Steve0

The source is Big Ron's comments where he quoted the teams who wanted 45 points - and Eastbourne weren't one of them! So don't really need any minutes when someone at the meeting is commenting in the public domain.

How do you work that out? We haven't even had the official statement yet!! How do you know that Coventry and Peterborough weren't the ones who had to beg to be allowed back into the fold. I agree with the earlier post that anything other than abject surrender on the part of these two teams will be bad for British Speedway - because nothing would be resolved except to the satisfaction of the two teams who caused this sorry mess!!

How many times?? No one is punishing Coventry and I am sick to the back teeth of this victim mentality. Rules were agreed at the AGM - if Coventry disagreed then that's tough because the majority passed the rules - that's assuming that Coventry hadn't had their tantrum and left by then (in which case they gave up their right to vote). If Coventry are back inside the BSPA (which seems the case) then they can influence the other promoters to change the rules at the next AGM. I didn't say that the rules were fair or not and I personally would have no problem if Pawlicki came back on a 4 as I don't think any rules were broken. However,it seems that the rules have been changed which means he is not likely to be a 4 and we need to accept the rules agreed by the majority and move on. I would have had some respect for Coventry if they had shown more dignity in accepting the rules!

Why??? Making those concessions opens the floodgates for similar actions in the future which is unacceptable!

Good news if true However, I await the formal announcement. If Coventry have doffed their caps and pleaded to come back on the terms agreed at the AGM then that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. If, however, the BSPA have made any changes to the rules to accommodate them then I will be less than happy!

I've noticed that a few Coventry and Peterborough posters on here seem to be blaming KL for their predicament. I say look closer to home - the reason why you are currently not running is because of the actions of your owners at the AGM. I see KL as the saviours of the EL no matter how many pieces of silver or not they received. With them moving up, it scuppered the plans of two bully boys who thought that they had a strong negotiating position and when this didn't work they resorted to legal threats. I do hope that the BSPA have stood strong and not caved in to their demands - the silence from all sides (bar a crass Seasonal greeting wrapped up as an official statement) is deafening!! Even if they do return they will be despised by other clubs for what they threatened to do so they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't! Roll on March...

A very bad one!! Unless it is a coded message that good news is on the way... ....Christmas is coming :wink:

Gee thanks Never deliberately set out to be a Poole basher - and I have a lot of time for both Holder and Ward who I think get a lot of unfair press on here. Now that you have the Gaffer on board, I might even say some nice things about Poole

Firstly - I am NOT wrong!! Rick Frost did say that Peterborough would not be running in the EL next season - it is in his press release!! Now things may have moved on but that is what he said so I am not wrong! Secondly, I do not believe the BSPA acted illegally and we will just have to agree to differ on that one. If the BSPA have had to backtrack because of threats from these two clubs then I will not be spending any money on speedway next year in protest and I'm sure I won't be alone in that !!

A play on words- the fact is that Rick Frost has said that Peterborough will not be riding in the EL next season. FACT. Having said that, the BSPA have also said that the EL will not include Coventry or Peterborough but I think they will make an announcement that, following a democratic vote, the other promoters have allowed late entry to Coventry! What makes you think the 8 EL promoters will change any rules which were agreed at the AGM? Why should they? They have all been building teams to these (as yet unpublished) rules!! Coventry and Peterborough decided to leave the AGM without declaring their intent to run - FACT. If they want back in - it will be on the other promoters terms and not two people who frankly acted like spoiled brats! Time will tell and personally, I would like to see them both back (Peterborough without Bjerre and PUK) but on the terms of the BSPA!

I unreservedly apologise but I didn't make the comment - I merely pointed out that I didn't know what it meant and I wish I hadn't asked

...and it doesn't say that it is nearly Christmas either! Stick to what it does say!!

Seems pretty clear to me - the man says his team will NOT be running in the EL in 2011. The reason being that having made substantial losses, he feels the rules agreed at the AGM will increase those losses!! So what are you arguing about?

don't disagree with you - but what's a flid?? I just can't make it out...

There are none so blind as those that will not see *sigh* Playing the victim card again!! "Everyone else won't play by our rules so they must be picking on us because we are the mighty bees - EL champions don't you know!!" For the past 2-3 weeks, while Coventry were seeking legal advice, the rest of the league has got on with building their teams to the rules agreed at the AGM. Now you think that the rest of the league should compromise these agreed rules because Coventry now want to play? Get real! It is all about self interest as far as Coventry are concerned. If they now want to play - they should play by the rules that have been agreed. If the BSPA did back down on this then they will open the floodgates for all clubs to follow Coventry's lead in the future and that is wholly unacceptable! In a democracy, you will usually find that not everyone agrees with everything but they are usually smart enough to stay around the table and work to change from within. By walking out Coventry gave up that right and must now accept what was agreed in their absence if they want to run next year. If they do run it is because they have swallowed their pride and agreed to abide by the rules as well as working to change them - from within!! I do hope that Coventry runs but it has to be on the terms of the majority!

I have to strongly disagree with you on this .... This mess IS Coventry's making - they walked out of the AGM and by doing so caused a string of events that we could all have done without. There are ways and means of dealing with situations and quite frankly walking out leaves you without a leg to stand on!!

Coventry apologises and the BSPA agrees to let them back in -Simples :wink:

Maybe you should have followed this advice then

If Coventry run it will be because they have fallen in line with the other BSPA promoters and offered their humblest apologies to be brought back into the fold. Glad you won't be spending your money on the EL *sigh*

This thread should be moved to PL section

I liked Tai anyway but he went up in my estimation of him when he did his "naked" laps with Shane Parker - what a laugh- and in the middle of October!

Not harsh at all - he pulled out - Fact!! All I said was that I was disappointed that the big names didn't turnout for Leigh and even Mark Loram pulled out.

Exactly where in the rules does it say this? Exactly - it doesn't - just the usual sour grapes rubbish being spouted!

It should be a 4 because within the rules he has not done enough meetings to gain an average - find of the season I would say although I am pretty sure you were saying King Artur was earlier in the season Ho Ho Ho

A fitting farewell to great servant of British speedway. However for one of the top riders in the world I was very disappointed by the lack of turn out of big name stars - even Mark Loram pulled out. Enjoy your "retirement" Leigh!