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

[stevebrum]

You think that Coventry are going to walk back into the EL with whatever rules we like when teams have already started building?

 

There might be some middle ground (pawlicki?) but if we are in the EL it shouldn't really be on "our terms".

 

Another fair point SB.

Cant believe anybody would even think 1 team can have things on there terms - just shear madness.

 

Since seven agreed to participate, the rules were acceptable to seven clubs.

 

Any team now joining (or re-joining in Cov`s case) will surely HAVE to accept those rules??

 

 

Remember the Screen affair of 2009. Poole played by the rules and - rightly, as it happens - got their fingers burnt.

 

Fair point and the point ive tried to make in the past. Irespective of who tried to play with the rules (and rightly or wrongly won) the BSPA usually always implement a rule to stop that happening again.

The Bees cannot feel that they have been victimised as other teams year on year have had a loophole closed on them.

Thats just the way it goes. Whether its right or not way of doing business is debatable.

However if the rules are changed to suit Coventry alone this year a dangerous precedence will have been set - all the other teams who have been affected in the past (IE virtually everyone) will feel unhappy that the rules didnt work for them.

 

Maybe there is a better way of running the BSPA, however just 1 club cant have things run there way. Thats got to be crystal clear surely?

 

 

There really is no victimization no matter how you dress it up. 40 points was voted on and passed. Some clubs voted for a higher level, Poole being one of them. They lost the vote. Did they storm off in a huff? Did Swindon, who also voted for it? No. They accepted the decision and ar now building their teams to 40 points for 2011.

 

 

 

Exactly Steve. EVERY season a club gets the rough treatment by having rules go against them or having to break up a winning side.

ALL other clubs accept it with at least a little grace.

[essaitch]

It's quite simple really. Coventry accept the rules, and race in 2011.

 

They jumped the gun by signing a rider before rules were set. No one fault but their own.

 

The Pawlicki rule is NOT retrospective. The rule is coming in for the 2011 season. They bent the rules the the nth degree. Poole tried a similar move in 2009 and were hit MID SEASON. At least Coventry benefitted massively in the playoffs. In truth the BSPA MC should have stepped in directly after Pawlicki was no used at Swindon and given him an official average on the spot.

 

Coventry are trying to double dip on his 4 point average. Unacceptable to virtually everyone outside Brandon.

 

Be OK if some of these changes didn't break the law.

Or are you saying your happy with the BSPA acting illegally?

[KiddlyKestrel]

Be OK if some of these changes didn't break the law.

Or are you saying your happy with the BSPA acting illegally?

 

Forgive my ignorance but what "laws" have been broken?

What is illegal about the situation?

[TrueBee]

There was absolutely nothing vindictive about any of the rules brought in. 40 points rule affected Poole the most by the proverbial mile. No other club had to lose 8 points off their season ending average. How much did Coventry have to lose? 2 points? Where is the victimization? ONto the 60% PL/EL conversion. Where is the victimization? It affects every club. Coventry sign a rider before the rules were made? MORE FOOL THEM. They jumped the gun so suffer the consequences. pawlicki? It didn't take a brain to work out that they were never, ever going to get away with bending the rules t such an extent they were going to benefit from a second year. Every club, inc PL clubs, voted on this and Coventry had virtually no allies.

 

You kept saying we were 5 points over the limit when we beat you comfortably in the playoff final, you could at least be consistant

 

It's quite simple really. Coventry accept the rules, and race in 2011.

 

They jumped the gun by signing a rider before rules were set. No one fault but their own.

 

The Pawlicki rule is NOT retrospective. The rule is coming in for the 2011 season. They bent the rules the the nth degree. Poole tried a similar move in 2009 and were hit MID SEASON. At least Coventry benefitted massively in the playoffs. In truth the BSPA MC should have stepped in directly after Pawlicki was no used at Swindon and given him an official average on the spot.

 

Coventry are trying to double dip on his 4 point average. Unacceptable to virtually everyone outside Brandon.

 

Yet a number have teams have done this already, as far as I'm aware no rules have been declared.

 

Lets hope we get some answers on this matter shortly, it's all getting pretty boring now...

[essaitch]

Forgive my ignorance but what "laws" have been broken?

What is illegal about the situation?

Think the fact Bees and Panthers have employed a competition law QC points you in the right direction.

[speedibee]

There really is no victimization no matter how you dress it up. 40 points was voted on and passed. Some clubs voted for a higher level, Poole being one of them. They lost the vote. Did they storm off in a huff? Did Swindon, who also voted for it? No. They accepted the decision and ar now building their teams to 40 points for 2011.

 

 

 

Agree. A democratic vote means that some votes go against. But rather than accept like Swindon and Poole, they stormed out of the AGM and completely embarressed themselves.

 

 

It doesn't matter. the vote went against them whether it was a majority of just one. Normally clubs accept with good grace. The Coventry promotion don't have any.

 

 

 

There was absolutely nothing vindictive about any of the rules brought in. 40 points rule affected Poole the most by the proverbial mile. No other club had to lose 8 points off their season ending average. How much did Coventry have to lose? 2 points? Where is the victimization? ONto the 60% PL/EL conversion. Where is the victimization? It affects every club. Coventry sign a rider before the rules were made? MORE FOOL THEM. They jumped the gun so suffer the consequences. pawlicki? It didn't take a brain to work out that they were never, ever going to get away with bending the rules t such an extent they were going to benefit from a second year. Every club, inc PL clubs, voted on this and Coventry had virtually no allies.

 

 

 

Excellent post on the money.

 

 

 

Well my name is Steve and I will answer it honestly. Of course they were!

The 8.01 rule has worked perfectly, because it means clubs cannot hog the best riders. yet Coventry don't want to play fair and would rather one team had no 8+ rider whilst they have two. That's pure self interest and nothing more.No wonder Coventry are so dispised.

 

Poole could have kept Bjarne under this rule but decided to loan him out to Eastbourne, as the budgies were struggling to find a number one. How about Coventry sending Harris to Belle Vue while they keep KK? Fair? To everyone else except the Coventry promotion. Self interest and greed.

 

And onto Pawlicki again. When you bend the rules, you take the consequences. Removing Pawlicki from the team against Swindon so he would remain at reserve for the playoff disgusted many promotions, who thought that Coventry were abusing the spirit of the rules. Then on top of that, Coventry expected to get Pawlicki on a 4 for the second year running! Who were they trying to kid? Promotions were already upset by their antics and as the precident had already been set the previous year with Screen, they were never going to get away with it.

 

Best bet for Coventry is to apologise for their disgraceful behaviour and sack Trump. Put a new promotion in place, that is overseen by a senior member of the BSPA to make sure they stay within the rules.

Ah . see your back then . now .... about this rope , shall I post it or will you collect ? so that you can make use of it as soon as the details of how the bunch of crooks, led by your hero and CVS have had to make compromises in the face of impending legal action which they had no hope of defending against

[Steve Shovlar]

Forgive my ignorance but what "laws" have been broken?

What is illegal about the situation?

 

No "laws" have been broken. Rules have been changed. That's all.

[Starman2006]

Yeah sure, Coventry are more than welcome back into the League, but only if THEY compromise with the rest of the League, and not Coventry Coventry Coventry. As others have also said, teams have now started to build around 40, yes, we'd all love a rise in team building average, but again, how can you do that when teams have already started building.

IF, Coventry do not compromise then the BSPA should say, well theres the plank!!!!!!!!

AND STICK TO THEIR GUNS!!!!

No one Team Club promotion is bigger than the League, simples!!!

Edited December 19, 2010 by Starman2006

[Dave22]

Had a lot of sympathy with Coventry and will be glad if they are accepted back into the fold..but there must be no concessioons made to them, the rest of the league have put up with some quite frankly ridiculous rules.

Welcome back the Bees, but you put up and shut up..

[pje]

 

As you said, to back down would mean the sport would lose every ounce of credibility.

 

I take it from this statement then that if the BSPA do back down on any of the points then you won't be following Speedway next season?

 

Steve - you think you are a man of integrity? - so why not answer my question from another post a few days ago? Then we will see where your morals really are?

[orion]

Yeah sure, Coventry are more than welcome back into the League, but only if THEY compromise with the rest of the League, and not Coventry Coventry Coventry. As others have also said, teams have now started to build around 40, yes, we'd all love a rise in team building average, but again, how can you do that when teams have already started building.

IF, Coventry do not compromise then the BSPA should say, well theres the plank!!!!!!!!

AND STICK TO THEIR GUNS!!!!

 

 

To late... the league have giveing into Sandhu his lawsuit was to strong and the Bspa had little choice .a truly great day for speedway and justice

[pje]

Yeah sure, Coventry are more than welcome back into the League, but only if THEY compromise with the rest of the League, and not Coventry Coventry Coventry. As others have also said, teams have now started to build around 40, yes, we'd all love a rise in team building average, but again, how can you do that when teams have already started building.

IF, Coventry do not compromise then the BSPA should say, well theres the plank!!!!!!!!

AND STICK TO THEIR GUNS!!!!

No one Team Club promotion is bigger than the League, simples!!!

 

So are you going to "stick to your guns" if the BSPA back down and walk away from Speedway?

[spencebel]

BSPA have not changed much,in the 70's if my memory is correct (someone will correct me) that Belle Vue won the league 3times in a row,and they had to lose a rider,because they were too strong.

[KiddlyKestrel]

Think the fact Bees and Panthers have employed a competition law QC points you in the right direction.

 

But any illegality is yet to be proven surely?

Who makes the rules? the BSPA? the SCB?

Coventry and Peterborough? Or everyone in a democratic fashion.

 

As Starman says not one person/team/club/promotion are bigger than the sport.

Not Terry Russell, not Matt Ford, not Rick Frost, not Sandhu.

[superguest]

I really feel for Peterborough in all of this. Where will they fit into Coventry's compromise?

[Starman2006]

So are you going to "stick to your guns" if the BSPA back down and walk away from Speedway?

 

BSPA will not be backing down pal. Your lot will be doing the backing down, otherwise they do not come back. Simples!!

[pje]

BSPA will not be backing down pal. Your lot will be doing the backing down, otherwise they do not come back. Simples!!

 

I did say "If" - and you didn't answer the question?

[Dogstar]

So if the BSPA are so confident in their actions, why after releasing a statement that Coventry and Peterborough will take no part in 2011, have they embargoed the movement of Coventry riders and offered mediation talks?

Doesn't sound like the actions of a confident organisation to me. My guess is that most of the talking behind the scenes will be between Terry Russel and Mr Sandhu. Coventry I'm sure will race Elite League next season and there will be some compromise from both sides. What that compromise will be remains to be seen, but it gives us all something to speculate on during the cold winter months.

No doubt the forum junkie will be voicing the opinions of the puppet master during the early part of next week.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Dogstar

[Pirate Nick]

I did say "If" - and you didn't answer the question?

 

Leave him alone. If he gives up speedway I'll have nowhere to get a free peek at the Speedway Star on a Wednesday night:

[BROCK]

As the Screen episode from last year has been mentioned again, was it not a certain Mr Trump who was very very vociferous, went to press and stated that Poole were cheating by letting Screen miss his 12th meeting (with a sick note). Yet he thinks this year because his team did something very similar it is perfectly OK and cannot believe he is in the wrong, and why the other promoters are upset.