Crump99

The mantra always was riders who want to ride for the club and riders who would improve their average. They've probably met the first part for 2018 but have seemingly been unable to overall meet the second criteria.

In isolation that's all Peterborough may have gained but since Holdergate the BSPA haven't been allowed to run in their usual unnacountable self interest manner, so in the longer term Rathbone's fights might benefit everybody.

Reminds me of this infamous quote: " Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once." - obviously in totally different context but I'm sure that Rathbone will have to be on his guard for a good while yet.

Your problem Rodders is that you don't fully appreciate the complex issues facing promoters at this moment in time or what a very delicate issue this was, not withstanding the top level talks required to mutually agree interpretation of new 2018 regulations/guidelines.

That's got to be the best paragraph of self-glorification one could wish to read.

Nothing to say Rodders. The worst kept secret will be communicated in due course as the local comic says today: "the city club have finally completed their 2018 line-up . . . but they can’t go public yet." "Panthers had struck a deal with seven-time British champion Scott Nicholls, but he was then blocked from racing by new BSPA guidelines. That left both parties in limbo, but speculation in the sport now suggests the rule blocking Nicholls from joining the club is in the process of being overturned. It is thought he will occupy one of the two remaining spaces in the Panthers side with a reserve rider completing the order."

Out of interest, how long you been going. The will we wont we has only really been an invention since 2013. Wasn't too much before then apart from David Hawkins and the usual Horton's distress signals, often of their own making. On the big issues I think that you can shout all you want but those in charge do as they see fit at the end of the day (but I agree that there isn't anything wrong with voicing your opinion anyway). Last decent team build from the start must have been 2006 & 07, probably due to Bratley/Andersen, and the latter half of 2013 when Sullivan shook it up. It has been a dog's dinner since the drop to the lower level unfortunately. I know not why! We usually end up realising where we went wrong before playing catch up but that may not be an option in 2018.

A fair point in some respects but never the best of arguments!

What matters is the overall mood around the place and the PR. If the team is doing well in the league then it matters little regarding the margin of victory or tight defeat (there wouldn't be many, if any, home defeats for a decent team), people will turn up (the second half of 2013 proved that although some of 2006 did the opposite!). What usually does Peterborough is the guff PR raising expectations before the usual defeats and bad PR (mostly on our travels) that just doesn't encourage people to attend to see the side amazingly return to form on their own dirt. Peterborough is well known for that mentality although I guess it applies in plenty of other places as well. As a club I'm not sure where we are at these days unfortunately but a team without regular, pressure race winners isn't the way to go.

Problem being of course that we've nearly closed more times than I care to remember over the last 5 years and with what allegedly appears to be increasing uncertainty and problems running at the EoES I'd make the most of it while it's there. Coming back when it suits might not be an option. Having said that, it's also difficult to disagree with much of hans fan's logic.

I don't know about that. For starters they'd put a set of traffic lights on the back straight, install a new right turn into the pits via the hospitality viewing area and cone off half of the track on turns 3 & 4 to make it single file and safer. Then they'd cock up the team building before putting the admission up to cover admin costs. I think getting it wrong is called running on a tight budget whereas Rick Frost called it Kenneth Bjerre and Poles who generally scored naff all away from the EoES.

Are you and jenga in competition with each other?

Think that we need to research that a bit. How about you avoiding the thread for 10 months and we'll see if it survives

That's plan D. There's been a security leak

P is already dealt with - "pericombobulation"

"Medium-sized insectivore with protruding nasal implement." I've done "C" and "D." "Big blue wobbly thing that mermaids live in." - "C" I'm quite pleased with my definition of "dog" for "D": which is, "Not a cat."

" the first thing to do was to get your big hitter sorted out before anything else....as the not so good riders are for or likely available on a Sunday., " Since we do and have 5 riders signed it's a bit late to be saying what we should have done.

Changed the named race day for the reason you say but Sundays started back end of 2014 and have predominantly continued that way ever since. You can see the logic for logistics and the potential crowd increase from visitors but that's countered by lack of riders and a seeming lack of ambition if there really is any desire to return to what's left, in name anyway, of top level speedway in GB.

The first thing to do was not run on Sunday. Same thing every close season these days with the who is and who isn't doing something else more important.

Frost/Mahoney put on a good show at the top level but seemed badly advised on so many levels. The team particularly but with PR and communications being more business orientated and distant rather than at the people level. That's where Rathbone scores. Given the money and time Frost/Mahoney put in to save the club from Horton and then subsequently I think lack of enthusiasm is a bit harsh. We sort of morphed into a Holder situation for some reason. That's been done to death and he'll not be back.

so what are modern day societal norms?

Wish someone would lead him back to the EoES then.

You said that you hope it lasts and in a few years. The point is that as a rule they've never been transparent and one decision in isolation still means that they've a long way to go to reach their goal. This was an easy and logical decision although had they thought about it earlier then they could quite have easily changed the rule so as not to have to say "Unfortunately, and regrettably, Scott Nicholls and Edward Kennett – two fine servants of British Speedway – were caught up in this.".

That's nearly as funny as "as we continue to strive for transparency" although we can but hope.