SCB 15 Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham Lakeside on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average. What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams. So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben? Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final. So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too. Edited December 19, 2014 by SCB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bagpuss 10,823 Posted December 18, 2014 Typical of how speedway is run in the UK unfortunately. Wishy washy and governed by self interest. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted December 18, 2014 Would like to add I'm not accusing anyone of cheating, just pointing out that there is zero consistency. And annoying it looks like Coventry lose out 3 times due to it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woz01 3,589 Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Would like to add I'm not accusing anyone of cheating, just pointing out that there is zero consistency. And annoying it looks like Coventry lose out 3 times due to it! Hopefully the club are disputing this and bring to the meeting that's planned in January. It's maybe the reason we have not announced our last rider yet. King at 6.11 would be a great signing. Edited December 18, 2014 by woz01 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kitch87 15 Posted December 18, 2014 Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average. What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams. So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben? Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final. So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too. I would love for you to write to them asking to explain, just to see what their response would be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bees_Man 454 Posted December 18, 2014 Where's Neil Watson when you want him?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,658 Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average. What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams. So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben? Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final. So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too. If that proves to be the case then the penalty (as in previous similar cases) is the deduction of the 4 points he scored!! What a game changer!! Edited December 18, 2014 by Skidder1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,168 Posted December 18, 2014 Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average. What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams. So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben? Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final. So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too. You could ask them Shawn, but I bet you dot get a reply. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E I Addio 15,854 Posted December 18, 2014 Been doing a bit of investigating of stats the last few days after Kennett has been announced for Birmingham on a converted PL average and looking into Danny Kings high EL average. What I have found is that Danny King signed for Lakeside on 6.71 (his rolling figure that INCLUDED his 2014 EL meetings) some time after signing, his 2014 Birmingham meetings were removed. This put his average up. It means that if his 2014 Birmingham meetings had been removed earlier then he would not have fitted into Lakesides teams. So it looks like they let Lakeside sign him on the lower figure and then put his average back up. Bit fo a farce but we'll accept it. BUT we move on to Ben Barker. Ben like Danny signed on his 2014 Birmingham meetings average but never had his Birmingham meetings removed. Had he done so, like Danny his average too would have gone up allowing Coventry to use better guests (Craig Cook for a start). So why has Danny had his meetings removed but not Ben? Either the Birmingham meetings count or they do not. But you then have the issue that if they don't count, Lakesides team at the end of last season was illegal as Danny didn't fit. It also means that he wasn't on 6.11 in October as per the BSPA green sheets, he was 6.74 meaning he wasn't eligible to guest for Josh Grajczonek so Poole put out an illegal side at Coventry in the play-off final. So just how is it that Danny Kings average is now 6.74 unlike Ben Barkers? Surely if he was 6.11 in October for Lakeside (and Poole) he should be 6.11 now for Coventry too. I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated. You see my point (I hope) that if Danny's scores for Brum are removed then so should everyones scores against Brum , but if everyone scoring against Brum are left as they are then so should Danny's. Is that about right or am I being obtuse ? 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tsunami 10,219 Posted December 18, 2014 I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated. You see my point (I hope) that if Danny's scores for Brum are removed then so should everyones scores against Brum , but if everyone scoring against Brum are left as they are then so should Danny's. Is that about right or am I being obtuse ? Could it be the timing of the removal. Maybe the Brum meetings weren't removed till after the season finished, when it was theoretically not able to run the meetings. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naffer 442 Posted December 18, 2014 No you are being logical. Not what happens at BSPA towers it would seem, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TesarRacing 1,825 Posted December 19, 2014 I know I am being pedantic here , but rule 16 specifically states that if a team withdraws or is expelled from the league it's results will be void. Fair enough but it doesn't specifically state a riders scores will be removed from the calculation of their CMA's. So I suppose what we need to know is what happened to those riders who scored against Brum, do their scores count towards their CMA's or not ? I doubt if anyone would go to the bother of recalculating everyone's GSA's so everything including Danny's scores would remain , but they might have been recalculated. I think I know someone on this very thread who might!!! 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 15 Posted December 19, 2014 I would love for you to write to them asking to explain, just to see what their response would be. I gave up contacting them years ago when they ignored me for the 10th time. I got a few "thanks for your email" emails but no answers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brandon 134 Posted December 19, 2014 Great work SCB. #toomuchtime If only to give us something to talk about over Christmas, what would we have/who could we get if Kings average was 6.11? I doubt the last name will be announced anytime soon (Summers) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tellboy 3,670 Posted December 19, 2014 (edited) If that proves to be the case then the penalty (as in previous similar cases) is the deduction of the 4 points he scored!! What a game changer!! Didn't King guest for Milik in the semi at Poole against Lynn.If this was the case and King was on a 6.74 he couldn't guest for Milik who was on a 6.34 average.He scored 6 that night and Poole won by 5 overall.Now that would have been a game changer Edited December 19, 2014 by tellboy 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
