Authorised

I never said it involved money, just that stevebrum appears to think they were not lined up for PL. It was a fact that they were. I agree with BWitcher tho.....

Well other than the FACT they were announced in the Premier League after the AGM, and in the Cup draw. Cannot be bothered looking for the link or seeing if the BSPA have removed it, but it has been covered plenty of times already. If Birmingham had declared an upward movement at that point, why not KL? Why not tell the PL to keep them out of the draw? Etc........ Something like this.... ELITE LEAGUE Now includes Birmingham who have exchanged league membership with Ipswich, league numbers are not finalised consequently fixture planning has been deferred. ----------- PREMIER LEAGUE PREMIER LEAGUE KO CUP DRAW Scunthorpe v Ipswich, Sheffield v Edinburgh, Redcar v Workington, Somerset v Kings Lynn, Rye House v Newcastle, Leicester v Glasgow. 1st Round byes - Berwick and Newport.

I notice Steve is ignoring your post.....good post imo. It is certainly ON topic.

The only angry ones appear to be Steven Shovlar and Eastern Wolf, with sporadic fire from others. Everyone needs to relax and have a happy Christmas! I like the conspiracy theory that someone posted.....effectively it was all a stitch up to get others into the EL, and Tsunami suggestions about Plymouth....

I am enjoying the meltdown that some fans are going through....SS and Eastern Wolf, great entertainment. First, you say that Coventry have to go to the tapes under agreed rules, we have weeks of "democracy" debates. A couple of non descript press releases, and they are speculating on what compromise has been made. Oh boy! What a turn around, the biggest since, well, Poole lost the title. Come on, we all know that the BSPA was politically motivated decision making, the pre AGM was a farce with rules agreed then backed down from, and Sandhu and Frost MUST have had a valid reason to contest the issue. It says far more about the BSPA and their rule making, than it does Sandhu and Frost. Fair play to someone standing up to the BSPA. As I have said, compromise was the weaker outcome. I await how the cracks will be covered up for 2011 and future AGMs.

Not picking on you, Steve0, but the old "it was a democratic vote" doesn´t work, if it is against the laws of the land. I have posted other examples elsewhere, and am led to believe that is what the legal challenge is about, so lets wait for that the resolve before claiming that the BSPA is a democracy. Barrow Boy is right. LadyLuck, I completely agree with your other post that compromise would be bad for the BSPA. It has to go one way or another. However, we all residents of the UK agree to live here, but not all vote for the party in government. Right, these rules could probably be agreed, but not in line with reducing team building limits (it is a reduction end 2010 averages vs. start 2011). A 60% conversion is fair. Last season, I was crying out for teams to sign up PL riders. When the points limit is so low, these riders and asssessed riders become the game changers that win you the league. The only reason that PL converters and assessed riders HAVE become so crucial is that the EL is weaker, they can make more of an impact, increased averages win you leagues. What I am interested in seeing is by changing the conversion, more riders are now double-DOWNING, causing an over supply of 2nd and 3rd heat leaders in PL. I think these riders are going to decide their championship. Lets face it, Bridger could double down if he gave Poland a miss. That would be a game changer in the PL this season, interested in seeing the impact of Barker, Risager etc...

These new rules? What are they again? The vote was 5-4 if you believe Ronnie Russell, so do not try and spin it into 8-1. That is like saying 100% of UK are behind a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, even though 0% voted for that particular outcome.

You have said 8 to 1 at least 4 times.....where is the evidence? Pawlicki goes back to 4.00, keep the points limit for the season at the ridiculous low, PL coversion back to 50%. Total organisational review including rule book, finances and media contracts. Ideal Compromise for all.

Any form of compromise will show a weakness to the BSPA. Even Shovlar sees that. What is a "complete overhaul" of a management structure anyway? Replace old with new on the MC. Surely it is the rules and t´s and c´s that need updating?

A compromise is a very difficult and uncomfortable position for all involved. I remember philfromcov´s post, several weeks ago now, it means that we limp on to the next big fall out. Compromise could be seen as weakness from the BSPA, and another promoter may attempt the same in future. Compromise would also have to feature some drastic review of decision making before the next AGM to prevent this from ever happening again. Hopefully, Jon Cook´s idea of an independent body may be added into the mix.

Why would this be?

Firstly, The Poll. Such a provocative title. Do I support a law suit? What law suit? What is the wording behind it? On what technicalities? Is it employment, business or competition?? Please let me know and only then will I vote. Steven, you should have phrased, do you support Coventry and Peterborough´s walkout of BSPA new set of rules because, well, for a start, we KNOW that actually happened whereas we do not know anything about lawsuits. Instead you isolate Coventry. Funny, I am not going to participate in the poll.....wouldn´t give it any creditability. Second, I do not know why fans are getting their knickers twisted about Poole signing foreigned assessed riders, as soon as the regs were written, I said that the only way you can fill the bottom of the team is by foreign assessed riders. Much better than a 6pt PL rider stepping up, and with such a low limit, it is necessary. These 4pt riders are gold dust, and as such will be paid like heat leaders. Poole and the BSPA certainly know how not to encourage British talent. I expect 2 assessed riders for Poole, then the loophole to be closed next winter. Trust me, it will happen.

I take it you would also expect Coventry to do the same with Scott Nicholls as he would also be a loan fee expense? I guess the issue is around assets. I agree with most posts though, loan fees dwindle into small % compared to what the riders will expect to be paid.

Some great memories of the 2010 season......hmmmm, go to the forum and stir up some bad feelings about Coventry! Credit to John Leslie.

I don't agree with resting riders, but if it is in the rulebook, then it is a rule, it might not be sporting which I like to see, but sporting is not necessarily written rules, is it???? After all, I am a paying fan, I want to see the best 14 riders on show (no r/r's, guests or PL riders filling in, riders being wrapped in cotton wool), thats what I call sporting. This is completely contradicted by the rule book. In 5 or 10 years time, people will forget about how this title was won, about your complaints. It will just be a line in history which say Coventry win in 2010. Poole's 2010 dream team will be a legacy for their failings, rather than Coventry's success. Everytime a team goes away at the top, Pearson will wail, "Remember Poole making a mess of it in 2010". Regardless, the loss of the title should be blamed on Ward, Holder and King Artur. Can you point me in the direction of your match report which I so keenly follow throughout the course of the season so I can see what you made of them? How do you plan your team building with the averages you have? Would you like KK back - after all, he won a title y'know? Concentrate on Poole.

As a Coventry fan who cried foul last season at Poole, it would be wrong for me to defend Covenntry's action. I am still annoyed about Jordan Frampton's average; he shouldn't have been dragged into it. I have a problem with Alun Rossiter 'wrapping in cotton wool', everyone will be 'at it' if that is now a reasonable excuse. Did he really compare himself to Sir Alex Ferguson?? Football is different, riders are employed by clubs, speedway tracks do not have this luxury..... Coventry won the title, and the rule book says it was legit. It is good enough for me and this thread is an attempt to taint the victory.

In what context? British averages? No. British Championship? No. Polish Averages? They are not in the top flight, unlike Woffy and Bridger. Richardson has had his day, I am afraid. Richardson has failed in qualifiers too. Both Richardson and Nicholls will need to qualify, and if Harris hadn't turned round his season, him as well.

Interesting to see the criticism of Kenneth Bjerre. He has had a good season, but is not a world beater, but has achieved an average higher than any Brit. Coventry will remember their number 1 getting 2+1 in KOC Final last year when it mattered.

No offence but this is one of the worst use of statistics I have seen on this site. How many of the League were British in 1977? If 60% of the League were British, I would expect Brits to have these averages, on a sliding scale towards what we currently have.......we have 12 - TWELVE - British Full Time Elite League riders, and one of them includes the now injured Paul Hurry. If you would like a direct comparison, what was the % of 1977 riders that were non-British? Currently 80-85% dependent on double uppers. If it was 10% back then, look at the TWELVE British riders and discount 7/8ths of their defeats to non-British riders, and you will get averages like this. Last time I checked, British riders in the top 20 were Nicholls 4th, Richardson 8th, Stead 12th, Harris 14th as of a couple of years ago. I would say that is proportionate with the decline of the 'use' of British riders in the EL as a whole. Fill the EL with Brits in the same proportion to 1977 and we will have a similar outcome, if not, as useful comparison. Although I do not feel that these averages are achieveable nowadays, see below. Peterborough - 0 Poole - 0 Eastbourne - 0 Swindon - 1 Wolves - 1 plus 1 D/U Belle Vue - 1 plus 2 D/U Ipswich - 2 Lakeside - 3 Coventry - 4 plus 1 D/U NATIONALITY aside, if you are eleven riders were over 9, it suggests to me two other things, correct me if wrong: - - there were more teams in 1977 to achieve such a high number of riders above 9pts - - top riders met each other in heats less often - - riders took fewer races Chris Holder was 6th in the averages on 9.03 on Aug 7th......if your British comparison is to hold up, it would say he is not as good as Morton. The point scoring remains the same but the heat formats have altered so top riders have to meet each other 3 times potentially in 5 rides. Nicholls vs. Lindgren can happen in 1, 13, and 15 likewise Holder vs. Adams. I would like to know how so many Australians are in the Leagues, all 3 in some cases, on low averages, when EU Citizens are assessed on higher averages. EU Law may be interested if anyone is denied a right to work because of averages. But how are so many Australians here, and how do some become assets of clubs without riding for them? What is to top someone with deep pockets signing up all the talent for future years, to gain loan fees, transfer fees and cherry pick the best? Also, the generation thing....Scott Nicholls has been a number 1 wherever he has been by the end of the season for 10 years, I would possibly put him in the Loram/Louis generation for this? However generations overlap, but I wouldn't class him in the Kennett generation of being talked up, and going through the leagues. Nicholls was in the EL in 1995, when Ed was 9.

Yes, the British Final, but I think they split the SWC events? Looking at Scott in the British Averages in 4th, and Harris in 14th as of a few weeks ago, even behind Stead, Bomber´s consistency can be questionable. Equally, I would disagree with TNT´s post that Tai is in front of both of them given his tough season. Would I put Nicholls back in the GPs? Not sure, if it needs Brits, then yes. He may not do well on the continent, but it will be considered an achievement to manage 10 to 11 consecutive seasons ending as a number 1 at Coventry, Ipswich and Eastbourne. The only true test would have been for him to be in the qualification system this year. Be interesting to see if he wants to go for it next season.

Here is the situation though....Nicholls had a higher average than Kennett, Bridger and King in July 2009. What has changed? Rob Lyon´s selection policy. He wants more experience this year. I could have told him that last year, and we would have been in the final. I agree with Steve's post. I want Team GB to win, and Rob Lyon to collect his plaudits, but PLEASE, not after one meeting with the caveats that others have observed here (weakened Aus, Swe and home track). The riders were the most important aspect of the meeting on Monday and deserve the honours. Yes, Lyon picked them, but has only just got round to picking Nicholls. It ain´t hard is it!

Top Post. Poor selections cost Rob Lyon dear last year, luckily he was given another chance to select his best riders. For the record, Nicholls wasn't selected last year and some mug who I chose to ignore on here claims he was out of form. Compared to himself? Yes. Compared to his alternative selections - Kennett, King, Woffinden, Bridger? NO! Check the averages from July 13th 2009! Still I congratulate Rob Lyon for turning it around (like I have done in my previous two posts). Shame that those Rob Lyon tinted glasses cannot see he remains less than perfect by analysing ONE meeting in isolation. Good analysis and critical assessment from the Lyon lovers..

I wasn't replying to your post so why would I have read your post??! However your reply is not a response to mine either!!!!!!!! I was merely commenting that Rob Lyon is not the saviour made out because of last year's error, but has done a great job this year with a U-turn on supposed older riders and to get Harris and Nicholls in one team. As others pointed out last year, that flawed team GB logic of young riders - other countries do not bin riders over 30 as quickly. I don't know where the next set of riders are coming from - you tell me. It is not from Poole . People tell me (and looking at last year's World Cup selection) it is Bridger, Kennett, Barker, King. I disagreed last year, and this year. Averages tell their own stories, and when Nicholls was their he was a number 1....some of these 4 riders (not all) actually believe their own hype too. For the record. Middlo had better riders, he had a World Champion. Lets not forget that. 2004 was on his home track, and it can be argued he should have done better in other World Cups. Rob Lyon should be praised for this World Cup so far, but it should be qualified that he imposed a flawed young rider policy that meant we did not reach the final last year, imo.

Interesting. With Rob Lyon, I agree with Steve Shovlar, and also disagree..... Firstly, it hasn´t proved the success people are proclaiming. Lets not forget 2009 - he dropped Richardson and Nicholls last season, favouring going for youth. It is an embarrassing u-turn and what does it suggest about our future options??? Nicholls had a higher average than Bridger, Kennett, King and Woffinden a year ago as they garnered 1 heat win between their 7 combined appearances, and would have made the difference alongside Richardson´s 17 points out of the 35 in Leszno where Team GB missed out by just 4 points in World Cup Final Qualification.. All the "give youth experience" - clearly this is a year they don´t need experience. However, well done for the U-turn, it was an absurd decision to drop them. Also the ´get together´ a year last March was a waste of time. Where I disagree with SS, is that Rob Lyon has done something unimagineable to Coventry fans in getting Brits to ride as a team, and notably Nicholls and Harris. If only the Coventry management had got Lyon´s talents in this area during the winter! Last night was a great performance for British Speedway, when it is widely accepted that it is in a slump. A third or higher with these set of riders at Vojens would definitely outdo Middlo´s achievements of a best of 2nd at Poole 2004. So good luck to Rob Lyon and Team GB.

Why would they do that to a Coventry asset? I don't know anyone, other than football fans, who go to sport to see participants injured, let alone to assets of your own team.