Leaderboard

You certainly sound bitter. The meeting that cost Glasgow top spot was a 37-53 home defeat to Scunthorpe. Paul Starke couldn't have saved Tigers from defeat that night, even if he had scored double figures. Both Leicester and Glasgow suffered injuries - Glasgow to Starke and Leicester to Worrall. In the end, Glasgow put in a great effort, but Leicester were deserving winners, as they were not only the best team across the season, but also won the play-off final.

AVERAGES are just numbers on a piece of paper. This isn't a computer game. Riders are human beings, averages go up and down. And if a team like Peterborough are 10 points adrift of the limit trying to sign one rider to fit that void isn't sensible, practical or even necessary. Their team building options increase not decrease and can enable them to work within a budget. At the very least the notion of being able to keep a team from one season to another should be elementary.

Just remind me again how many Glasgow matches did Jim appoint HIMSELF to over the season ??? I am informed it was nearing to half Glasgow’s league fixtures over the season home or away #friendsinhighplaces All the Glasgow fans that came to Leicester on Saturday & the ones that i met on Tuesday were very gracious in admitting the best team won but you my friend look like a lemon bitter. Next you will be telling me Cami Brown deserves the freedom of Glasgow for managing the team that nearly won the league again

Unpopular opinion. Leicester won the league. Well done them. But they cherry picked guests for each track most of season..... should they have been made to replace richie worrall????

nagy1 It has to be remembered that Sarj agreed to sign for Leicester in 2019 he was sent the contract, local sponsorship was renewed, the club chased him for two weeks to get the signed contract back and kept saying that he had forgotten and would do it. Then 3 weeks later Leicester found that Glasgow had come in and offered a deal that was too good to turn down and were offering him near heat leader money. So quite obviously the Leicester promotion were annoyed hence the stance of you want Sarj you have to buy him. It all ended well for Leicester they got a transfer fee and moved for Ellis Perks instead who has been brilliant all year and did a lot more than James would have done I feel.

But the current situation is set up to punish those teams that do well and riders that improve. Where is the sense in that? I have always been perplexed by this average thing - I get the premise, but it is flawed in practice. A level playing ground at the start of the year - lovely in a disney book, but in professional sport? Rediculous. Rugby, Football, Cricket - do any of those teams have to drop their star player at the end of the year because he has scored too many points for them and helped them win the league? No chance - that guy is now their star asset. Speedway? Nah that guy now gets kicked to touch... The deeper you look, the more of an issue it becomes. Why should riders have any loyalty to these clubs when they know that doing well could cost them a job next year? Do too well and no team will sign you... So when a rider knows that doing too well could cost him his team spot next year, why should be care about the team - they clearly dont have any loyalty to him. All the "new fans" that come into the sport, develop an affinity to their team and get a favourite rider, buy the tshirt / cap and a few photos - turn up next year to see that he has been dropped because he DID WELL and now he is riding for another team? Then the same again next year? "Why has my teams best rider been dropped?"... This system of punishing teams and riders for doing well creates a situation where there is no continuity from one year to the next and is rediculous for a professional sport - especially one that is loosing support rapidly. Raising the points limit to that of the highest team allows all teams to keep their current 1-7 if the supporters (paying customers) develop affinity towards them and allows all clubs to offer longer contracts to riders which then helps develop loyalty and respect between all 3 parties (riders, clubs, customers). There is no obligation to keep your 1-7, but it gives teams the opportunity to do so. Capping the limit at the highest team of last year also means that 1 club cannot buy up all the top riders and clearly dominate. Clearly speedway does not have the money to become a football situation where money makes a team, but some level of continuity must exist to retain customers interest. I personally have no idea what I support anymore, I go to my local track because I like speedway - I have lost all interest in the team itself because it changes all the damn time, I dont care to worry who is riding because its fundamentally irellivant.

The limit should be 45.00 points every year. That way you're not diluting the product and everyone has an equal and fair chance of competing.

And there lies the problem as to why folk love seeing Glasgow get done over , poaching clubs riders after they had agreed to sign , same as Workington with Rasmus last season , scopping crazy money at riders.....won them naff all over the last few seasons, still sat scratching their heads with an empty trophy cabinet, lets hope they sod off to the Premiership and do everyone a favour !! got to love that word Karma

I just happy to share this forum with a legend of the media world . What I like about you most is that you never go on about what you done in the past . Stay by the phone as I reckon Eurosport will be giving you a ring asap .

NO we are NOT all the same as the 'Poole mouth'

If there is any truth in this, then it clearly shows the unprofessionalism of CVS. The individual clubs should make the announcements when they feel it's appropriate. If he has leaked confidential information it shows a complete disregard to his fellow promoters.

IF'S, BUT's & MAYBE'S. It is a dangerous, high octane sport that has it's spills & thrills. Staying on the bike, engine failures are part of the sport. How many other teams can go back & count points dropped? Leicester used the guest option to have a 7 man team. Glasgow replaced Starke to have a 7 man team.

I had a horrible feeling somebody would say that.

I like the principle but the practicalities as others have pointed out are something different in terms of finding the additional star riders at an affordable cost I would say that it is fine to retain the same 7 but only so long as it is the same 7 that started the season So often teams are changed to take advantage of the cut off date average changes meaning teams are actually effectively over the limit which skews the figures

There is a half page obituary in the Daily Telegraph today of Split Waterman, who has died aged 96. His is a name I remember from my early days at Poole in the very late 40s and early 50s. I can remember him riding (in my memory, which might be faulty)with and against such names as Ken Middleditch, Jimmy Squibb and Cyril Quick. I always thought Split was Australian, but he turns out to have been born in the UK and after his speedway career had a varied career which included spells in jail in this country and in Europe. He was also mixed in with the Krays, apparently. I can't remember much about his riding, except that he was pretty quick and one of the left-foot trailers. I thought he'd popped off a long time ago. So RIP Split.

Of course. I stand corrected

Simple Maths After 14 heats 42 points from 28 rides combined team average 1.5 x 4 x 7 = 42 The four riders in heat 15 will be top scorers so typically scoring 8 from 4. In heat 15 their are only six points available but they would need to score 8 between them to maintain their averages. So the top two in each team would see their averages fall from 8.00 to 7.60, leaving a combined CMA of 41.20 for each team and a 45 all draw.

Because averages are based on 4 rides per rider. Even if Jason Doyle scored a 15 point max in every match he would average 12, not 15, because it’s worked out 15 divided by 5 rides multiplied by 4.

That is what happened a couple of times when eurosport was busy

Quite simple really: the dramatic uplift in his points average meant that almost as soon as the season started he went into the main body of the team, riding mainly at no. 2. In this position he was clearly out of his depth, picking up far too many fourth places and wrecking his confidence. Had the lad stayed at reserve I would predict he would have come much closer to maintaining his ridiculously overblown 4+ average. A classic case of a talented young rider being the victim of his own success. Nevertheless the promotion stuck with him and I don't think they can be accused of not giving the youngster a fair crack of the whip. Only when the position became dire and the team were struggling for a couple of match wins at the end of the season in the vain hope of reaching the top four did they dispense with his services. Even then I'm led to believe the parting was on the very best of terms.

You missed this thread then

More looking at events through red eyes through all the bleating & crying.

I half agree with you on the Scunny meeting. The more pivotal was getting beat at Leicester. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. (SJ fell at the last turn) I am ruing the injury to Starke. The difference is you can cherry pick guests for a rider 3rd in your averages. We had to replace Paul or go R/R. Most people prefer to see 7 man teams. Them are the rules and the breaks. Leicester were more fortunate than us. That again is not bitter it is fact

Do you know what Mr McGregor's nickname is? I am certainly not bitter. I have thoroughly enjoyed this season. My opinion is that if Glasgow had our full team we would of topped the league and won the playoffs. I do however appreciate that if,buts and maybes are part of sport, but If any Leicester fan seriously thinks they would of beaten Glasgow over two legs if Paul was fit they are delusional.

Exactly. that is caused by having a low limit. The teams that are able to make their changes at the right time and use the averages to their advantages can rise to the top, whilst, at the same time, other sides can find themselves restricted by the same averages. Once Jensen came in for Swindon and put 3 points on his starting average and rise to the fourth best rider in the league, the other sides were helpless because they couldn't bring in someone to match that as the averages topped them. Ipswich, for example, brought Iversen in, but had to bring Sergeant in at the bottom to allow it.

I think it's more important to sign the right riders, rather than whatever their average might be. If you sign seven riders who are on the up and they average 45, they'll beat seven riders who are on the way down or static and who can't be gelled with enthusiasm and unity but also average 45. The former generally costs more to assemble though.

Interesting point. Kepping the same riders for continuity and loyalty relies on the clubs wanting to do so. If a team could continually sign 7 new riders up to their previous years average and continue to improve exponentially - you could end up with a 1-7 of GP only riders in theory.

Is this perhaps not the main point? Swindon's team that finished the 2019 season was built within a 42.5 point limit, so why could they not be allowed continuity, even if the points limit remains at 42.5?

I believe there was a longer one once that read: "Why do some people always feel the need to go onto threads on this forum and, for some reason, post stuff that is totally irrelevant in order to side-track what would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable discussion in the scheme of things", although I think it got deleted by the mods.

Bloody hell , I didn't know you knew me that well

This assumes that these riders would be willing to ride in British speedway for the money available. To bring the other teams up to a strength near Swindon you have to find seven riders (two for P'boro and one each for the other five teams) at the Iversen/ Zagar level. And if you can't persuade all these riders to come over here then the league will be unbalanced and you will have teams wanting to drop down as a better alternative to being league whipping boys. It is a struggle to find seven teams that want to compete at the current points levels. With higher limits there would be even fewer. PS If Ipswich had won the league would next season's limit be 41.43?

The speedway star have been tweeting about this issue. They've made one very good point....If you up the limit you will then have more options available to you...the tweet says this ''The higher the points limit the more expanded the rider market becomes. Would you rather be one promoter with a choice of 10 riders or one of 10 promoters with a choice of one rider.''

FINALLY! An obituary for Split Waterman has been posted on The Telegraph website; it has been posted within the last few hours. You can find it at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/ Steve

Michael Collins ? Leader of the IRA. Not sure he ever rode a speedway bike

Bonus point king & isn’t stupid that he realises a higher average would scupper Swindon next season as they would be mad not to have him back.

Dont think I said that,,, I meant team of 98

Just a pity I remember sweet FA about it

Alan and Andy Grahame!

Went past derwent park this morn can see the fence on bends 3-4 has been taking down been their in one form or another since 1970 , sad sight.

7.57 but heavily rumoured to be moving south!!!

That bit doesn’t work for me. If Swindon re-sign the same seven riders their team limit, as the highest one, should be the new limit. If they do not re-sign the same seven then it goes down to the next highest averaged team to see if they want to sign the same seven and so on until we get to 42 in default. The main reason for the rule would be to encourage rider and fan loyalty. In the hope that fan numbers rise and the sport can survive. Equalisation would be possible if appropriate riders were available for the other clubs but it would be secondary to the principle of encouraging loyalty.

I've got to say that whoever is in charge of Leicester's media really does need replacing... I expected to return from Glasgow to catch up on all of the reaction, not particularly in the media, but quite certainly on the website, pictures, interviews with riders and management, video of Ellis Perks clinching the final in that fantastic heat 14 and the celebrations afterwards. Only there's nothing, just a bog standard match report "GLASGOW 50 LIONS 40 (AGG: 89-91)", that's the only clue on the website that Lions have done anything at all on a Tuesday night in October, and they lost. It's a bit of an insult to the fans that have been supporting the club all year long and had the 2nd leg taken away from them. Is it any wonder that it's not in the local paper when the club can't even be bothered to do media for their fans on their own website... just another match on a Tuesday night in October. The fans won't get to see this team again, the team that won the league title for the first time in 50 years! See you in March... and oh yes if you don't come in enough numbers we'll close down. DISGRACEFUL!!

It's relevant in that the idea has come about because fans, promoters etc get frustrated that they're unable to keep their title winning 7 for continuity. If the team building average is allowed to be (for example) 46.78 and the title winning team makes 3 changes, these changes would only be made, in the main, because they have more chance of increasing their individual average over the rider's from the previous season. This then would make it even more difficult for the chasing pack to build a team that would be competitive. In principle the idea is ok but the reality will be very different. Sticking to a set team average of 42.50 or 45.00 make far more sense.

There are definitely at least 2 leagues. I know of 6 riders who are signed ( agreed deals ) with top two leagues. The usual culprit has his one to seven sorted and hopes to be first to announce, did not stop them finishing near bottom half of table, 3 championship riders dropping the champs league next season, one club looking to bounce back from a poor year have two riders over eight, one already announced. They have some idea of what’s happening or one hell of a job backtracking to do.

I would have Bjarne Pedersen over Kenni Larsen and also Jason Lyons,David Bargh, Rod Hunter and even Robert Lambert but that is just my opinion.

You can get sky practically where ever you live but virgin is only available in certain areas, Virgin have been saying for years they will be expanding there places to view but it seems its a long long wait.

I'm glad he didn't- he will fit much better as a Witch on the lower figure

He could continue in a similar way to Kildeman who also looked little more than a solid 2nd tier rider only a couple of seasons before he broke into the world scene

But he isn't being lauded as that...he's a rider that's nearly doubled his PL starting average and gone from being a 7 point CL rider to a near 9 pointer...in fact take away his average first month or so he probably would had pushed Cook even closer in the way he's ridden for Glasgow since joining Swindon , a slightly above average rider going up a couple of levels most certainly a case for Rider of the year across both leagues

I think you'll find they need the sales to grasstrack and overseas supporters. Small price to pay for the survival of a magazine that, let's be honest, was dumped by a major publisher (IPC) and had to be rescued by the brave efforts and financial risk of its own editorial staff. With the sport collapsing in Britain they needed to do anything to prop sales up.