Halifaxtiger

I think your response here and your reaction to Barry's comments says it all. Your first comment was critical (but fairly so) and you were obviously unimpressed. Barry & Martin take about 5 minutes each to come on, explain how things are, apologise and state that they hope you come back and your view has almost turned full circle. It just shows how a tiny piece of customer care can make a huge difference and is one of the reasons why I have been banging on about Isle of Wight for a year or so. Its also in stark contrast to some of the feedback I (and many others) have got from promotions across the country. That's ranged from indifference to abuse and the same people then have the gall to complain about falling gates. My experience was almost exactly the same. A dusty track deserving criticism and an almost immediate reply with an apology and a remedy. I have been back 5 times since and I have told Barry (probably several times) that it was he and Martin taking a very small amount of time to respond that was a major factor in that.

That's a real shame because he's one of the best and with Graham Hambly would have made a real dream team. I'd maintain, though, that for right or wrong you cannot savagely criticise a referee during a meeting and I am told that is precisely what happened. Absolutely bang on I call it the Mike Bennett style, because I'd say he was like that. I also think that commentating during races is annoying and pointless. Try Belle Vue. Their centre green presenter hits the depths, believe me, and its made all the more obvious because the announcer is as good as anyone. I think having both an announcer and a presenter works well - indeed, the best presentation I have ever seen was at Peterborough for the PL Fours last season and they had 4 ! A top box man in Edwin Overland, two total professional interviewers in Craig Saul and Kevin Moore and Roy Clarke playing the clown. I'd come back to Kevin Long again. A true speedway fan, a damn fine interviewer, hits the fine line between saying too much and saying too little and effortlessly and subtly funny with it.

I agree. I think its a sensible decision based upon the facts at the time. The only thing is it must stand as a precedent. I think it says a lot that neutrals out there agree with it. Its not one of the savagely biased, one-sided rulings we have come to expect. Compare it with some of the average fixing decisions in the NL and its positively enlightened. To turn the argument round, would you be happy with the original ruling if you were in Glasgow's position ?

That's harsh. A rain off with everyone at the track costs a promoter thousands so its little wonder Scunthorpe tried very hard to get the racing back on. You could argue that they did that at least partly so that paying customers wouldn't lose out and if they hadn't tried remedial work there would have been criticism for that, too. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Its a difficult call when its raining at or soon after start time when there is a possibility of getting the meeting on or back on. Sheffield delayed the other week when I was there and I really didn't have an issue with it.

Whether he can do so publicly is another matter - to be fair, he's usually pretty tame and if he did get fined the referee would be subject to a barrage of (justified) criticism. What is true is that a promoter should not be liable for the actions of a presenter and they must take that responsibility themselves. Tim Allan is one of the best in the game, but you simply can't - in his position - heavily criticise a referee during a meeting. He's grown on me. What I will say is that the presentation at the Peterborough 4's last season is the best I have ever seen, and he was part of it.

While there are limits, I am not sure that a presenter calling it how he sees it will damage the business. Quite the opposite is probably more accurate. The worst one I know for that is, ironically in view of his BSPA status, Rob Godfrey. Heard him criticise referees (albeit gently) many times and its one of the reasons why I think he's one of the best - he simply says what I - and almost certainly many others - think. It seems to me that a few referees need to grow up a bit. At Glasgow this afternoon, we had the excellent Michael Max but with him they had that dreary, mistake-ridden bloke in the box who tries to be funny when he's not. Stark contrast, and its the same at Belle Vue if the other way around - the excellent Neil Drummond with that total tool on the centre green. I still maintain the master is Kevin Long. Speedway fan through and through and funny with it.

Thing is Cook means it. In the past it was just part of the show. There's a difference - ones a character, the others a kn@b. Cook wasn't too keen on the track at Workington last Saturday either.

According to the Birmingham website, Parkinson-Blackburn is averaging 10.96in the NL. Its difficult to see what average he would need to go into the Championship. I think that it is a good idea to have the 2 point riders in that league but there has to be an understanding on the part of everyone (promoters, fans, management, the rider, his sponsors and family)that it will be a long term haul and that patience is required. Almost all of those on that average are struggling and that's more because it is a huge step up rather than not being ready. There is a benefit to having those lads in a higher league - after all, better them than a shed load of low grade foreigners.

He did. Good meeting and all wrapped up in 90 minutes with no interval. Deserved point for the Tigers, with Howarth the star of the show (just) after holding off a big challenge from Masters in heat 15. Clegg impressive, important points from Branford.

Crowd noticeably bigger at Sheffield last night. Probably due to the fact that the racing has improved.

[quote name="Star Lady" post="2967802" s What's left are now bland, featureless presenters, which I hasten to add isn't always their fault.. Anyone who has heard the likes of Kevin Long, Dave Hoggart or Rob Godfrey will tell you that's not true.

Cracking meeting and it is brilliant to see that Owlerton has got its racing track back. It looked like a pretty decent attendance to me but no wonder : good team + good racing = good crowds. All done in 90 minutes too. Grajczonek was again imperious but Tigers match winners were Bjerre and, especially, the very impressive Branford. Edinburgh were full value, Masters in particular and s word for Pickering, one definitely to hang on to. Only three downers : Unnecessary interval, rip off full price insert programme and a mite of tension on the picnic tables over young Kai's new Sheffield United football kit

I'd be surprised if anyone thought the Comets would finish bottom. It was clear they had a rider capable of beating anyone, anywhere and one of the best reserves. That's usually a pretty good combination. With Proctor getting going and Campton proving a lot of the doubters wrong, if they can get Sarjeant scoring a few points they'll certainly be a strong candidate for the play offs in what is, almost without exception, a highly competitive league. What they really need is a few more through the gate. With an attractive, entertaining team and some pretty good racing they deserve it.

Yes...................but Craig Cook, it seemed to me, was exactly the same.

Weather didn't help either. Travelling up with Hoggy, we hit a thunderstorm near Penrith, it was still raining at Cockermouth and forecasts were for heavy rain in Workington at 7pm.

Tungate his history but he rides the track very well indeed.

Based upon my experience I think his figures are just about right, if a little on the low side. I'd be the first to accept that any crowd counting I do is estimated but I was, quite literally, 1 out in a recent head count. Also based upon my experience, Rye House's gate was at least double the biggest I have ever seen there. Isle of Wight's was double the previous year and Redcar's was up too (now confirmed by the promotion). Sheffield's have increased and Belle Vue's are still way, way more than Kirky Lane attendances. Peterborough's had noticeably gone up. Scunthorpe's remain very low - about 400 maximum, Workington's simply aren't enough (which is a real shame given good racing and an attractive team) and Berwick's have crashed.

I didn't think the track was awful. Deep and grippy, yes. Clearly some (and I mean some) of the riders didn't like it, but it was not to blame for the crash involving Shuttleworth & Greaves. Greaves locked up in the corner and Shuttleworth hit him. Would have happened anywhere. Still enjoyed the meeting. Couple of cracking races between Schlein & Cook, heat 6 in particular proving that passing isn't a necessity to see a brilliant race as Cook was all over Schlein's back wheel for 3 laps. I think the Comets are a lot better than some make out and will be there or there abouts at the end. They need to sort Sarjeant out, though,. Not only is his moving at the gate annoying, he simply isn't cutting it.

Can't argue with that and I'm certainly not blaming Lakeside. The arbitrary, inconsistent, secret rulings don't just annoy the hell out of fans they can actually, in the end, drive them away.

You could say that they are trying to get a rider in on an average that is way below what it should be but essentially I agree. If anyone is unhappy with that average (and plenty are) there is only the NL & the BSPA to blame. That got blown apart with the Harland Cook decision, if it ever existed before hand. I don't have an issue with a 40 year old riding with a young team. No-one says anything critical about Armstrong (quite the opposite, in fact, and rightly so). Its about an average that makes no sense and which will not be explained or justified, so everyone has a right to believe that it is a crooked ruling covered up by secrecy. Its only legal because the NL have ruled a 7.66 average. How they have calculated that is anyone's guess, but it certainly bears no relation to his previous one and the usual method of conversion. Legal maybe, but corrupt and crooked with it.

Its not so much a matter of what his average is but how they arrived at it. Based upon his past EL plus amendment, 7.66 is a joke.

the one thing we won't find out is how they got that figure.

It was actually a highly entertaining meeting Nip and tuck all the way and some good racing thrown in. Definitely makes Sheffield worth another look.

Not in the slightest bit surprised. Better team, better racing, better promotion. Then again, its hard to imagine that Redcar could go much further down hill than having Havelock in charge. I don't think it rewards a losing performance so much as tries to make (to use your words) a 'more level playing field'. I have to say I didn't notice its demise in NL meetings last season, although I have never had an issue with it and lets not forget it has been in existence for 50 years or more. That doesn't necessarily make it right but it does mean that there is reasoning for it. My real point is that you simply can't compare sports. Suggesting that a football fan would find a double point ride ridiculous and bizarre is true but in exactly the same way a speedway fan would find the offside rule (for example) equally ridiculous and bizarre.

I'd be surprised. My view is that Hurry should have had his average reassessed based upon his old EL one with a deduction for how long he has been out of the sport - to me, that's just reasonable. Thing is that jealousy and spite across the NL has meant that others have not had such a reduction and so he shouldn't get it either. Not that precedent ever counts for anything, that is. When you have a weak co-ordinator who is easily bullied basically its just a matter of make it up as you go along.