TonyE

The key issue in Romford's case was that the houses (and occupants) pre-dated the start of the speedway and the later was deemed to constitute a 'nuisance' - hence the decision. As they say, if you buy a house at the end of the runway, you shouldn't complain about planes flying overhead!

Using Romford as an example is a little misleading. The housing had been there for a long while (co-existing with the then football club). It was the additional noise from motorcycle engines that caused the Bombers to fold at Brooklands. That said, it seems just common sense that complaints re 'normal' levels of noise associated to an existing function, should not be entertained.

We have merely adopted the Poole methodology in our team building strategy!

Got it now. Must have listened to a different interview before.

No surprise. I listened to the interview but must have missed the Friday/Saturday bit!

I cannot see anyway that Jon Cook would apply to join the Championship without assurances that Hammers would get Friday or Saturday as their race night. Any other night and we might as well pack up now.

It is to the club's discredit that they have not responded to you at all. Personally, I cannot see Thursday ever being a night of choice for the Hammers - Fridays and Saturdays are favourite.

I was going by the article in Speedway Star but accept that others are impacted (not sure though how many of them would want to ride at the lower level). If they do not get a PL offer then they are effectively banned from UK speedway which cannot be right. The problem is of BSPA's own making given that we have riders with 'superior' PL averages who qualify for a Championship berth whereas those with lesser averages do not. The law of unforeseen consequences applies.

With just two riders affected, both British, it makes little sense to even seasoned followers of speedway. What do the promoters hope to achieve by their stance? I would not even bother to try explain this scenario to someone new to the sport.

Unless things have changed, NL sides can't have assets or Zach would have been a Birmingham one. It caused some disquiet with the latter when we signed him.

I didn't think Lakeside 'owned' Ben Morley - thought he was a Rye House asset.

Both of course - this is speedway after all.

There is a difference though - Paul's was an assessed average whereas I do not think that applies to any of the proposed team. Perhaps the answer lies in the latest Hammers' press release, an extract of which appears below. “Team building wise it hasn’t all been plain sailing and having early targets made ineligible was a challenge but we’ve benefitted too with BSPA (British Speedway Promoters’ Association) confirmation that Ben and Zach are on their actual 2016 Tier 2 figures and to have riders of the absolute quality of Nick and Rich to lead us and all seven riders taking little or no persuasion to become Hammers has made my job rather easy.

Perhaps you need the same person(s) who told Jon Cook he could not use Scott Nicholls to come forward with his opinion!

The general consensus on here is that the team is considerably over the 42.50 limit. It is, therefore pointless to go on about 2.5% reductions because, in real terms they amount to very little (0.1 on a average of 4.00 - to achieve even a 0.50 reduction, you would need to apply it to combined averages totalling 20). Something else is definitely in play here.

I would imagine the answer is along the lines of making best use of a ruling/regulation already in existence and therefore available to all.

It has to be someone on a very different average to what posters on here believe. A 2.5% reduction does not amount to very much and this team appears to be, on the face of it, well over the 42.5 limit. I can only think Zach has come in on an old CL average. However, we will have to wait and see. Shame to SpeedwayGB website doesn't put an average against the 2018 team building names etc.

I believe both Eddie & Alfie would fit with 0.10 to spare.

That should leave a dozen or so for speedway.

Now a possibility again.

Not quite sure what you are inferring that 'the powers that be' might be looking to prevent in the future. A CL average is a CL average, the issue surely is the conversion ratio to be applied when a rider does not have one. You cannot really have a situation where by circumstance/good fortune certain riders of a similar PL average can compete in CL whereas others cannot.

Cannot see why not. From a sample of 16 riders I have taken who currently have averages in both leagues, the conversion works out at just under 1.25 so you could say 1.3 is about right. Incidentally, Nick Morris has a higher PL average than he does a CL one..

You have highlighted the key issue - 'consistency' of application across PL riders with similar averages. It either applies to all or none.

The 'stupidity' of the rule is that it is, effectively, a life time ban from the Championship (or until such time as said riders get their averages in the Premier below six points). As I, and others, have said before, it is a 'restraint of trade' issue which would not survive a first legal hearing given the fact that others with similar PL averages are allowed to compete in the Championship.

If only a couple of riders are impacted there does not appear to be much point to it in the first place!