GS550

Appreciated thanks. However, what about the erosion of 'identity' aspect which many such as myself find a turn off and which I won't pay to see, and which has already reduced my attendance. And what about doubling up being a barrier to amalgamation / all one league (either of the existing top two tiers only i.e. 18 teams, or possibly better if amalgamation of the second and third tiers as I don't care for big names nor any prima donna's anyway) and which team would have priority over a rider when two teams in a match face each other and he rides for both. I'm sorry but the whole thing is a mess. Its a farce. Others are rebuked by it and mock the sport and I also find it a complete turn off and not credible and I won't pay to see. Edit (for Owenbros): No. I don't mean teams having different nights, I mean if in the event of amalgamation a rider ends up being contracted to two teams in the same (amalgamated) league e.g. Wolverhampton v Glasgow (in an amalgamated league) and so they obviously in such a match they would face each other on the same night then which team would they ride for. Its that kind of scenario I was referring to. Cheers mate.

Understand what you're saying. However, fixture clashes / rain offs / re-arranged fixtures are gonna happen and while there's doubling up we will get the farce that we've had this season. There's another factor. For want of a better term, the "tribal" factor. Supporters/fans of team sports are "tribal" to some extent or other - they identify with the riders (or players in other sports). This "identity" factor is being eroded by doubling up, especially when rules of precedence as to whose asset and which league takes priority etc and the rules aren't followed properly anyway. You then end up with the "Guest Fest" scenario. I find it a real turn off. And its one reason why I have reduced my attendance. So on that basis doubling up doesn't pay. There's also the credibility factor. Supporters of other sports shake their head in disbelief that a rider can represent one team one day and another the next, and even ride as a Guest for one club in a cup tie and ride for the opposition in the return leg. They shake their heads at what they decry as a Mickey Mouse sport that is very badly run and they laugh at it. So on that basis we are doing ourselves no favours in attracting newcomers to a sport which is seen as a laughing stock due to such as doubling up. It is also surely a barrier to amalgamation / all one league. How would doubling up / riding for two or more teams work if they are all riding in the same league and potentially teams having priority over which rider when they face each other in a match. Its a mess. Its a farce. We need to get back to basics, keep it simple. As ragdoll64 says the sport thrived for years and years without doubling up, riders only in one league, in one country, and using one bike. And supporters could identify with the riders as being their club. The mercenary faceless 'no identity' scenario is a massive turn off which I don't want to pay to see.

Not relevant. What about the riders that have been squeezed out, careers ended prematurely and needlessly lost to the sport due to stupid rules. Doubling up has been a disaster. 2017 has been farcical. You obviously don't get it. We..... hate..... doubling up!!!!! Its killing the sport. I have reduced my attendance because of it so it does not pay!! BenR195 - read the above post and take full note of it!!!

Doubling up only exacerbates the scenario you paint and increases costs. We need to get back to basics and that includes getting rid of the much hated doubling up. Exactly

No the sport isn't that different, it still uses bikes with no brakes round a dirt track. Seems you are out of touch as regards the complete shambles that has been 2017 season and which is simply not workable.

Post of the month.

Hope not. In any case I disagree with your premise. Doubling up has had much to do with the shambolic way this season has gone. Its been farcical.

Haha. Although compared to words on road signs in Wales, incredibly SMALL words.

Not at all. Although I see you've again body swerved answering the points put to you. Are we ever going to get an answer to post #66. Original version: Are you ever going to explain the nonsensical ethos you espouse, and then inexplicably your denial of your own previously espoused ethos. Alternative version (specially for jengers): Yer man kermi spewed a load of bile / p*sh. He did it again. And again. He then denied all knowledge of his own bile / p*sh. He's never explained why. Must admit I prefer the second version meself.

Credit where credit's due, pretty much spot on as you say. You should have put a lottery ticket on when you were at it. And a lot better than my 'absolute mince' posts on this thread.

Keep that up and you'll be sat on the naughty step Your team did well so, so we'll let you off.

Sounds like meself. I post and within seconds i realise i misread something. Except whereas its a one off for you, that's pretty much all my posts.

And what about your colours. Still waiting for your response to post #66

Well done on the win. Agree with your thoughts about fixtures and low crowds. Best of luck to the Comets for next season.

Indeed

Not to be confused with a 'coloured persons wotsit supper'

Unknowns? Of course that guy Donald Rumsfeld took them to a whole new level, something about:- "There are known knowns. The things we know that we know. There are also known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know." Just when I thought the headache had passed.

I sympathise. If you have two knowns and one unknown it can be found, e.g. "A" minus "B" equals unkown "C". Or if "A" is unknown then add "B plus C". Trouble is if there are too many unknowns then you can't do anything, even wiv a spreadsheet. Tbh your explanation was easier. Think I gave meself a headache doing the algebra stuff.

Incredible. For some considerable time you have been espousing (on other threads) that to be of any real worth riders should have an away average of more than 8 and you have been castigating both Lawson and Summers because their away averages are not in excess of 8 points. And not only Lawson and Summers but also Glasgow on other threads as you have castigated Glasgow for having only one rider with an away average in excess of 8. And each time you've received responses pointing out the futility of that stance given the relatively few riders in the whole league with an away average of more than 8. Now you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" your own ethos. You've listed a team that has only one rider with an away average of more than 8, the rest well short of that away average - you are asked to explain and your response is somehow oblivious to your own ethos asking the above quoted question. Amazing. Is your response just a wind up?

Sorry mate, think I'm the culprit on that one. Just wondered what you meant or maybe meant sommat else. Think said forum police are on the look out for me so you should be alright.

So how many of your handpicked 1 - 7 have away averages of more than 8 ?? Is it just the one ?? Surely this goes against your ethos that you've been espousing and castigating Glasgow for. I've asked again seeing as you ducked the question when I asked before on this thread. I guess we could be waiting a while.

....looks like you just volunteered.

Eh?? Are we allowed to say that kind o' thing these days? Take it you meant sommat else.

I also tried to work out what you're saying. You say "Jack Smith has never lived up to expectations" - well if he was say in his mid or late 30's that might make sense but he's only a teenager in his first season so "has never" doesn't seem to be an appropriate categorisation. You then say "which is a shame because he has been one of the better 2 pointers in the league" - so all things being relative he's done well according to your own statement.

Speedway has long had riders that ride like a world champion and top score one night and then struggle to get 2 points the next. One that springs to mind is Mick Poole - wasn't there a rumour that his tea had been spiked at Shawfield when he scored only 1 or 2 points all night and being ribbed on successive appearances about it. With so many variables - different tracks that suit or don't suit a rider, bike set ups that suit different tracks, mental block for a rider on some tracks, confidence, the opposition, the heats each rider is put into, the odd bit of luck on the night, falls, mechanical gremlins, etc. And of course motivation or possibly lack of. You could well have a point but maybe not cut and dried. Unless the rider's first name is Kev.