Aces51

Didn't take long to stray away from the facts again.

Obviously the fact that Coventry were a poor side last year without a No.1 until the signing of KK and the upsurge in form of Harris means nothing. The fact that so far as I can remember no team without a rider over 8 has won the league in recent times is but a fluke. I can but hope that BV manage to avoid signing Hans or Harris and then at last the title is ours. Hang on though, on that basis we should have won it in 2007 and where did we finish, 10th of 10.

If a strength in depth team is the way to go it's a bit odd that 6 of the 8 EL teams have currently signed a rider of 8 or above and no doubt Wolves will make it 7 of 8. Obviously they don't know what they are doing.

I think that is quite likely, it makes sense with Harris's GP commitments and I think he will be BV bound.

It does make a difference not having a No.1 with the 15 heat formula and the double points rule. You are always at a disavantage in heats 13 and 15 and not only can the double points be used effectively against you but you also have little chance of using it successfully yourself. You may have an advantage in other heats but I do not think it balances out. The No.1 is alo a drawcard and the lack of one affects attendances.

Hans wouldn't get a better deal elsewhere if BV were the only club without an over 8 rider. It is of course all hypothetical but as Hans apparently wants to ride in the UK and BV agreed terms with him this year they probably could for 2011. If they couldn't then I think they would have to go without a No.1. as there would be no other option. (I am conveniently forgetting Zagar).

There were 11 in 2006.

There is a strong argument at the moment for not buying any assets at all because, as has been discussed on here, the whole system is probably illegal.

Problem is no-one can identify a foreign No.1 who is willing to race here at the rates on offer in the EL. If you applied your reasoning to all clubs then B'ham, KL and Eastbourne would be joining us in the PL so not much of an EL left.

I have no idea if that is right or not, I wasn't following the BSF then but if people were saying that they were plainly wrong, none of the fans I meet thought that in fact there was much doom and gloom about not having a No.1 and in fact he finished top of the BV averages with a CMA below 7. According to BSPA he started on 7.6 and remeber that at that time 9 was regarded as the minimum for a No.1.

I am sure that they could but it is wiser to keep any funds at the moment in the hope that the new stadium is approved. Why should they buy one anyway, as far as I know Coventry didn't buy KK last year, Eastbourne have not bought Pedersen nor Swindon, Nicholls. If rumour is correct and Andersen rides for Coventry, will they be buying him?

The 8.01 rule was designed to cater for 8EL teams. No problem finding one with that number, only if everyone votes to let Cov & P'brough back in.

Apart from 2007, when they couldn't find one, they always have so I can't see why not in 2011.

Do you realise the problems you have caused for the friends and families of these people now that you have shattered their delusions. Blimey, talk about telling children there is no Santa Claus.

No problem. Just wondering in view of your obvious support for the Coventry /P'borough faction. I see now, you mean impartial about clubs in the sense that you do not support a particular club, not that your views about particular clubs are impartial. To just reply "clubs" did not make it very clear.

Impartial about clubs. So; not favouring one more than another; treating all alike; unprejudiced; unbiased; disinterested; equitable; fair; just. You may wish to reconsider, you could just delete the first two letters.

Did you not notice the smiley after my comment? I wouldn't rest your case there if I were you. Your analogy is a bad one, Coventry and Peterborough are not employees of the BSPA and so had options that do not exist for an employee. They were part of the day to day controlling body and as such had the same opportunity as everyone else to persuade others to their viewpoint. If that failed and the majority voted for another course then no, they should not have left. They should have accepted the decision and remained to fight another day when, if their case had merit, they should be able others to support them. One of the interesting things to me in all of this is that there has been no apparent breaking of ranks over the new rules by the 8 clubs in the EL. On a totally unrelated matter but just as a matter of interest, what is it that you are impartial about?

Leave.

i'm getting a headache. At the AGM only 3 or possibly 4, if it included B'ham, did not have an asset over 8, so not a majority, so they couldn't have won the vote alone, your point was that those without such an asset would have a majority. If Coventry and Peterborough had walked out before the vote they can hardly complain.

I thought your point about it not being fair was about the vote at the AGM not some future vote on 8+ assets.

I agree that it is difficult but surely the point here is to look beyond your individual business and to the sport as a whole. What is needed is the vision to see that usually what is good for the sport is in the long run good for the individual businesses. It baffles me how anyone can think that rules which will deny the opportunity for poorer teams to be competitive and probably result in those teams closing down or going into the PL can be good for the long term prospects of any EL team. An EL of 3 or 4 teams will never be a success.

From what we are led to believe KL were not in the EL when the vote was taken and possibly B'ham as well. Even if B'ham were, still not a majority.

There are onl 3 EL clubs without an asset over 8, 4 if you count Ipswich, so they do not have a majority. Anyway the BSPA is a democratic organisation so why shouldn't they have a vote on an isssue that makes the sport more competitive.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, I can't see how he can win. If he backs down to the BSPA or loses his court case, he loses. If the BSPA backs down or it goes to court and he wins, he loses. What sort of working relationship do you think there will be with the rest of the BSPA.

I have no idea where you get the notion that it is a Ford,CVS, Patchett side. I can certainly see that much of what we believe was agreed is in the interests of Eastbourne, BV and Lakeside and now B'ham and KL. I cannot see why Poole would want a 40 point limit that would cause them to have to lose more points than anyone and, if Ronnie Russell and Matt Ford are to be believed, they voted against it. The only rule which I see is contrary to the interests of BV etc is the unchanged 4 point foreigner rule. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that was part of the trade off for those clubs to vote with Ford re. Pawlicki but I think all those clubs will have seen that it was a rule that had to be changed because so many had abused it and would vote for it anyway.