Vincent Blachshadow

I've yet to see anything saying he didn't agree with the calling off at the time and told Ford so, that he wanted to run the meeting and, as an MC member, he could see no reason for the meeting to be postponed. Surely, since the reason for the call-off was not that racing was impossible it could not be an unilateral postponement and Cook should have known that.

Is that really any different to the fourth rider in GP semis and final having to walk over and pick up the one remaining colour card? And I remember our own EL team managers saying, in the past, prior to heat 15 and after the winners of the toss had chosen, such as 'we'll have 2 & 4 then' or, on the odd occasion, repeating what the other manager had just picked and laughing. Why would that have been, unless asked the same question? Can't remember any looking stupid comments then. Just part of the show.

They? Isn't that the system that's used in our own Best Pairs competitions?

As opposed to the insane ones? Won't be a problem though - Ford'll just tell the SCB what he'll settle for and that's what he'll get. Worked last time. Quite. Didn't like it but wouldn't upset Ford.

I think the point might be that, when asked about Belle Vue, more people knew it was the ground of a third or fourth tier club in one sport than the name of GB's most famous club in another.

Whoever told/asked them to bring their match forward so it could be televised presumably. It's also interesting to note that this item:- http://www.speedwayg...hp?extend.20601 only mentions that Lakeside have arranged their previously called-off match v Coventry for Monday and that it'll be on Sky. No mention of the Peterborough v Wolves call-off at all. Maybe they knew it was 'conditional' and, as such. never existed.

The point Foreverblue is trying to make is that Peterborough called off a meeting in the same circumstances as Poole. That is not the case - Poole called off an agreed match once their team was weakened. Peterborough knew Bjerre would be unavailable and would not agree to the meeting without him or a facility. No facility was forthcoming so Peterborough turned the meeting down. One heck of a difference. As I posted, it is a moot point as to whether something 'conditional' becomes hard fact before that condition is met so, technically, the match was never 'definitely on' regardless of what is written on a web-site. You have missed off an important part of the item on the web-site which explains just that:- 'The meeting was originally set for Friday June 7, but Panthers agreed to move it forward by four days for live broadcasting after it was initially indicated that a guest or rider-replacement would be permitted for absent Bjerre. Sadly that has now proven not to be the case so Panthers bosses feel they are left with no other option but to call the meeting off and re-stage at a later date when they will have a full team of riders.'

The match was brought forward at Sky's request, not their's. They pointed out they would be short of a #1 since KB was riding elsewhere and stated they would not take the match if they were forced to track a PL 6 pointer at #1. Someone suggested it could be sorted out so Panthers' agreed, conditionally, (ie a guest, R/R or KB himself) to take the match. It wasn't sorted out so Peterborough exercised their right not to take the meeting. They obviously told Sky and Wolves they wouldn't be riding after all but it's a moot point as to whether the match was ever on whilst the condition was unresolved.

I also think Tai should have been excluded.

Ever heard the terms 'provisionally' or 'conditionally'? Peterborough accepted the Sky booking 'conditionally'. The condition wasn't met so they withdrew their acceptance. What's so hard to grasp there? They acted within their entitlement and broke no rule.

I'm glad you posted this.

EoES - Jason Crump, Ryan Sullivan, Peter Karlsson, Leigh Adams.

Maybe not. Should he want him, what 'rule' is Patchett going to be told about to get his hands on him? He can't use the 'March 1st agreement' this time - Worrall WAS in a declared 1-7 then.

Is that BEG one get one free?

I think we can take it as fact that Batch will be approved. What we won't discover is what the deal is that gets him there. My guess is that he won't be on Panthers' asset page at the start of next season.

Batch was bought, paid for and became an asset of Peterborough Speedway and, as with any other asset owned by any other person, how that asset is used is down to the owner. Mr Frost has his own reasons for wishing a sale rather than a loan and, at the time the ruling was made for Batch to be bought by Swindon, the MC had every right to make that ruling. This should have been done and dusted well before this supposed March 1st agreement so this available to loan bit doesn't come into it. As for bully boy tactics, I can only see one lot using them. What else does 'we won't honour our agreement with Glasgow if we don't get our own way with the Batch signing' come under? Ipswich may want to keep them all as assets, as is their prerogative.

That's where we differ. I see this as a club thing and both clubs have been treated equally. Both wanted to sign riders on loan which the parent club wanted a full transfer for and both have one on loan. Batch is an extra here and, taking pre-last season into account (here again, we differ) having to buy him is, IMO, reasonable. We could even take club equality a step further. KL were told they would have to buy a rider too (Rooboy). They complied.

I don't think either club is against the system per se since both have bought Lynn have actually bought and paid for a rider whilst Swindon have er, told a club they'll buy a rider if....They just want to adapt it to suit their own purposes at any given time.

Swindon are being treated the same as KL - they've got Andersen on loan just as KL have got PUK. Batchelor is an extra issue. Buy one get the other on loan seemed an acceptable compromise.

Quite. That's the way I see it too.

Course it's old news and it'll stay old news until the team is approved. If it was already approved don't you think his parent club's promoters would know since they'd be asked to fill in the necessary paperwork?

Swindon don't need one. They've got direct lines to MC members apparently willing to keep them informed about ongoing disputes and telling them how to circumvent Committee rulings.

Because the MC order them buy a particular rider if they want to use him or tell them to 'build a suitable asset base' maybe?

'Believe', not 'sure' then?

Ok, let's change the wording a little. Let's substitute 'without a team place' for 'unsigned' (since nobody's actually seen this rule and we don't know the actual wording and both terms have been used by people posting about this rule). I reckon this rule is to allow teams to fill unforeseen gaps in their teams by any rider without a team place on March 1st. Batchelor has had a team place since the end of last season so this rule does not cover his and Swindon's position.