Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

Yet all the rule changes agreed at the BSPA AGM are in the interests, as the majority of BSPA members have decided, of increasing competition. The easy counter-argument for the BSPA to make is that it is the Coventry-Peterborough axis being anti-competitive by wanting rules that would mean less clubs in the Elite League and less competition.

 

 

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

 

Does Peterborough really want to fit in? Huge losses last season and probably for many seasons before that. Perhaps Coventry's "strop" provided suitable cover for Peterborough's owner to run for the hills.

 

 

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.

 

I seem to recall Trump having his say and then Coventry got caught up in the whole Screen affair when they also tried to make a similar change. Poole muttered for a bit, while Sandhu decided to go ahead and field an illegal team for a Sky meeting against Ipswich before finally backing down.

Edited by ladyluck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a democracy, you will usually find that not everyone agrees with everything but they are usually smart enough to stay around the table and work to change from within.

 

I do hope that Coventry runs but it has to be on the terms of the majority!

 

Not picking on you, Steve0, but the old "it was a democratic vote" doesn´t work, if it is against the laws of the land. I have posted other examples elsewhere, and am led to believe that is what the legal challenge is about, so lets wait for that the resolve before claiming that the BSPA is a democracy.

 

 

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

 

 

If it was voted on it could have been 7-0 6-1 5-2 or 4-3 so it could have been accepted but not thought by some to be acceptabe.

 

Barrow Boy is right. LadyLuck, I completely agree with your other post that compromise would be bad for the BSPA. It has to go one way or another. However, we all residents of the UK agree to live here, but not all vote for the party in government.

 

 

I think SCB has shown that the 60% conversion rate is fair, the Pawlicki rule does close a loophole (although I think it is motivated by spite) and the 8.00 rule is to even out top line riders.

 

Right, these rules could probably be agreed, but not in line with reducing team building limits (it is a reduction end 2010 averages vs. start 2011). A 60% conversion is fair. Last season, I was crying out for teams to sign up PL riders. When the points limit is so low, these riders and asssessed riders become the game changers that win you the league.

 

The only reason that PL converters and assessed riders HAVE become so crucial is that the EL is weaker, they can make more of an impact, increased averages win you leagues.

 

What I am interested in seeing is by changing the conversion, more riders are now double-DOWNING, causing an over supply of 2nd and 3rd heat leaders in PL. I think these riders are going to decide their championship. Lets face it, Bridger could double down if he gave Poland a miss. That would be a game changer in the PL this season, interested in seeing the impact of Barker, Risager etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder which of the three alleged rule changes that Coventry don't like will be reverted?

Clearly the team building average is just tough, but we wil either getbshamek on a four or a return to fifty fifty from pl.

 

As some duff el riders have already been signed into the pl, I suspect shamek in on a four and maybe a team building level to 41 as a compromise

 

Clearly at least one ofbthe three will change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder which of the three alleged rule changes that Coventry don't like will be reverted?

Clearly the team building average is just tough,

 

 

I think the Team Building average is just plain stupid Phil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

After the BSPA press release stating, that the 'elite league' will not contain Coventry or Peterborough in 2011. The inclusion of Coventry means the BSPA have backed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barrow Boy is right.

 

Okay, I'll put it another way: seven clubs thought the rules as decided acceptable enough to declare their intention to run, whether they voted in favour of said individual rules or not. An eighth club joined the league at a later date on the basis of those rules. If those rules are subsequently changed to appease a single club, since Peterborough are clearly out of the reckoning, the BSPA leaves itself open to all sorts of legal challenges and the EL potentially descends further into chaos. Or are we all relying on the remaining members of the EL to take Coventry getting everything they want like good sports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the BSPA press release stating, that the 'elite league' will not contain Coventry or Peterborough in 2011. The inclusion of Coventry means the BSPA have backed down.

 

Correct and personally I wouldn't sanction Coventry's return if I was a member of the BSPA, unless, of course, they offered a pound of flesh - the removal of Trump would seem the obvious pound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[.....Stevebrum....

Oh dear, i thought you had got over stalking my posts - which is equally as annoying.

 

Don't be so arrogant. If I stalked your posts I'd be on here all day. It's a forum so sometimes I respond to what someone has posted but more often than not I don't bother.

 

.....ladyluck.....

Thus, perhaps the earlier rumour that Trump will be defenestrated at Brandon isn't too far short of the mark.

 

Blimey! That's not even in my Oxford dictionary but I presume it means de-fleaed and chucked out. :D

Edited by Gemini
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a pity that the team building is at 40 pts, 42.5 would be the answer but can't see it budging now even to 41.

 

It should be 42.5 and left there for the next 5 years and looked at a year in advance before setting it for year 6.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Eh?

What happened to the 9 riders 8.01 or above, more than enough for one per team?

I thought the 8.01 rule was brought in so that every club could have a #1 ABOVE 8.00 not ON 8.00. As you say, Poole CAN keep their top two (but have elected to let one go probably to allow them to get a GP rider currently without an EL average) but Coventry CAN'T keep Harris and KK - the rule was changed to not allow this.

Why are Eastbourne not running with a rider in the 8.01 or above category (enough to go round, apparently) but using a #1 who could be another team's also-runner?

Edited by Barney Rabbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they didn't want in in the current format if the formats changed who's to say they haven't changed there mind ???

Rick Frost has said he will not compete at the top level without Bjerre so that pretty much rules them out of the elite league , but assuming the rumours that Coventry are back in the fold are true perhaps theres a chance of a turn round and there will be room in the premier league , It would certainly be a sad state of affairs if the only outcome of the recent battles was the demise of peterborough speedway altogether .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be 42.5 and left there for the next 5 years and looked at a year in advance before setting it for year 6.......

 

No, it should be 43, and left for two years, then reviewed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Frost has said he will not compete at the top level without Bjerre so that pretty much rules them out of the elite league , but assuming the rumours that Coventry are back in the fold are true perhaps theres a chance of a turn round and there will be room in the premier league , It would certainly be a sad state of affairs if the only outcome of the recent battles was the demise of peterborough speedway altogether .

Agree. Will be great to see both clubs in the EL next season. Two of the best tracks in the Country and we could possibly not see one or both in 2011. If it was Lakeside and Belle Vue then there wouldn't be such a big fuss. :o:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick Frost has said he will not compete at the top level without Bjerre so that pretty much rules them out of the elite league , but assuming the rumours that Coventry are back in the fold are true perhaps theres a chance of a turn round and there will be room in the premier league ,

premier !!! all there worthwhile premier assets have been loaned out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree. Will be great to see both clubs in the EL next season. Two of the best tracks in the Country and we could possibly not see one or both in 2011. If it was Lakeside and Belle Vue then there wouldn't be such a big fuss. :o:lol:

 

Again yourspeculating Dogstar, imo this will not happen unless there is a big climbdown by the two clubs. That said, Peterbourgh have already said they will not be running EL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy