Steve0

What a load of tosh!

As I have already said - I don't see what the problem is. A team will sign up their own riders they want to use, arrange loans to other clubs for the riders they don't want to use and arrange loans from other teams for the riders that club don't want to use. That is how it should work today so I don't see any problem at all. Unless you get a team (Peterborough) who buy a lot of assets they cannot possibly use in the same team and try and force other clubs to buy them!

Well I'll be surprised if any other rider wants to become an asset of Peterborough as all 3 of the riders concerned (PUK, Hans and Batch) have all said they have been mucked about. So rather than listen to the Peterborough fans - I'll listen to the riders and have total contempt for the way their parent promotion has behaved! Genuine question - Can you show me where this MC ruling has been confirmed (outside of Julie Mahoney)?

But the alleged MC ruling is wrong - it is totally inconsistent with the "rules"! You Peterborough fans keep going on about the rules but those same rules say that a rider can go out on loan if not being used by their parent club! I use the word "alleged" because the only place where I have seen this ruling confirmed was from Julie Mahoney of Peterborough! FYI - the sport has no credibility anyway! If a decision made is clearly incorrect then the right thing to do is to overturn it!

Which rules are being broken then? What about the one where, if a parent club do not want to use an asset, the club he was last on loan to has first call on their services! There is no moral high ground!

Henceforth any clubs trying to dictate to others for riders they have no intention of using will be following the Peterborough bullyboys rule! :rolleyes:

As I have previously stated - just because someone wants to sell doesn't mean anyone has to buy - especially if the parent club are not planning on using him! Surely even you can see the sense in that (regardless of what and why the MC apparently ruled) You don't think there are a lot of informal chats that go on anyway - why should it be any different? As has previously been the case you sign up your riders that you want and look to loan out your other assets and loan in any other riders that aren't wanted by their parent club! What Peterborough have done this winter has reached new lows - even for them

And the Peterborough fans on this thread can crawl back into their lair ! Maybe I'll follow them over to the Peterborough thread

And he managed to beat Paulo di Canio too

Loans aren't cheap and I think Poole have a couple so don't try and take the moral high ground!

And if a rider goes out on loan for a third season, so can a rider for a second season! That's not the issue at all. Swindon wanted to use Batch and that's why Peterborough had to purchase him. This time, Peterborough do not want to use Batch so why should any club have to purchase him as the rules state that if the parent club don't intend to use a rider then they are available on loan to other clubs!

That made me chuckle

Actually JJB sports are no more so it doesnt matter what they say but I forgot about their away strip and you are absolutely correct on this point - I was thinking of their third strip which is red and blue. You'd think I'd know being Scottish but hey I do make mistakes and am happy to offer you my humblest apology - this time I used to go to the St. Mirren ground in the seventies when the Paisley Lions speedway team raced there.

I believe the ruling was that he was only available to ANY club on a transfer - that's what I read anyway

I think you'll find St Mirren play in black and white!

In isolation yes I probably agree. However, then you need to consider Miedzinski from last year and that further "muddies the water".

I disagree with most of your points - I do not believe one person or group is/are always right - whether that is speedway or anything else. I have an opinion and I can select what opinion I have depending on the situation. I think Peterborough are at fault here and as I've said previously it isn't surprising that both Peterborough and Coventry were the ones playing funny beggars this winter too! Fortunately, Birmingham managed to find some extra sponsorship which Swindon don't seem to have been able to do. I do agree that the Miedzinski situation last year was a poor decision but even looking at this year PUK and Batch have been treated differently when I would have thought Batch had a stronger loan case than PUK - as PUK has had an extra season's loan - a decision based on whether your face fits or not?

I think it's called MY opinion or would it suit if I were a lemming?

You're right - you can't be forced to loan either - much better having it in the garage gathering dust Surely the right thing to do is to have Batch riding rather than losing a top rider to an already weak league? 2 winters ago the BSPA were right but eventually everyone saw sense and agreed a way forward. This time, the BSPA are not right as I gave examples (e.g. PUK, Judas) where a precedence had been set. If Peterborough wanted to use Batch then it would be a no brainer - Swindon should have to purchase him but that is not the case so a loan was within the rules but, for whatever reason, the MC ruled otherwise. I didn't realise that I always had to agree with what the BSPA do - to suit your argument. I have my own opinions and 2 years ago I agreed with the BSPA and this year I do not - is that ok with you? It is not about what Swindon can afford, it is down to whether Batch rides or doesn't ride this season and I cannot believe anyone would rather see him sit out the season!

Best news I've read - now I just need you to do the same

You could argue that but that wouldn't be very bright Imagine your local car dealership having a lean spell and blaming it on the fact that no one was buying their cars! As I've said before, just because you have something to sell doesn't mean anyone is obliged to buy it!

And your point is? The other side of the point you're trying to make is that he also doesn't say that the Batchelor deal depends on Morris or that the sky is blue or the grass is green - just because he didnt say it doesn't mean it's not true *** BIG NEWS - Rosco doesn't reveal everything he knows in an interview!! ***

So Monsieur , show me the tweet rather than your attempts at humour!

Show me the tweet - which I have asked time and time again on here and am still waiting. Hearsay isn't evidence! I ask because I follow Batch on twitter and I didn't see it! A genuine request which no one has responded to - just rubbish about it being deleted

I'm sure Patch had/has every intention of paying for him but then Peterborough put a spanner in the works and started trying to dictate - roll on March 1st to see if Harkess keeps HIS word