Ben91

The MO for the Raiders is to develop riders, they have to start somewhere so I have no problem with the likes of Locke, Leek and Bowdery being blooded. The Raiders are a second team, results are secondary. To lose by seven points to a standalone side away from home is no disgrace at all. It's a real shame Bowtell and Hume didn't stick around, we could have put a real challenge for honours together if they had.

There always seems to be injuries when Rye and Birmingham meet, best wishes to Hunter and Bacon, two riders who both have potential to make careers in the sport. Bacon's absence will surely just see the Brummies employ r/r for him and track guests for Perry and they'll still be just as potent a threat. What riders looked uninterested Martin? Perhaps the nature of Bacon's crash was playing on a few minds, have to remember Priest has suffered horrific injuries in the past while Bowdery, Lock and Leek are a way behind Hume, JPB and Smith in their development at the moment.

Hope the Brummies have sense to name a number eight for meetings, no doubting they've got the talent to cover Perry with R/R but it's always better to have seven men in the team. Our top three will hopefully keep things competitive, racing against JPB, Smith and Hune will be a good measuring stick to see where our bottom four are at present.

Newcomers shouldn't be penalised due to age, an experience limit would work well however.

If it's a case of the most petty argument wins then of course Birmingham could always appeal on the basis that Hall hasn't got a NL average as it was the Conference League in 2004.

The issue is that there is nothing in the rules stopping Richard Hall from signing for Birmingham. Whether that is right or wrong from the standpoint of the National League being a development league is irrelevant. Eastbourne recently signed a rider (Adam Ellis) who is currently averaging eight points a meeting in the Elite League, Richard Hall's latest rolling figure is below four in the Premier League. Both are eligible, so both moves should have been approved in my opinion. We also have riders such as Clifton, Rutherford and Purchase who have started the season on assessed figures lower than the ones they last recorded when they were third tier riders. The National League should be looking to encourage the development of young British riders without a doubt, however a smattering of experienced riders such as Jon Armstrong, David Mason, Luke Bowen, Ben Wilson and Tony Atkin is incredibly valuable for our young riders. The knowledge these riders pass on in the pits will stand them in good stead, watching them on the track and riding with and against them on the track will help their development and having them about gives the young riders a real target to aim for. A Premier League promoter looking to sign a reserve will be looking for a rider who has the scalp of riders such as Bowen and Wilson who have recently been 4/5 point PL riders. Each side should be allowed one 'experienced' rider, that being someone who has raced in the Premier League or higher for a set number of years or more. It has been widely reported how young this season's Birmingham team is, they shouldn't be penalised for trying to replace Tom Perry's scoring with a rider potentially capable of matching it.

So the logic is that a guy struggling to average four in the Premier League is too good for the NL but a rider with an eight point EL average (Ellis) is allowed. I'm fully behind both being allowed in, just stating the inconsistencies in rule "enforcement."

Hope Rempala pulls through, that made for incredibly uncomfortable viewing. This is an amazing sport but it can be so cruel at times.

Yes it would, the host track is irrelevant. What is relevant is that 15 year-olds cannot race in the PL and that overseas riders cannot race in the NL, the overseas riders took part and the 15 year-old didn't.

Clifton and Rutherford averaged more in their last CL/NL seasons than their assessed starting averages for this season. Purchase may well have done too thinking about it, no difference whatsoever. Even Luke Bowen's last CL average was probably higher than the figure he started on this year at Kent.

2004 was averages, gradings came in in 2005. The average would have included bonus points in 2004 though. Surely this casts a cloud over the likes of Clifton, Purchase and Rutherford who have come in on assessed averages this season despite having already achieved CL/NL averages in the past.

It's not because it was held at a PL track it's because it was still classed as a PL standard meeting, if it hadn't been then Etheridge and Davey (for the time being) wouldn't have been allowed to ride as they're ineligible for the NL on account of not being British.

Poor teams put out for years, seemingly no effort to rectify that, I could go on. No student prices made it a struggle for me when I was studying and that period of not attending regularly because funds wouldn't allow it was when I began to lose my passion for attending. A few years of letting me in at a more reasonable rate for my level of income and Rye House could have an extra weekly full paying adult now. Once you walk away for a few weeks it's easy to stay away and I never thought I'd feel that way about speedway. For the amount of entertainment you get, roughly 15 minutes, it's a waste of money and to be perfectly honest a weekend evening doesn't fit in with my social life any more, it was a different story when I was at school and couldn't go out drinking. There are so many things to do on a weekend evening that are better value for money than speedway these days. I'm probably going to the Edinburgh meeting on Sunday, purely because I want to see Dan Bewley. Apologies for the tangent on a Berwick thread!

I wonder what would have happened to Kingston's career if he had stayed with Kent rather than moving to Mildenhall.

Attendance figures are never published so how do you know out of interest?

Hugely. If the promoter of my team came out with that kind of sour grapes I'd be embarrassed.

Campbell's kettle's boiled.

When that happened it was also because Rye and Mildenhall had declared graded reserves in the main body of their teams who moved down as Boxall and Armstrong moved up (Jamie Courtney and James Brundle I believe) so the justification was that there would still be two Brits at reserve for both teams. As Peterborough have two eligible number seven riders in their line-up now in Perry and Stokes, perhaps the lower averaged of the two has to occupy the number seven slot? Even if so, that should have been made clear at the start of the season.

Happened plenty of times before, when Stoke signed Lee Complin, when Rye brought Andrew Silver back after 15 odd years away from racing, Mark Simmonds at Plymouth, Stuart Swales at Redcar to name just a few. Lawson would be on a pretty attractive average too I'd imagine.

Edinburgh would be mad to replace Bewley with Davey. Would hope if they tried it'd be blocked in the best interests of the sport.

All well and good having a nice stadium but if the track is pants nobody will want to know. Good to see the promotion have tackled the important issue first.

Yes, it was tried and stopped because it was dangerous. I think that has been quite clearly pointed out. The change in surfaces when going at such high speed would be incredibly dangerous. This wouldn't benefit the sport, it's been tried before and didn't work, because it was dangerous. Yeah, lets completely change the sport just so we can have a concrete strip on each track... Creating an angle could also be creating a ramp, there has to be a lip somewhere still. It has been tried. It didn't work.

Better from the Rockets, Kasper especially. Karger's best score for us I believe but it came from beating a NL second string and a race with only three finishers.

Hume's really kicked on this year, we should have done more to keep hold of him. Could take points from Karger definitely by the looks of things.

Hopefully by the time the next round comes we'll have made some changes, assuming we progress tonight that is.