BigFatDave 258 Posted December 29, 2010 Only four pages this morning, eh? At first I thought it was running out of puff but after checking other threads I see the chief whingers have taken up residence on the Poole Thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foreverblue 6,096 Posted December 29, 2010 (edited) So despite your comments that you want Coventry in the league you obviously will be quite happy if they aren't. A happy smilie at the thought of a Coventry fan not being able to support his team. Lets not get too sensitive about a flippant remark,just a bit of fun,obviously you don't see it that way but we all want speedway at Brandon but we also like a bit of a fun at someone else's expense. Edited December 29, 2010 by foreverblue Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
no-brakes-uk 76 Posted December 29, 2010 Only four pages this morning, eh? At first I thought it was running out of puff but after checking other threads I see the chief whingers have taken up residence on the Poole Thread. Good to see they've gone back Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFatDave 258 Posted December 29, 2010 Good to see they've gone back I seem to recall you on the Poole Thread discussing Coventry and Peterboro, or was that just a No-Braker - oooooooops, sorry - a No-Brainer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beeone 0 Posted December 29, 2010 (edited) No, it was from this year - it started out with a problem at Brandon that only Rosco and Sandhu could sort and mutated into them having sorted it. However, the point remains the same: the problem had to be Trump and Pratt otherwise they'd be involved in "sorting it". I should have put "last season" instead of last year, you make a good point but if it was Trump and Pratt who were the perceived problem then the sig would surely not have changed during last season (and it did) as those two gentlemen were still on the roster of promoters come the recent AGM. Indeed Colin Pratt was on hand I am told at the recent "show of support" at Brandon along with Sandhu. Still the possibility of Trump being the issue CC was referring to in his sig, but it changed way too early for that, as we all know he was still there. Regards, Martin P.S. I'm sure Colin Cooke will put us right Edited December 29, 2010 by Beeone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bryn 413 Posted December 29, 2010 (edited) As to the earlier suggestions that 38 weakenes the league, balls, if it means more teams but the same rider spread out more, it's stronger. People harp back to the 1970s when teams all had a 9+ rider and things were beter with more teams, the way to do that is one or two seasons with a low points limit but with 3 or 4 new teams added each season. We'll then have more teams, more number 1's, more riders and everyone gets their wish but oh no, some people will moan that the points limit has been lowered that season to make it work! Blimey SCB, you're beginning to make sense to me in your old age! HAPPY NEW YEAR! Edited December 29, 2010 by Bryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BongoBrian 0 Posted December 29, 2010 (edited) I'm glad I am Scottish and that University Education is still a priority in my country Here we go, there are 90 points to be won in each meeting (15 heats x 6 points). The 6 points for each meeting are a cumulation of 3 for a win, 2 for a 2nd place and 1 for 3rd place... for those that need the explanation Therefore, there are 2 teams who can earn those 90 points... ie. 90/2 = 45 Points per team Following this so far? Ok, so if you simply ignore Bonus points / Tactical rides etc, it can be seen that the simplest way of determining the averages is from a nice clean base line calculation, which uses the ACTUAL points earned in each race and meeting. ...You cannot have 'inflated' averages, false averages... or anything un-toward for that matter. Simple Arithmetic does not allow it. ...saying all that, the folk with varying 'degrees' of influence in the BSPA have not proved themseles to be over endowed in the area of mathematical genius! Edited December 29, 2010 by BongoBrian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan_boon 1 Posted December 29, 2010 As to the earlier suggestions that 38 weakenes the league, balls, if it means more teams but the same rider spread out more, it's stronger. People harp back to the 1970s when teams all had a 9+ rider and things were beter with more teams, the way to do that is one or two seasons with a low points limit but with 3 or 4 new teams added each season. We'll then have more teams, more number 1's, more riders and everyone gets their wish but oh no, some people will moan that the points limit has been lowered that season to make it work! It doesn't weaken the competitive nature of the league but it certainly weakens the league. I'm sure the Zamaretto Central is competitive, but it's not as strong as the Premier League. If you are charging Elite League money, you should provide Elite League riders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan_boon 1 Posted December 29, 2010 (edited) Therefore, there are 2 teams who can earn those 90 points... ie. 90/2 = 45 Points per team For average purposes, riders have 4 rides per meeting. With 7-man teams, if every man took 4 rides, you only get 14 heats, so it's 84 points to play for. You cannot have 'inflated' averages, false averages... or anything un-toward for that matter. Simple Arithmetic does not allow it. If the total average of all the teams at the start of the season is 8 x 40 = 320, and the natural consequence of 84 points per meeting shared between the teams is 8 x 42 over the season, then the total average of all the teams should come to somewhere around 336 - those 16 points on riders' averages are the "inflation". Edited December 29, 2010 by alan_boon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bryn 413 Posted December 29, 2010 (edited) It doesn't weaken the competitive nature of the league but it certainly weakens the league. I'm sure the Zamaretto Central is competitive, but it's not as strong as the Premier League. If you are charging Elite League money, you should provide Elite League riders. My geography's not too good nowadays as I left school 'some' years ago Mr. Boon, so can you please enlighten me and tell me where exactly Zamaretto Central is? I certainly haven't seen any form of our great sport there (wasn't even aware that it was even staged there - are they F.I.M. affiliated?) and most certainly might wish to do so before I kick the bucket! Edited December 29, 2010 by Bryn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan_boon 1 Posted December 29, 2010 My geography's not too good nowadays as I left school 'some' years ago Mr. Boon so please enlighten me and tell me where exactly Zamaretto Central is as I certainly haven't seen any form of our great sport there (wasn't even aware that it was even staged there - are they F.I.M. affiliated?) and most certainly might wish to do so before I kick the bucket! Haha, it's a football thing. If only we could get Zamaretto to sponsor speedway! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philfromcov 326 Posted December 29, 2010 It doesn't weaken the competitive nature of the league but it certainly weakens the league. I'm sure the Zamaretto Central is competitive, but it's not as strong as the Premier League. If you are charging Elite League money, you should provide Elite League riders. Which means you should change the conversation rate from other countries to reflect this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bryn 413 Posted December 29, 2010 Which means you should change the conversation rate from other countries to reflect this Not talk to foreigners so often you mean 'philfromcov'??? :blink: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aces51 2,778 Posted December 29, 2010 It doesn't weaken the competitive nature of the league but it certainly weakens the league. I'm sure the Zamaretto Central is competitive, but it's not as strong as the Premier League. If you are charging Elite League money, you should provide Elite League riders. I think you can argue both ways. In 1965 as virtually all of the top riders in the then National League rode in the new British League the standard of the top riders was at least the same and you could say that as some of the top riders from the Provincial League reached the same standard the overall standard was higher. Conversely, as the majority of lesser riders came from the Provincial League you could argue that taking all riders into account the standard was lower. Whatever it was it was a huge success. With regard to charging EL money realistically we don't pay enough for the standard we have now.You could say that the true admission price for the EL should be a price which would result in clubs at least breaking even. Sponsorship and TV money could then be the icing on the cake to improve facilities and invest in training British riders. If we were to get back the Crump's, Pedersen's etc. the true EL cost would be even higher. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,354 Posted December 29, 2010 So despite your comments that you want Coventry in the league you obviously will be quite happy if they aren't. A happy smilie at the thought of a Coventry fan not being able to support his team. Sandie, im very happy to see Coventry in the League, providing they comply with everybody else. As for the smile, i didn't know whether to put a smile or unsure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites