NeilWatson

As ridiculous posts go this takes some beating 😡 The medics were obviously booked for today (or they wouldn't be there at all) - the 20 min delay is unfortunate but something clearly happened before or during their journey. As for the 'Fours fiasco' anyone there that day will recall the dreadful accident involving three riders that afternoon that caused the bulk of the delay.

Completely different issues! The rule-book is universal. I am not part of the Peterborough management team so have no more knowledge about their individual riders than you do.

I suggest you listen to different people - your figures are nonsense.

Scott's Premiership average is 7.48, which converts to a Championship average of 8.98. Jack's Championship average is 8.92. For a home guest Jack's average is enhanced by 5% (9.37) so Scott is eligible to guest, away his true average defines the guest so Scott isn't eligible.

The punishment is stated as the first home LEAGUE match of 2018, so not necessarily the first track action of the season.

JPB guests for Tom Bacon RR for BWD

Josh Pickering is named in Edinburgh’s team for tonight

Danny King is unavailable for the Tony Mole farewell meeting on Wednesday 11th due to ‘Leicester commitments’

Mick Horton does still own the Club Licence and rider assets of Coventry Speedway.

IMO no Promoter willingly postpones a meeting - especially on race-day.

SR 18.3.2 All Meetings, including the Semi-Finals and Final are decided upon the aggregate score of both the home and away legs. In the event of a tie in aggregate, provided the 2nd leg took place before August 1st then the Tie will be replayed, thereafter the outcome of any tie will be determined by Golden Heats Format.

That's correct, with run-off(s) if necessary to determine the positions.

IIRC the rule was introduced precisely to stop appeals after the event, probably at the same time the new process for declaring line-ups with clear timelines for queries was introduced.

'Matters of fact' as defined in the Speedway Regulations cannot be appealed, heat results are defined as such.

But it was legitimate in that the facility was awarded and used without protest or sanction. There seems to be a quest to find out who allowed the facility, and under what rule but that is a totally separate matter.

Maybe read the other posts in this thread to understand the situation?

Not at all. The facility was valid, but SCB is anxious to know why. Substitute 'on what basis was the facility granted' for 'why was the facility granted' if that assists.

I made no accusation, I merely pointed out that the Workington management didn't have an issue with the situation. Your obsession with this issue is leading to immoderate language that isn't your usual style - stand back and accept that the facility was quite legitimate and all parties on Sunday acted correctly. Why the facility was granted is a different issue.

Incompetent referee, dodgy management - they're big accusations to make. When a facility is given (and I have no details of the circumstances surrounding that), the referee and both team managers will be advised and will check the validity of the teams taking that into account. By all means try to ascertain who allowed the facility and why, but aim your criticism in the right direction.

Frank was referee for my first meeting as Team Manager, he certainly stood for no nonsense. His rider briefing was akin to a military lecture!

Re Redcar v Glasgow, see http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.62

Let's not forget the Workington promotion who were clearly happy with the facility too.

I missed part of the interview but the implication was that it was the ACU.

SCB clearly disputes it or there wouldn't be this meaningless thread. It was stated at today's meeting that Chris was instructed to attend the Masters in preference to the league meeting.

A facility has clearly been agreed for Chris' absence so there's no question of a ban.