Grachan

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?

Looking at the riders these sides currently have on their books, plus the possible teams being put up on here, it could be that they aren't even looking for help from this rule but merely trying to stunt the growth of the top sides.

Probably. It's been going on for years. It needs to be stopped. The sport needs to have a proper set of rules that everyone knows. You can't just vote in new rules every year with every club looking to vote for themselves.

Cheating clubs out of 8 point riders to give themselves an unfair advantage? Cheating fans of seeing riders that have remained loyal to the team they support riding for them? Cheating riders out of work if they don't, then, sign one of the 8 pointers themselves? Cheating by voting for an average cut-off above that of their own heatleaders so that they don't have to lose any of their own riders under their new rule? Or are they voting for the good of the sport as a whole by.... er.... nope, can't think of a reason how that can be the case, but maybe there is one?

I AM talking about the good of the sport. It is the lower teams who have voted for themselves rather than the good of the sport. Do you think they voted for Wolves, Swindon and Belle Vue to be forced to shed one of their 8 point riders for the good of the sport as a whole? Of course they didn't. As you say, Swindon can still use Thursdays anyway - so that's not a club issue. It's a common sesnse one, with Denmark on Wednesdays.

Exactly. And what would people do? they'd say they were cheating. Well, it's no more cheating, in my book, than sides getting together and voting riders out of the teams above you (and quite possibly the league).