Sherborne Green 320 Posted January 23, 2015 I do not think atthe end of the day it will effect the likes of Chris Holder, Batchelor or Doyle as they are all GP riders and at the top of their game. It could effect Ward but so be it. Poole have plenty of other choices. I feel sorry for the many riders in the PL. There are not many replacement for these. The riders from the NL would not be up to the job yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MANSE 480 Posted January 23, 2015 Hope the PL dont give Ipswich any sympathy if they loose Tungate and Manzares for the start of the season Gavan not our problem would you say Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,658 Posted January 23, 2015 I think its pretty obvious that whilst Gordon Pairman's statement is from the Poole website, it also takes into account his position on the SCB and is therefore an overview of the EL position just as much as it is from Poole's perspective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted January 23, 2015 I do not think atthe end of the day it will effect the likes of Chris Holder, Batchelor or Doyle as they are all GP riders and at the top of their game. It could effect Ward but so be it. Poole have plenty of other choices. I feel sorry for the many riders in the PL. There are not many replacement for these. The riders from the NL would not be up to the job yet. it should ultimately affect only some of the pl riders I.e. those who do not meet the quite lenient entry ctiteria, which I think scb worked out was about 7 of them. Fair enough to feel sorry forvthem, but ultimately both they and their club should hsve known they were not eligible.there are im sure 7 english riders who could fill these spots, perhaps not as well but not too far off. Would you feel simikarly sympathetic if it was a building company employing say somalian bricklayers who were not actually eligible for visas, on the grounds that they were "a bit better" than unemployed or underemployed british bricklayers? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherborne Green 320 Posted January 23, 2015 If in the PL the criteria is 7 points I would have no problem with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wendy 37 Posted January 23, 2015 I think its pretty obvious that whilst Gordon Pairman's statement is from the Poole website, it also takes into account his position on the SCB and is therefore an overview of the EL position just as much as it is from Poole's perspective.What I said was my view from the aspect of being a promoter at Poole and my general involvement with the sport. No one should doubt that, if Poole couldn't use Chris and/or Darcy, we would still be able to build a team to 34 points. I am not convinced that every other team could. And if that was the case, we would willingly enter into a discussion on the points limit to see if there was a consensus to bring it down. We would far rather start in an equal league than an unequal one. If other teams, or their supporters think an imbalanced league might be to their benefit, that's up to them. But I suspect supporters would soon tire of one sided meetings, as would Sky of course, and successful teams would have to put up with significantly increased costs due to the high points scoring of their riders, and possibly reduced crowds due to the lack of entertainment. I want to see the best team over the season crowned Elite League champions. And we've had many exciting ends to recent seasons with each time, in my view, the winner being worthy of the title. I much prefer that than have half the league being under strength at the start of the season. We might as well ignore the league and go straight to the play offs if that was to be the case. Hands up who would be happy with that? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted January 23, 2015 If in the PL the criteria is 7 points I would have no problem with that.iT is, and that criteria has been unchsnged for sometime. El the requirement is four points. Worth noting that no rider outside the ftr system averaged under 5 in the el last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy robin 2,966 Posted January 23, 2015 I think its pretty obvious that whilst Gordon Pairman's statement is from the Poole website, it also takes into account his position on the SCB and is therefore an overview of the EL position just as much as it is from Poole's perspective. Not obvious from my part as seems entirely to do with his role at Poole & nothing to do with his role with the league. Nothing wrong with that but should've been clearer & that is why people are asking. I'm not going to get into it as the hypocrisy is also there to see & that is the problem with a dual role. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted January 23, 2015 You can't hinder clubs that have built their side fair and square. My club has an issue with Woodward but I'd hope Horton wouldn't want other clubs to change their side because we have a rider that is illegal as it stands. If you have a rider that can't come over sign someone else, simple. What I said was my view from the aspect of being a promoter at Poole and my general involvement with the sport. No one should doubt that, if Poole couldn't use Chris and/or Darcy, we would still be able to build a team to 34 points. I am not convinced that every other team could. And if that was the case, we would willingly enter into a discussion on the points limit to see if there was a consensus to bring it down. We would far rather start in an equal league than an unequal one. If other teams, or their supporters think an imbalanced league might be to their benefit, that's up to them. But I suspect supporters would soon tire of one sided meetings, as would Sky of course, and successful teams would have to put up with significantly increased costs due to the high points scoring of their riders, and possibly reduced crowds due to the lack of entertainment. I want to see the best team over the season crowned Elite League champions. And we've had many exciting ends to recent seasons with each time, in my view, the winner being worthy of the title. I much prefer that than have half the league being under strength at the start of the season. We might as well ignore the league and go straight to the play offs if that was to be the case. Hands up who would be happy with that? So why do you have two accounts? 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted January 23, 2015 No I didn't. Read the press release. Firstly I said that we would be unwilling to start the season either with or against guests. This is simply to do with not wishing to cheat the public nor our broadcast partners, Sky Sports. If it means that we have to delay the start of the season then surely that's entirely reasonable. As a league, we should be looking to deliver the best entertainment and not seek compromises. Secondly, I said that, if the visa problem was a long term issue, I would hope that the teams would work together to ensure that we were as equal as possible. At present, five out of the eight Elite League teams are impacted by what's happening, with only Wolverhampton, Kings Lynn and Lakeside being unaffected. Out of the five, Poole are probably best placed to cover the situation, but that would still leave a huge imbalance in the league something that is unacceptable to us. If we have to leave Holder, Doyle, Batchelor, Woodward and Fricke out of our league, we either have to find five suitable replacements, and I'm not sure where, or revisit our team building limits. I was involved in the 2007 Belle Vue promotion that was ill supported by the rest of the league resulting in us putting together a really poor 1-7 and would hate to be party to any decision making process that would do that to anyone again. We want to win, of course, but we also want to entertain. And if we have teams built to 34 and teams only able to build to, say 30, I reckon Poole would be competitive but too many teams would not. Where would be the entertainment in that? why would a team only be able to build to 30?Belle vue and coventry would be weakened, but would be able to replace fricke and woidward with riders of a simikar average. Poole you mention would be ok, presumably replacing holder with someone like hancock as a short term measure. so can really only see swindon with batch and leicester with doyle with issues. But do u really believe the best replacement they could find would be a four pointer? Given that no rider last year finished on below 5? Worst case surely they may end a point or two below the limit at the start of the season, or just have to use guests. Even tai may make himself available short term if he could pick and choose meetings (or be allowed to "guest" even though not racing el). There are a range of options far more sensible and less drastic than chsnging the points limit or delaying the start to the season. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gavan 5,061 Posted January 23, 2015 Hope the PL dont give Ipswich any sympathy if they loose Tungate and Manzares for the start of the season Gavan not our problem would you sayif the rules are there and we can't have them then it will be disappointing for sure but we would abide by what we have to. The Poole promotion as shown many a time care about Poole and not British speedway. No way should the league not start and no way should the limit be reduced and yes my club is affected but we will have to get in with it. Speedway fans are sick of the moaning when things don't go Pooles way 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,197 Posted January 23, 2015 Best thing to do with Pairmans statement is save it to your desktop or phone notes then on several occasions during the coming season when Poole get up to their usual unsavory antics just re quote parts of it and ask why the change of heart. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T.N.T. 355 Posted January 24, 2015 So Poole may have to go without Holder and Ward after all but now seem to think they can't build a decent team without one of them. 7.50 Maciej Janowski 6.75 Shamek Pawlicki 6.71 Davey Watt 6.57 Dakota North 6.40 Josh Grajczonek (or Milik 6.34 or Walasek 6.24) 33.93 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,658 Posted January 24, 2015 So Poole may have to go without Holder and Ward after all but now seem to think they can't build a decent team without one of them. 7.50 Maciej Janowski 6.75 Shamek Pawlicki 6.71 Davey Watt 6.57 Dakota North 6.40 Josh Grajczonek (or Milik 6.34 or Walasek 6.24) 33.93 Lets not forget Madsen and THJ as Poole assets . Unfortunately Poole don't have first call on Shamek! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,356 Posted January 24, 2015 Lets not forget Madsen and THJ as Poole assets . Unfortunately Poole don't have first call on Shamek! We have a tidy list of Assets though !! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
