vog 200 Posted November 14, 2014 As long as there are sufficient teams to facilitate a decent no. of juniors coming through the stags won't be missed. However, there does seem to be a dearth of NL sides in the north. All northern based PL sides should be obliged to support an MDL side in lieu That has, generally, always been the case. Am I imagining things, or did Redcar say they were looking into the possibility of running an NL team? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boz 316 Posted November 14, 2014 There is a Northern Junior League run after PL matches, glad to say Berwick has a healthy junior set up at the moment. I would like to see it compulsory for all clubs to run junior meetings after EL / PL meetings now, firstly to increase the number of young riders in the country and also provide the spectators with more racing. There are a surprisingly high number of spectators who stay behind to watch the junior racing at Berwick. Same at Redcar as well - second halves always have a decent number of people staying back as well. I do think the next step is a Northern NL side though - whether coming from standalone PL sides or some clubs joining together. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Double Up 39 Posted November 14, 2014 Every other club in the NL subsidised the cost of Scunthorpe running in the NL last year by virtue of the fact that their team was so weak. That's no slant on the riders who gave it their best shot but surely means that there ought to be a minimum team building limit as well as a maximum to ensure that teams are competitive and not whipping boys. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted November 14, 2014 Every other club in the NL subsidised the cost of Scunthorpe running in the NL last year by virtue of the fact that their team was so weak. Complete and utter nonsense, and an argument that is out-of-date. The Stags were competitive by the end of the season. All the best Rob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boston five 16 Posted November 14, 2014 I think you are missing the point Sam I bet you would not want to pay all the other team wage bill 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I think you are missing the point Sam I bet you would not want to pay all the other team wage bill I'm not the one missing the point. If a team used R/R against the Stags and gave their heat leaders an extra ride each, rather than a No 8, then who was it pushing up the wage bill? Or how a team coming at Scunthorpe with a guest in his 40s? Plus Scunny's scores weren't that different from everyone else e.g. Scunny scored a point more than Stoke at Mildenhall, and several other teams only scored just a few more points than the Stags at Cradley. All the best Rob Edited November 14, 2014 by lucifer sam 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted November 15, 2014 I'm not the one missing the point. If a team used R/R against the Stags and gave their heat leaders an extra ride each, rather than a No 8, then who was it pushing up the wage bill? Or how a team coming at Scunthorpe with a guest in his 40s? Plus Scunny's scores weren't that different from everyone else e.g. Scunny scored a point more than Stoke at Mildenhall, and several other teams only scored just a few more points than the Stags at Cradley. All the best Rob You have to be joking. Scunthorpe's average score per match was 27. The next lowest in the NL was Buxton on 37. Over 16 matches, and accepting that the riders are paid £10 per point, that's a cost of £1600 to the rest of the league (or £500 per team). I believed at that time and still believe that the Stags were a financial burden to the rest of the league,. This was evidenced by the number of double header meetings that were arranged when they were in town (undoubtedly due to the disastrous effect that their line up would have on attendances) and I am aware that at least two promoters were very unhappy at how much they had to pay their riders following visits to or from the Stags. The fact there is a lot of speculation that there will be a minimum points limit in the NL this season is a direct result of Scunthorpe's line up last season. I would agree that teams could and indeed should have used a No8 rather than rider replacement against the Stags and using any guest (never mind a 40 year old) was hard to understand. But had that been the case, that would merely have reduced a by small amount costs involved and would certainly not in any way have led to accusations of a financial burden being found to be unreasonable. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike.Butler 601 Posted November 15, 2014 (edited) Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV Edited November 15, 2014 by Mike.Butler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StevePark 2,783 Posted November 15, 2014 Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV So (without their own track to race on don't forget) Cradley either don't run at all, or go PL or EL and possibly go bust in the process? The NL always has been effectively 2 leagues in one, with the likes of Cradley, in recent times, having a different agenda to say Scunthorpe (and I'd guess Rye House in 2015). It's just that Scunthorpe (in my opinion) went to the extreme with their 2014 line-up. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted November 15, 2014 Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV Cradley built their team to the same points limit that applied to the rest of the clubs in the NL. In doing so, they simply used the financial muscle their attendances gave them to put together the strongest line up they could. That's precisely what any other stand alone club in any of the leagues would do. It is complete nonsense to suggest that a team should be barred from competing simply because their team was better than anyone else's. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted November 15, 2014 Cradley and Scunthorpe were equally culpable since both chose to rather selfishly ignore the impact their team building would have on the 2014 competition. I don't believe even stand-alone teams should be in the NL to win it at the expense of providing decent entertainment for the fans. That is why Cradley should not be allowed by the NL promoters to race in the NL next season as the same thing will happen again. Fortunately Scunny have pulled out. The league will be better without both IMV The only reason why Cradley ran away with the league was that Monmore was a massive confidence boost as away riders can't ride the track. Even EL riders don't like it and clocking up 60+ wins boosts confidence that and the fact that 6 of their riders were riding in 2 or 3 leagues averaging 2 -3 meetings a week. Compare that to Kings Lynn Kent Stoke who had 1 or 2 DU riders tops. Everyone knows to keep sharp you have to keep racing and having a place with 1 team in the NL isn't enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
25yearfan 476 Posted November 15, 2014 (edited) Yes the tricky nature fo Wolves can often be a problem to riders well above NL standard but the main reason why Cradley have ran away with the League was cause they get massive crowds, have a very generous and large supporters club all of which combine to give them more financial muscle than any other NL team which enables them to assemble the strongest team they possibly can! Edited November 15, 2014 by 25yearfan 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsunami 10,219 Posted November 15, 2014 You have to be joking. Scunthorpe's average score per match was 27. The next lowest in the NL was Buxton on 37. Over 16 matches, and accepting that the riders are paid £10 per point, that's a cost of £1600 to the rest of the league (or £500 per team). I believed at that time and still believe that the Stags were a financial burden to the rest of the league,. This was evidenced by the number of double header meetings that were arranged when they were in town (undoubtedly due to the disastrous effect that their line up would have on attendances) and I am aware that at least two promoters were very unhappy at how much they had to pay their riders following visits to or from the Stags. The fact there is a lot of speculation that there will be a minimum points limit in the NL this season is a direct result of Scunthorpe's line up last season. I would agree that teams could and indeed should have used a No8 rather than rider replacement against the Stags and using any guest (never mind a 40 year old) was hard to understand. But had that been the case, that would merely have reduced a by small amount costs involved and would certainly not in any way have led to accusations of a financial burden being found to be unreasonable. Quite agree. Not everyone can track a team that is going to be competitive, but surely it has to be a gimmy that with a weak team in opposition, the other team is picking up the tabs for the increase in points gained. Only a fool, or the publicity officer of a weak team, would argue otherwise. Oh, hang on... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted November 15, 2014 Yes the tricky nature fo Wolves can often be a problem to riders well above NL standard but the main reason why Cradley have ran away with the League was cause they get massive crowds, have a very generous and large supporters club all of which combine to give them more financial muscle than any other NL team which enables them to assemble the strongest team they possibly can! I believe that the DU apart from Worrall being signed on a bargain average as he found his confidence, after breaking his leg, toward the backend of last season played it's part ot gave the riders track time. Although it has to be said Perry Greaves Clegg Williamson didn't do terribly well in the upper leagues it contributed enourmously to their NL performances. Lets hope they are all given PL places next season and the carry on improving. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSC67 1,465 Posted November 15, 2014 As long as there are sufficient teams to facilitate a decent no. of juniors coming through the stags won't be missed. However, there does seem to be a dearth of NL sides in the north. All northern based PL sides should be obliged to support an MDL side in lieu Berwick already have a NJL team and have had for while Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
