dontforgetthefueltapsbruv

perhaps he misunderstood his legal team at the end of the hearing. Lawyer says "Darcy we expect a verdict within fortyfive days" Darcy hears "Darcy we expect a verdict within four to five days"

if rearranged fixtures take priority over original fixtures then it is a complete stitch up.Even in the strange world of Speedway rules that would be odd.

it could be 4 days , it could be 4 weeks.Hopefully its closer to the first one for all teams.

Heres a take on the situation.In brackets is where the Speedway characters would be placed In October 2014 a person (Ipswich) goes to Enterprise (BSPA) to hire a car (Danny). The agreement is for 2015 and payment made (loan fee) Going into 2015 someone else (Coventry) fancies driving that car (Danny). They go to Enterprise (BSPA) who say thete is only one car (Danny) available but agree to the hire (DU) anyway. In Feb 2015 Enterprise (BSPA) tell you ( Ipswich) that someone else (Coventry) can drive your car (Danny) and infact if you both want it at the same time they (Coventry) have priority because the bloke from the same street (league) as them (Cov) used to drive the car (Danny) See it makes perfect sense now!!

And Doolan. I would expect the assets were in lieu of debts or if none outstanding payment would be passed to the previous promoter. Presumably there is an arbitary figue based on age and average for Dannys pricetag.

One thing we all seem to agree on is that the asset system isnt fit for purpose. Probably defended by those who wouldnt change it as the lesser of 2 evils as a true freelance approach could see the rich clubs 'raid' riders once proven. Is that so different to now though? And at the end of the day each team can only have 7 riders and build within the points limit.

So how did Pboro sign the likes of North and Poole? Assets but unused. Bellego on the other hand despite actually riding for a PL club was not an asset when he moved due to not having ridden enough meeting to qualfy. Adam Ellis signed by Lakeside -unused until tested out in PL and found to be a good prospect. For him to have been an asset of a PL club he wouldve neeed to ride the min number of meetings.

Partly agree with the principle of what you say. However the garnering of assets has been skewed in the favour of the EL in the past with them signing riders without usuing them and loaning to PL - something the PL clubs werent able to do. That didnt neccessarily mean any significant investment (financial or otherwise) on the EL side but means they have more assets. Only in the last couple of years has this changed and even then you hear the suggestion that tge likes of Kurtz are actually Poole riders for example even though its not technically possible.

that makes sense - so basically an EL stitch up whilst they had the chance!

What seems surprising is that the PL clubs would vote for this. Would take 3 to side with the EL sides (assuming it was a single vote) What would they gain to make it worthwhile?

Are we going to start the who owns Blackbird debate again? wink!

Beerhut is looking at guest options for King not listing tge PL clubs looking for a guest that day.The PL clubs are those not riding.

I dont think so but give it time!

unless the Witch is a BSPA asset it seems though!

but it is double UP not double DOWN.The cause is of course the bastardisation of the original principle of giving up and comers the chance to try EL with less risk. As soon this changed problems were bound to occur. The fast track effectively covers the original DU aim now.

Lets see what sort of delays we get from unsatisfactory starts through riders snaking out of the gate from unsuitable/unprepared ruts.

So he qualifies and is arguably as deserving a case as you are likely to find in the current set up.

couldnt resist! wink FWIW I think the accepted criteria is 10 years on 1 clubs books with any year away included so long as there has been no transfer request. Pjiper probably qualifies under that and as many have said its down to personal choice who attends. Whether the criteria should be stricter is a different matter. Personally Id say yes. A testimonial should be an exceptional 'honour' rather than the norm as it is becoming.

Its poor that it isnt clear to all. The fact that even Chris wasnt sure points to the fact that the situation was/is under review. You wouldve thought that shouldve been finalised at the AGM but seems not! We will all find out when the first clash occurs!

Stick with Ritchie as captain IMO With King I would hope and expect the Witches get priority. It called double UP after all.

40-30 deuce advantage Mr G

International competitions are grantedspecific agreements for the event only I believe.

Morten plus say Morley in place of Gino and Stefan would fit. As likely as any switch! wink

at present it is being mooted that Manzares is OK albeit that a revision in criteria must be in place if that is true. Thats the only possible issue for the Witches so Leigh returning doesnt seem likely at present. Be careful what you wish for Lewy if its to wind up the Rebels - if a recall does happen it could be Morten!

Given his rolling average is calculated over 24 meetings so around 110 rides this equates to being 2 race points short.One EF or one failed team ride in 110 races could mean he is out! Harsh if so but there has to be a line somewhere.