Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 18:40:12 GMT
This appeared in the Lakeside programme on Friday evening. It is an excerpt from "The Guvnor", penned by Stuart Douglas who invites discussion, so hopefully the copyright police won't pm me if I recreate it here - and Stan may just get the feedback he wants.
Lets's do away with 'The Guest' scenario. You ride r/r, or you use your number 8 with no restrictions attached. If a team is unfortunate enough to lose a rider to long term injury then you must look for another rider to sign, and that becomes part of the strategy of pre-season team building (ie, do you put all your eggs in a big number 1 basket). We must be free to negotiate longer contracts, and if those contracts are broken unilaterally without consent then there must be serious repercussions; long suspensions for riders, and fines coupled with large points deductions for teams.
I must stress, these are MY opinions, because this is my column. I put this out for debate becasue I feel strongly about this and many other issues. Please feel free to differ or discuss.
Radical thoughts - but read it a couple of times, consider the implications and then post away.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Aug 7, 2007 18:52:16 GMT
It makes a lot of sense. They'll never go for it.
Seriously, it's about time someone put forward a sensible suggestion. And it's not so radical when you consider that doing away with guests works in other countries. If riders are serious about being here they should have no problem with the threat of suspension for breaking contracts, and it might make the likes of Zagar think twice before committing to something their hearts aren't in.
Not sure of the implication of this bit: "If a team is unfortunate enough to lose a rider to long term injury then you must look for another rider to sign, and that becomes part of the strategy of pre-season team building." Does that mean teams would need to sign an alternative pre-season, or that change could be made mid-season, but would have to be a replacement, not a guest?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 7, 2007 18:55:01 GMT
I've never liked the concept of guests, so the youngster's not going to get any arguments from me on that score. To me, guests are just a lazy way out of a situation. What I'd really like to see is an age limit on "reserves", so that teams that get themselves a useful reserve aren't penalised by having him shunted into the main body of the team too soon. Another plus point is that it stops journeymen riders, such as Charlie Gjedde, getting an easy ride by dropping down to reserve to build confidence. I'd also like to see a return to the old style tactical rules, so that the paying public get to see more of the riders they cough over their hard earned to see. And I'd really be taking a close look at the Polish meeting format - okay it has some anomolies, such as one reserve (junior) having five programmed rides and the other one, but that can be evened out into three each. And if you "ring fence" those rides, as they do in Poland, only one or the other reserve can take those six programmed rides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2007 19:20:47 GMT
The no guest thing gets my vote. Not entirely sure how it would work in practice but I'll all for a sort of squad system. The EL squad includes foreigners, PL riders who will only ride occasionally adn can only ride for one EL team per season. Any team put out on a specific day must be entirely from squad members but can be made up as the club wishes as long as the total average of the team does not exceed the points limit set. If that means a team of small track specialists when away to Arena wiith a low team total so be it, who knows it might work. PL would work similarly but with CL riders and possibly EL reserves. I've not thought about it too much and I'm pretty sure the speedway philosophers amongst us, cue Tony M and co, will find massive flaws. Like Sub a return to the old Tac rules or at least get rid of the abomination that is double points for doing sod all extra, if we have to keep the 15m tac ride, I can go with that. Riders that don't turn up for meetings and ride elsewhere within the next 7 days get a fine, treble the amount for the second offence and a number of matches ban for the third. Any repeat offence means a total ban from British speedway. Riders who stay with a club for more than 2 years get a 0.5 average reduction in their third year and an extra 0.25 every year after that to build loyalty and fan base. Might help with sponsorship deals too. No special dispensations. PL promoters to rule on EL affairs and vice versa, any promoter with interests in both leagues rules on neither. No appeals to be allowed if not raised on the day of the match. If the ref is appealed to and gets it wrong, he's sacked. Should ensure matches are won on the shale not round a table. Do away with the play offs for the league title. Have them by all means but as a seperate competition. In an ideal world each EL club would be affiliated to a PL club and a CL club (possibly 2 of one or both depending on numbers) and the more junior clubs rider be given second half races at least twice a month. More entertainment for fans and more opportunity for young Brits. I'll post any radical thoughts later when I've had time to think
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Aug 7, 2007 19:37:45 GMT
Now then, before I post my thoughts, I would like to clarify these rules.
Guests; a team can only use a guest for a missing number one, and only if they have been granted a facility.
R/R; can be used for any rider, providing the rider they are replacing has an average the same, or higher.
Sorry to be a bore, but the intricacies of speedway's more arcane rules leave me a bit cold.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 7, 2007 19:44:53 GMT
I believe rider replacement is more complicated. When you are using rider replacement the rides may be taken by all riders beneath the rider being replaced and the rider directly above him in the averages, for example, a team may be as follows:
1..kevh..7.99 2..subedei..4.93 R/R 3..schumi..9.86 4..donskings..7.01 5..wacks..6.23 6..tiddles..4.01 7..gunk..3.09
Now, as we can see, subedei is missing due to a groin injury and rider replacement is operating. His rides can be taken by the two reserves and wacks. Kevh, schumi and donskings are not allowed to take a rider replacement ride.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Aug 7, 2007 19:46:21 GMT
Guests can also be used when more than one rider is missing Dk. Edit: and that team's well over the points limit.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Aug 7, 2007 19:57:32 GMT
OK, that's slightly clearer, but would it be possible to use R/R for a missing number one?
By the way, thanks for the vote of confidence Sube, but although I used to be a bit handy on a bike, I would never have got to 7.01 as long as my arse faces South!
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 7, 2007 20:00:16 GMT
OK, that's slightly clearer, but would it be possible to use R/R for a missing number one? Certainly. Berwick used Rider Replacement at No 1 when riding at Newport on Sunday. In such circumstances, of course, all riders may take the rides. However, in most cases, a promoter will go for a guest and only turn to Rider Replacement if no appropriate guest is available.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Aug 7, 2007 20:09:37 GMT
Well in that case, here's my response to Stan's thoughts.
Why doesn't he try it and see if it can be made to work?
As a promoter who doesn't advocate the use of guests, surely it's his prerogative not to use them.
It would mean having a number one who didn't have an especially high average, in fact it would encourage the team to be built using riders who are very close together on averages, but I don't see anything that forces promoters to use guests.
The irony is, it would've worked better for Lakeside before AJ came into the team and it is of course him that they now find themselves using guests for, but that's another story.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 7, 2007 20:25:11 GMT
Andreas Jonsson's average isn't actually that high and that's what makes him such an attractive signing. There's no doubt he can add at least another point onto his existing average, which I believe he gained in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Aug 7, 2007 20:33:02 GMT
Well, my opinion is that signing AJ was a backward step, but I could probably bang on about that for quite a while!
My question still stands though, if Stan doesn't like guests, why not just have the courage of his convictions and do without them?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 7, 2007 20:36:33 GMT
My question still stands though, if Stan doesn't like guests, why not just have the courage of his convictions and do without them? Certainly John Berry at Ipswich took such a stand and it didn't do him much harm: he even covered the tragic loss of Billy Sanders with Rider Replacement and it was so successful I believe the other promoters tried to withdraw even that facility from him.
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Aug 7, 2007 20:37:04 GMT
I think the point is what's the way forward for British speedway Dk. It's all very well having your own ideals, but that's not going to have an impact on the bigger picture. I think that's what stanley is looking at here.
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Aug 7, 2007 20:41:07 GMT
I think the point is what's the way forward for British speedway Dk. It's all very well having your own ideals, but that's not going to have an impact on the bigger picture. I think that's what stanley is looking at here. My contention would be that, already this season other promotions are looking towards Stuart's innovations and taking notice, in some cases they even seem to copying some of his ideas, so, if he does it right, the guest thing could be resolved in a kind of follow-my-leader way.
|
|