesn't matter. Or could I for example demand that the flats built on Highbury are knocked down because there is planning permission to play football at that location? I'm guessing the planning permissions are changed to suit the desired outcome, if acceptable of course. Plenty of former speedway tracks now under housing estates. West Ham, Long Eaton Middlesbrough is a college I think? So nothing seems to be forever.

existing one

I don't think he is. I currently have planning permission for a rail depot in North Tyneside. It is time bound and I need to decide whether or not to apply to extend it. It should be academic as the site is pristine but I still have to do it. If I want to continue to operate the site. Likewise you can't just run a sporting event because there was a previous planning permission to do so. Isn't that why the potential new Coventry promotion/owners have had to apply for planning even though it's the exact same site the speedway previously operated on? I know they'll need to do some construction which isn't the same situation as Newcastle but they'll still need permission to operate motorsports there. That's the reality as far as I'm aware. Unless you can provide contrary evidence?

We've constantly been told over the last 20 years or so that if speedway ends at Brough Park for any period of time (excluding off season of course) then anyone wanting to re-start the Diamonds would need to apply for permission to operate a speedway team at the venue. And that application is likely to be turned down. Given the proximity to housing I would imagine. If someone takes over from Rob Grant and there is no break then that wouldn't be the case. But there is nobody waiting in the wings.

I posted on the Eastbourne thread about what I think the two tier structure should look like but I don't think Newcastle promoters could influence that. The majority seem happy that they have Chris Harris and Scott Nicholls available to them and I'm sure those riders and the rest are more than happy with being able to double up. One thing I have bleated on about to the point of boring myself is that there should have been a restriction on the number of 8.00+ riders to one per team. It was obvious there weren't enough to go around and the heat format is such that you can't compete without one. The promoters should have lobbied for that change at least. The richest teams would still be at the top of the table (as they'd sign the best 7.00 riders but at least the teams would have had more of a chance of being more evenly matched and the product better as a result.

You misunderstand. It won't be up to the speedway authorities. Any new owner is unlikely to get planning permission to run motorsports at Brough Park from the local authorities. You weren't to know this. Finding another site would be ideal but that's probably harder to achieve without any money to make it happen and you still need permissions from local authorities. As you say the sport can't afford to lose any more clubs but the BSPL have done their best to achieve just that. I chucked the towel in at the end of 2019, i.e. pre Rob Grant era as to be honest the level of entertainment wasn't worth the money and the meetings seemed to take forever for what is essentially 15 minutes of action. It's an extreme sport and it's presented like crown green bowls from the 70's. The Brough track doesn't suit the modern bikes/riders and Sunday only meetings mean the Diamonds have zero chance of putting together a decent team at the current CL level. A lower standard hybrid of CL and NDL would be ideal for the Diamonds where most riders are UK based. Absolutely crazy the the sport in this country only had one meeting on a Sunday in May. I think that makes it two meetings all weekend (excluding NDL and Friday nights). Totally bonkers imo not to run fixtures when most people have their leisure time. But it would appear everyone in the CL would prefer to subsidise the PL by offering their riders part time work.

What would Kelv's dirtometer have revealed???? Looks like they've discovered part of Hadrian's Wall!!!

you're generous. they appeared to be there as spectators for most of the 90 mins. I didn't see many of them actually playing

have you got their number? We should give them a call. You are not wrong about embarrassing though. The trouble is that once the Diamonds close there is every chance they'll not be allowed to return. Which at this point might be a good thing but a massive shame.

Wasn't the Newcastle license suspended last season due to track conditions? Until expert help was secured. If I recall at one point the bends were altered to make them wider to allow more passing. So that pic could very well be the kerb from the 20's never mind 70's. Surely should have been removed properly when that work was done? Imagine dysfunctional behaviour from a promoter desperate at any cost for home wins. Someone has created a monster. This won't end well.

I was thinking the same. I would imagine those concessions are a massive part of the match day income. So either Granty is benevolent or hasn't a clue about his customer base. Or maybe the crowd just look older than they actually are after years of terrible Diamonds teams.