Vincent Blachshadow

Yeah, right. We all believe that. The paperwork might have been forwarded to Rugby on March 1st.

I tend to agree with your view about the March 1st agreement. I'd suggest it's for when a team is still short of a rider after one they wanted pulls out, gets injured in Oz or something like that. They can then have a look at unused assets and get one on loan. I certainly don't think it's there to allow a club circumvent an MC ruling by ignoring the ruling for a few months until March 1st comes along. I'd also put forward that Batchelor is hardly an 'unsigned' rider - he was probably one of the first 'signed' for this year! Also, if this rule is written down anywhere I'm surprised Matt Ford didn't utilise it last year when signing AM. All he had to do was get his go-betweens to tell AM to inform Swindon he had no wish to ride over here in 2012 and change his mind after March 1st. As a 'free agent' he could then sign for anyone. As for Swindon having to buy Batchelor I suppose the MC could be using the 'for the good of speedway' bit in the rules.

Yeah, but when directed to let Puk and Hans go on loan they complied. Pity some other clubs can't accept MC directives.

I haven't bothered to actually count, but I'd reckon that Peterborough are loaning more riders out than any other club with no problems. Maybe there's a reason why they're acting as they are in this particular case

Panthers are doing, they've even loaned Kacper to Swindon.

https://twitter.com/AndyWarren_/status/308634403519741952 This, two days ago. I'd have thought we'd have heard if it had, from one team or the other. Or we can speculate that it has been sanctioned but they're keeping everything quiet.

Of course it's speculation which, until the BSPA or either of the clubs concerned tell us something, is what most of this thread is. We can't see why Batch's signing is being held up, I'm putting forward an idea. Some keep insisting this is a straightforward signing using some rule nobody's used before but the fact that, after six days, the loan has yet to be sanctioned suggests it isn't quite as straightforward as some imagine.

And Peterborough wanted him last year when he went missing until they'd declared a team. I'm suggesting this situation is down to that and Batch's apparent chat about this coming season without Panthers' permission.

I don't recall ever posting Panthers are totally whiter than white. Three years ago they acquired a rider's services in iffy circumstances, were directed to buy him, and complied. Now the boot is on the other foot, same rider, same situation, Swindon won't comply. Can't see where Panthers are wrong on this occasion. Three riders hardly constitutes 'so many'. Well, it would with Swindon's asset base, I suppose. He did, in a way, remember. He said Glasgow would have to go whistle for their money if he couldn't have Batch on loan.

Panthers' last match was 7th October 2011. If you start putting a team together a week or so later how many k-b'd 'phone calls do you make before getting the message the bloke's avoiding you? A fortnight of these unanswered calls later, start putting a team together with riders happy to ride for you with a couple of options to take in any changes at the AGM. They declared on 28th November. Nothing unusual in their declaration that year and nothing to suggest what they say isn't true. http://www.peterboro...p?extend.1470.2

Like I've posted before, I believe this goes back further than the end of last season. Batch was wanted by Panthers last season but laid low until they'd declared an alternative line-up. Maybe this, and the apparent chats without Panthers' permission for this coming season added together have swayed the MC to stipulate as they have done.

You're the one that said Puk and Batch is the same thing and the BSPA can't treat them differently I'm saying that Swindon got Andersen on loan whereas Peterborough were looking for a sale as with Puk so Swindon and KL were both treated the same. Batchelor is, essentially, a different, additional, issue.

Then why have the MC not ratified the declaration yet? Because they're playing the percentages game. I'd have thought Morris would have got a place elsewhere but Batch 'only wants to ride for Peter Swindon' so you buy the one you might not get. Swindon can then hold a shotgun to the MC's head by pointing out they'd have to renege on their deal with Glasgow if the directive to buy Batch isn't rescinded. Swindon's 'Puk' is Andersen. He's on loan as is Puk.

But, as has been pointed out, nobody but Julie Mahoney has mentioned the ruling ever being made. The MC also don't really care if they do make themselves look incompetent as in the JBJ/M affair when they merely said a mistake had been made the previous year but, hey, there you go, tough.

Swindon's declaration yes. Being allowed by the MC might not be though. One of them might just remember what was decided - or not decided for some - a month or two back.

Really? Don't they do accounts where you live then? Can't remember the last time I paid cash up front (unless I wanted to) in business.

We'll see if Peterborough sign any more riders as assets - they might take Swindon's tack, plead poverty, wait for March 1st to come along and get them on loan now even if ordered or advised to buy them. Personally, I think Swindon may have more trouble getting them now, specially from PL clubs. I expect they'll want cash up front or wait for a cheque to clear before signing their riders over in the future.

The decision may be correct though since we don't know the factors taken into account before the decision was made.

Quite. Which is why I still think the MC will uphold their ruling and Swindon will have to buy or go elsewhere.

Or, if it goes wrong for Swindon tomorrow - and it may well do - the Asset-holders Option.

Because any spare has gone to Glasg...Oh, no, sorry. Forget that.

It'll not be amicable whichever way it goes. If Swindon get him on loan Peterborough won't be happy but Swindon will have their 7th rider but if the ruling stays as it is, well.....Has anyone heard if Swindon can scrape the necessary together or is there another rider lined up?

Maybe the MC think they should have made Swindon buy him last year so are activating that precedent now. To me, Mickey Mouse is agreeing a deal with a club to buy a rider, renege on the deal then blame another club not allowing you to loan a rider the ruling body have decreed you must buy. Having assets you've paid for and wishing to have some say in their future moves is not Mickey Mouse.

Barney is probably referring to the pre-hearing announcement by the MC Chairman re what he expected to happen. Since Hans is now at Swindon on loan and the stalemate over Batch remains (with Patchett excusing his non-payment for a rider he 'purchased' with the inability to get Batch on loan) I think it's a safe bet that was the outcome of that meeting. However, I tend to agree that Batchelor will line up for Swindon but we'll never know the final deal details.

Yeah, well, sometimes it's easy to quickly work out what's going on and take the necessary action.