eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 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. This isn't directed at you WK but what pressure could be asserted against anybody? What hold do Ford/CVS have over everybody that is so terrifying? This isn't an argument for either side (so no abuse please) just interested to know what it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vog 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!! To be pedantic, re-declaration implies a previous declaration that season. Coventry would be merely declaring a team, not re-declaring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 All teams are guilty of it in the past but the loophole has now been sealed. Really? So what happens when a rider only does 7 meetings this season? They change the rules to 6 meetings need for a CMA. The the following season a rider does 5 meetings, so they change ot to 5 meetings for a CMA. You can surely see whre this is going. It's always possible for a rider to do 1 less meeting than the cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vog Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 This isn't directed at you WK but what pressure could be asserted against anybody? What hold do Ford/CVS have over everybody that is so terrifying? This isn't an argument for either side (so no abuse please) just interested to know what it could be. Maybe it is a case of, for example, Eastbourne being able to use Bjarne if they vote with Poole. As it is mostly the top teams that own the better assets, any notion of "Vote for us or forget about using our assets" could be very persuasive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Really? So what happens when a rider only does 7 meetings this season? They change the rules to 6 meetings need for a CMA. The the following season a rider does 5 meetings, so they change ot to 5 meetings for a CMA. You can surely see whre this is going. It's always possible for a rider to do 1 less meeting than the cut off. Well, until the cut-off is one meeting, of course and promotions are so petty it could easily get down to there. That is why I would suggest having a commissioner who could deliberate on all these matters and make an arbitary and final decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) Maybe it is a case of, for example, Eastbourne being able to use Bjarne if they vote with Poole. As it is mostly the top teams that own the better assets, any notion of "Vote for us or forget about using our assets" could be very persuasive? Fair point, Vog. But only a couple of weeks ago Poole were being accused of wanting the 8.01 rule so they could benefit from having 2 x 8 point riders (Holder AND Pedersen). That's been proved false (without a word of apology from the accusers!). Of course that doesn't necessarily prove your argument wrong. Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Maybe it is a case of, for example, Eastbourne being able to use Bjarne if they vote with Poole. As it is mostly the top teams that own the better assets, any notion of "Vote for us or forget about using our assets" could be very persuasive? That's the way of the world. You scratch my conscience, I'll drive your Jag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brum_57 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 The following is a posting I made on the brummies forum a while ago, it was tongue in cheek, (and still is) but hmmm I wonder lol I'm beginning to think this is one big con by the bspa to get PL teams to move up, consider these points - 1 invite brum - ok thank you very much we'll join 2 cov and pboro throw their toys out their prams - EL in crisis 3 bspa send begging message to KL to come up and help save the EL - KL say- ok we don't wan't to move up really but if it helps save the EL we'll do it 4 cov and pboro say - ok we were only joking we'll run next year 5 bingo! nice expanded EL for next season Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) .......Not blinkered..... A compromise would be a dangerous precedent to set for future years..... Already happened so it's not a dangerous precedent. Our good friend CVS resigned from the management committee and threatened legal action 23 years ago because the average of Ptezing (forgotten how to spell his name now) had his average increased. CVS won and got a compromise and I'm sure there have been lots of other instances in the past too. Next....... ......eastern wolf..... 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. Well I think we all know that. It's only Coventry who you are anti and here was me hoping you were going to pick on Peterborough now and leave us alone for a bit. .......alan_boon...... There's absolutely no way Coventry will ride without Harris - he's a talisman and a PR gift. But what if Trump leaves? Also there is the point Sandhu made about wanting regular Friday night racing next season. Surely that would rule out Chris because the disruptions have been caused by working round the G.P's. Edited December 22, 2010 by Gemini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) The following is a posting I made on the brummies forum a while ago, it was tongue in cheek, (and still is) but hmmm I wonder lol I'm beginning to think this is one big con by the bspa to get PL teams to move up, consider these points - 1 invite brum - ok thank you very much we'll join 2 cov and pboro throw their toys out their prams - EL in crisis 3 bspa send begging message to KL to come up and help save the EL - KL say- ok we don't wan't to move up really but if it helps save the EL we'll do it 4 cov and pboro say - ok we were only joking we'll run next year 5 bingo! nice expanded EL for next season Kev. Knowing Tony Mole as we all do, do you think he's that daft? I'll confess to being biased in his favour as he saved 2 clubs that I supported from going bust but I reckon he's got his head screwed on the right way. Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Coventry have raced exactly 0 meeting so have not been give new CMAs as per 17.1.1.1 When a team starts a new season it's classed as a redeclaration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Fair point, Vog. But only a couple of weeks ago Poole were being accused of wanting the 8.01 rule so they could benefit from having 2 x 8 point riders (Holder AND Pedersen). That's been proved false (without a word of apology from the accusers!). Of course that doesn't necessarily prove your argument wrong. Eastbourne voted against Poole at the AGM. Poole wantd a 45 points limit, Eastbourne 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 When a team starts a new season it's classed as a redeclaration. Is that so? What average did Wolbert start on this year? ATB Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Is that so? What average did Wolbert start on this year? ATB Dave No idea, as I don't follow PL. But the rule I quoted was in the 2010 rulebook and has been upheld to the new 2011 rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 No idea, as I don't follow PL. But the rule I quoted was in the 2010 rulebook and has been upheld to the new 2011 rulebook. Precisely! It was in the 2010 rulebook..and Wolbert started 2010 on his assessed average from the year before. ATB Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 Eastbourne voted against Poole at the AGM. Poole wantd a 45 points limit, Eastbourne 40. Seems pretty conclusive on that argument then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 No idea, as I don't follow PL. But the rule I quoted was in the 2010 rulebook and has been upheld to the new 2011 rulebook. To enlighten you, he started on an assessed 7.00 average having ridden in only eleven Edinburgh meetings in 2009 (average counting meetings, that is). He unfortunately fell ill in a German airport on his way to what would've been his twelth meeting. Steve, give up on this particular point, the Pawlicki situation is not covered by that rule but it was properly addressed, or so it seems, at the 2010 AGM. The question is: are the BSPA going to back down on it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starboy118 Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 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!! Just make sure it is ridden by A.P.McCoy (whoever he is !!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 To enlighten you, he started on an assessed 7.00 average having ridden in only eleven Edinburgh meetings in 2009 (average counting meetings, that is). He unfortunately fell ill in a German airport on his way to what would've been his twelth meeting. Steve, give up on this particular point, the Pawlicki situation is not covered by that rule but it was properly addressed, or so it seems, at the 2010 AGM. The question is: are the BSPA going to back down on it or not. Not, from what I have heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vog Posted December 22, 2010 Report Share Posted December 22, 2010 Eastbourne voted against Poole at the AGM. Poole wantd a 45 points limit, Eastbourne 40. Neither know nor care who voted which way, just merely pointing out a way in which it could have happened. Frankly this whole situation is an embarrassment for all parties involved, and is becoming tedious reading hundreds of pages saying the same thing. It is a glorified pishing contest where everyone will come out claiming they won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts