lucifer sam

I guess so, although he might have been philosophical that the 'plan' hadn't worked in '88 as in '87, and that No 9 wasn't a terrible draw in any case. 1987 ICF: Nielsen allows Jimmy Nilsen through in their final race, finishes 3rd rather than 2nd in the meeting, and gets two inside gates against Gundersen over the two-day world final; the second in Heat 23 is particularly pivotal. All the best Rob

Cheers GC. It's very close - but as you say, the ref got it right. Nielsen JUST finishes first. (And both of them looking down at their bikes is very funny. For 2016, read 1988 ). Draw numbers for final: Nielsen 9, Gundersen 1, Jonsson 12. It's arguable whether 1 or 9 is a better draw, but I guess it was all about getting the better gate in the race between the two (Heat 5) in the final. What's interesting is the number than Ivan avoided in 1979. No 13. Generally thought of as the best draw number, but Ivan wanted No 15. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." Indeed All the best Rob

TWK, isn't the point of him pulling out of Birmingham to give himself the chance to retire? Tony Mole has been brilliant to speedway. How do we go about getting him an MBE? All the best Rob

GC, have you got a link? Thanks. All the best Rob

I'm 43, and just been to my 44th consecutive season of speedway. All the best Rob

As I was saying... an easy choice All the best Rob

Who's that then? Both teams had two guests apiece last time I looked at the line-ups... All the best Rob

Dunno - it was the controversial Polish ref who staged the 1981 ICF in torrential rain against the wishes of 14 of the riders, so who knows what was in his mind? I've never seen a video of it. But the report (from Phil Rising, I believe) was pretty unambiguous and stated Gundersen crossed the line first, but Nielsen was given first place. Of course, had it been a two-man run-off rather than three (Jonsson was third), then Nielsen could have done the same as Mauger in 1979 and simply pulled off the track. All the best Rob

1988 ICF at Vetlanda. Nielsen out to finish second in three-man run-off for second place (i.e. finish third in the meeting). Shut off coming off the final bend; the following Gundersen also shut off. Gundersen crossed the line first, but ref gave the win to Nielsen. The last time the draw was made before the final was 1990. I believe it changed with the introduction of the World Semi-Finals in 1991. At that point, the draw was only made after the semis, not before them. All the best Rob

No, you need to learn English and also learn that posting repetitively on the same subject doesn't make you right. The key word is remainder. The definition of remainder is: "A part that is still to come." So Greg is ineligible only for the part of the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship this season still to come - not for the whole of it. For example, had this not been the final Grand Prix and there had been a further two rounds, he would have been stuck on his 139 points. At no point, does it mention key words such as "exclusion" or "disqualification" from the series. And neither does it mention taking off points retroactively. This is my second and final post on the matter. If you choose to post 100 times on it, that's your choice, but it still makes you wrong, simply because you are not reading the full sentence, just the part of it you wish to be true. All the best Rob

I think a few people on here have demonstrated the inability to read a rulebook properly. This is what it says: “Ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season". This is what it does NOT say: “Excluded from the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship". So Greg is “ineligible” for “the remainder of the season”. But guess what? They aren’t any more rounds. I can see no mention within that rule where it states he will be excluded from the series or that points already scored will be deducted. There’s obviously a world apart from the word "ineligible" (which is there) and "excluded" (which isn't and indeed any variant such is “disqualified” isn’t there either). I’m not defending Greg for a moment, because I don’t believe he was right to withdraw from Saturday’s meeting, but there’s no way he can be excluded from this year’s World Championship according to that rule. Whether the FIM decide to extend any future “ineligibility” into next season is a different matter… All the best Rob

It's Glasgow's to lose now, especially as Sissis is a real plus at reserve. I can't see anything but a home victory. All the best Rob

Prepare for disappointment. All the best Rob

Yes, you're legally using Mitchell Davey as a guest, instead of doing it on the sly for a rider who shouldn't be missing in the first place, and then managing to keep his points through a technicality. I wonder which team would stoop to doing the latter? All the best Rob PS Good luck to the Tigers, the second best team in the PL in 2016 and therefore deserve to finish the season with some silverware.

Is that confirmed? All the best Rob

That "Speedway Updates" post is just someone's opinion. I suspect it will be Janowski rather than Hampel. All the best Rib

It's now easy: 1. Zagar (missed out on top 8 by a point) 2. Janowski (missed out on top 8 by a point) 3. Nicki P (missed out through injury) 4. Emil (it would be great to have him back!) All the best Rob

Never read such utter nonsense. If you hadn't noticed, the play-offs are an excellent money spinner, bringing in bumper crowds. Crowds are not "down" for the play-offs at all - quite the opposite. As for guests, they are part and parcel of the sport. For instance, Somerset won the regular fixture at Glasgow because of Bewley scoring a bundle at No 7. But suddenly you have a problem, because Sheffield use a couple of guests who didn't even score that much. Sheffield were weakened through guests, yet still won through, because of great performances from Sissis, Howarth and Bates - their own riders. All the best Rob

Ah bless... did you post this during your lunch hour at school? So bitter and so jealous.... oh dear. All the best Rob

Were Stuart Robson and Cameron Heeps Glasgow track specialists? It looks to me that Sissis, Howarth and Bates were the riders who raised their game and got Sheffield through. All the best Rob

To appeal to those with a sense of humour. All the best Rob

Remember, to be make a profit your outgoings need to be less than the money you've got coming in. So it's not necessarily the clubs with the biggest crowds that you should be looking at. And clubs who own their own track are certainly better off than those renting. Glasgow has openly spent nearly £2 million in the last couple of years, to transform the stadium. They certainly have not made a profit - not that the owners have said that they expect to see that money back. They just want decent crowds at Ashfield, and have been getting them. Fair play. I suspect many of the clubs who actually make a profit are actually operating at NL level, where certain outgoings, certainly rider wages, are smaller. I would be surprised if Cradley and Eastbourne, maybe Birmingham and Kent too, weren't making a profit. All the best Rob

Great news! Fingers crossed for the return of Carmarthen. Loved the viewing at both Carmarthen and Weymouth Mk 2, where you were looking down at the track. All the best Rob

I would disagree with that, I'd say Newcastle are narrow favourites, although I think it will be very close. As long as it's not a draw on aggregate, because the cup has a full replay rather than golden heats, and not sure if there's enough time before the end of October for that. (EDIT: Just checked, and it is golden heats, not a replay. Phew!!) All the best Rob

I reckon today becoming the first leg could favour the Scottish version of the Tigers - allows them to concentrate building up a lead without any nerves. A decent performance from Summers is key. When the going gets tough, he seems to go missing. All the best Rob