ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 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. And all nonsense of course. We've moved on from the walk out, or "storming out" as you like to dramatise it as. We've moved on from them being alienated. Keep up Steve. And tell me how and why their positions are untenable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedibee Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Then why didn't Mr Shandu exercise his feeling before the AGM,that way they could of at least had a reasonable discussion. would not surprise me if the pre agm has something to do with the whole affair . make agreements at the pre agm and break them at the agm , its been done before , and of course the backtracking on agreements that time, also affected coventry's team building , so maybe when it happened this time ,that was the cause of sandhu losing his rag. it certainly would be for me , fairly typical bspa say 1 thing do another , to fit in who who is shouting loudest at the time , what a shower!!! last time it was CVS who backtracked , immediately after the promoters who would not be in favour of the changes he wanted to suit himself had left he forced a vote . democratic that was with 3 of nine teams not taking part , this time I suppose he's in the frame again along with 1 or 2 other suspects . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Well at least you're amusing yourselves during this holiday season LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 And all nonsense of course. We've moved on from the walk out, or "storming out" as you like to dramatise it as. We've moved on from them being alienated. Keep up Steve. And tell me how and why their positions are untenable... Nonsense? How's this for starters? Would you ever trust or like to work alongside someone who is threatening to sue you in court? If you have, how did you feel towards that person? If there were rules made and voted on, how would you feel towards someone who refused to accept them and told you that you have to throw out those rules and do it their way instead, otherwise they will sue your pants off? Now, I know how I woould feel. And that person would not be on my Christmas card list for starters. And as for agreeing with them and going along with them on future ideas etc, not a chance in hell. Just my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 I have nothing more to say on the subject. I proved my point and have moved on. If Only! sigh! ATB Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Nonsense? How's this for starters? Would you ever trust or like to work alongside someone who is threatening to sue you in court? If you have, how did you feel towards that person? If there were rules made and voted on, how would you feel towards someone who refused to accept them and told you that you have to throw out those rules and do it their way instead, otherwise they will sue your pants off? Now, I know how I woould feel. And that person would not be on my Christmas card list for starters. And as for agreeing with them and going along with them on future ideas etc, not a chance in hell. Just my opinion of course. Ok if you want to go down that route, you have to see it from both sides. Lets make it simple.. So, if you were working for a company who continually made life hard for you and operated in a way that you felt was unfair towards you... What would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Ok if you want to go down that route, you have to see it from both sides. Lets make it simple.. So, if you were working for a company who continually made life hard for you and operated in a way that you felt was unfair towards you... What would you do? Leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BANANAMAN Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Ok if you want to go down that route, you have to see it from both sides. Lets make it simple.. So, if you were working for a company who continually made life hard for you and operated in a way that you felt was unfair towards you... What would you do? Take them to court for bullying !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Ok if you want to go down that route, you have to see it from both sides. Lets make it simple.. So, if you were working for a company who continually made life hard for you and operated in a way that you felt was unfair towards you... What would you do? You are implying that the company is victimising one party. The rules apply to everyone and the rules in this instance are voted in by all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogstar Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 I actually agree with Steve Shovlar in that Coventry and Peterborough should have stayed at the AGM, voiced their displeasure at the new rules voted in and then declared their intention to run next season pending the outcome of their legal action. This though may have not been possible, as Steve has already informed us that taking the BSPA to court goes against the constitution. So what would be the correct way to go about this? The asset system will surely fall apart and this will devalue all clubs. Some a lot more than others and will be the main reason why this will be settled before any court date. What court in Europe would honestly uphold a ruling whereby an out of contract, self employed rider can be held on a retained list by a club not requiring his services and then that same club asking a loan fee from another club that wants to employ him? Rider contracts mean diddly squat outside of the BSPA and riders can be axed at will if underperforming, or just surplus to requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) Ok if you want to go down that route, you have to see it from both sides. Lets make it simple.. So, if you were working for a company who continually made life hard for you and operated in a way that you felt was unfair towards you... What would you do? Leave. As Aces51 said. I have never worked for anyone other than myself since virtually leaving school so I have no real knowledge in working for someone who would tell me what to do or be answerable to a "boss". But I would certainly not hang around in a job I was unhappy with. So the best bet would be for sandhu to give Trump his notice and get in a new promoter, and just take rent from him through being stadium owner. Edited December 27, 2010 by Steve Shovlar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 You are implying that the company is victimising one party. The rules apply to everyone and the rules in this instance are voted in by all parties. It can be whatever you want it to be, but if you aren't happy about something you don't just take it. A company could vote in something that could affect your job, does that mean you have to go along with it? And by the way, rules are not voted in by all parties, they are voted but only the ones for it vote it in. And in this instance, 2 parties were missing in certain votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) As Aces51 said. I have never worked for anyone other than myself since virtually leaving school so I have no real knowledge in working for someone who would tell me what to do or be answerable to a "boss". But I would certainly not hang around in a job I was unhappy with. So the best bet would be for sandhu to give Trump his notice and get in a new promoter, and just take rent from him through being stadium owner. Interesting viewpoint from you both! So you would walk out just like Coventry and Peterborough did! No further questions, your honour. Edited December 27, 2010 by ImpartialOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyderd Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Ok if you want to go down that route, you have to see it from both sides. Lets make it simple.. So, if you were working for a company who continually made life hard for you and operated in a way that you felt was unfair towards you... What would you do? Your point doesn't stand up,if Coventry are so hard done by, why are they one of the one of the most successful clubs over the past 4-6 years.Coventry are a well run club with good assets, they have a good Stadium,good fan base and good extra income from the stock cars all of this goes into Mr Shandu's bank account as he owns the Stadium (unlike most other teams). He could of acted like a professional business man and accepted the new rules, then worked with the BSPA to amend them in the future. Personally I hope Coventry (Mr Shandu) does accept the changes and the Bees take their place in the 2011 EL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) It can be whatever you want it to be, but if you aren't happy about something you don't just take it. A company could vote in something that could affect your job, does that mean you have to go along with it? And by the way, rules are not voted in by all parties, they are voted but only the ones for it vote it in. And in this instance, 2 parties were missing in certain votes. Yes yes yes we know that not all parties voted it in. I agree if you don't like it then the best option is to leave. But don't expect your employer just to change the rules for you, especially if those rules are put in place to protect the long term interests of the company. Edited December 27, 2010 by crazy jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 And by the way, rules are not voted in by all parties, they are voted but only the ones for it vote it in. And in this instance, 2 parties were missing in certain votes. Well, you obviously know more than I do, since I don't know at what stage the Coventry and Peterborough representatives left the meeting. Did they leave before or after the crucial votes. If they left prior to them, was it because they sensed they did not have the numbers to carry the day? The one clear statement we have on the subject states that they left of their own free will and as such forfeited their right to have any further say in matters. It seems from the way this discussion is now going that the legal case may be some form of "constructive dismissal", that is to say that a combine within the BSPA manipulated events to deliberately make them unacceptable to Coventry and Peterborough. An interesting scenario and certainly one that I would welcome seeing laid before a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedibee Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 As Aces51 said. I have never worked for anyone other than myself since virtually leaving school so I have no real knowledge in working for someone who would tell me what to do or be answerable to a "boss". But I would certainly not hang around in a job I was unhappy with. So the best bet would be for sandhu to give Trump his notice and get in a new promoter, and just take rent from him through being stadium owner. What you are actually saying there is something you don't know. this has to be a first. surely you have an in my opinion up your sleeve though , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Your point doesn't stand up,if Coventry are so hard done by, why are they one of the one of the most successful clubs over the past 4-6 years.Coventry are a well run club with good assets, they have a good Stadium,good fan base and good extra income from the stock cars all of this goes into Mr Shandu's bank account as he owns the Stadium (unlike most other teams). He could of acted like a professional business man and accepted the new rules, then worked with the BSPA to amend them in the future. Personally I hope Coventry (Mr Shandu) does accept the changes and the Bees take their place in the 2011 EL. neither does yours. it's a simple question. if you feel you are being treated unfairly, what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BANANAMAN Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 neither does yours. it's a simple question. if you feel you are being treated unfairly, what do you do? Mr Sandhu is not the Coventry promoter he's a businessman looking at the situation from a business point of view .If he thinks his business will suffer through the new rules he has to make a protest .Walking out of any meeting is not the correct way at all .If Mr Sandhu is not a promoter though why was he at the AGM ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Mr Sandhu is not the Coventry promoter he's a businessman looking at the situation from a business point of view .If he thinks his business will suffer through the new rules he has to make a protest .Walking out of any meeting is not the correct way at all .If Mr Sandhu is not a promoter though why was he at the AGM ? i don't believe he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts