TonyE

And he was!

I thought Alfie put in a good performance all things considered - he was well placed on the two occasions he fell and was, generally, not far off the pace. I think he will do Ok for a two point reserve.

I read it as two Swedish clubs and one in UK which everyone assumes to be Lakeside. The same amount expressed in three currencies with no breakdown as to amount per country or Club

13 riders - I wonder what the race format will be.

I don't believe it is that illustrative - Kim mentions three years and speedway is a sport where equipment costs are significant. What we do not know is what percentage of his income these outstanding monies represent. All that said, I believe Kim, having brought this out into the open, should be a bit more specific.

Geographical location is very much a mixed blessing to Lakeside. Yes, a significant catchment area but, with that, come the all too familiar traffic issues. Couple that with a none too spectator comfort friendly stadium and you are essentially left with the die-hards. NL meeting costs were, I seem to recall, around the £8,000 or £9,000 mark and no way would crowd levels have got anywhere near to covering that. Dropping down served a purpose at the time it was done but the product wasn't attractive enough to pull in the punters required.

Last year almost certainly made the financial position worse which led to the sale of Adam and Zach to Swindon.

All the more reason for an official response.

Owing money is alleged to be commonplace in which case there could be several clubs 'not allowed to run' in 2018.

I think Kim, having now put the issue in the open, needs to expand upon just who owes him money, how much and what for? The whole thing does not sound 'very Lakeside' to me and, perhaps, their promotion should issue a statement to address the concerns expressed. Five of this year's seven riders have ridden for the club before, surely if there were payment issues they would not have re-signed.

No matter nationality, performance level or age - they are all 'stars' when it comes to reporting.

I can understand Ed not wanting the 'commute' to Newcastle - a 'foreigner' can fly in to the closest practical airport!

In that case, one could take the view that the particular heat available to view is representative of the other 14 and not bother to 'purchase' the DVD, Far better to put a decent race up and hope the prospective DVD purchaser wants to see more of the same!

That is a totally different argument!

Leading to a situation whereby a converted average takes priority over an actual (on track) average which is far from ideal. Converted averages should only be used when none exists at the level the rider is performing at. Yes, Morris is an apparent anomaly performing worse at the lower level but that should not be used to support your argument.

They were probably aware of the speed at which the speedway problem resolution works and decided on Plan B instead.

I would imagine the Lakeside promotion are feeling a bit peeved.

Reading 'The Role of the SCB' on their website, it states that every year they produce a 'Rule Book' (I am pretty certain they don't write it, that is the function of the BSPA) and, thereafter they adjudicate on 'interpretation and application of said rules' (it is not, in my opinion, within their remit, to approve, amend or delete rules). On that basis, if the BSPA wants to bar Premiership riders with an average over 6 who do not already have a Championship average, then I do not feel it is the SCB's role to go against them no matter how inequitable the issue becomes in respect of affected riders.

This thread is ending up down a dead end!

My reference was more along the lines of unnecessarily prolonging a topic where 'agreement' is unlikely (you have made your point, time to let it rest).

When one has reached the bottom of the hole, one should stop digging.

In that case, Ben 4.27 and Zach 4.21 respectively.

Some people don't know their 'curbs' from their 'kerbs'!

The fact that the 'rule' has only just been deleted would indicate that Jon didn't get it wrong!

I very much doubt Neil Vatcher has done this unaided - no doubt one, or more, complaints have been made and he has responded. One thing is for sure is that we will never get the full story.