Aces51

Nobody knows is the truth but logic would suggest that it is unlikely that people will to want to deal with, or be sympathetic to, the arguments of people who have threatened their business and the existence of their sport, never mind the additional costs incurred in seeking legal advice. What we do know is that all except Coventry and Peterborough were prepared to work within what was agreed at the AGM, is it really probable that they would now listen with anything more than politeness to whatever such people have to say. Trust is a valuable commodity and once lost it is extremely difficult to get back. Unfortunately, people will always be suspicious of such people's motives, even when they are for the best.

Seems pretty clear.

I suspect it was the insinuation that somehow Coventry were beholden to Poole, Eastbourne and Swindon because of the handouts of KK, Bridger and Sweetman. Disgraceful.

BV have to put all their resources towards the new stadium. The deteriorating facilities at KL will never allow them to attract big crowds on a regular basis and the lack of investment by the stadium owners indicates that there is probably no long term future for it. Finding new riders is not a problem, most good prospects are easily identifiable but BV are not prepared to offer the deals that other clubs do if that diverts funds from the new stadium project. There is no point in having a good asset base but nowhere to race whereas with a new stadium the priority will change and an asset base built up. Back on topic, I hope that both Coventry and Peterborough do return to the EL having seen the error of their ways and now being prepared to work constructively with everyone else in the BSPA.

A sad tale, perhaps you could find some way of bringing Coventry into the conversation when BV are mentioned.

BV are without doubt the most famous and successful club in speedway in the same way that Ivan Mauger or Tony Rickardson is the greatest speedway rider. No other club can match their long and continuous history, the fact that they have always raced at the highest level, their unparallelled record of league and cup successes, presently dating from 1931 to 2005, their recognition outside the sport and the many World Champions and truly famous riders who have worn the Ace of Clubs. Coventry have a record of which to be proud, they have even spent a significant part of their shorter history in the top division, and in recent times have been more successful but it is like, at best, comparing Nicki Pedersen to Mauger or Rickardson. He is an excellent rider, he has won many trophy's but not yet shown the longevity, level of achievement and wider public recognition, to join the very best. If my memory serves me it was BV that provided the riders to enable Coventry to put together a side in the late 1940's and I do have to say that it is always nice to see a protege doing well.

That would actually make sense with Harris being in the GP's and Andersen out in 2011.

Why. just read it again with unbiased eyes, my description, a rider over 8.01, who can compete with other No.1's and beat them on a regular basis, ie. not the occasional fluke victory. That description fits the likes of Harris, KK, Anderson, Richardson, Nicholls, Holder, Lindgren.

You are probably right about Nicholls because at that time many teams had true world class riders as their No.1. Last year however remember that Bees without a No.1 were a very mediocre team until the arrival of KK and the upsurge in form by Harris (not to forget Pawlicki) and because of that earlier season form they only finished fourth in the league table, which is the only true test of performance over a season.

I think you will find that by last years and current standards KK and Harris are both No.1's.

The problem is that strength in depth teams rarely succeed and from a promotion point of view it is much easier to attract fans if you have a "star" rider. In one sense it doesn't matter how good they are in world terms, it is having one of the best of those available that matters. Stars in the PL are not world class standard but they are a draw card.

Zagar - we were hoping for someone full time and, from memory, not the best of records at BV. The rest are extremely unlikely to ride in the EL and of those Sayfutdinov and Miedzinski are not No.1's in the EL at the moment. Didn't Pedersen approach KL and was reportedly too expensive?

No. But of course the 8.01 criteria was presumably based on 8 teams EL and you cannot fairly change it now because the team building of those 8 has been based on that criteria. Anyone not currently with a rider in that category may have tried to sign one of those now signed up elsewhere, if they had known that there were going to be more than 8 EL teams. However, I assume that in the interests of transparency and fairness, for which they are the self proclaimed standard bearers, the last teams in will accept that they should be the one's to suffer if 10 8.01 riders cannot be found. Oh blimey I have just woken up.

I explained in my earlier definition of a No.1. He should be able to compete with and beat on a regular basis the No.1 riders of opposing teams. It follows therefore that, all things being equal, you would expect a No.1 to have a CMA in the same range as the No.1's of other teams. In this case 8.01 or above, although, realistically, you need to analyse matters a little more deeply. For example a rider with an average of say 8.5 may have a home average of 10.5 and an away average of 6.5, he would not be a No.1 in my book because he would not be able to compete at that level away from home. It is also possible that a rider with a sub 8.01 CMA could have a great season and achieve a CMA way above his starting average and become a No.1 but no team should risk basing their season on that sort of gamble because it so rarely succeeds.

Surely you must know what everyone means by a No.1 and that it is nothing to do with the number on his back. Years ago Peter Collins used to ride at No.5 for BV but he was their No.1 rider.

If it was AJ that wouldn't tie in with Steve's comment that it leaves BV and P'borough without a No.1

Whether it is true or not I don't know but who of the riders on 8+ is left after KK signed for B'ham? Harris, Zagar and A....... Thinking about it, it doesn't seem likely because B'ham were given permission to talk to Andersen, hardly likely if he had alraedy signed for Coventry.

9:1, there are only 8 teams in the EL. Anyway surely all Coventry fans would support a club which fought for transparency and fairness.

A No.1 is a rider who has the ability to compete on a level with and beat on a regular basis the top rider of opposing teams. Most experienced fans can identify who is who isn't a No.1. When BV ran in 2007 with Simon Stead as their best rider it was generally acknowledged that he was not a No.1 rider.

I suspect that a club that can afford to pay Crump, KK and Andersen would be able to afford them, whether the club in question can I don't know. However, KK has gone to Brum, Andersen wants to be near his home. That leaves Zagar, rumour has it he was BV bound last year and changed his mind at the last minute so that will probably not make him top of the popularity list. Who knows what will happen. What was the name of the competition law expert?

I am just pointing out that it would be better to decide it on a majority rather than give one club a veto.

Would it not be a majority vote rather than just one club being against? I am not suggesting it would happen but BV for example might say; There isn't a decent No.1, other than Zagar, who we don't think is and who we don't want because of his allegded unreliability. We can vote in favour of letting Coventry and Peterborough back in and doom ourselves to another season at the bottom of the EL with no No.1 and more financial loss or we can keep them out and get Harris or Andersen. After all said and done they have caused the problem so why should we now suffer. On the other hand they might say, never mind that we will be the only real victims at the end of all this it is in the best interests of the sport, we will do what Coventry and Peterborough would do in our shoes.

"we can confirm that all of the parties remain committed to resolving the matter amicably". Surely this must mean that the threat of legal action has been withdrawn. Is that becasue they never had a case, because the BSPA has given in to their demands or because they are all being adult and genuinely trying to find a way round the problems. Time will tell.

The word "and" is the clue. Whether it is what he meant to say I know not but what he did say was, he could not endorse or justify the losses to stay in the EL AND that some of the new rules would serve to increase the losses. Having said that the important thing is for Peterborough to be in the EL next year and I hope that they are.

Things are never that simple. What about if there is a compromise that gives Coventry something so that this can all be resolved. That would not be an admission of any wrongdoing by the BSPA, just showing that they are prepared to be reasonable to try to prevent Coventry fns losing out.