Halifaxtiger

You're dead right too. It might be the promoters job to promote, but there is no better form of advertising than word of mouth. From what I saw against Rye House things have improved but, for all those who criticise Robert's postings, he has a point. Everyone knew the track shape needed to be changed and in Glyn Taylor the club had the man to do it. 'Short term financial pain' in this instance, is most certainly better than the potential alternative.

I think you are dead right here and indeed that's pretty much when Glyn Taylor proposed to do. The problem is that they would have to move all the drains and that will be pricey. Whatever the case, the track and the racing on Saturday was better than last year and for that reason alone they deserve at least another shot. I am glad I went and will go back.

Should be a cracker. Fen Tigers by 8.

I agree Dark horses for me.

Have you been to Plymouth ? In my experience gating is not the be all and end all there - in fact, I'd say its one of the best racing tracks in the country and some of Barker's rides from the back there last year were absolutely fantastic. A good example is to be found on the Plymouth v Edinburgh thread where Barker passess and re-passes Wolbert - definitely no slouch himself. He also averaged over 11pts a match there last season, so the number of opposition riders who actually beat him was very small indeed and there's no reason why a rider of Fisher's quality shouldn't be the same.

When I saw Barker at Owlerton he wasn't that impressive and no-one will know better (or give a more honest opinion) than Spinny. Having said that, I think that it is at home that he is referred to as being nigh on unbeatable and an 11pt average last season says that's true.Fisher can do the same, and what's just as important is that they are both terrific riders to watch. MikeyT was dead right when he said the signing of Franchetti is a disappointing one. A 5.5 or 6pt rider would make a significant difference. Pint of bitter says Plymouth finish above Sheffield

Very honest and fair and, in my view, probably all too accurate. I still think the Devils will be tough to beat at home and, thanks to the presence of Barker & Fisher, competitive (but winning very few if any) away. I think you have hit the nail on the head with that three point gap. A 5.5 rider slotting in could have made an enormous difference.

He is a gamble but on a small tight track like Plymouth he could be a real asset. I think that's dead right - I certainly can't see them getting in the play offs. I do, however, believe they will be very difficult to beat as SBA where the long tail is less of an issue. Barker averaged over 11 there last season and Fisher should do about the same. That's 26 or 27 points per match from those two alone, leaving just 20 from the remaining 5 and Glanz, Cockle and Franchetti are all easily capable of scoring that never mind Boxall and Holder. I think the problem with Plymouth is that its a question of what might have been; the location means that getting riders there is always going to be a problem but you can't help but believe that the team should be better than it is.

I think they will be a real handful at home, certainly as the new riders settle in. To illustrate the point, Plymouth beat Sheffield at home last season without Barker and Fisher. I think its fair to suggest that those two will be nigh on unbeatable at SBA, so that's nine heat wins and two 5-1's in most meetings and that's going to take a fair bit of turning round. Cockle banged some big scores in at home at the tail end of last season (albeit at reserve) and Franchetti did a few as well. Glanz will be a very decent reserve there and Boxall will be a 6-7 point man. I think Plymouth will take some real beating at SBA and the presence of Fisher and Barker means they will be reasonably competitive away.

See you there The 'chublet'

Asked for that, didn't I ?

I heard they were planning to enter an NL team (I got told by a mate that lives down there). No idea why it didn't happen.

I can't disagree that the main thrust of his comments is against some of the remarks here. However, his only comment regarding the couple is that they have been 'poorly advised' . In truth your comment of 'foolish' nowhere near hits the mark, either. They were viciously selfish - they wanted the stadium severely restricted for the own ends, regardless of the fact that it was there when they arrived, regardless of the thousands who get pleasure from it, regardless of the owner who paid a reported seven figure sum for it and regardless of those who are employed there. While I share Snacky's view that some of the comments are unnecessary, as I have said I have very little sympathy for those whose own grasping and self interested actions have proved to be their own downfall.

My first reaction when Phil K told me the news by text that the couple were financially ruined was 'good'. I regret that. But you seem to be making out that they are blameless victims when nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said, to get to their house you cannot possibly miss the stadium so they must have known it was there. Wouldn't you have thought that they might have enquired what it was used for ? Then they chose to attempt to severely restrict the use of a facility for virtually their benefit alone, regardless of the thousands (and if you go to the stock cars, it is thousands) that gain a great deal of pleasure from the sports that are held there. In anyone's terms, that's bloody selfish. True, they might have had some shyster of an estate agent who lied about the use of the stadium or a bent lawyer who told them they would win the case. At the end of the day, though, it was their choice to live there without making sure that it was suitable and their selfishness that prompted the court case. In other words, they have only themselves to blame. I, too, regard 'truimphantilism' with distaste. However, I don't have a great deal of sympathy for those who are the masters of their own downfall. Whatever the case, the court's decision is absolutely correct and I can honestly say that my soft spot for Mildenhall Speedway as a whole does not affect that view in the slightest.

I think every Young Stars rider in their named 8 is a club asset and I know Dale has high (and probably justified)hopes for them all. Scunny are just starting again, that's all. Weaker sides will always draw less fans, whatever league or team it is. Personally, I think seeing Worrall and King (at least) take on the Fen Tigers is a reason for going by itself.

Sympathy up to a point, Snacky. As some have said, this could easily be seen as the self inficted actions of a selfish and grasping couple. For anyone who doesn't know the geography of this case, you simply cannot miss the stadium if you go to their house. There's only one way in and out and that goes straight past the track (as an example, its like going along Kirkmanshulme Lane and failing to spot Belle Vue). In such circumstances, I would say that the first question that any potential buyer would pose is what went on there. It seems to me its case of them blaming everyone but themselves when in fact its almost entirely their fault. As to Postie's remark, I think he has a bit of a point. Lets not forget that another judge came to a conclusion that is almost directly contrary to that issued by the court of appeal which I would say is not only right, its also pretty obvious. Well said, Neil. I wonder what happened to him ? Choked to death on his own venom I suspect

Agreed, young Mr Barton - I'll never forget it. Take it from me (as one who travelled about a bit) that Mildenhall last season was one of the best racing tracks in the country (in any league) and long may that continue. I think you are spot on here and that the implications of this landmark ruling should not be underestimated in the slightest. It means that existing speedway tracks with planning permission are almost completely safe from those who try to close them down after moving into the area. Fantastic for Mildenhall in particular and all speedway tracks in general. I think the crucial words you have used here are 'common sense'. My whole argument against the initial ruling was that any person who moves into a home must ensure that that home is fit for their habitation. If they do not do so, that is entirely their fault and they then cannot seek redress against any other party. As someone who reads court judgements on a daily basis, I can't remember the last time that I saw one that would so accurately reflect the views of the ordinary man in the street. Dispensing law with a strong streak of justice in it sometimes seems all too rare, but this hits the nail bang on the head.

http://www.scotsman....swoop_1_1903137 I'd like to say I don't know where the 2007 came from but it was almost certainly my incompetent typing.

The chap must be a clairvoyant (and a very good one)if it is an article from 2007..................

Positively ingenious, Neil

Ok, I'll reveal my source: Edinburgh promoter John Campbell. Taken from the Edinburgh Evening News, October 11 2007 Edinburgh MONARCHS co-promoter John Campbell today reacted to rumours suggesting Ryan Fisher could be set for a shock return to Armadale next season by insisting: “We would need to find a major sponsor to make such a thing happen.” The Californian quit Monarchs to step back up to the Elite League to skipper Coventry Bees this season, but it’s understood Fisher hasn’t found the move as lucrative as he imagined and might consider a return to Premier League racing which would give him more races. It’s also believed that Premier League newcomers Leicester Lions have expressed an interest in Fisher. The Lions returned to speedway this year after more than a decade, but are anchored near the foot of the table. They see the colourful American as the ideal candidate to spearhead their title challenge at Beaumont Park in 2012. Campbell, below, added: “Leicester have got crowds four or five times bigger than ours, and they would be better placed to afford him than we are. “Ryan is a very expensive rider and has also got a very high average that makes it difficult to build a team around him, but if we found a sponsor we would consider it.” Fisher was a hugely popular No. 1 for Monarchs in 2010 when they claimed their third championship crown, and many fans were crestfallen over his departure, but the possibility of him pulling on a Monarchs race-jacket once again would provide the Capital club with a massive shot in the arm, although Campbell points out: “Up until our matches with Glasgow our crowds were higher this season than they were the previous season when Ryan rode for us, so you can’t necessarily say that Ryan attracted bigger crowds – because he didn’t.” Actiually, I was wrong; I am not sure how Fisher's wage demands might be seen as confidential when John Campbell has revealed all to a city newspaper. How dare he do so, damaging the riders chances of future employment Still believe BP, Bob C & I deal in 'gossip' or could it be that we are actually right ?

Its probably true to say that you don't know what you are going to get from the 'undeveloped' (where speedway is concerned, anyway) but what you can do is identify those who are more likely to go all the way. For that reason, its not a complete stab in the dark. I don't think there is any fear or trepidation in that statement. Whatever anyone might think of Rob Godfrey, Scunthorpe's record for developing young British riders since the club opened is second to none and, to a degree at least, the primary point of King's Lynn, Rye House & Scunthorpe having NL sides is 'having team that is totally about developing new riders'.

The only way anyone can judge whether a rider is 'good value' for his earnings is to know precisely how much he was being paid. As such, it seems that Fisher's pay was pretty much public knowledge anyway, at least at Edinburgh. Or, more likely, they didn't have a clue what he was paid (and didn't care) but whatever it was he was good value for it because he was their number one and a very capable and exciting rider. That's hardly grounds to determine value. I shudder to think that the great and the good (and the others) of the speedway world would draw opinions of riders from 'alleged confidential information' posted on this forum. To suggest that they might is utter nonsense. I did think of letting you see what I have about Fisher. Then you could apologise to Bob, BP, WK & I, admit the truth of it (to a degree anyway) and post your agreement with what we have said. Your biased viewpoint on this subject suggests to me that that would be most unlikely even if I did.

My understanding was that the decision to pull out was made after the play off final (although it might have been made long before) Rob Godfrey changing his opinion some time later. In truth, I think his initial decision to fold the NL team was a matter of finance only. We'll agree to disagree on that one. Heat 10 at Mildenhall was amazing.

In truth, the disagreement is marginal. I just think it is a matter of compromise and attempting to suit the needs of all the members of the league as much as possible. I have been caught in this debate with those who believe that the NL should be little more than a training league, believe me. My view of which is the best is based more around what I see out on the track rather than any other issue and that is determined far more by the actual circuit than the level at which riders perform. NL speedway, in terms of entertainment and racing, can be as good or bad as either the EL or the PL. As a rider, your opinions are most valued - especially as they are reasoned, practical and passionate.