Hunters 210 Posted April 5, 2016 Branford at Eastbourne after his punch up with Georgie last year? not a snowballs chance. Now Hopwood is out of the picture we really do have a problem. Could it be argued that Stefan Neilsen's contract was with the old Plymouth Promotion and that it expired when they closed and being without a team he was eligible to sign with Eastbourne before agreeing to ride for the new Plymouth promotion, thus making it a double up not a double down. Interesting legal point and maybe that is why we still have silence on the subject. Regardless of this it seems ridiculous that a rider can sit down with two promoters one NL and one PL at the same table and if he signs the NL contract first and seconds later signs the PL contract it is OK but if he signs the PL first he cannot sign the other. Ridiculous rules that make Speedway look silly. If a rider is eligible for each league there should not be any reason to stop him riding for both. Looking forward to the Kings Lynn match, with Luke Bowen at 1 and Jake & Georgie in great form plus Ellis usually up to scratch I can see a real close encounter. The result will depend on how the reserves cope with 11 rides between them. The Stars have a big advantage there with Kinsley . Charley always looks fast but struggles with the tight turns at Arlington, I have a feeling he will do a lot better on the larger tracks and the Coventry match was an improvement but he must stay on his bike when in a good scoring position. I may be tempting providence but I think a point is within our grasp maybe more if the reserves can pick up 6 or 7 between them. However I got the Coventry result oh so wrong and more egg may come my way tomorrow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex2000 266 Posted April 5, 2016 Good for hopwood I'm pleased he won't sit out for a while as he poured some money in this season and at least he gets to ride a few meetings. Meanwhile we are still stuck in the rubbish 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnieg 3,663 Posted April 5, 2016 Could it be argued that Stefan Neilsen's contract was with the old Plymouth Promotion and that it expired when they closed and being without a team he was eligible to sign with Eastbourne before agreeing to ride for the new Plymouth promotion, thus making it a double up not a double down. Interesting legal point and maybe that is why we still have silence on the subject. Regardless of the legal point the BSPA should and I believe would veto such a move as not being in the sport's best interest. Do we really want to hear in a week's time that the Plymouth rescue bid has collapsed because three of their riders have been poached by other greedy teams? This is truly an appalling suggestion (unless you think Eastbourne winning is more important than Plymouth surviving). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TurnTwo 317 Posted April 5, 2016 Surely it would be in their best interest though, 2 riders get more expirence that are British to then improve them for not only themselves but their pl club too.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Argos 262 Posted April 5, 2016 I'm sorry but can a Eastbourne fan explain to me why have your promotion got rid of a 8 point rider and replaced him with a 7.14 rider, I just don't understand it, especially wh n you've just lost your number 1 rider, just cant get my head around it, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevec 300 Posted April 5, 2016 Branford at Eastbourne after his punch up with Georgie last year? not a snowballs chance. People said that about Stefan Anderson and Martin Dugard and the ended up in the same team. If it works for the team and Rob wanted to come yes, I think it could happen. Plenty of other reason it probaly wont happen anyway. Pleased Ben has got a ride. Nice guy and can be brilliant on his day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sings4Speedway 3,249 Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) Would it be in Eastbourne's best interests to have 2 key riders missing every time there was a fixture clash? Either way it isn't going to happen. As for the Kings Lynn meeting it will require Bowen, Knight, Wood & Perks all hitting double figures to secure a result. Whilst they are all very capable it is still a big ask especially with Greaves, Kinsley & Bailey all in form and out to spoil the party. Id be very surprised if Branford doesn't slot back in to the Rye team when he comes over. I think the Hopwood signing is a short term deal to plug the huge gap the Raiders currently have. Edited April 5, 2016 by Sings4Kings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TurnTwo 317 Posted April 5, 2016 I'm sure brandford could put his problems aside with Eastbourne management to fit in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hunters 210 Posted April 5, 2016 Regardless of the legal point the BSPA should and I believe would veto such a move as not being in the sport's best interest. Do we really want to hear in a week's time that the Plymouth rescue bid has collapsed because three of their riders have been poached by other greedy teams? This is truly an appalling suggestion (unless you think Eastbourne winning is more important than Plymouth surviving). You plainly have not read properly or understood a word I have said. It had nothing to do with disadvantaging Plymouth or their rescue bid. I made the point clearly that if a rider wished to double up PL & NL then provided he met the qualifying criteria of both Leagues he should not be stopped merely because of the order of signing if he wanted to. That has absolutely no inference that he should ride for NL to the exclusion of PL be it Plymouth or anyone else and in case you are also unaware of it, in double up situations where their is a fixture clash PL get priority anyway. In this particular case it may well be that Neilsen has not even been approached or that he has no desire to ride NL we don't know . I was looking at possible alternatives in a shrinking rider pool and highlighting that the rule was to say the least irrational. I don't know where the believe that Plymouth's rescue bid is being undermined or that three riders are being poached by greedy clubs comes from, that is also irrational and can only be a figment of your imagination. This appears to be just another attempt to deride Eastbourne and their supporters. I had hoped that we had been rid of this sort of behaviour when we left the EL but apparently not. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Argos 262 Posted April 5, 2016 I'm sorry but can a Eastbourne fan explain to me why have your promotion got rid of a 8 point rider and replaced him with a 7.14 rider, I just don't understand it, especially wh n you've just lost your number 1 rider, just cant get my head around it, Silence is defining from the Eastbourne fans, seems like hey as baffled as I am to the Perks/Hoopwood swoop Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arnieg 3,663 Posted April 5, 2016 You plainly have not read properly or understood a word I have said. It had nothing to do with disadvantaging Plymouth or their rescue bid. I made the point clearly that if a rider wished to double up PL & NL then provided he met the qualifying criteria of both Leagues he should not be stopped merely because of the order of signing if he wanted to. That has absolutely no inference that he should ride for NL to the exclusion of PL be it Plymouth or anyone else and in case you are also unaware of it, in double up situations where their is a fixture clash PL get priority anyway. In this particular case it may well be that Neilsen has not even been approached or that he has no desire to ride NL we don't know . I was looking at possible alternatives in a shrinking rider pool and highlighting that the rule was to say the least irrational. I don't know where the believe that Plymouth's rescue bid is being undermined or that three riders are being poached by greedy clubs comes from, that is also irrational and can only be a figment of your imagination. This appears to be just another attempt to deride Eastbourne and their supporters. I had hoped that we had been rid of this sort of behaviour when we left the EL but apparently not. Someone's got a persecution complex! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex2000 266 Posted April 5, 2016 I'm sorry but can a Eastbourne fan explain to me why have your promotion got rid of a 8 point rider and replaced him with a 7.14 rider, I just don't understand it, especially wh n you've just lost your number 1 rider, just cant get my head around it, Because by dropping him we would have more points for a number 1 they had lined up. This has fallen through though which is a massive mess up. However Perks will improve unlike hopwood Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gaptooth 136 Posted April 5, 2016 All this due to a knee jerk reaction to the main sponsor acting the big concern. At least Bob had morals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gee jay 234 Posted April 5, 2016 All this due to a knee jerk reaction to the main sponsor acting the big concern. At least Bob had morals. i thought he had a massey ferguson ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gaptooth 136 Posted April 6, 2016 It's a Zetor but that'sbeside the point haha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
