Halifaxtiger

Its no surprise that Isle of Wight do that and have done for several seasons (although I don't think the child needs the paying adult).

Loyalty cuts both ways. Belle Vue stood by Cook as well. From many posts, it seems that this was a matter of terms. As much as I would have wanted him to stay with the Aces, if he was asking for more than they were prepared to pay I totally agree with the decision to show him the door. Its about time other promotions had a sense of financial responsibility - we have seen Glasgow banging on about continual 6 figure losses but word is that they are again throwing serious money about to get who they want for this season. Its anything but the first time we have had a situation where a rider says one thing about his departure, the club says another and I suspect we'll never know the truth of the matter(Acef's point above, however, is a very fair one). It has all the appearance of a childish slanging match but if someone was being untruthful about me I'd almost certainly respond.

Very pleased to see Luke Ruddick get a chance. I have been a fan since his early days at Mildenhall and he's improved season on season in the NL, with a near 1.5 jump last year. Its a massive leap from the NL to the Championship but there's no doubt he'll give it everything he's got.

True but..................from what I heard, it was a lot. In fact, a quite incredible amount.

Ray Stiles (on the left of the picture) was a Wimbledon fan. I knew him a bit as we both supported the same football club and he was always asking about the speedway.

I have heard one rider did just that...…………..

Belle Vue apparently aren't. The problem is that riders today view speedway as a full time occupation when in fact it never - apart from the very top boys - has been. Its why they all want to double up. It occasionally seems to me that promoters - and Glasgow spring very much to mind - take to the press to state how the club's existence is in jeopardy and how they are losing huge amounts of money and then go out and agree fantastic deals with riders ( I heard a couple last night that made me shake my head with disbelief). You are absolutely right about 'the same mess' , and rider demands are one reason why that is the case.

As is often the case, I think you are absolutely right here although I put a team out that would have included all of the top four and would have been strong enough at the bottom : Fricke, Bewley, Tungate, Pickering, Cook, Nielsen, Berge. I think that fits. If it is a question of Cook wanting more than the club were prepared to pay as disappointed as I am to see him go I think they have undoubtedly made the right decision. Riders pay simply cannot be off the table when the matter of balancing the books comes in (although last night I heard some stories about rider pay, signing on fees and extras for 2019 that left me in total disbelief). It will be very interesting to see who is in line for a team place.

The way I see it : There's no guarantee that the riders ditched due to the points limit will be those who have accepted that the NL is their level; There's every possibility that some of our most talented youngsters will not get a place in the NL because of their average; There's every possibility that those youngsters confidence will be damaged by riding in the Championship and they will be dropped, then having nowhere to go; Attendances will almost certainly fall as paying spectators simply refuse to accept a weakened product; Sponsorship falls as a result; The backbone of the NL - the stand alone clubs - existence is placed in jeopardy. In my opinion, this is a disastrous decision that could have profound consequences for both the NL and the development of British Speedway. Your last point is the one that sticks in my craw the most. It is quite appalling - if it is the case - that the NL clubs needs and wishes are simply disregarded and they are forced to adhere to rules that run a significant risk of damaging their businesses at the behest of others who have no financial stake in the league whatsoever.

Jayne Moss does mention it as a factor.

The infuriating bit is that with the low points limit in the NL this season the likes of Brennan and Kemp are not guaranteed a team place. We have already seen Jack Smith shown the door at Belle Vue, and he is going to be very lucky to get in anywhere else. How stupid is it that our best youngsters are - at least potentially - denied a position in our development league ?

Not necessarily. To be fair, its rare for a rider not to start in the NL, but Richard Lawson, for example, had no more than a handful of outings in that league before getting a team place at Workington.

I am not certain why that requires the NL points limit to be set at such a low level. There are few fans of runaway doubling up, but in the case of a young rider using the Championship for experience and the NL for confidence there is likely to be much less objection - as far as I am concerned that is what doubling up is for, not so that riders can make more money from the sport. I'd point out that Sheffield - with a BSPA committee member in charge - prefer to use an Australian and an American than a British youngster, so any suggestion that this for the good of British Speedway and its future prospects is compromised at best. The other thing is that the Championship has a notorious record of dumping young British riders when they don't score points (to be fair, that has been less prevalent more recently). Thrown out of the Championship because of poor scoring and unable to ride in the NL because of their average, they'd be frozen out completely. Jack Smith has already been told he has no place at Belle Vue. Its been stated that Ryan Kinsley and Drew Kemp won't be at Mildenhall, and with their averages they will be lucky to get in anywhere else. That's three promising young riders who, effectively, have been denied places in our development league. Bloody ridiculous I think the worst of it, though, is that it is entirely possible that this isn't the work of the NL clubs themselves (Last season there was a serious attempt to get the points limit to 40 or even 42, so I fail to appreciate why this year they would want 36). Desperate to make their product attractive enough so that they can pull in attendances to meet their expenses, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they had been forced to accept a situation that stands every chance of making their precarious existence all the more difficult by unnamed outsiders - because you can bet your bottom dollar that no-one will take responsibility for this - with absolutely no stake in the NL whatsoever

My problem is that I just don't understand why. There was some major imbalances in the teams in the NL last season but it was still a good product and, financially, in much better shape than the other leagues. Why change that ?

The same way Somerset do. A promoter funding the track's losses. Debbie Hancock has repeatedly said that their gates aren't good and word I got was that winning the PLa few seasons ago cost them £90k. That's simply not true. The league was set up for development and its performed - and continues to perform - an admirable task. The GB team at Glasgow last season were all products of the third tier of British Speedway. I think its a myth that Buxton chose to maintain the 'spirit' of the league and more the truth that they simply lacked the resources and income to match some of the other clubs. Had they had those resources, they would have been no different. In addition, its not all about development. The NL is still a business, and to stay in business it needs to have an attractive product. Moreover, there is no better way to attract crowds than success, and no better way to lose them than being continually unsuccessful. The NL has consistently struck a balance between development and viability, and its done an excellent job. Jayne Moss has made it clear that Buxton made a big loss last season but I suspect the killer blow was Sheffield switching to Sundays. Of the existing NL clubs for 2019, though, I am aware of only one that makes one substantial losses. Along with the reduction in clubs, that's what makes the new points limit so hard to understand (particularly when they tried -with 10 teams - to increase it for 2018). My suspicion is that there has been meddling or pressure from people outside the league, and that's not on.

I see Jack Smith has been told he doesn't have a place at the Colts - he says (and I don't doubt him) that it is because of the points limit. A young, talented, developing rider who also happens to be an attraction denied a team place. Bloody ridiculous

I had them the same but with Tungate for Bjerre and Pickering for Allen Comes to slightly above 42.5 but with the deduction for Cook, Bewley & Nielsen for being NL riders it fits. Sadly, that won't be the case now and I'll wait and see just who is in the team before passing further comment on Tungate being left out.

Completely agree Personally, I can understand why any league would reduce its points limits if clubs were making substantial financial losses or there was an increase in the number of teams. Here, though, to my knowledge only one of the existing teams might be losing money badly and the league is now smaller than before. Given that last season there was a strong movement to increase the points limit (with 10 teams competing) it is most difficult to appreciate why they have chosen to use 36 for 2019. The 36 only becomes 38 for all clubs if 16 2.00point riders are available. They're not, and this only gives more of an advantage to those who are able to pick up one of the more talented youngsters available on that average. People won't be fooled into paying last years prices for a weakened league without many of its top stars, forced up because they cannot be accommodated. In 2018, the NL managed to combine the successful development of some of most capable young riders with accommodating some of the league's crowd pullers - the Roynon's, Morley's and Ayres'. For me, it worked extremely well and I just can't see why that has been changed.

Its a matter of ambition. I suspect It would be the aim of every club in existence to go as high as they can in the world of speedway, and some are prepared to accept substantial losses in doing so (for right or wrong). My own view is that Glasgow are at least partly the architects of their own situation. If you pay huge amounts of money to riders - as they by all accounts do - and don't attract the attendances and sponsorship to pay for them, you can only expect thumping losses.

Almost certainly not, although that maybe a long term aim (they aim high). Yet another remarkable thing about IOW is that it is run as a business, which means that it has to at the very least have sustainable losses.

He was brilliant that night. Paid 14 from 5 starts at Scunthorpe for Ipswich, though, was the most impressive performance I saw anywhere last season.

I think that's what's annoyed me a bit. There's a lot to be critical of where speedway is concerned but the colours of those who simply want to put the boot in have been shown all too clearly here. Buster Chapman has saved a team, a league and a TV contract and backed his actions and judgement with his own money. Surely that is a matter for credit rather than criticism and negative comment ?

You're right - at least about Eastbourne - and that's why I am surprised about them potentially going up. Kent get bigger gates, have a better stadium, have applied for changes to their planning permission and a Championship club not a million miles away has closed down

I think its a question of both, because what people want is usually what's best for them. Clearly, the clubs think a 3 league structure is best. I very much take your point about the play off system. Phil the Ace made an excellent suggestion that the team that finishes top go straight into the final with the next two having a semi final, thus narrowing it to three teams instead of four. I don't have a problem with Buster Chapman having controlling interest in 3 clubs, especially as Ged Rathbone & Chris Louis will still be involved. Multi track bosses are hardly unheard of - Mike Parker and Reg Fearman springing to mind. Its also a question of what the alternative to retaining the Premiership was. You have mentioned amalgamation, but I think the top teams feared further loss of attendances and the weaker Championship ones trying to cope financially with the likes of Poole, Belle Vue & Wolverhampton. Furthermore, there was the question of the number of fixtures - based upon present number of clubs, there would have been 18 home and away to fit in - and the number of riders given the ridiculous number doubling up. Personally speaking, I think they have got it right.

Beat you by one