Vincent Blachshadow

How many times!!! Peterborough wanted him in 2012 but he didn't answer their calls. He did, however, answer Swindon's once Peterborough had declared an alternative team without him.

Because, when the shoe was on the other foot a few years back and Swindon wouldn't accept a loan deal, Peterborough were made to buy Batch, they did.

What a way to do business. I'll pay my dues if.... If this is holding a gun to the MC's collective heads then I don't know what is.

For sure we'd have heard if the ruling had been altered and Swindon can sign Batch on loan so either the ruling stands or the subject wasn't even discussed.

Since 'next week' is now 'last week' anybody know what transpired re Batch in this meeting?

See Crump99's post #2385. There's your answer.

Of course it is. How many years do you think he'd have to be loaned out (as a heat leader) to get in his current heat leader value? Four? Five? Six, even? Are Swindon going to have him on loan the next however many years?

When Batch rode for Peterborough he had been bought, Peterborough were forced to buy. AM wasn't bought, he went on loan. So we now have a slight hitch in this 'rider rides where he wants' thing. If the BSPA/MC uphold their ruling that Batch has to be bought (and I see no reason why they shouldn't) but Swindon insist they won't buy what happens then? And, out of interest, what politics exactly are blinding Panthers' fans. Like you post, they were forced into buying Batch so why are they wrong in expecting Swindon to buy the same rider now they want him back? After all, if YOU were forced into buying something and the original owner wanted it back, wouldn't YOU want them to buy it back? Would YOU be happy for the original owner to use the item on the cheap, to your cost?

I'm not a fan of any club due to not living within travelling distance of a track in my formative years but I got interested in the sport through my liking of classic road bikes, taking them to meetings and getting to know speedway riders because of it. For several years I made a point of visiting every track in the country but these last couple of years a track or two has been off of my Visiting list. The EOES is one of my favourite tracks as I've seen some tremendous meetings there and I got on their bandwagon when other promoters tried to close them down for merely leaving a meeting. As a neutral, I think they've had a raw deal just lately and this is just another attempted stitch-up. They were made to buy Batch when Batch wanted to ride for them so I don't see why Swindon shouldn't repay the favour now Batch wants to go back specially since he rode there last year.

Where have I commented on the tapping-up. We all have our own opinions on that. And less of the Einstein jibes mate, I've always stayed civil with you. But since you have answered one of my posts how about answering my earlier one. Where can I find this rule you keep mentioning regarding this March 1st free-for-all when MC directives can be ignored. Where can I find it so I can see what it says?

That Peterborough couldn't contact him was in the public domain. As for the tapping up..........

Yeah, ok, 2010 then. Didn't I hear somewhere though that Peterborough wanted him last year but they couldn't contact him, then he resurfaced when their team was completed to sign for you?

Peterborough wanted to use him back in '09, Swindon said fine, as long as you buy him. Peterborough bought him. Swindon want to use him in 2013, Peterborough say fine, as long as you buy him. Swindon won't buy him but want him on loan (on the cheap). Where is the difference and how is it Peterborough who are preventing him from working? All Swindon have to do is buy him, as Peterborough did, and he rides. Sorted.

Oh, for heaven's sake!!! The image of the sport to whom exactly? The devotees already have their own opinions and this won't alter anything, ditto the sport's media, and nobody else gives a toss even if they've heard of the sport. He is able to earn a living, all Swindon need do is comply with a perfectly reasonable (and apparently substantiated) directive from the sport's governing body. Even if Swindon maintain their intransigence and don't comply there's always Kirky Lane. Again, please point out where we can find that rule so we can all have a look-see and discover what it actually says - providing it exists, that is.

Your personal understanding of which rule? Where have you seen this rule or last seen it applied? I've never seen it nor have I seen it applied, or at least I can't recall it being applied. As I and others have posted, why would the MC rule any rider has to be purchased if all the prospective users have to do is wait till March 1st? Why are Swindon threatening legal action to get Batch when all they have to do is twiddle their thumbs till March? Why all the fuss by KL to get Puk on loan if all they had to do was hang fire till March and they'd get him? All the evidence suggests the rule doesn't exist quite like you and one or two others post but you know different. All I'm asking is where is the rule so we can all have a look-see.

It would appear the MC have again ruled that Swindon must buy Batch if they want to use him. Do you really believe that they (the MC) will just shrug their shoulders in 25 days time and allow that ruling to be ignored? That's if it even exists since nobody has actually provided any factual evidence of where we can find it or any previous applications.

See sense as in let Patch/Rosco have their way or see sense as in the BSPA/MC stand by their directive and not allow Batch to ride for Swindon unless they buy him? And of course, should this go legal, Swindon will still need someone else to ride for the season at least before it reaches court and a decision - which may well go against whoever brings the case (because Batch won't) - is made. Much better for Swindon to buy him or he ride for Belle Vue whilst a different system is thought of and voted in.

Because their parent clubs want to retain them as assets but are happy for them to go on loan for a season (in much the same way as Kacper has gone on loan to Swindon from Peterborough) maybe. Just a hunch, but does seem plausible.

You've obviously seen this rule since you keep on about it so maybe you can point us all in the right direction and show us where to find it then we'll all know what it really says.

If that's a rule, why have the purchases directed by the MC in the past been made, like Panthers signing Batch for example? Why didn't they just wait until March 1st and get him on loan? Any examples of that rule being used?

No, but he was in their plans last year before disappearing off of their radar for a while, reappearing in the Swindon area once Panthers' team was completed without him. Maybe the BSPA/MC have slightly longer memories than some fans.

That's been answered a time or two already. If a rider is offered for sale rather than a loan for the following season whoever he rode for last is immaterial. Coventry were interested in buying him and the seller can sell to whoever he wants.

Three riders who've had their heads turned by other clubs are a long way short of 'no one' and I can't see anything saying the riders Panthers have signed for the forthcoming season thought any more than once before putting pen to paper.

Agree with this. I think the timing of the first matches hands the initiative to KL though, with their riders having more collective experience around the Showground so should reverse last season's scores. They could be points lost that will be extremely hard to catch up over the season.

You got that bit well wrong. Peterborough didn't threaten to quit any league, some of the other promoters tried to put them out of business and shut them down and that's entirely different. On this occasion, the MC have backed them and said that Swindon have to buy Batch if they want to use him (just as Peterborough were told, and complied, three or four years ago when they acquired him). The MC/BSPA have ruled - if you (Swindon) want him, buy him. That's clear, so who's the silly buggers here? Against their own ruling that he has to be purchased? Can't see that happening. If it were true, why didn't Peterborough just wait till March 1st when they were told to pay for him (which they did) and just take him on loan? The court threat two years ago was over being closed down as a business which is entirely different.