Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2009 22:43:48 GMT
How? Y'da still being paying out for the 7 riders depending how which 7 you chose. The lower you down in the quality of rider, the nearer to nil the signing-on fee is. Harry - but riders still want the same income over the season, so use them for half th meetings, and they'll want double the wages. As you can tell, I strongly dislike the use of guests. But British Speedway is in such a state, they are needed for decimated teams, because full squads are not a realistic financial option. BUT I'd like to see guests only when a club is missing two heat leaders. And that wouldn't be very often at all. You are misunderstanding the point of a squad system. In every squad is a preferred 7 riders, these 7 riders will be selected bar injury or international commitments. The other 3 to 5 riders will only step when required but these are riders who ride elsewhere abroad or maybe in the country, thus any meeting would be a bonus for them. The 7 riders don't miss their money - they either agree a number of meetings pre-season to help their schedule or if they are injured/internationally tied up, they miss out just as they would in a chosen 1-7. If a rider is dumped for another, then it's just the same if a rider performs badly in a chosen 1-7. At least in a squad system, there's always the opportunity to come back ie. McGowan for Swindon last season. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 25, 2009 12:48:15 GMT
Well, in that case, Schumi's "Name Ten" was an unrealistic and unfair question. I have done exactly as asked, to prove that there are other sports that people can't easily participate, but are still watched by large audiences. That I have done. But you haven't, some daytime greyhound meetings are free to get in and attract crowds of less than 100. Yes, but overall, more people go to Greyhounds during a week than they do to speedway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 13:12:37 GMT
But you haven't, some daytime greyhound meetings are free to get in and attract crowds of less than 100. Yes, but overall, more people go to Greyhounds during a week than they do to speedway. Thats debatable, and might alter week on week, its also worth remembering no-one goes to the Greyhounds for the sport element. If the criterion has changed more people go to speedway every week than formula 1 racing. You have still failed to answer why it matters what the reason for absence is, you just keep wittering on about stupid rules, mickey mouse and thousands walking away from the sport because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 25, 2009 13:23:17 GMT
Yes, but overall, more people go to Greyhounds during a week than they do to speedway. Thats debatable, and might alter week on week, its also worth remembering no-one goes to the Greyhounds for the sport element. If the criterion has changed more people go to speedway every week than formula 1 racing. You have still failed to answer why it matters what the reason for absence is, you just keep wittering on about stupid rules, mickey mouse and thousands walking away from the sport because of it. Hatcham - I have answered it twice (at least) already, so pay attention this time...  OK, you want guests for any reason. So what happens - we have more and more guests for increasingly obscure reasons. As a result, even those papers will still cover speedway notice that Leigh Adams has rode for six teams in the last week, and say "fuck this, w're not covering speedway anymore". And even more fans think British Speedway is too bloody silly and use their feet to walk out and not come back again. Speedway's credibility is almost zero, and what you propose, would sink it even lower. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 13:35:40 GMT
Thats debatable, and might alter week on week, its also worth remembering no-one goes to the Greyhounds for the sport element. If the criterion has changed more people go to speedway every week than formula 1 racing. You have still failed to answer why it matters what the reason for absence is, you just keep wittering on about stupid rules, mickey mouse and thousands walking away from the sport because of it. Hatcham - I have answered it twice (at least) already, so pay attention this time... OK, you want guests for any reason. So what happens - we have more and more guests for increasingly obscure reasons. As a result, even those papers will still cover speedway notice that Leigh Adams has rode for six teams in the last week, and say "fuck this, w're not covering speedway anymore". And even more fans think British Speedway is too bloody silly and use their feet to walk out and not come back again. Speedway's credibility is almost zero, and what you propose, would sink it even lower. Your still prevaricating Genghis, and exaggerating, Adams is never likely to ride for six different clubs in a week, and i am not proposing more guest bookings, i am merely saying that if Swindon turn up at Poole next week and Adams is not available a decision has to be taken on what is best for the sport in his absence, a guest ? rider replacement ? Premier league rider ? etc. does it really matter whether he was injured riding, injured not riding or ill ? |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 25, 2009 13:39:00 GMT
Hatcham - I have answered it twice (at least) already, so pay attention this time... OK, you want guests for any reason. So what happens - we have more and more guests for increasingly obscure reasons. As a result, even those papers will still cover speedway notice that Leigh Adams has rode for six teams in the last week, and say "fuck this, w're not covering speedway anymore". And even more fans think British Speedway is too bloody silly and use their feet to walk out and not come back again. Speedway's credibility is almost zero, and what you propose, would sink it even lower. Your still prevaricating Genghis, and exaggerating, Adams is never likely to ride for six different clubs in a week, and i am not proposing more guest bookings, i am merely saying that if Swindon turn up at Poole next week and Adams is not available a decision has to be taken on what is best for the sport in his absence, a guest ? rider replacement ? Premier league rider ? etc. does it really matter whether he was injured riding, injured not riding or ill ? Yes it does. You can't let clubs use guests willy-nilly or there would be anarchy.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 13:46:15 GMT
Your still prevaricating Genghis, and exaggerating, Adams is never likely to ride for six different clubs in a week, and i am not proposing more guest bookings, i am merely saying that if Swindon turn up at Poole next week and Adams is not available a decision has to be taken on what is best for the sport in his absence, a guest ? rider replacement ? Premier league rider ? etc. does it really matter whether he was injured riding, injured not riding or ill ? Yes it does. You can't let clubs use guests willy-nilly or there would be anarchy. There is already anarchy, and conspiricy theorists conviced Jesper Jensen is falling off to lower his average, but why would there be a need for more guests? surely they are only needed if your number 1 is missing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 17:14:50 GMT
There is already anarchy, and conspiricy theorists conviced Jesper Jensen is falling off to lower his average, but why would there be a need for more guests? surely they are only needed if your number 1 is missing. There would be a need for more guests because more riders would miss meetings. If you make it easier for the team to gain a facility, there would surely be less inclination for them to pay to fly their rider back for a match if they can get a suitable replacement that is already in the Country....which expands out to my earlier example where a team could sign a number 1 knowing that he is only interested in doing 5-10 matches in the whole season. As I said before, I hate the guest rule, so I am happy that it is restricted. I would like to see guests restricted more or removed completely from British speedway. Are you seriously suggesting that you would rather there was no restriction on what reason a team could get a guest, or are you suggesting that you just want it to be more lenient. If the latter, what criteria would you apply? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 17:44:51 GMT
There is already anarchy, and conspiricy theorists conviced Jesper Jensen is falling off to lower his average, but why would there be a need for more guests? surely they are only needed if your number 1 is missing. There would be a need for more guests because more riders would miss meetings. If you make it easier for the team to gain a facility, there would surely be less inclination for them to pay to fly their rider back for a match if they can get a suitable replacement that is already in the Country....which expands out to my earlier example where a team could sign a number 1 knowing that he is only interested in doing 5-10 matches in the whole season. As I said before, I hate the guest rule, so I am happy that it is restricted. I would like to see guests restricted more or removed completely from British speedway. Are you seriously suggesting that you would rather there was no restriction on what reason a team could get a guest, or are you suggesting that you just want it to be more lenient. If the latter, what criteria would you apply? I would like to see an end to guests Henry, like most speedway fans, however if they are to exist, the only logical reason for them to be to be in place is to stop matches being too one sided, with that in mind it becomes a totally pointless exercise to say for example: "we dont want Ipswich to have to ride away from home without Jarek Hampel, because the match would be to one-sided, so we will allow a guest facility, but only if he has been injured on track, if its for any other reason, we couldn't give a fuck how one-sided the contest becomes" Either the league wants to give the public what they perceive as value for money, or they want the credibility of saying 'teams can only track their own riders', you cant do both. I also think we have become obsessed with skullduggery, and trying to eliminate it, all that seems to happen is new rules are invented, clubs find ways to circumvent them, and as a result more new rules need to be invented, there is so much red tape its crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 25, 2009 17:59:33 GMT
I would like to see an end to guests Henry, like most speedway fans, however if they are to exist, the only logical reason for them to be to be in place is to stop matches being too one sided. But that is NOT the reason guests exist. It may be your reason for tolerating guests, but it is not the reason that guests exist. If it were, guests would be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, a powerful team is just as eligible for a guest as a weak team. Let us take a hypothetical example from last season, involving a Wolverhampton visit to Poole. We imagine that both Lindgren and Bjarne Pedersen are out for whatever reason. If the aim of guests was to avoid one-sided encounters, the logical response would be to allow a guest for Wolverhampton and deny any facility to Poole. But guests would've been allowed for both under the rules. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 18:11:03 GMT
I would like to see an end to guests Henry, like most speedway fans, however if they are to exist, the only logical reason for them to be to be in place is to stop matches being too one sided. But that is NOT the reason guests exist. It may be your reason for tolerating guests, but it is not the reason that guests exist. If it were, guests would be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, a powerful team is just as eligible for a guest as a weak team. Let us take a hypothetical example from last season, involving a Wolverhampton visit to Poole. We imagine that both Lindgren and Bjarne Pedersen are out for whatever reason. If the aim of guests was to avoid one-sided encounters, the logical response would be to allow a guest for Wolverhampton and deny any facility to Poole. But guests would've been allowed for both under the rules. Which kind of implies the reasoning behind guests is to give the public what the league perceives as value for money, in other words Poole without Pedersen and Wolverhampton without Lindgren is a fair contest, but robs the public of two top riders, so as a solution they introduce two guests, but if they were both out through illness or other committments, they couldn't give a shit about the public and if only one is out through an unacceptable reason they are happy to short change the public and stack the odds in one teams favour. Where's the logic ? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 25, 2009 18:28:41 GMT
The logic is that you have to draw the line somewhere, or else the whole thing collapses amid disenchantment bred by anarchy. If you had a facility free-for-all the fans would lose patience rapidly enough. At the minute, they keep it barely credible by limiting facilities and guests to a certain extent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2009 18:40:29 GMT
The logic is that you have to draw the line somewhere, or else the whole thing collapses amid disenchantment bred by anarchy. If you had a facility free-for-all the fans would lose patience rapidly enough. At the minute, they keep it barely credible by limiting facilities and guests to a certain extent. So you know where the line is ? you think its not already a free-for-those who know how best to manipulate the system ? you think fans patience is not already lost ? and you dont read the disenchantment being echoed on a weekly if not daily basis ? we have already had Hampelgate and Boxallgate and the season hasn't even properly begun. Also there is no-one anywhere who will bang on about it as much as you Sub, so dont tell me you think the situation is acceptable as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 25, 2009 19:00:46 GMT
So you know where the line is ? you think its not already a free-for-those who know how best to manipulate the system ? you think fans patience is not already lost ? and you dont read the disenchantment being echoed on a weekly if not daily basis ? we have already had Hampelgate and Boxallgate and the season hasn't even properly begun. I agree. And if you look back at the aggregate of my posts you'll find I think the BSPA went too far with regard to facilities a long time ago. I know that I criticised numerous facilities afforded last season and was lambasted for doing so at the BSF. I questioned facilities for, among others, Adrian Rymel when he doddered off on various dubious FIM and other events. However, I don't regard myself as being an atypical speedway follower. And for everyone who stands against extensions of facilities, you'll find some begging for more when their club is involved. And worst of all it seems so arbitrarily decided. For example, in 2007 the BSPA decided that Greg Hancock deserved "compassionate leave" even as it was determined that he had met the obligations of his contract with Reading. The Bulldogs-Racers were allowed a facility for a rider who was no-longer contracted to them. However, it seems that with a seriously ill relative, Karol Zabik is NOT entitled to "compassionate leave" and Peterborough have to do their best. I consider that, as weird and unreliable as Zabik undoubtedly is, Hancock was also unreliable (without the weirdness to compensate, just that famous "grin" of dubious integrity) and, more to the point, he seemingly had reached the end of his contract with Reading. |
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Mar 25, 2009 19:19:59 GMT
So you know where the line is ? you think its not already a free-for-those who know how best to manipulate the system ? you think fans patience is not already lost ? and you dont read the disenchantment being echoed on a weekly if not daily basis ? we have already had Hampelgate and Boxallgate and the season hasn't even properly begun. I agree. And if you look back at the aggregate of my posts you'll find I think the BSPA went too far in regarding facilities a long time ago. I know that I criticised numerous facilities afforded last season and was lambasted for doing so at the BSF. I questioned facilities for, among others, Adrian Rymel when he doddered off on various dubious FIM and other events. However, I don't regard myself as being an atypical speedway follower. And for everyone who stands against extensions of facilities, you'll find some begging for more when their club is involved. And worst of all it seems so arbitrarily decided. For example, in 2007 the BSPA decided that Greg Hancock deserved "compassionate leave" even as it was determined that he had met the obligations of his contract with Reading. The Bulldogs-Racers were allowed a facility for a rider who was no-longer contracted to them. However, it seems that with a seriously ill relative, Karol Zabik is NOT entitled to "compassionate leave" and Peterborough have to do their best. I consider that, as weird and unreliable as Zabik undoubtedly is, Hancock was also unreliable (without the weirdness to compensate, just that famous "grin" of dubious integrity) and, more to the point, he seemingly had reached the end of his contract with Reading. You were doing OK, until you started criticising one of speedway's true gentlemen and greatest ambassadors. I agree that Reading should not have been allowed a facility for Reading in 2007, but I think you'll find the fault was with their promoter (the BSI bloke) rather than Greg Hancock, whose integrity is beyond question. Greg fulfiled the contract he signed for the Bulldogs. He didn't want to ride over here at all in 2007, but was persuaded to sign a short-term contract by the BSI bloke. The fact that the BSI bloke then made up some cock-and-bull story about why Greg was subsequently missing was not Greg's fault. Greg had already fulfiled his contract. But don't let the facts get in the way, Sub. |
|
