Grachan

The one thing he has in his favour is his average, which may well find him slotted into a side at the end of the team building.

That's great news, and hopefully (and presumably) both will be in the side next year.

Not as peed off as yesterday, but still pretty peed off, yes. I was less bothered with the two that you mention, because they weren't my own team, but would have been just as much against the principal. The possibility of teams voting riders out of the league,should that be what happens, concerns me greatly. As did the way Holder and Bachelor were effectively put out of work earlier in the year. It's not all about Swindon's team strength, as we can deal with that. It's about either a loyal Swindon rider finding himself without a team or the World Champion being forced out the league (something, incidentally, that some people here seem to find quite an amusing prospect). I've always posted against this stuff, but it's really gone to my head this year because it is happening closer to home. If Morris, Doyle, Thorsell, Lindgren, Cook and Bjerre all get a side then I might calm down a bit! It seems to me that under the current chairmanship, one thing on the agenda is to try and get as many top riders as possible out of the league.

It should be compulsory for the teams that voted for other sides to release 8 point riders to offer those riders a team place in 2018.

It could also potentially have more effect if getting a 5-1 out of what could have been a 3-3. Much better than the TR. Points scored on the track are the points scored for the team. No more having to explain why someone can get double points with the phrase 'because they have stupid rules'. May not be the ts of old but it is a good change.

Sure, it won't have the tactical intricacies that it used to have, but better than the Tactical Ride surely? At least points scored on the track stay consistent. A lot of team managers just stuck their best rider out anyway when a TS opportunity came up so it probably won't make much difference.

Fair enough. I bet you they'd still attract the largest crowd of the season, though.

Nick Morris, if he doesn't get a team in the top flight. BTW, if Nick Morris just rides Second Division, who can he guest in place of? Presumably, all of a sudden, he'd no longer be an over-8 point rider?

Yes. Maybe it was a 15 heat match I'm rather hazily remembering.

Would take Kildemand (7.10?) over Zengota on 7.79.

A form of "Rider control" might have been better this year. With three 8 pointers being forced out of teams, surely they should have been allocated to the 3 teams that need such a rider. Perhaps a degree of flexibility that wasn't around in the 70s would be needed - as in which riders left clubs and who went where - but it should have been ensured that all the riders left out were allocated to another team.

Like in heat 13 of the play-off final, you mean?

This is exactly the sort of thinking that causes the problem. It's is nonsensical that riders can put themselves out of a team, and possibly the league, by riding well. Nick Morris, as an example, has ridden for Swindon for years. Why should he risk getting chucked out of the league just because he has his best year? And is his average of over 8 really make him more number one material than someone like Woffinden or Zagar? As a number one his average is likely to drop, so would anyone sign him? Plus all teams have a pretty low limit to build to in order to keep things relatively even. Personally I think a team like that would be box office gold whenever they visited the clubs who couldn't afford a team like that. Would you really not want to go and watch that side on your home track?

Could well have been. I just remember such a thing happening!

Yup. I remember being at Oxford once and they had Nielsen and Wigg out in heat 13. They were 6 down going into heat 12 and used a double tactical - Nielsen and Wigg. So they had them out in heats 12 and 13, got two 5-1s and won the match. Just one ts is better than having the TR, but it doesn't bring back the skilled tactics of the old ts.

Of course all teams vote for what suits them, and that is very much a part of the problem. It shouldn't be done that way. Anyway, if you think that riders facing the prospect of possibly being forced out of the league because they rode well for their clubs that's up to you. I just hope that all those forced out manage to get fixed up somewhere. Morris - Somerset? Thorsell - Rye House? Bjerre - King's Lynn? Surely there should have been a commitment to give these riders a club if they were going to do this and it should have been apart of the whole deal. They should be obligated to sign one of them. They are saying that the move was made to give all teams a number one, so let's just wait and see if that happens.

Is this all true? Maybe we need to know who actually did have a vote! If it is correct it would leave Wolves, Poole, Swindon, King's Lynn and Somerset. Meaning King's Lynn, Somerset and Poole would have presumably voted in favour. I remember when Swindon moved up into the top flight they weren't able to vote at the agm for 3 years.

Damn. You got me.

Maybe we should move down. We could keep our top two then.

Is that how you see Nick Morris then?

There's 3 other votes. Belle Vue had no vote.

If Poole bring in someone from outside on an average over 8 and lose Kurtz it makes this ruling even more ridiculous.

Is there a tranfer deadline this year? No mention of it as far as I can see.

Poole are in a pretty strong position because of this rule. It wouldn't surprise me if they voted for it too.

So the clubs that can't afford an 8 point rider are cutting their own costs by preventing clubs that can afford them from having them? How?