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

[ImpartialOne]

Who is claiming that they know everything that has happened. The whole mess is over rule changes imposed by the BSPA which Cov and P'boro couldn't handle. Have you been asleep for the last month?

 

Be careful with your wording there. That is exactly how this whole thing has gone from a few bare facts to 90 pages of opinion dressed as facts.

 

The only current fact we know is that there are 3 parties inolved who at present are talking things through in the hope of a solution. So unless you know more than that there is nothing more to say.

[Aces51]

look at it like this then why should clubs get to vote on 1 8pt rider per team when certain clubs don't have any as assets over 8 so thats hardly fair is it ???? the vote is only going to go 1 way

There are onl 3 EL clubs without an asset over 8, 4 if you count Ipswich, so they do not have a majority.

 

Anyway the BSPA is a democratic organisation so why shouldn't they have a vote on an isssue that makes the sport more competitive.

[ladyluck]

look at it like this then why should clubs get to vote on 1 8pt rider per team when certain clubs don't have any as assets over 8 so thats hardly fair is it ???? the vote is only going to go 1 way

 

Hardly an argument likely to make much impression in a court of law which is likely to rule that "rider assets" insofar as they are understood by the BSPA have no standing in EU Law. In the eyes of the law no club would have any rider assets.

[Villain]

I wish people would stop referring to the BSPA's decisions as being "democratic". There is nothing "democratic" in rule by the majority - it is simply a "majority decision". To be truly democratic, any decision would involve all parties reaching a decision that takes account of the views and concerns of all parties.

 

Ron, I am afraid that I must disagree. The way that things have been going, it has needed someone to stand up and be counted for some time.

 

Majority decision / democratic decision - however it is dressed up this is the way that the decisions are made. I don't understand how being pedantic helps much.

Either way the BSPA are looking at the best interests of the sport. Or am I inviting the conspiracy theory back into the argument?

[Steve Shovlar]

I wish people would stop referring to the BSPA's decisions as being "democratic". There is nothing "democratic" in rule by the majority - it is simply a "majority decision". To be truly democratic, any decision would involve all parties reaching a decision that takes account of the views and concerns of all parties.

 

Ron, I am afraid that I must disagree. The way that things have been going, it has needed someone to stand up and be counted for some time.

 

It is democratic. It is one club, one vote. You can't get anymore democratic than the current system. The last thing we need is a dictator telling the other clubs that they must run under the rules of a single person or club. If a team wants it that way, start a new club and get others to join. Then they can play King of the Castle.

[hyderd]

 

Ron, I am afraid that I must disagree. The way that things have been going, it has needed someone to stand up and be counted for some time.

 

Then why didn't Mr Shandu exercise his feeling before the AGM,that way they could of at least had a reasonable discussion.

[hans fan]

There are onl 3 EL clubs without an asset over 8, 4 if you count Ipswich, so they do not have a majority.

eastbourne,swindon,belle vue,birmingham kings lynn out the 8 left. have they assets over 8

[ImpartialOne]

It is democratic. It is one club, one vote. You can't get anymore democratic than the current system. The last thing we need is a dictator telling the other clubs that they must run under the rules of a single person or club. If a team wants it that way, start a new club and get others to join. Then they can play King of the Castle.

 

Again, the only current fact we know is that there are 3 parties inolved who at present are talking things through in the hope of a solution. So unless you know more than that there is nothing more to say.

[Aces51]

eastbourne,swindon,belle vue,birmingham kings lynn out the 8 left. have they assets over 8

From what we are led to believe KL were not in the EL when the vote was taken and possibly B'ham as well. Even if B'ham were, still not a majority.

[Beeone]

Majority decision / democratic decision - however it is dressed up this is the way that the decisions are made. I don't understand how being pedantic helps much.

Either way the BSPA are looking at the best interests of the sport. Or am I inviting the conspiracy theory back into the argument?

 

I hope I am not going to be labeled "pedantic" but the problem with the current system is the powerful in built conflict of interests. It may be as you say that the BSPA are looking after the best interests of the sport, that is certainly what the are charged with doing, but when a proposed change is going to adversely affect their own business then surely it is exceedingly difficult to deliberately shoot ones self in the foot by voting for it. Anyone in business is going to find this conundrum pretty difficult to reconcile when they are used to maximising their own business' interests. I guess that is why so many on here would like to see some sort of independent committee or commissioner to oversee the process of rule making.

 

Seasons Greetings, Martin

[hans fan]

From what we are led to believe KL were not in the EL when the vote was taken and possibly B'ham as well. Even if B'ham were, still not a majority.

at the end of the day theirs only 3 clubs in the elite with 2 or more assets of over 8

[Villain]

I hope I am not going to be labeled "pedantic" but the problem with the current system is the powerful in built conflict of interests. It may be as you say that the BSPA are looking after the best interests of the sport, that is certainly what the are charged with doing, but when a proposed change is going to adversely affect their own business then surely it is exceedingly difficult to deliberately shoot ones self in the foot by voting for it. Anyone in business is going to find this conundrum pretty difficult to reconcile when they are used to maximising their own business' interests. I guess that is why so many on here would like to see some sort of independent committee or commissioner to oversee the process of rule making.

 

Seasons Greetings, Martin

 

I agree - dont vote for it if you dont agree with it and if it turns out that your vote is in the majority - great. But if you are going to turn your back on the decision making process you are inviting trouble.

Edited December 27, 2010 by crazy jack

[BANANAMAN]

It is democratic. It is one club, one vote. You can't get anymore democratic than the current system. The last thing we need is a dictator telling the other clubs that they must run under the rules of a single person or club. If a team wants it that way, start a new club and get others to join. Then they can play King of the Castle.

 

Yes but they could all gang up us next year , so it has to be nipped in the bud NOW !

[Aces51]

I hope I am not going to be labeled "pedantic" but the problem with the current system is the powerful in built conflict of interests. It may be as you say that the BSPA are looking after the best interests of the sport, that is certainly what the are charged with doing, but when a proposed change is going to adversely affect their own business then surely it is exceedingly difficult to deliberately shoot ones self in the foot by voting for it. Anyone in business is going to find this conundrum pretty difficult to reconcile when they are used to maximising their own business' interests. I guess that is why so many on here would like to see some sort of independent committee or commissioner to oversee the process of rule making.

 

Seasons Greetings, Martin

I agree that it is difficult but surely the point here is to look beyond your individual business and to the sport as a whole. What is needed is the vision to see that usually what is good for the sport is in the long run good for the individual businesses. It baffles me how anyone can think that rules which will deny the opportunity for poorer teams to be competitive and probably result in those teams closing down or going into the PL can be good for the long term prospects of any EL team. An EL of 3 or 4 teams will never be a success.

[Old Saint]

It is democratic. It is one club, one vote. You can't get anymore democratic than the current system. The last thing we need is a dictator telling the other clubs that they must run under the rules of a single person or club. If a team wants it that way, start a new club and get others to join. Then they can play King of the Castle.

 

Forgive me asking but do you always try to win debates (arguments) by attempting to either rubbish the other point of view or by shouting the loudest?

 

Rule by majority is most definitely not the same as being democratic. I did not say nor imply that "...the other clubs...run under the rules of a single person or club.". If you are taking my remark supporting Mr. Sandhu's action as suggesting that, then I am afraid that you have misled yourself.

 

I am being pedantic about the use of the word "democracy" because I am sick of the way that people just bandy the word around. Democracy is a very thing and should be treated as such - it is a pity that the real meaning has been largely forgotten by those who who use the word the most (and I do include politicians).

[Aces51]

at the end of the day theirs only 3 clubs in the elite with 2 or more assets of over 8

I thought your point about it not being fair was about the vote at the AGM not some future vote on 8+ assets.

[Villain]

Forgive me asking but do you always try to win debates (arguments) by attempting to either rubbish the other point of view or by shouting the loudest?

 

Rule by majority is most definitely not the same as being democratic. I did not say nor imply that "...the other clubs...run under the rules of a single person or club.". If you are taking my remark supporting Mr. Sandhu's action as suggesting that, then I am afraid that you have misled yourself.

 

I am being pedantic about the use of the word "democracy" because I am sick of the way that people just bandy the word around. Democracy is a very thing and should be treated as such - it is a pity that the real meaning has been largely forgotten by those who who use the word the most (and I do include politicians).

 

 

If you look up the word Democracy one of the definitions is Majority Rule.

[hans fan]

I thought your point about it not being fair was about the vote at the AGM not some future vote on 8+ assets.

it is i'm including coventry and pboro in the 3

[Steve Shovlar]

Forgive me asking but do you always try to win debates (arguments) by attempting to either rubbish the other point of view or by shouting the loudest?

 

 

I am neither rubbishing the others viewpoint or shouting. I am certainly opposed to it though and think I give my reasons clearly enough.

 

Coventry and Peterborough both made fundemental errors by storming out of the AGM. They can't win an argument by not being there. By taking court action, they have alienated themselves to a degree where their the positions as actual promoters has become virtually untenable.

 

They should have stayed at the AGM, accepted the decisions made with good grace and worked behind the scenes for change within the BSPA. All their actions have done is put up a whopping great barrier between them and the rest which could be there for years.

 

Just my opinion of course.

[Aces51]

it is i'm including coventry and pboro in the 3

i'm getting a headache. At the AGM only 3 or possibly 4, if it included B'ham, did not have an asset over 8, so not a majority, so they couldn't have won the vote alone, your point was that those without such an asset would have a majority. If Coventry and Peterborough had walked out before the vote they can hardly complain.