Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 0:03:23 GMT
I disagree - that meeting did, at least, have that glorious overtake by Woodward in Ht 15, while this meeting had absolutely nothing to commend it at all. There were plenty of passes at Brandon, it's just that there was no real opposition for the few that could handle the grippy surface. The closest we got was Harris passing Jarek. It was a grippy track...There are plenty of fans who continually call for a grippy track, but then when one gets served up the riders can't cope with it! I hate to say it on here...but Scotty looked fantastic when the track was at it's grippiest early on. Watching him work the throttle through the corners in slow motion was a fine example of proper throttle and bike control, while others around him thrashed the gas and came unstuck!
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 26, 2009 0:17:32 GMT
It was a grippy track...There are plenty of fans who continually call for a grippy track, but then when one gets served up the riders can't cope with it! I've never been a huge fan of ultra-grippy tracks - you just get riders flying off in all directions. I do believe that's one of the reasons Olsen goes for slicker tracks (although the uber-golem takes it to an extreme). He thinks that they are the fairest and it's hard to argue with that. The global superstar did look good, but please take the haplessness of the competition into account. The Crumps and Nicki Ps of this world would've still had him for breakfast tonight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 0:42:01 GMT
Crump, yes. Nicki...not so sure....I reckon he'd have been last spotted heading through the fence at turn 2 in heat 1
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 26, 2009 0:51:11 GMT
Nicki...not so sure....I reckon he'd have been last spotted heading through the fence at turn 2 in heat 1 Maybe, but he'd probably have taken the global superstar with him.
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 26, 2009 1:09:57 GMT
Interesting stuff from Allen Trump in yesterday's programme, apparently: "It's been an open secret in speedway recently that Poole have allegedly been manipulating averages in order to reduce their overall team average in order to be able to fit a top-class rider in". "How does it effect the paying public? Quite simply, it cheats them of entertainment...because the easiest way of manipulating an average is via a simulated engine failure or an instruction to break the tapes. We saw at Swindon, where the uproar started, a situation where Poole had five engine failures and one tape break. I challenge anyone to find a comparitive situation where this has happened. It was also widely predicted on the internet, prior to the Swindon-Poole match, that Joe Screen would not be riding- as he was the only Poole rider to have increased his average, and if he had ridden there he would have reached 12 matches. By not riding there, his new 2009 average would not apply, so Poole's averages would be lower-thereby allowing them to create a gap to introduce a rider of Han's ability." "I have suggested <to the promotors and co-promoters> that Hans be barred from riding for Poole until an independant enquiry is set up with the power to call up riders and examine them under oath, as to what happened in these matches." ".....This is a matter that the club feels very strongly about... we will purse things as far as necessary- because cheating goes right to the heart and credibility of the sport, and speedway can easily be manipulated in the wrong hands."Taken from a post on: users.boardnation.com/~poolepiratepostbag/Well, Trump would know all about the use of tactical tape-touching, wouldn't he? Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. And that little lot above must surely have been written ahead of Coventry attempting to shoe-horn the global superstar into their team. So, what is the Mongol's take on this whole issue? Well, to me it's a question of fairness. The rules allow Poole to bring in Andersen and they allow Coventry to bring in the global superstar. However, an item in the minutes of the BSPA AGM introduce a criteria for assessing the impact of proposed changes - the BSPA Management Committee should "monitor" averages after eight meetings when considering re-declarations. They surely can't allocate Screen a GSA after eleven meetings, that's against the rules. All they can do is give Poole a new points target. For example, if we assume the points limit has increased to 42.00 and Joe Screen's average after eight meetings had increased by 1.00, the Management Committee should give Poole a new target of 41.00. That's fair enough, isn't it? But the same should hold true for Coventry. The BSPA Management Committee should assess any riders not gaining a new GSA in their team, including doubling-up riders. And for team building purposes it is the higher averaged of the "doubling-upers" that count. Ergo, if we assume that Frampton had increased his average by 1.00 after eight meetings, Coventry should also have a new target of 41.00. That's as fair as it can be to both the clubs involved and the other clubs in the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 9:59:40 GMT
It was a grippy track...There are plenty of fans who continually call for a grippy track, but then when one gets served up the riders can't cope with it! The problem is that riders are so used to ultra slick tracks now, and their engines are set up for them. No wonder they're caught out when they come up against something a bit different..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 11:07:27 GMT
Trump's on rather sticky ground criticising others in the world of Speedway.
Going off his previous stints elsewhere, he's hardly an angel himself.
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on May 26, 2009 11:30:58 GMT
So, what is the Mongol's take on this whole issue? Well, to me it's a question of fairness. The rules allow Poole to bring in Andersen and they allow Coventry to bring in the global superstar. However, an item in the minutes of the BSPA AGM introduce a criteria for assessing the impact of proposed changes - the BSPA Management Committee should "monitor" averages after eight meetings when considering re-declarations. They surely can't allocate Screen a GSA after eleven meetings, that's against the rules. All they can do is give Poole a new points target. For example, if we assume the points limit has increased to 42.00 and Joe Screen's average after eight meetings had increased by 1.00, the Management Committee should give Poole a new target of 41.00. That's fair enough, isn't it? But the same should hold true for Coventry. The BSPA Management Committee should assess any riders not gaining a new GSA in their team, including doubling-up riders. And for team building purposes it is the higher averaged of the "doubling-upers" that count. Ergo, if we assume that Frampton had increased his average by 1.00 after eight meetings, Coventry should also have a new target of 41.00. That's as fair as it can be to both the clubs involved and the other clubs in the league. Yep, something like that would do. The current goings-on lack any kind of consistency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 12:49:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 26, 2009 13:34:24 GMT
I'd imagine a lot of people are cursing Golem Drury for bringing to light the "eight meeting item" in the BSPA AGM minutes. So desperate was he to make the Chapmans look like fools that he brought attention to this minute and almost made the Management Committee obliged to take it into account. I can't stomach listening to the pansy-voiced Oakes, so I didn't make it to the end of the interview, just got to the part where he bemoaned Coventry's injuries that forced this change. That was to differentiate the Bees from Poole, but, naturally enough, the man with the pansy voice has probably forgotten that Poole have also had injuries, losing Jason Doyle and Kyle Legault.
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 26, 2009 13:44:22 GMT
Shocking tactics from Cov imho Agreed. And here's a a couple of items from the rule book that Oakes holds so dear to his heart: 17.4.2: The BSPA MC shall monitor all proposed moves and be satisfied they are in the best interests of the sport and have sole responsibility to approve all Declared and Re-Declared Team Line-Ups, notifying all such approvals on the appropriate paperwork.
17.4.4: A BSPA MC Member will rule as a Statement of Fact in the event of a dispute up to 30 minutes prior to the start of a Meeting concerning a Team Line-Up (see SR 14.9.1& 14.6A).The first makes it clear that the BSPA Management Committee is within their rights to decline approval to any re-declared team they deem to be not in the best interests of the sport. And the second makes it clear that their team last night was ILLEGAL, as a member of the Management Committee obviously ruled as a Statement of Fact that their re-declaration had been declined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 14:46:58 GMT
Shocking tactics from Cov imho Agreed. And here's a a couple of items from the rule book that Oakes holds so dear to his heart: 17.4.2: The BSPA MC shall monitor all proposed moves and be satisfied they are in the best interests of the sport and have sole responsibility to approve all Declared and Re-Declared Team Line-Ups, notifying all such approvals on the appropriate paperwork.
17.4.4: A BSPA MC Member will rule as a Statement of Fact in the event of a dispute up to 30 minutes prior to the start of a Meeting concerning a Team Line-Up (see SR 14.9.1& 14.6A).The first makes it clear that the BSPA Management Committee is within their rights to decline approval to any re-declared team they deem to be not in the best interests of the sport. And the second makes it clear that their team last night was ILLEGAL, as a member of the Management Committee obviously ruled as a Statement of Fact that their re-declaration had been declined. Must put Colin Pratt in a difficult position I know we were poor opposition for them even with the loss of our reserves, however it just goes to show how strong that team is now riding to 42 ave against a 39.90 team, surely they must make it so that ALL teams strengthen at the same time , or should I say have the ability to strenghten at the same time if they so wish.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on May 26, 2009 14:52:27 GMT
I guess last night's meeting outlines a need for number 8s to be on standby for all meetings, if they're avaliable. If not, perhaps some other sort of proviso can be made - "spare" juniors, or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 15:14:29 GMT
Am I the only one who finds this whole sitation and the uproar it's caused - especially in Dorset - hilarious?
Poole are the team who started this fiasco by fiddling their averages this year to get Andersen in, yet Matty & his disciples are now screaming blue murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 15:22:57 GMT
LC is doing a fine job of keeping court in Shovvy's absence It's all rather shabby to be fair... How true it is I don't know, but I was told that it was Coventry that originally complained at our changes, and were instrumental in us having Screenie's 11 meeting average used instead of his start of season one for our new line-up. Knowing the way promoters operate, it's therefore no real surprise that Poole are supposed to be instigators of the appeal against Coventry's changes. And if you take the view that both line-up changes hinge on the average of a rider who has only done 11 meetings, then I suppose a bit of tit for tat is inevitable. To be fair to Matt, he has kept quiet on all the politics so far even down to having to use Screenie's new average; one wonders whether this will stay that way now that Trump had trumpeted. I really don't care who is right or wrong any more and i'm certainly not getting involved in the arguments now going on. I just find myself shaking my head at the sad mess this is and wondering how long it is before someone in a grubby tabloid picks up on this and starts digging. Why can't fans of both my team and the Bees see that the losers in this are all of us! Very sad. One thing that did strike me is why no mention of this and the protest on the Sky coverage last night? Are sky afraid to be truthful - or is speedway simply a performance that goes out without any controversy being aired?
|
|