Hunters

Fully agree with you, I like Ben and was happy to see him sign again this year but we have to remember that the old 'loyalty' policy, admirable though it was, did not appeal to large numbers of fans who drifted away and brought about the demise of the club. Remember the same old same old Eastbourne jibes? The younger generation have lifted it from the ashes and seem determined not to make the same mistakes. Their hand was really forced on 'Bad Friday' and they have had to make some difficult decisions. With a very limited British only pool of riders a like for like replacement for Kyle was almost certainly not available which meant either weakening the No 1 spot or making a double change. They opted for the latter and Ben was the one who had to make way. Personally I would have made Perks a straight replacement for Kyle and used the spare 1.5 points to get a really good reserve. We saw last year what effect a quality reserve can have particularly in r/r situations. Then no doubt there would have been criticism for dumping Phillips after only three meetings. It's a catch 22.

If he is going to ride like that then they must snap Perks up. I think Islander has it spot on. Interesting to see how they go at Lynn this week which will suit Knight perfectly, but can they get a decent reserve by then?

So much for my forecasts, Hope they let me in the stadium for the next meeting. Reading the updates it would appear that Coventry reserves are as bad as ours.

Sorry to say it but there is not the slightest chance of getting 40 points. With r/r giving one ride to Georgie and the rest to the reserves, it means the reserves have 11 rides between them. They managed 4 points from 18 rides on Friday with two of them unavoidable in heat two's. Barring falls or engine failures they will only get the I point tonight. That leaves the other 4 to get 39 between them against a team I fancy for at least the play offs. No chance! More to the point can they get to 30? Even that is questionable.

Obviously most of you lovely critics were not there or it was another excuse to have a pop at Eastbourne? Were they disappointing - Yes, but the final score was to say the least flattering. 1) Kyle Hughes after a super victory over Luke Bowen in heat one next time out inexplicably crashed a few yards from the line when home and dried. Off to hospital in the ambulance and out of the meeting. 2) Georgie Wood when clear of Danny Ayres on lap 3, when the bike stopped. 3)Richard Andrews two dreadful rides on a very slow bike then borrowed what was probably the track spare and put in the best race of night against Ayres twice (A Re- Run) 4)In his first race coming round bend two James Shanes got in a terrible mess and Ben Hopwood, probably thinking he would fall and have to avoid him tried a quick turn inside and caught the fence himself. By some miracle Shanes recovered but Hopwood was excluded. 5)Jake Knight looked a bit uncertain on what was a strange track after Kings Lynn but by his fifth outing he looked pretty good beating Bowen and Ayres. Never mind the aberration jibe it was just one of those days I am sure they will overcome the mechanical problems. I am quite happy with the 1 to 5 they will come good but the real problem is at reserve, 10 rides 3points says it all. Powell was a trier but will take time to master the switch from Grass to Shale but Nick Phillips? I hate to be critical or riders that risk life and limb but Phillips does not even look a prospect I wonder how long before he gets his first point unless somebody falls in his race. Without all that Kent would still probably have won a close match as they look a compact unit but there is no doubt the reserves would have won it for them. I hope Hughes injury will not keep him out too long as without him they are in trouble, and how many meetings before Phillips has to go. Before today I thought he was a youngster that might show some promise but find he will be 28 in June and the oldest man in the team. What on earth possessed them to sign him?

The article said nothing about Speedway. Do they use the same track or is it like Eastbourne with the Stock track outside of the speedway track and a tyre barrier on Stocks night to keep them off the Speedway part. Cant believe all those bumps they talk of 3 or 4 years back were on the Speedway track as well.

Certainly looks like Birmingham's to lose but I don't think their reserves are as good as they think they are. Saw them a couple of times each last year and Smith looked a lot better than Blackburn who could struggle a bit. He should still score 4 because there seem to be a lot of rookies. The other end of the table looks like Kings Lynn to me. Probably the best reserve but the heat leaders? Biggest disappointment I suspect will be Rye House, so top heavy. Almost 20 points on two riders who will score well but have negligible back up. They are not guaranteed to meet their averages either because the heat leaders they meet will be stronger this year. BWD and Ellis missing but Morris, Greenwood, Wilson and Bowen coming, a tall order. In the end it may well depend on Lady Luck. There are injuries every year and whoever avoids them this year will have a good chance as the gap between top and bottom is likely to be very close.

More than optimistic, the opposition for both Andrews and Wood including their partners is 6 heat leaders, 3 second strings and 3 reserves so to average 6.00 they will have to beat every second string and reserve in every match home and away OR beat a lot of heat leaders and every time they finish in front of their own partner dents our heat leaders average because paid points don't count. Similar situation applies to the reserves. 42 to 43 would be a realistic target and would get a play off place. There would be nothing 'lucky' about that at home, it would be very disappointing and mean several home losses. Last year they averaged 56 at home in the league. Don't expect that much this year but at least it is nice to know you don't regard it as a 'trick' track

Don't know what Bowen would come in at but 8.35 or less would allow for him and Marc Owen. That would be a good top 4.

Unless they pull a surprise either Kent or Eastbourne are going to be in trouble. They both need a No 1 and the list of likely candidates looks to be down to just Kyle Hughes. If they have completed their sides they should put us out of our misery, never mind the publicity.

Time to fantasise, Adam Ellis surely needs more than just No 7 at Poole to pay the bills. No 1 at Arlington?

No way, this would leave us 1.67 short of limit. Cannot afford to give the others a start. We must have an out and out No 1 to begin to compete with the West Midlands duo. There are not many options left. I would settle for Kyle Hughes and Andrews if the rumours are right.

Reading Conner Dugards introduction of Nick Phillips to Eastbourne, I was surprised to find BWD had been riding round Somerset last year. We know he has a place in the PL this year so looks to be Somerset bound for sure. I don't think you will be disappointed he is a bit of a thriller and never gives up.

Who are the anonymous 'them' you are telling. I am on record as having complained about play offs in all leagues for a long time. As regards the 2016 NL Title it has to be Birmingham's to lose. This 40 limit cuts many teams out of competition and opened the door for the return of Zach with Perry and with two of the most promising reserves they still have almost 16 points to put the issue beyond reasonable doubt. Eastbourne could have been in a similar position but the change in rules put BWD out and with spiller's year out they have big gaps that I don't think can be filled. Unless they pull a surprise out of the bag I doubt they will even make the play-offs. Instead of repeated jibes and whinging about the track you should thank the AGM for making it easy for you.

Where does that 'info' come from? Without an out and out no 1 we could struggle this year. I was happy with Ben at one when I thought the limit would be 36 but at 40 we have no hope against a Birmingham side which will surely have Zach with Perry and two very promising reserves unless we do find an almost 9 pointer which looks impossible. Morley must be at Rye/Kent and Ellis & Branford look too high even if any were interested.

No. Sussex Bulldog got that a bit wrong. If you read the official web site Connor indicated that one other rider from 2015 would be back. This must therefore be either Andrews or Owen. I would have thought they were going to need both with BWD and Spiller gone.

I do not recall any comment from the club that Hopwood would not be number 1

Just recovered from the shock. 40 points! Now I will sit back and see where all these extra higher point riders that were suggested are coming from. Still believe some teams are going to be too far below the limit and uncompetitive.

Now I am confused, He does not have a PL average,they may say that he would come in to the Pl on a 5 but the same applied last year, in fact I think they said 7 originally. As he has not signed for a PL team I don't see why he cannot continue for a second season where he is.

And that would open the door for a BWD return but I fear there are not enough riders with sufficient points to make up 12 teams. I wonder how many would have to come in some way under the limit and create an unbalanced league.

Mildenhall have announced Halsey which takes their total to 28.66. With 3 more to come they will be at least 37.66. Presumably they already know the points limit is 38 or more. So it is a done deal before the meeting starts.

Most Eastbourne fans would agree with you. We would not have wanted to win the league that way. Bitter memories of the first Elite League Play Off in 2002 when after topping the league by 4 points, an injury before the final to (I believe) No 1 Mark Loram saw a raw 16 year old (Eddie Kennett) make his debut. No guest allowed then. The result inevitably a 6 point aggregate win and forever bragging rights to Wolverhampton. I have always been strongly against play off's for league winners, can you imagine the reaction if the Premier Football league suggested it. Just another reason why speedway does not get taken seriously in some quarters.

Nothing wrong with wanting better teams we would all like it but your missing the point. Where are the better riders coming from to fill ALL 12 of those teams evenly? Without them higher points limits mean some teams coming in much lower than others. Therefused sees that point and I am sure few if any of us would want to see that. The availability of suitably able riders and the points limit are interdependent.

It does not come from anywhere just my view on what it needs to be to allow for two new teams and the likely consequences of the various other potential limits. I find it difficult to believe that the clubs have not worked this out for themselves unless there are other rule changes in the pipeline to open the league up to other British riders who are not young development youngsters.

How did the news on Spiller come about? He will be missed. Perhaps he will come in mid season when exams finish. Delighted to have Ben at No 1 he has been my first choice for some time but I feared he would be at Belle Vue or Stoke. I'm still convinced it will be a 36 point limit. Looking at it mathematically, as there looks to be two extra teams an additional 72 points have to be found even at 36. By setting the limit at 36 against the standard of 42 releases on average 6 points each for the existing 10 teams, a total of 60. Still 12 short of requirement but can be made up of four new reserves at 3pts for the new teams. However if you go to a 38 limit the requirement moves up to 76 (2x38) and the release comes down to 40 (10x4). Now the gap increase to 36 and I just don't see how that can be made up. If the limit was 40 then the gap is a huge 60 points. Certainly there can be some 'better' additions like Ollie Greenwood but there will also be losses probably Adam Ellis and BWD for starters. Anything other than 36 will almost certainly result in some teams having to come in under the points limit which defeats the basic premise of a Level Playing Field which was the foundation of points limits for many years in all leagues and most countries. My team is one of the two or three with most to gain from a higher limit, arguably the most with the highest closing GSA so I can object to a higher than 36 limit without fear of bias. The interest of the NL and the competitive competition is far more important than the interest of one or two teams. We don't need another Scunthorpe 2014. If the limit is raised then a rule similar to that introduced by the EL a few years ago should be applied. Only one rider over 8.0 per team so that the few available are evenly spread. Now listen to the pot hunters rail with spurious arguments!