szkocjasid

As poor as Tungate has been he's still got a higher 2025 average than Gusts riding in a tougher position. The team is stronger picking Tungate ahead of Gusts. If there is a 7+ rider willing to come over then Tungate could get dropped too.

I agree with it, I'm pretty sure they asset system would never hold up in court if it was challenged. But feel there should be some reward for NL/NT teams who bring on riders, who then go elsewhere.

It seems 99% of the fans on the Oxford fb page are against the change, plenty give good reasons such as Gusts is promising, hasn't had enough time, Cook is unreliable etc but they all seem to be missing a big point THE SPIRES HAVE LOST EVERY MATCH THIS SEASON. Now if they were a mid-table side or just missed out on the play-offs, all of those reasons would have been valid, but Oxford couldn't afford to do nothing. Quite a few also pointed out Tungate has been poor & should have been replaced with another heat leader instead - but none of them seem to realise there's no heat leaders out there willing to come over, otherwise Sheffield would have signed one. None of them were able to suggest a heat leader either.

I echo Bitza's remarks, can Lewi reply to where it has been explained on the forum?

That's a bit of a daft comment. If you're gonna post that the asset system has changed & affects Poole, surely you'd expect forum users to have a discussion about it? That's what the forum is for. So to then not explain the situation seems really odd to me. Why post a "conversation starter" without enough information for people to have a conversation about it?

I think the plan was Castagna for Vuolas, which makes sense. But they couldn't do that while Zagar was in the 1-7. I'm sure when a club drops a rider they can't bring him back "without management committee approval". I'm this case it's not like Birmingham were attempting to fiddle the averages, so I'm 99.99% sure Zagar would be allowed back. Last year Zach Cook was re-signed after being dropped & that was allowed.

Edinburgh can't remove Max from their team till they have a replacement, even if they found one after a week, I assume Max would still have to sit out his 28 day ban. Maybe the rules are to blame for this more than Edinburgh. As for Berwick, I think 2 matches isn't enough for any rider to prove their worth, unless Bastien said he was struggling & wanted to be replaced, think Berwick should've given him longer in the team.

I think if / when Zagar returns it'll be in place of Hume.

I know people like to exaggerate but they would romp the Champ with that side imo

Team looks very weak now. Oxford look stronger imo.

Makes sense

The idea is one of them joins another club. Won't be the first time a top rider has had to change teams due to the points limit, Rickardsson left Ipswich after the 98 treble, Hancock & Hamill split up after racing together at Cradley & Coventry, Poole chose Pedersen over Crump (can't remember if that was due to points limit or GP rider limit). I'm not saying it's ideal, but if the alternative is clubs closing down due to losing money let alone the clubs that may lose their stadium, won't do much good having a superstar team with only 2 or 3 teams to race against.

If grade A is 8.00+ then grade B is 6.00-7.99, means a big difference in team strengths. I'd suggest saying clubs are only allowed 1 x 9+ rider or 2 x 8+ riders, sharing the top riders around.

With Scunthorpe having decent looking reserves, r/r would be a good option.

So did Jason Crump, born in Britain, but after riding for Australia.

That's exactly it, one rider is willing to travel because he wants to make a living as a speedway rider. The other is willing to put his career on hold & hope for a more Southern Champ club? That's how I see it. I'm not having a go at Ablitt, I wouldn't want to travel from the south coast to Berwick for home matches, but with not many clubs these days, it's a risk sitting out of the Champ & only doing NL/NT when you're a 5 point champ rider.

He only has to do better than Vuolas to strengthen the team.

I think everyone knew that pre-season. Would have been impossible to be as strong with the points limit. Despite losing to Plymouth they're still one of the top 4 clubs in the league imo. Biggest difference to last year, is they're amongst the favourites, rather than clear favourites.

Looking at Plymouth's May averages & Klindt's current ave, when Klindt completes 6 matches, Plymouth would have 8.68 points available to replace Cluff! I don't know if there's any heat leaders out there available, but could certainly strengthen the team. That figure will change depending on how many Klindt scores in his next 3 matches, question is can Cluff improve enough to keep his team spot?

Birmingham should've taken the change to talk to him about riding over here regardless, maybe they did?

Can't see Hagon doing well in the top 5. I'd move him to 2, Kemp at 3, Hume at 4. Easier to use Kemp in heat 15, if he's not been in the previous heat imo

When they race Oxford

Yep, agree with that.

I'll get lynched for suggesting this, but have 2 "rising stars" then you only need to fill the other 5 places instead of 6.

Not sure why Gusts only got 3 rides when Killeen got 6. Especially as Gusts finished ahead of Killeen in heat 12. Wouldn't make a difference to the score, but still worth giving Gusts a 4th ride imo.