Guest 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. Just curiosity - not going to make a major issue of this but :who, when, where, why" in regard to the 40=year-old-rider. Tends to remind me of riders like Wal Morton and Geoff Pymar who were still big scorers when 50-plus! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vince 9,458 Posted November 15, 2014 It's difficult for me personally to have sympathy for Scunthorpe's position regarding team strengths. My lad was part of a Newport CL team that was full of youngsters at the start of their career that was roundly criticised by Rob Godfrey for not being competitive and therefore bad for the Conference league. I thought he was wrong at the time and still do now, if teams are willing to bring riders on and stick with them long enough for them to develop into a competitive team then they should be allowed to do so. It is hard on the top end teams but there is always the option available for them to try out a couple of youngsters when competing against a weaker team. To my way of thinking tracks like Scunthorpe and Rye House who are running training schools and NL teams should be helped financially by those teams that do neither. At the end of the day without these tracks the others don't survive. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 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 you think a league containing only 9 teams to begin with, would be better without 2 of those teams. Complete rubbish. I very much hope Cradley can run, the more teams at NL level the better. One question: if Scunny hadn't run in 2014, then who would given a team place to Arron Mogridge or Sam Chapman? Both are now established as decent middle-orders riders in the NL, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were heat leader standard (on 7.00-9.00 averages) by the end of next season. Without the opportunites of a team place with the Stags this season, where would they be? Probably still on the outside looking in. All the best Rob 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted November 15, 2014 So you think a league containing only 9 teams to begin with, would be better without 2 of those teams. Complete rubbish. I very much hope Cradley can run, the more teams at NL level the better. One question: if Scunny hadn't run in 2014, then who would given a team place to Arron Mogridge or Sam Chapman? Both are now established as decent middle-orders riders in the NL, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were heat leader standard (on 7.00-9.00 averages) by the end of next season. Without the opportunites of a team place with the Stags this season, where would they be? Probably still on the outside looking in. All the best Rob They probably would have been at Buxton. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucifer sam 3,953 Posted November 15, 2014 (edited) They probably would have been at Buxton. Neither were set to ride for Buxton. Neither had a team place until Scunny came along. And, in any case, then where would have the youngsters blooded by Buxton then gone? The more teams that can run at this level the better, because the more young riders get a chance. I think it very strange that some people think a smaller league would be better. All the best Rob Edited November 15, 2014 by lucifer sam Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Islander15 1,065 Posted November 15, 2014 They probably would have been at Buxton. Chapman certainly wouldn't have been as he didn't appear in the first couple of Stags meeting, so he could have been in the Hitmen 1 to 7 from the start but they chose not to sign him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted November 15, 2014 Fair play but Buxton indicated they were struggling for riders at the beginning of the season 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike.Butler 601 Posted November 16, 2014 A league as unbalanced as last season is NOT in the interests of anyone. The NL should be about entertainment and developing youngsters. All teams should start as equal as possible. Cradley and Scunny were at two extremes and should NOT have been allowed to enter withy their models. Cradley walking away with the league again would be awful and just drive interest down. Lets face it, they would in a different scenario be in the PL next year, but if they remain in the NL then they should respect their fellow clubs and realize they are at a level that has different objectives to theirs of recent seasons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted November 16, 2014 A league as unbalanced as last season is NOT in the interests of anyone. The NL should be about entertainment and developing youngsters. All teams should start as equal as possible. Cradley and Scunny were at two extremes and should NOT have been allowed to enter withy their models. Cradley walking away with the league again would be awful and just drive interest down. Lets face it, they would in a different scenario be in the PL next year, but if they remain in the NL then they should respect their fellow clubs and realize they are at a level that has different objectives to theirs of recent seasons. I disagree. There wasn't much difference between the top 4. Mildenhall would have done bettet but for injuries. Cov were up there. People aeemed to forget when Bourmemouth ran away with the league. Then Scunny fielded a team of Nielsen Worrall's and Birks. There has always been a strong contender and the last 2 seasons that's been Cradley Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greyhoundp 990 Posted November 16, 2014 A league as unbalanced as last season is NOT in the interests of anyone. The NL should be about entertainment and developing youngsters. All teams should start as equal as possible. Cradley and Scunny were at two extremes and should NOT have been allowed to enter withy their models. Cradley walking away with the league again would be awful and just drive interest down. Lets face it, they would in a different scenario be in the PL next year, but if they remain in the NL then they should respect their fellow clubs and realize they are at a level that has different objectives to theirs of recent seasons. Now just a minute Mike, explain what we at Cradley did wrong ?, had we not have signed Stevie Worrall someone else would have done, had we not signed Paul Starke another team would have, as for Max Clegg, Tom Perry both Cradley assetts, Nathan Greaves 4 point average, Matt Williamson 3+ average, Danny Phillips 3 average Im awaiting your explanation of what was wrong in comparison to lets say Kent Kings original Team or Mildenhalls Team both of whom are stand alone Teams and want to win the League. The problem as i see it the points limit was to high for an 8 Team League, and there has to be a minimum limit as well as a maximum limit. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike.Butler 601 Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) I am prepared to be corrected, but given I have read that Cradley actually lost money last season doesnt that tell you that they were splashing the cash to attract any rider they approached (whether that be riders on a steal of an average or those with the most potential to up their CMA).. That can't be right in a development league and in the interests of the league as a whole...Not much fun for anyone knowing a team will win the league before we even start because their income enables them to do this is it? And I don't buy the fact that the others in the top 4 were close to the Heathens..There was a gulf tbh Edited November 16, 2014 by Mike.Butler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
greyhoundp 990 Posted November 16, 2014 I dont dispute that there was a gulf between them and the other Teams and i think a lot of fans voted with there feet, i know of a number of fans who picked and chose there meetings last season, 60+ is definately NOT attractive week in, week out. Income i would think Kents income must be on a par with Cradleys if not more so as they dont have rent to pay, Kents problem lies in there management being unable to formulate a winning Team even with there financial strength. Hopefully this year other Teams will be stronger, Cradleys not so strong doesnt that sound stupid, build to be NOT so strong .but this is British Speedway. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scribbler 213 Posted November 16, 2014 Cradley - The Poole of the NL ... in so many ways... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TMW 533 Posted November 16, 2014 Cradley - The Poole of the NL ... in so many ways... What's wrong with wanting to win? Well run clubs with good support. Speedway is dying in this country lets have more Poole's and Cradleys. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted November 17, 2014 What's wrong with wanting to win? Well run clubs with good support. Speedway is dying in this country lets have more Poole's and Cradleys. But are Cradley really winning? If you have the ambition to win, have the ambition to do it in the PL or the EL. Winning the NL at all costs is a bit pointless. It made me laugh that the club have had race jackets with 1981, 1983, 2013 and 2014 on.Are they really, honestly, trying to claim that 2013 and 2014 in any way compared with 81 and 83? You just can't imagine BV including any league wins by the Colts in their list of all time wins. A NL win is lovely for the lads involved, it's quite nice at the time but it's hardly going to be a, "remember the good old days when we won the league in ....." story is it? Not for a club like Cradley. At least Matt tries to be the best of the best. But being the best of a kiddie league, well, yeah, great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
