Coventry 99 % Certain To Be In Elite Next Season Acording To Sandu

[alan_boon]

Are they not contesting Coventry's legal challenge? How do you know what, if anything, the BSPA were advised? Do they have the resources to contest Coventry's legal challenge?

My opinion now is that the BSPA should let Coventry do as they please. Let Avtar Sandhu have his way. Let Sandhu have whatever rules he wants for his Elite League, while the remaining clubs form a new division under the BSPA. Coventry and Peterborough can then contest the EL under their own terms; racing each other every single week.

I would rather have no speedway in this country than see it exist under the dictatorship of Coventry and Avtar Sandhu.

Overreact much? There's absolutely no chance of a new division being formed - the likes of Belle Vue, Lakeside, Eastbourne, and Kings Lynn don't care whether they do business with Sandhu or Ford, they just want to promote top level speedway with the Sky Sports contract bringing in cash & publicity. Once everyone's back at the table, Sandhu & Frost are as likely to be heard as Ford, Van Straaten & Patchett, no matter how much you find that distasteful.

[ImpartialOne]

Are they not contesting Coventry's legal challenge? How do you know what, if anything, the BSPA were advised? Do they have the resources to contest Coventry's legal challenge?

My opinion now is that the BSPA should let Coventry do as they please. Let Avtar Sandhu have his way. Let Sandhu have whatever rules he wants for his Elite League, while the remaining clubs form a new division under the BSPA. Coventry and Peterborough can then contest the EL under their own terms; racing each other every single week.

I would rather have no speedway in this country than see it exist under the dictatorship of Coventry and Avtar Sandhu.

 

Are Coventry dictating? How do you know what, if anything, Coventry have demanded?

 

You're in a cul-de-sac with this one.

[Aces51]

Overreact much? There's absolutely no chance of a new division being formed - the likes of Belle Vue, Lakeside, Eastbourne, and Kings Lynn don't care whether they do business with Sandhu or Ford, they just want to promote top level speedway with the Sky Sports contract bringing in cash & publicity. Once everyone's back at the table, Sandhu & Frost are as likely to be heard as Ford, Van Straaten & Patchett, no matter how much you find that distasteful.

Nobody knows is the truth but logic would suggest that it is unlikely that people will to want to deal with, or be sympathetic to, the arguments of people who have threatened their business and the existence of their sport, never mind the additional costs incurred in seeking legal advice. What we do know is that all except Coventry and Peterborough were prepared to work within what was agreed at the AGM, is it really probable that they would now listen with anything more than politeness to whatever such people have to say. Trust is a valuable commodity and once lost it is extremely difficult to get back. Unfortunately, people will always be suspicious of such people's motives, even when they are for the best.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Aces51

[alan_boon]

Nobody knows is the truth but logic would suggest that it is unlikely that people will to want to deal with, or be sympathetic to, the arguments of people who have threatened their business and the existence of their sport, never mind the additional costs incurred in seeking legal advice. What we do know is that all except Coventry and Peterborough were prepared to work within what was agreed at the AGM, is it really probable that they would they now listen with anything more than politeness to whatever such people have to say. Trust is a valuable commodity and once lost it is extremely difficult to get back. Unfortunately, people will always be suspicious of such people's motives, even when they are for the best.

I think that's true but you also have to factor in the gamble that these promoters took in backing the Ford/CVS/Patchett side over the Frost/Sandhu side - it appears to have backfired a little, and they may achieve their aims (40 point limit, basically) without having to sell their souls to get it. Although trust is a valuable commodity, as you say, it appears it was broken on both sides, and thus not worth as much as it probably should be.

[colincooke]

How do we know what the lawyers have demanded tho Col?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take it the whole post has been read, the clues are there.

[Aces51]

I have no idea where you get the notion that it is a Ford,CVS, Patchett side. I can certainly see that much of what we believe was agreed is in the interests of Eastbourne, BV and Lakeside and now B'ham and KL. I cannot see why Poole would want a 40 point limit that would cause them to have to lose more points than anyone and, if Ronnie Russell and Matt Ford are to be believed, they voted against it. The only rule which I see is contrary to the interests of BV etc is the unchanged 4 point foreigner rule. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that was part of the trade off for those clubs to vote with Ford re. Pawlicki but I think all those clubs will have seen that it was a rule that had to be changed because so many had abused it and would vote for it anyway.

[philfromcov]

Don't make the mistake of dismissing it too lightly.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you know whos right and wrong either?

 

Your post clearly implies that it's coventrys fault, it may be but you can't possibly now

[ladyluck]

Once everyone's back at the table, Sandhu & Frost are as likely to be heard as Ford, Van Straaten & Patchett, no matter how much you find that distasteful.

 

And the implicit threat will be that if they don't listen to Sandhu and nod when he tells them to nod and vote whichever way he tells them to vote he'll storm off and ask them how much they're willing to thrown away in legal costs. Might is right.

[alan_boon]

I have no idea where you get the notion that it is a Ford,CVS, Patchett side. I can certainly see that much of what we believe was agreed is in the interests of Eastbourne, BV and Lakeside and now B'ham and KL. I cannot see why Poole would want a 40 point limit that would cause them to have to lose more points than anyone and, if Ronnie Russell and Matt Ford are to be believed, they voted against it. The only rule which I see is contrary to the interests of BV etc is the unchanged 4 point foreigner rule. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that was part of the trade off for those clubs to vote with Ford re. Pawlicki but I think all those clubs will have seen that it was a rule that had to be changed because so many had abused it and would vote for it anyway.

See your PMs

 

As for whether what was agreed was in the interests of BV, Eagles & Hammers, let's see:

 

The "Pawlicki" Rule: No direct effect - I suppose you could argue that they'd want him on a truer average, but then you'd have thought they'd have closed the 4.00 loophole altogether.

 

The PL/EL Conversion: A negative effect on all EL clubs, so not in their interest.

 

The 8.01+ Rule: Works for Belle Vue & Eastbourne only if you presume they wouldn't be able to sign one under their own steam. As it is, it's probably backfired, because Zagar (or Zagar, Harris & Andersen if Coventry & Peterborough don't run) can now name his price.

 

The 40-point limit: definitely

 

So it's a mixed bag, really.

[ladyluck]

Don't make the mistake of thinking you know whos right and wrong either?

 

Your post clearly implies that it's coventrys fault, it may be but you can't possibly now

 

Well, the post you quoted gives no indication that I know whom is right and whom is wrong, it simply states it is a mistake to take the situation too lightly. If, however, you are referring to my post timed at 4:01pm, you might note the inclusion of the words "my opinion" and I'm entitled to an opinion.

[alan_boon]

And the implicit threat will be that if they don't listen to Sandhu and nod when he tells them to nod and vote whichever way he tells them to vote he'll storm off and ask them how much they're willing to thrown away in legal costs. Might is right.

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences of their actions before making official statements then?

[ladyluck]

Maybe they should have thought about the consequences of their actions before making official statements then?

 

The only promotions making "official statements" that I can see are Coventry and Peterborough. The BSPA has issued a couple, neither of which has clarified any rules for the EL. What official statements from individual clubs or the BSPA are you referring to?

[alan_boon]

The only promotions making "official statements" that I can see are Coventry and Peterborough. The BSPA has issued a couple, neither of which has clarified any rules for the EL. What official statements from individual clubs or the BSPA are you referring to?

This one? or maybe this one?

[speedibee]

This one? or maybe this one?

15- LOVE

Edited December 26, 2010 by speedibee

[ladyluck]

This one? or maybe this one?

 

I fail entirely to see your point, especially as to how those statements in anyway relate to the point that I made in the quote you posted.

[alan_boon]

I fail entirely to see your point, especially as to how those statements in anyway relate to the point that I made in the quote you posted.

They obviously jumped the gun in announcing that Coventry & Peterborough were out, before considering that the oustees might have a legal case.

[Villain]

This one? or maybe this one?

 

Cov and P'boro failed to declare their intention to compete in the Elite league. That is all that those statements actually say.

The rest of the league had to move on. What were the implications of stating the truth??

[ladyluck]

They obviously jumped the gun in announcing that Coventry & Peterborough were out, before considering that the oustees might have a legal case.

 

Here, if you want an ill-advised "official statement":

 

http://www.peterboroughpanthers.co/news.php?extend.1179.2

 

Those two from the BSPA seem perfectly fine to me and in no way relate to my previous point. Maybe you need to go back and re-read.

[alan_boon]

Here, if you want an ill-advised "official statement":

 

http://www.peterboroughpanthers.co/news.php?extend.1179.2

 

Those two from the BSPA seem perfectly fine to me and in no way relate to my previous point. Maybe you need to go back and re-read.

You pulled the "might is right" line out, obviously referring to Coventry's legal resort - if they hadn't been so quick to rule Coventry & Peterborough out of the Elite League, with ill-advised statements, the legal case may not have been so obvious.

Edited December 26, 2010 by alan_boon

[Villain]

They obviously jumped the gun in announcing that Coventry & Peterborough were out, before considering that the oustees might have a legal case.

 

Very interesting.

A legal case because they don't like the rules as declared by the democratic governing body.

 

Personally I don't believe a lawyer would ever touch that one with a barge pole.

It is my opinion that Sandhu has gone cap in hand to the BSPA to try get him out of this hole without losing too much face with Covs fans.