Aces51

Anyone would think that clubs don't pay loan fees for these riders who would otherwise be earning nothing for their parent clubs.

It was released by the BSPA but is a joint statement. "THE BSPA and Coventry and Peterborough are delighted to announce" so presumably took the talents of all three to draft.

Delighted for their fans and the sport that C&P are back and that is all that will be important to the vast majority of fans. For those of us who have taken sides in this saga at least some of the results of what has occurred will soon become apparent and then we can all have a more informed opinion about what has gone on. For now let us just be pleased that speedway is back at Brandon and EOES.

Brilliant news. Well done David Gordon and Chris Morton.

Really good news. More opportunities for younger Brits has to be the way forward. Let's hope that it comes off and that sufficient supporters attend to make it viable. The Mangement are to be congratulted on their forward thinking which should be a benefit not only to the club but also the sport in general.

I think you can argue both ways. In 1965 as virtually all of the top riders in the then National League rode in the new British League the standard of the top riders was at least the same and you could say that as some of the top riders from the Provincial League reached the same standard the overall standard was higher. Conversely, as the majority of lesser riders came from the Provincial League you could argue that taking all riders into account the standard was lower. Whatever it was it was a huge success. With regard to charging EL money realistically we don't pay enough for the standard we have now.You could say that the true admission price for the EL should be a price which would result in clubs at least breaking even. Sponsorship and TV money could then be the icing on the cake to improve facilities and invest in training British riders. If we were to get back the Crump's, Pedersen's etc. the true EL cost would be even higher.

I appreciate that you are probably just being flippant and as a fantastic servant to BV I have tremendous sympathy for Jason but in my opinion there are a number of issues here. Firstly, sufficient riders willing to ride here do not exist to make up 8 EL teams to a 45 limit, if you take the present number, 9 teams if you take the original number with B'ham replacing Ipswich or 10 if you add Cov and P'borough to the present 8. Secondly, even if the riders did exist probably a minimum of between 2 and 4 of those teams could not afford to pay them and the EL would no longer be tenable. Any business that consistently pays out more than it gets in will eventually fail because even those with a wealthy benefactor cannot rely on that support always being there. Thirdly, the most realistic option the sport has at the moment is to bring the EL and PL closer together so that more teams will be prepared to move up and create an EL consisting of a more viable number of teams. Over time and if the recession ends and the increased variety of teams increases crowd levels then a gradual move back to having a higher limit and attracting back some of the top riders can be afforded.

You are as entitled to your interpretation of the articles every bit as much as everyone else. People can read them and make up their own minds. I stand by my statement that read together the two articles provide, at least, circumstantial evidence from which the inference can be drawn that Peterborough voted on at least one issue. As I said, whether it is compelling evidence is another matter but at the moment it is the only real evidence we have.

Your version may be correct. We are in no position to know exactly what did happen on this voting issue and like many, I suspect, I have a degree of scepticism about what I read in the press. Howevr, on this occasion I see no reason to doubt the veracity of these reports. Messrs. Russell and Ford are each simply commenting to show that they were in favour of a higher limit, along with other clubs, but were outvoted. The story is about them, not the other clubs. Matt Ford doesn't even name the other clubs and it is two reports from two completely different news organisations.

I still didn't say that the Swindon article was evidence, I said it may be what people are alluding to. However, if you look at the article I later added to that post and take the comments from Ronnie Russell (4 clubs, including Peterborough wanted a 45 point limt) and Matt Ford ( 4 clubs voted for a higher limit)together, then it can now be argued that there is at the very least circumstantial evidence from which the inference can properly be drawn that Peterborough voted on the 45 point issue. Whether it is convincing evidence is another matter. In so far as there not being any evidence to the contrary view, that they did not have a vote, that is so far as I can ascertain a true statement. As we do not know the issues involved in the supposed legal action I do not know if that particular issue is sub judice and neither do you.

My post was of course in reply to a claim that Peterborough had been denied a vote. What I said was "No-one knows for sure. The only evidence is APPARENTLY from Ronnie Russell" not that it was definite. However, since then I have found this article http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/sport/latestsport/8709774.SPEEDWAY__Scott_Nicholls_signs_for_Robins/ which may be what people are alluding to. There is also this article which does not specifically mention Peterborough but confirms that 4 clubs voted for a 45 point limit. http://www.worldspeedway.com/artman/publish/printer_14543.shtml

No-one knows for sure if he was allowed a vote or not. The only evidence is apparently from Ronnie Russell to the effect that Peterborough did cast at least one vote. I have seen no evidence to support the contrary view.

Am I correct in recollecting that a Promoter has to have held a licence for a minimum period before having voting rights at the BSPA AGM? I seem to recall that was at least part of the reason why David Gordon and Chris Morton included Eric Boocock and possibly Gordon Pairman in their first year.

If you mean me then perhaps my sense of humour is lost on you.

Thank you Mr. Boon. I appreciate that complimentary comments are rare on this forum but, likewise, I respect anyone who, like yourself, puts forward reasoned arguments to support their opinions, whether I agree with them or not. Now about that stupid idea you had about .................. Blimey, I have just read Custer Mouse's commets above, I have obviously been deceived and blinded by your pretended kindness. On the other hand I will take it at face value, it is so rare to receive any words of encouragement, especially here in the home for the bewildered. Edited to add final paragraph after reading Custer Mouse's post.

New Years Eve 7pm. Sky Sports 2 and probably repeated at other times.

John Harrhy was riding in the 1970's so it would be 40 not 30 years as a rider etc.

Ok, I give up, there's no point if those who have a different view can't even try to put forward a reasoned argument to support what they say. You could just say that you have re-read it and I am right, there is no embarassement in admitting you might be wrong occasionally.

You are not dealing with the facts again. I did not say that, it was obviously intended by you as a smear and that was my point, nothing to do with whether it was a valid comment. I agree with Steve on some issues and not others, pretty much the same as I do with a lot of posters.

I think, as with many of your opinions, you have misunderstood. It is only by exerting a lot of willpower that I was able to resist the obvious reply.

Sometimes you have to be very strong to resist temptation.

I am convinced, plainly those are the team building points limit and conversion rules being applied but it would be wrong to present it as a fact because there has been no official announcement of the new rules, nor have they yet been published.

What you really mean is that it is obvious to some of those on here who support the Coventry/Peterborough side of the argument. I prefer not to make unsubstantiated allegations or, present as fact, matters that are no more than a guess based on very little information. i am sorry if you think that is turning me into anything other than someone who has a point of view that is different to the one that you hold. It is an old trick of dictatorship supporters, often seen in communist regimes, to try to smear the messenger when the argument is lost.

No, that isn't a fact, it is an assumption based on your view of the fact that KL decided to move up. Most people might think that a share of the TV money together with the explanation put forward by KL is the reason.

If you look at the BSPA site you might see that the points limit and conversion rate seems fairly clear.