ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Of course.....but if there is a law, take for example somebody wants to bring an A class drug into society and wants it to be legal to sell it and pop it, it doesn't mean everyone else wants it. That's why we have a proper democracy to not bring this law into place. Why should we allow Coventry to make the rules.....if we did, it would be the same principal so your point holds no weight. my point is far more relevant than the above. Simple fact: If you feel you aren't getting justice you challenge it. No matter what the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 No problem. Just wondering in view of your obvious support for the Coventry /P'borough faction. I see now, you mean impartial about clubs in the sense that you do not support a particular club, not that your views about particular clubs are impartial. To just reply "clubs" did not make it very clear. Yes that is what i meant by it. I don't support a particular club, but i still have an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Looking at this post.....it looks like something Authorised would write and post. Change of name Authorised? I'm not Authorised to comment, but i have often read Authorised's posts and thought he speaks the most sense on here in most cases, so i take that as a compliment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincooke Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) Why? You support Aces. I support Speedway. whats your problem? Its only a guess but i suspect Bananaman isn't really a banana, Hyderd doesn't live on Hyde Road, Lady luck doesn't have much luck, Eastern Wolf probably doesn't blow houses down and Custer mouse doesn't live in a skirting board. and i'm a cooke but i don't cook. Except very poorly. i certainly hope shovlar has got a shovel though, he's gonna need it. Edited December 27, 2010 by colincooke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 I'm not Authorised to comment, but i have often read Authorised's posts and thought he speaks the most sense on here in most cases, so i take that as a compliment! Actually Authorised is also heavily into Covs cause so I wouldn't take it as too much of a compliment. I fail to see how anyone can side with their stance. Whether they feel unfairly treated or not you don't do something so stupid as to threaten legal action against someone you are trying to work with. My boss is exactly the same as Sandhu. He is always threatening to take people to court if he doesn't get what he wants. He is loaded and it is embarrassing to hear him use this threat so often. I always hope that they call his bluff and take him to the cleaners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Actually Authorised is also heavily into Covs cause so I wouldn't take it as too much of a compliment. I fail to see how anyone can side with their stance. Whether they feel unfairly treated or not you don't do something so stupid as to threaten legal action against someone you are trying to work with. My boss is exactly the same as Sandhu. He is always threatening to take people to court if he doesn't get what he wants. He is loaded and it is embarrassing to hear him use this threat so often. I always hope that they call his bluff and take him to the cleaners. You really are crazy aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) i certainly hope shovlar has got a shovel though, he's gonna need it. So you keep saying. Now, I'll put this simply and straightforward: put up; shut up. Edited December 27, 2010 by Phil warning , attack the post not the poster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 You really are crazy aren't you. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Thank you. No problem. I expect it to be changed shortly to sectioned jack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 No problem. I expect it to be changed shortly to sectioned jack. Wibble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces51 Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Its only a guess but i suspect Bananaman isn't really a banana, Hyderd doesn't live on Hyde Road, Lady luck doesn't have much luck, Eastern Wolf probably doesn't blow houses down and Custer mouse doesn't live in a skirting board. Do you realise the problems you have caused for the friends and families of these people now that you have shattered their delusions. Blimey, talk about telling children there is no Santa Claus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazaar3 Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Simple fact: If you feel you aren't getting justice you challenge it. No matter what the situation. Yes it's within freedom to challenge......although doesn't mean it's going to succeed. In this case do you not feel Sandhu or whoever was representing Coventry made a huge error or are you succumbed to being un-Impartial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Yes it's within freedom to challenge......although doesn't mean it's going to succeed. In this case do you not feel Sandhu or whoever was representing Coventry made a huge error or are you succumbed to being un-Impartial? Nobody knows yet do they? But it appears not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazaar3 Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Nobody knows yet do they? But it appears not. Since I get the feeling you don't agree sounding by your posts, may I ask what you would do in the situation since your an ImpartialOne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincooke Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 So you keep saying. Now, I'll put this simply and straightforward: put up; shut up. you know something. you are right. you're luck is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeone Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 you know something. you are right. you're luck is bad. Naughty, naughty Colin, don't taunt, maybe we should all be waiting a little more patiently, ahem, nudge Seasons greetings, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) why should clubs get to vote on 1 8pt rider per team when certain clubs don't have any as assets over 8 Been out all day, so missed this when it came up, but this is a key point, I think. How can you make a rule which penalises someone with an asset base? All it means is that clubs who own more than 8+ rider will not be able to use their assets, and in fact will be forced to release them other clubs - their direct rivals. Also, they would be perfectly within their rights to demand a full transfer fee for those riders - are Eastbourne, Belle Vue, Kings Lynn & Birmingham going to pay those fees? Yes, it's a poor situation when half the league doesn't have enough riders of the required quality to form a team, but punishing those that do is backwards and unfair. EDIT: Is this how the assets stack up? Forgive me if I've got any wrong... Belle Vue: None Birmingham: None Coventry: Harris, Nicholls Eastbourne: None Kings Lynn: None Lakeside: Richardson (Shields) Peterborough: Andersen, Bjerre (Iversen, Batchelor) Poole: Holder, Kasprzak (Pedersen, Watt) Swindon: Zagar (Stead) Wolverhampton: Lindgren (Woffinden) (extended to include 7+ pointers) Edited December 27, 2010 by alan_boon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Been out all day, so missed this when it came up, but this is a key point, I think. How can you make a rule which penalises someone with an asset base? All it means is that clubs who own more than 8+ rider will not be able to use their assets, and in fact will be forced to release them other clubs - their direct rivals. Also, they would be perfectly within their rights to demand a full transfer fee for those riders - are Eastbourne, Belle Vue, Kings Lynn & Birmingham going to pay those fees? Yes, it's a poor situation when half the league doesn't have enough riders of the required quality to form a team, but punishing those that do is backwards and unfair. I disagree, as usual. I think it opens up the league so that the have don't "have it" all their own way. Teams with rich owners can just buy up the top riders and dominate the league for years. the one over 8 rule stops this happening and the sport is better for it, without any doubt at all. Coventry are trying to have Harris and Hans in their lineup, which is against the rules voted in at the AGM. Do you think that is fair when Belle Vue can't get a number one? Do you think it is fair that Coventry have two number ones yet every other club abides by the rules and only has one, or none? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 (edited) Do you think that is fair when Belle Vue can't get a number one? Can Belle Vue afford a number one? EDIT: Just to say, I don't necessarily think it's a bad rule, especially under such a low points limit, but the matter still remains that it's unfair. Edited December 27, 2010 by alan_boon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImpartialOne Posted December 27, 2010 Report Share Posted December 27, 2010 Since I get the feeling you don't agree sounding by your posts, may I ask what you would do in the situation since your an ImpartialOne? you may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts