E I Addio

The facts are that Ford was told to revert to the original 1-7. At that point he cancelled the meeting. How do the BSPA force Ford to run the meeting ? All they can do is fine him for not doing so. Not sure how Cook is muddying the waters. He is leaving it to the SCB to sort out which is the correct thing to do. I know but I got myself a proper job instead. I am going to watch the programme on D-Day on the telly now so I'll have to leave you guys to play among yourselves.

So if the scenario was : "Jon I am calling the match off" "Matt, I insist it goes ahead" "Jon get stuffed the match is off " Then what? How does Cook then make Ford go ahead ? . Once it was called off it became an SCB matter, not something for Cook to become involved in. Obviously Cook will not be involved in the SCB investigation so the less he says about it the better, Its only Ford that keeps dredging it up. That may or may not be the case, but its something that will not be known until the SCB enquiry if at all.

Can you point us to the rule that says the visiting promoter has any say in the postponement of a meeting ? In fact, can you point us to a rule that gives a visiting promoter any say at all in the running of another promoters meeting ? SCB has made several posts on this and another thread that explain the position perfectly clearly. Well, perhaps you can point out the rule that the rest of us including Jon Cook can't find, which says the visiting promoter has any say in the matter. Or perhaps its just that a 60-32 tonking last Friday has turned the grapes a bit sour ?

That assumes that what was published in the local Poole -supporting rag was an accurate comment and not something Ford or his cronies has fed them. Poole are desperate to try to implicate Lakeside in this and have issued a number of misleading statements. Cook seems to be getting brassed off with Poole and included the following statement in last Fridays programme:- "A day before we announced our new team we should have been racing at Poole but that meeting was postponed by the Poole promotion after they were told to rename their team because of injury to Pawlicki. We have made our views on this public and again re-iterate we had no power to make Poole run this meeting and had no say in it being called off." Plain English that only the usual stirrers and Ford disciples will fail to grasp. Cook had no power under the rules to object.

Just checked and it seems you already raised this point on the Lakeside -v- Brum Thread and somebody answered it by giving a link to the Somerset website that said Klindt had been booked to replace Doyle because EL fixtures take precedence over re-arranged Pl fixtures. I can't find it in the regulations either but it seems to be a process or convention as Pirate Nick suggests. I can check with the Mad Hatter if you like but he usually says discuss it with the nearest brick wall and the BSPA will abide by its decision.

I think that is the answer, in fact I think someone posted to that effect on one of the other threads. Considering Brum took a league point out of that match it seems highly likely that Lakeside would have protested at Doyle's inclusion if it was illegal.

You are making me feel flippin' old now !

It took two pages for someone to post a bit of common sense on this thread but we got there in the end !

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore on what is really a Wolves thread but presumably Russell was speaking as a Sky co-ordinator rather than BSPA ? If he was, and if he said allowing a facility for Bjerre what's it got to do with him ? I thought Sky didn't interfere with these things (well that's what we are told anyway). Whatever the reason the average supporter is still stuck with the fact that on the face of it three meetings have been cancelled because a rider or riders weren't available and it's not a good image.

So we have one side of the story only. Peterborough asked some unknown person if they could be exempt from the normal rules on facilities. Since we don't know who this person was we have no idea whether they had authority to grant that request or not. It might have been no problem as far as Sky is concerned but the BSPA saw it a different way. Peterborough don't appear to have followed it up with any sort of written confirmation which is hopelessly sloppy business procedure, so we don't really know what was or not said by whom to whom and whether it was more a case of people getting their wires crossed. The bottom line is that as so often happens in speedway it was all dealt with in a most inefficient manner and importantly as far as Joe Public is concerned its just another shambles where, for whatever reason someone pulls the plug on a meeting because a rider is not available. It might be in totally different circumstances to someone telling a pack of lies about a flooded track but the net result is still the same to the average fan. For the sake of a bit more business efficiency all round, not just on one side the whole thing could have been avoided. Since Saturday, I have spoken to several Cardiff regulars who didn't go this year. All are getting fed up with the way things are being run and all cited these cancellations for absent riders as the last straw. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Peterboro cancellation nobody comes out if well, including 'Boro. I agree nowhere near as bad as Belle Vue, but not an example of professionalism either, and unless these sort of late cancellations are stopped it will do the sport massive damage. Unlike many other problems the sport faces all this would stop. EDIT as we are getting a bit off topic for a Wolves thread I'll make that my last comment. Sorry Wolves fans.

Indicated by whom ?

From the Panthers website:- "PETERBOROUGH have reluctantly been forced to cancel their home Elite League meeting against Wolverhampton on Monday June 3." The meeting was obviously considered by Peterborough as being on otherwise they couldn't have been "forced to cancel" it. Whatever went on in the background (and we only have one side's version of that) it was a meeting cancelled by Peterborough. That is the point Foreverblue is making.

You had me struggling as I thought I only had a George O'Dell left in the pack then I remembered Helmut Fath up my sleeve which trumps all of them. Proper chairs in them days. Happy days indeed.

You have got me thinking now. Chris Vincent has been retired about 100 years and the only Terry I can remember from those days is Terry Vinicombe who was another racer. Can you remember any more about it ? I thought the landmark ruling on all this was a moto-cross rider who successfully sued the organisers of a meeting because he was injured on a track that was dangerous but I can't remember all the details

I am not sure that rule that's not in the rule book applies. Fortunately the Mad Hatter will be hosting one of his tea parties behind the second bend burger bar on Monday and will be pleased to answer any queries on rules that are not in the rule book,

I don't know what team was declared against Coventry as it was rained off so I didn't get programme. The only declarations I am aware of are published on the GSA's which as far as I am aware show the declared team as being within the rules. I don't know about Darcy Ward 3 years ago but as far as I can see the team appears to comply with the 2013 rules. If not no doubt Gary Havelock will have something to say.

No, that only applies to d/u in the 1-7 not a guest, so Adam can be used as a guest for Rob or Richard.

What's convenient about a rain-off. The promotion would have lost money as a result of the rain off and will lose more money as a result of the depleted crowd that results from a TV. It would be much better if Cov were to come on a regular race night especially as they bring motre travelling fans than most. There won't be many coming on a Monday and a lot of Lakeside fans won't want to fork out for a meeting on Monday with a Poole meeting due on Friday (Matt Ford permitting). Peterboro's decision to do a Poole is the only thing that stinks. Yep, once again Dick by name, Dick by nature is found with a smoking gun in his hand and a large hole in his foot :D

No not cheating try again. No team a including Adam Ellis has been re-declared and approved by the MC. On the averages effective from 1st June the team is under 42.25. Perfectly legal team.

1. Unlike Belle Vue, Poole and Peterboro, Lakeside have got the Met Office to back up their postponement of the Coventry match unless you can point to any met report that suggests it was not tipping it down last Friday and the day before. 2. No reason why Rob should not be riding when there is no clash with Rye House fixtures. Don't forget Richard Lawson is also a d/u and he will have some fixture clashes when Adam will cover. Perfectly within the rules for a PL guest to cover for an absent d/ u rider.

According the the GSA's just published Rob Mear remains in the 1-7 as a d/u on a 4.09 and he will ride on Monday against Coventry but he will be riding for Rye House at Somerset on 7th June so Adam Ellis comes in as a guest to replace him. So that seems to answer SCB's query.

I don't know. As I recall Kim Nilsson came straight in to the side mid-season from Newport without doubling up and as far as I know , a re-declared 1-7 has not yet been published ( we don't yet know if it has formally been re-declared at this stage) . As last weeks Coventry meeting was cancelled I don't have a programme so I don't know how the team shapes up. You might well be right about him doubling up but pending any formal announcement we can't really say on what basis he is in the side. The Lakeside statement talks about him being in the side short-term initially so I suppose there are different permutations that could be worked out including the possibility that if Mear is still named as a d/u rider and there are fixture clashes with Rye House, Adam could I suppose be a PL guest for Mear and/or Richard Lawson. I don't suppose we'll know with for definite how the team shapes up until the new averages come out and the team is formally named for the next meeting, unless there is a formal statement on re-declaration in the meantime.

How do you know he will be doubling up ?

According to the list someone published on here Rory Schlein is the lowest A Grade rider on 7.33, Ulamek now comes in on a 7.10. The next one down I think is Peter Kildemand on 6.98 and he is definitely not on the A list so it looks like Seb is just outside at no 21. According to the regulations a list of A grade riders is supposed to be published each year but I can't find it anywhere.

Maybe they should, but they didn't. What happened is not the BV fans fault. Ultimately we are all fans and we all like our speedway so to that extent most of us are on the fans side and I would like to think that Gordon and Morten will do something to make it up to those who go through the turnstiles. I will be surprised if they do though.