BWitcher

Greatly improves the event. A last heat decider, whether it's for the match, or an extra pt is always more exciting than a meaningless one, regardless of the action on the track.

Nobody is living in denial with regards to tv meets being shown in front of sparse crowds being damaging. The issue with folk living in denial is the continued false claim that racing was so much better in years gone by. There is no denial needed, the evidence is readily available on Youtube. I just went there, first meeting I found, decided to watch it through... ONE Pass in 13 heats. Riders spread out in some races more than you ever saw last season.. in fact I think two of them still haven't finished heat 3. Commentator Dave Lanning several times tells us that it's the very best of British League Racing we are seeing... things really don't change do they? Of course, it all looks much better because of the big crowd, which proves the point I've been making since TV coverage first began.

Exactly. And UFC basically built on the format of WWF/WWE down the years. Another prime example of using TV to go from a small regional business to a billion dollar industry.

Never ceases to amaze me. Speedway, the only sport in the world that thinks TV coverage is a bad thing and has managed to ensure in some ways it IS a bad thing. 20 years of utter waste.

Phillip Rising has explained, the tyres are simply optional. If riders wish to use others they can. It's up to them to test them and decide if they are going to get benefit from them.

Does this mean they are the ONLY tyre eligible for use in the GP this season? Or is the term 'official' supplier purely a marketing term. If they are the only choice any riders struggling early on have their excuse prepared for them!

Yeah you're right, we should be more productive with our time, maybe spend it in jail instead.

So you're an even bigger **** than we first thought with zero regard for others. Emergency services are stretched enough as it is without having to deal with idiots like you. Going 1 mile over the speed limit doesn't land you in jail. The more you post, the more of a fool you make yourself sound, or perhaps you're just after some attention and you're making it all up. Either way, it doesn't paint you very well. Now let's get back on topic with regards to the tv deal.

Staggering as it may seem most people can go through life without breaking the law thousands of times and somehow, despite as you say 'things happening in life' manage to avoid going to jail. That's before your bragging about not paying for a TV licence.

So a drain on honest folk in more ways than one.

Personally I think there should be an investigation as to just why Doyle was awarded the World Championship trophy when clearly his elevation was not cleared by the authority that is Hot Shoe.

You might not be being negative, you're just showing a complete and utter lack of understanding of promotion. Indeed, I'm starting to think you must be a member of the BSPA!

Yes, something which you are clearly lacking.

Ever thought of a career in promotions? You seem a natural.

Just as with Woffinden, there will always be the jealous, bitter, xenophobic haters. Doyle is a rider who has grown on me tremendously over the last couple of seasons and one who certainly has achieved far more than I ever thought him capable off.

The league in 2018 is stronger that at the start of 2017. Comparing to the end of a season is foolish as teams who get off to a poor start strengthen during the season. Compare how Swindon would have looked without the Musielak change as an example. Or even how Wolves would have looked if they had stuck with Skornicki and he had continued to struggle.

The difference is as close as it has ever been. It was far further apart in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

A fair enough reason... so simply say that!

You should give up. You're trolling at the levels of Starman. You seem to be displaying a complete inability to understand basic English. The original criteria are IRRELEVANT. Had he fitted those criteria he wouldn't be applying for a discretionary endorsement. There is a long section that explains this in the rules if you'd bother to read it where it explicitly explains what is required for a discretionary endorsement to be given by the BSPA. That same section says that full reasoning would be given if the discretionary endorsement was turned down and why the information provided was not sufficient. Again, the original criteria at this point are IRRELEVANT. You don't seem to be able to grasp that nobody is denying the right for the BSPA to turn it down. Indeed I may even lean towards supporting them in that decision. What isn't correct is giving a reason that he doesn't fit the original criteria. That is just ridiculous. It's like being found guilty in a court of law, appealing, arriving at your appeal and the judge saying.. "You're guilty because the original jury said so" and not bothering to even look at any new evidence or the appeal. Again, had the BSPA, from the outset stated that no discretionary endorsements would be considered this whole situation would not have occutred.

Yes it is their discretion, nobody has ever said that, something you seem quite keen not to grasp. However, when at their discretion they are not going to endorse a rider they are required to give their reasons in writing as to why the reasons given for the discretionary endorsement are not sufficient. Saying he doesn't fit the original criteria, which the BSPA did (initially) is not doing that. That is stating the bleedin obvious and why the discretionary endorsement was applied for in the first place. The BSPA have had all winter to make a simple statement. "No discretionary endorsements will be considered. If you don't fit the criteria, that is it". Is that really such a hard thing for them to do? Why leave the door open, drag processes out, waste people's time when they had no intention of ever awarding an endorsement? That leaves the door open for people, with good reason given past history, to wonder if it is done so if someone in favor applies for an endorsement, one can be given. It's simply another mess they've brought upon themselves that could very easily have been avoided.

I know Grachan isn't dumb, so am confused why he seems to be missing the point here.

Well you're acting it, suggesting that the criteria which makes you apply for a discretionary endorsement is the reason used for not giving one. Seems Rob Godfrey has clarified that Becker DOES fit the criteria, but the BSPA have simply decided they aren't giving any discretionary endorsements. So again, it's having one rule and doing another thing that is the issue. If the BSPA had told Edinburgh and indeed every other club right from the beginning that there will be no discretionary endorsements given there would never have been an issue. It's this moving of the goalposts that is a fundamental issue in the governing of the sport.

Yes you do.

Come on Grachan, you aren't that dumb are you? That is the criteria for an automatic visa. Becker wasn't applying for an automatic visa. Becker was applying for a discretionary endorsement. An entirely different thing where you are NOT required to meet the initial criteria (you wouldn't be applying for it if you did). Saying you aren't eligible for a DISCRETIONARY ENDORSEMENT because you don't meet the criteria for an automatic visa is about as stupid as you can get. As I've already stated, all the BSPA had to say was they didn't feel Becker was of a sufficient standard or some other excuse to cover themselves. Instead, they act like idiots and alienate another bunch of fans. All could very easily have been avoided.

Correct, neither did Becker. That's why a discretionary endorsement is applied for. So what was the argument behind Douglas applying for a discretionary endorsement?