szkocjasid

That @davieb1 How long will be be around Not long I hope His posts are useless Now I would call that a very hurtful & out of order thing to say, so how do you think a rider may feel reading that? Very poor post, you can give constructive criticism or suggest stronger replacements, plenty of ways to make your point, without calling a rider useless!

What about rain-offs? A rider could sign - but their average changes after a postponement & then they no longer fit in?

I'll go for: Oxford 57-33 Plymouth

Think Belle Vue's missing riders will hinder them more than Workington missing Ace. Belle Vue 48-42 Workington

I've gotta admit I'm suspicious seeing the weakest rider in the league (Wood) injured & a stronger reserve guesting (Killeen). But what I can't understand is why Edinburgh haven't signed Killeen in place of wood?

Maybe Lemon thinks top 4 qualify?

But by that logic a team like Redcar that has its penultimate league match on 18th August, then doesn't race again till 10th September wouldn't be able to sign a rider after the 19th because he wouldn't be riding till after the 28th! So Redcar's transfer window closes 10 days before other clubs?

Yeah I hadn't even noticed the play-offs comment, Belle Vue have no chance. Even if they win their last 4 matches, they'll still be relying on Oxford or Leicester to lose home matches!

The rules are stupid, can't blame Glasgow for taking advantage of them though. If any promoter complains, I'd simply reply, "why didn't you bring it up at the AGM"?

Probably too short notice to be signed by Friday, then Glasgow don't have another fixture till the 8th

Actually it does, if the top 5 all score double figures, your reserves can be poor & you'll still win

He'll have to be signed earlier than then, but that will be his first Glasgow meeting

I certainly don't think that's funny, but is it wise to buy an engine you can't afford? Also the Glasgow TM should have noticed the helmet colour imo

I had forgotten about that rule, although even if that's why it was "necessary" to sign him, I would have still made out it was Colts choice, rather than having to do it, to give Shimelt a wee confidence boost. I would liken it to Redcar signing Bailey, instead of saying "we're only signing him because Shanes is injured" I'd put "we would have gone for him from the start, but thought he was staying at Glasgow" just a wee positive spin on it for incoming rider & fans?

It's a forum, she's allowed to comment on any post she likes - that's not sticking your nose in. If you disagree with her posts, either explain your alternative view or ignore them, simple

If that was true, I'd still announce "we want Shimelt" rather than "the change was necessary"

1) Etheridge had been awful away, but that's a harsh description of Flint's season. 2) if riders get banned for missing league matches, should the same happen for shared events? Must be hard to convince fans that British Finals / Pairs / Riders Championship's are important if the riders WANT to sit them out?

Odd, the Pairs meetings must have been in the calendar all year & Schlein would have expected to be in Berwick's top 2

Actually it doesn't depend on how many matches he was going to miss, that makes the change "necessary" like Redcar with Harrison, could just have agreed to use him when needed. I would say if they announced "because Bowen will miss matches we've decided to give Shimelt a go, or said, Shimelt's been going well in practice & he deserves a chance - that would be a positive spin on it - giving Jack confidence? By saying the change was "necessary" I read that as meaning, they didn't really want to sign him but we're forced into it?

I don't understand this comment: Club CEO Mark Lemon said: “We are sorry to see Paul go, but with the play-offs fast approaching and his circumstances meaning he would miss some key fixtures, we feel the change was necessary. Why is the change "necessary" if Bowen is gonna miss matches, then Shimelt could have been used as an unnattatched guest? Now I'm not saying what they've done is wrong, just the reason given doesn't make sense?

I was meaning every time a reserve gets replaced, take a tapes exclusion to save your average, not suggesting touch the tapes in every heat to allow a stronger reserve in, you couldn't have a rider taking 0 rides anyway as he has to have 3 rides, so could only be replaced in one of these heats. I had always thought tapes exclusions don't count as a ride for averages (if replaced) as that means, 5 riders gained a ride in that heat for their stats, but only 4 rode (obviously). I'm not sure how the Lawson / Cook situation affects things, as they both weren't replaced, so counts as a ride, whichever way the averages were worked out.

When he wasn't picked, I just assumed he must have been injured, as there is no other reason to go with Etheridge?

If I'm wrong, and it looks as if I am (unless someone made a mistake) I cannot understand why they count tape exclusions for averages, normally a teams averages are based on 30 races per match, but with tape exclusions could be based on 31 or more. If I was a reserve being replaced, I would ask to be allowed to touch the tapes every time to lower my average, which is why I couldn't fathom that they do count, as 1) one doesn't every rider do that, 2) think how long the matches would go on, 3) would the BSPL cotton on to what's going on & change the ruling?

I'm 99.9% certain they don't, but the next time I see a tape exclusion in a match, I'll look at the riders stats before they are updated & compare them afterwards to see (that I'm right lol)

Now you're either trolling, joking or stupid, but how is moving 3 points scored by a tac sub from one heat, into another heat gonna mean Glasgow outscored Poole by more?