eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Deary deary me, ive never Laughed or read such drivel in my life. Eastern Wolf and Steve Shovlar make some good points, and they get shot down in flames!! Oh, and by the way, if 140k is lose change to Mr Frost could he lend, no, give me 30k, i know just the Horse!! Oh dear, Starman, I reckon you're in trouble now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) A fair minded fan would be one that want to see the rules adhered to that were voted in at the AGM, not one that uses bully boy tactics to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the league. Sorry Steve - you are wrong on this one. IF undue pressure was put on other Promotions to Vote a certain way - then that is wrong. That would mean that the ONLY way to protest would be to walk out. I am not suggesting that this is what happened - I don't know, neither does anybody else except the Promoters, we weren't there - but if it had I might have walked out too and so I suspect would a lot of other people. Even in a democratic Vote there needs to be fairness and equality. Bully boy tactics can be employed by both sides in this sort of situation - so your statement COULD apply the other way round. The bully boys COULD be the BSPA. The real point here is - WE DON'T KNOW. Edited December 21, 2010 by The White Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrenCook Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Steve, there's an "r" in surprise just like in Holder, Ward, Ford, Shovlar & losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Oh dear, Starman, I reckon you're in trouble now Nah, it just all goes over my head EW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Sorry Steve - you are wrong on this one. IF undue pressure was put on other Promotions to Vote a certain way - then that is wrong. That would mean that the ONLY way to protest would be to walk out. I am not suggesting that this is what happened - I don't know, neither does anybody else except the Promoters, we weren't there - but if it had I might have walked out too and so I suspect would a lot of other people. Even in a democratic Vote there needs to be fairness and equality. Not criticising your post WK but what is this undue pressure? It's a recurring theme but I don't get it. Who could get away with putting pressure on the likes of Uncle Bob and Jon Cook? Unless they were the ones asserting the pressure on Ford and CVS? Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no-brakes-uk Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Sorry Steve - you are wrong on this one. It's hardly an isolated incident. Edited December 21, 2010 by no-brakes-uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatDave Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 could be a massive can of worms about to explode here... That'll keep you robins chirping - must be hard getting a feed this weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 You obviously haven't read my response to your previous post yet. And with my back I ain't running anywhere Whatever EW....I can't be arsed to argue with such a laptop warrior as youself - esp with the constant crap you regurtitate time and time again.. Have a good Christmas.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javw Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Oh dear, Starman, I reckon you're in trouble now No, Starman is absolutely correct. Definition of 'shot down in flames':- a. To put an end to; defeat: b. To expose as false; discredit. Sounds about right to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Whatever EW....I can't be arsed to argue with such a laptop warrior as youself - esp with the constant crap you regurtitate time and time again.. Have a good Christmas.... and you've just given me the bit of abuse as evidence! May you have an excellent Christmas too. And I think I mean that most sincerely folks Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatDave Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Guess that's a truce then Don't get yerropes up, EW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Here's one for all you Sandhu and Trump lovers out there. From the 2010 rulebook. 17.4.1.2 Where a team have been issued with new CMA's as per S.R. 17.1.1.1 which includes riders who have not achieved 12 fixtures but have ridden in a minimum of 8, than a new CMA will be used in the case of a re-declaration if the new CMA is higher. This was brought in after the Joe Screen issue at Poole a couple of seasons ago. What happens at the beginning of every season? Redeclaration? Pawlicki gets an average, as does every other rider that rode between 8 & 11 meetings. Next!! Edited December 21, 2010 by Steve Shovlar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no-brakes-uk Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. I think it was 17 actually, but whatever it was you have to hand it to the kid. Performances like that are what speedway is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
190557 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Why doesn't Shoveler tell everyone exactly what Poole did with Davey Watt in 2003 when he was doubling up with Kings Lynn. Davey Watt was restricted to 11 meetings by Poole in 2003 in order that he could be brought into thePoole team on half his Pl average in 2004. I believe his EL average for 11 meetings was much higher than half his PL average but Poole considered doing what they did was good tacticts. No question of injuries, unavailabilty etc ,just plain good tacticts. Oh how time makes Poole supporters forget, especially Shoveler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Why doesn't Shoveler tell everyone exactly what Poole did with Davey Watt in 2003 when he was doubling up with Kings Lynn. Davey Watt was restricted to 11 meetings by Poole in 2003 in order that he could be brought into thePoole team on half his Pl average in 2004. I believe his EL average for 11 meetings was much higher than half his PL average but Poole considered doing what they did was good tacticts. No question of injuries, unavailabilty etc ,just plain good tacticts. Oh how time makes Poole supporters forget, especially Shoveler. And they tried it with Kennett but had to give him a 12th meeting to sneak into the play-offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Don't get yerropes up, EW. Nice one Sir David. By the way, just heard the UK is introducing prohibition next Summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Why do you insist on babbling on about this "double dip"? Is it because you view a "single dip" as being acceptable? I'd have wanted Pawlicki's average reviewed regardless of the outcome of the EL Final, would you? Or would a Poole victory last October have left you (and Matt Ford) ambivalent towards Pawlicki's average? To be honest, the points limit doesn't bother me and nor does the EL-PL conversion rate; the only rule that interests me is Pawlicki's average and it's not because of some anti-Coventry or anti-Sandhu agenda I have, it's because to me it lacks integrity. It lacked integrity when wolbert missed an Edinburgh meeting the season before last and should have been addressed at the 2009 AGM. It was but with no agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Not criticising your post WK but what is this undue pressure? It's a recurring theme but I don't get it. Who could get away with putting pressure on the likes of Uncle Bob and Jon Cook? Unless they were the ones asserting the pressure on Ford and CVS? You could be right EW - it could have been others exerting pressure on CVS and Mr. Ford - on the other hand - it COULD have been CVS and Mr. Ford putting pressure on the others. It may have been neither of these scenarios. I was just trying to make the point that Democracy has to be a free Vote. As I said in my earlier Post if any pressure was applied to anybody - then that is wrong. As you rightly say the pressure thing has been a reoccurring theme on this Thread - so - I thought I would just add my take on Democracy. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 And they tried it with Kennett but had to give him a 12th meeting to sneak into the play-offs. All teams are guilty of it in the past but the loophole has now been sealed. Pawlicki gets an average of 6.18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Here's one for all you Sandhu and Trump lovers out there. From the 2010 rulebook. 17.4.1.2 Where a team have been issued with new CMA's as per S.R. 17.1.1.1 which includes riders who have not achieved 12 fixtures but have ridden in a minimum of 8, than a new CMA will be used in the case of a re-declaration if the new CMA is higher. This was brought in after the Joe Screen issue at Poole a couple of seasons ago. What happens at the beginning of every season? Redeclaration? Pawlicki gets an average, as does every other rider that rode between 8 & 11 meetings. Next!! Coventry have raced exactly 0 meeting so have not been give new CMAs as per 17.1.1.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts