Barney Rabbit Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Just up on Coventry's site OFFICIAL STATEMENT Tuesday 21 December 2010 WE are pleased to inform fans of Speedway that the BSPA, Coventry Bees and Peterborough Panthers have held discussions with a view to resolving the issues that have arisen between them. We are at this stage unable to relay any information as to the nature or the content of those discussions but we can confirm that all of the parties remain committed to resolving the matter amicably. We thank all of the fans of Speedway, the commercial partners and the members for their patience during this time. On BSPA site too. http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.9768 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Blinkered Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Compromise it is then - finally common sense has prevailed, shame it didn't back in November. Lessons learnt hopefully... A compromise is not common sense in this situation. The BSPA run this sport, or are supposed to, not Sandhu or Frost. Sandhu or Frost threw their toys out the pram, so a compromise would be allowing to partially get their way, which should not be how things work. A compromise would be a dangerous precedent to set for future years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richtea Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 So when does Matt Frod take legal action to get it moved back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) So you want to know the grounds on which Peterborough want to take legal action and then you state any good lawyer could blow them out of the water on a number of points. Which points would they be seeing as you don't even know the grounds on which they are taking legal action? Absolute rubbish as usual! The rubbish is you misinterpret what I mean. Or maybe I just didn't say it how I should (a bit like Frost's statement!!). As I said I want to know what the legal action is. And what I meant was Frost's stance could be blown out of the water as it's been so inconsistent (plus the badly worded statement). For all I know his legal argument may be valid. Is that OK? Perhaps you could just disagree without resorting to abuse. Or maybe not. Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rabbit Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 The rubbish is you misinterpret what I mean. Or maybe I just didn't say it how I should (a bit like Frost's statement!!). As I said I want to know what the legal action is. And what I meant was Frost's stance could be blown out of the water as it's been so inconsistent (plus the badly worded statement). For all I know his legal argument may be valid. Is that OK? Perhaps you could just disagree without resorting to abuse. Or maybe not. Mr Frost's statement is perfectly clear. It says exactly what he means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Mr Frost's statement is perfectly clear. It says exactly what he means. That's OK then. He can't justify or endorse losing 140k a year by joining the EL. Which is what he says. If I can't justify or endorse spending £50 a year joining a gym it means I'm not going to join. So now we know. Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
190557 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 That's OK then. He can't justify or endorse losing 140k a year by joining the EL. Which is what he says. If I can't justify or endorse spending £50 a year joining a gym it means I'm not going to join. So now we know. More rubbish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) More rubbish! Any idiot can say "rubbish". In what way is any of what I posted wrong? In fact, don't bother. Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc61 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 That's OK then. He can't justify or endorse losing 140k a year by joining the EL. Which is what he says. If I can't justify or endorse spending £50 a year joining a gym it means I'm not going to join. So now we know. maybe what he was thinking and yes i am surmising is that he had ideas to put into action which would reduce the amount which was being lost and due to the new regulations he estimates that his costs /losses will increase. the 140.000 could be a bit irrelevant in that case. using your scenario, you may have an idea that would mean you pay less than 50 quid which the gym may be prepared to accept but then a different member comes up with a plan that means you pay 60 quid how would you then feel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 My reading of the initial Frost quote was that he was hoping that decisions would be made at the AGM that would mean less than £140k would be lost in 2011. They didn't happen, and he feared that the decisions made would lead to even further losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
190557 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Any idiot can say "rubbish". In what way is any of what I posted wrong? In fact, don't bother. 10 posts everyday for weeks and weeks all spouting the same rubbish, day after day, week after week, month after month. Will it ever end? Go and find something useful to do with your life. Go and make a snowman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 maybe what he was thinking and yes i am surmising is that he had ideas to put into action which would reduce the amount which was being lost and due to the new regulations he estimates that his costs /losses will increase. the 140.000 could be a bit irrelevant in that case. using your scenario, you may have an idea that would mean you pay less than 50 quid which the gym may be prepared to accept but then a different member comes up with a plan that means you pay 60 quid how would you then feel Yes I understand your point. I certainly wasn't being anti-Peterborough and my original argument wasn't about the rights and wrongs of Frost's stance. My point is the way his statement was worded. I could have worded it for him and charged nothing. If he is (or was) taking legal action he has to get his wording right. Nothing more sinister than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 10 posts everyday for weeks and weeks all spouting the same rubbish, day after day, week after week, month after month. Will it ever end? Go and find something useful to do with your life. Go and make a snowman. Well said. Compromise from the BSPA then as we knew there would be all along. Such a corrupt and shambolic organisation never had a leg to stand on and it was only a matter of time before they climbed down. The Ford's and Van Twattens of this world have no areshole. Quite funnny to see these BSPA apologists and anti Coventry members like Shovlar, Lupus, Eastern Wolf, Starman, Subudei, Bazaar, the plonker from Swindon, SteveBrum(as usual) etc be left with red faces! Well done Sandhu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBee Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 ...My point is the way his statement was worded. I could have worded it for him and charged nothing... Are you reading the same statement as the rest of us? Also, is English your first language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabbsjoe Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 if they let P'Boro back let Bjerre go back there and raise the points limit slightly so that Kings Lynn can have Nikki Pedersen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treborbee Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 So if both Coventry and Peterborough will be riding in the Elite League next year, which riders will the get then? I got a funny feeling that Hans Andersen will be no. 1 at Coventry!! KK will move back up to Belle Vue and Harris will be no. 1 at the Showground. Think teams could end up looking like this: Coventry: 1. Hans Andersen 8,39 2. Kenni Larsen 6,04 3. Pawlicki ??? 4. Edward Kennett 6,46 5. Rory Schlein 6,92 6. ???? 7. Josh Auty/Dakota North D/UP 3,00 total: 30,81 (for 5 riders) Leaves 9,19 for Pawlicki and AN Other, and possibly a better D/UP rider. Peterborough: 1. Chris Harris 8,06 2. Ales Dryml 4,99 3. Buczkowski 5,59 4. Linus Sundström 5,96 5. Troy Batchelor 7,03 6. Richard Hall/Taylor Poole D/UP 4,34 7. Norbert Kosciuch 3,64 Total: 39,61 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 There's absolutely no way Coventry will ride without Harris - he's a talisman and a PR gift. With KK having ridden for Belle Vue before, it's probably Birmingham who are sweating most at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 A compromise is not common sense in this situation. Absolutely. The very people who purport to hate tawdry backroom deals suddenly engage in a tawdry backroom deal and suddenly all thoughts about integrity are out of the window. Anything other than abject surrender on the part of Coventry and Peterborough is a disaster. Nothing is resolved and everyone stumbles on to the next shambles. The only reasonable resolution was to submit this to the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
190557 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Absolutely. The very people who purport to hate tawdry backroom deals suddenly engage in a tawdry backroom deal and suddenly all thoughts about integrity are out of the window. Anything other than abject surrender on the part of Coventry and Peterborough is a disaster. Nothing is resolved and everyone stumbles on to the next shambles. The only reasonable resolution was to submit this to the courts. Sandhu and Frost have given the BSPA the option of going to court. The BSPA have obviously been advised that it would not be wise for them to go down that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 There should have been no comprimise from the bSPA whatsoever. Coventry and Peterborrough accept the rules or don't take part. I hope, along with EVERY fair minded speedway fan that that is the case. As I consider myself a fair minded Speedway fan, I would like to know........when did you become my spokesman? ATB Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts