ladyluck Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) I know nothing about it myself. But the fact Peterborough and Coventry have employed Specialist council in these areas suggests that's areas suggests thats where the problem is. I understood Coventry offered mediation, possibly on the advice of their specialist counsel, so perhaps the case wasn't as sound as you want to believe. However, when it comes to EU Employment Law speedway in Britain would probably have a case to answer, but Coventry and Peterborough would be among the biggest losers, since they have large rider assets. Competition Law exists to ensure fair competition for all businesses, which is why a company like Microsoft is forever up before EU Competition Regulators; it's why the giant Standard Oil combine of John D Rockefeller was broken up by the Supreme Court in the USA; it's why when a large merger or takeover takes place certain divestments of assets are required to ensure continued competition. The BSPA can clearly argue that decisions made at the AGM were to ensure fair competition and that it was the Coventry-Peterborough axis that were anti-competitive. Edited December 20, 2010 by ladyluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 EU employment and competition law I believe Are they the same EU employment and competition laws that your allies at Coventry managed to break while becoming play-off champions last season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Smith Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 I know nothing about it myself. But the fact Peterborough and Coventry have employed Specialist council in these areas suggests that's areas suggests thats where the problem is. But again, the fact that Coventry & Peterborough could return under the rules already set suggests they have no case. Lets wait and see shall we???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ere Bert What 'Arry Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 I don't know why Starman is having a go at you as you seem to be defending Poole to a degree, and for what it's worth I agree with what you say. <personal abuse removed> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 But again, the fact that Coventry & Peterborough could return under the rules already set suggests they have no case. Lets wait and see shall we???? 1. What makes you think they will return under the current rules? 2. Or maybe they could decide it's not worth bothering with? which I doubt, if they think they've been wronged and have a case, they won't stop now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigsby Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Coventry and Peterborough running would be a bad thing and them running having been appeased by a cowardly BSPA would be a complete and utter disaster. Nothing is resolved in the least and the potential exists for legal action by the remaining promotions, or are they expected to take it like "good 'ol boys" and "speedway people" as opposed to outsiders like Sandhu and Frost? Outsiders who choose to spend and lose their money on our sport. It's not their fault that those in charge are not fit for purpose. The AGM was always an accident waiting to happen; this was the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philfromcov Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 But again, the fact that Coventry & Peterborough could return under the rules already set suggests they have no case. Lets wait and see shall we???? that will be the teller wont it, no rule changes then coventry have been acting foolishly and questions should be asked around what was the end game. some rules changed then obviously BSPA been caught out! as you say lets wait and see and then we can all draw our own conclusions and set off 100 pages of either, it was a disgrace coventry behaved, or coventry the bully! no one will blame the bspa it will and always will be coventrys fault, apprebtly the sinking of the titanic was to do with us as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazaar3 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Firstly - I am NOT wrong!! Rick Frost did say that Peterborough would not be running in the EL next season - it is in his press release!! Now things may have moved on but that is what he said so I am not wrong! Secondly, I do not believe the BSPA acted illegally and we will just have to agree to differ on that one. If the BSPA have had to backtrack because of threats from these two clubs then I will not be spending any money on speedway next year in protest and I'm sure I won't be alone in that !! To be honest, I have always thought you were a Poole basher who spoke a lot of codswallop, but this must have been the first time you have actually said something that I wholeheartly agree with. essaitch, Frosty the Snowman did say Panthers wouldn't ride EL next season. Edited December 20, 2010 by bazaar3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 To be honest, I have always thought you were a Poole basher who spoke a lot of codswallop, but this must have been the first time you have actually said something that I wholeheartly agree with. essaitch, Frosty the Snowman did say Panthers wouldn't ride EL next season. That's exactly what he said in his statement. Peterborough won't ride in the EL next season. I'm sure any judge, who presumably would have quite a good command of the English language, would interpret it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigsby Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 essaitch, Frosty the Snowman did say Panthers wouldn't ride EL next season. He did indeed but it was still clearly a fluid situation and what essaitch has also has pointed out plenty of times is the other part of the statement: "We cannot justify or endorse losses of c£140,000 per season in order for Peterborough Speedway to remain in the Elite League and feel that some of the rule changes voted in at the recent BSPA AGM will only serve to increase such losses" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 He did indeed but it was still clearly a fluid situation and what essaitch has also has pointed out plenty of times is the other part of the statement: "We cannot justify or endorse losses of c£140,000 per season in order for Peterborough Speedway to remain in the Elite League and feel that some of the rule changes voted in at the recent BSPA AGM will only serve to increase such losses" Others clearly didn't feel the same way, or were willing to "justify or endorse" such losses, or didn't make such losses in the first place and when it came to counting votes, they clearly had the numbers to make it stick. It is my view that the best thing would be to let this whole thing run its course. Let Sandhu and Frost have their day in court and see where we stand after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javw Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 The statement made by Rick Frost does appear indeed to be ambiguous, however had it been his intention not to run in the EL why walk out and commence legal proceedings? It would have been logical to have done what Ipswich have done and apply to join the PL. His actions imply to me that he had every intention of running in the EL but something in the rule changes for 2011 would increase costs to a prohibitive level. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 I don't know why Starman is having a go at you as you seem to be defending Poole to a degree, and for what it's worth I agree with what you say. Im not having a go at him Brock, im just mearly saying it would still be a play off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 To be honest, I have always thought you were a Poole basher who spoke a lot of codswallop, but this must have been the first time you have actually said something that I wholeheartly agree with. essaitch, Frosty the Snowman did say Panthers wouldn't ride EL next season. Gee thanks Never deliberately set out to be a Poole basher - and I have a lot of time for both Holder and Ward who I think get a lot of unfair press on here. Now that you have the Gaffer on board, I might even say some nice things about Poole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 His actions imply to me that he had every intention of running in the EL but something in the rule changes for 2011 would increase costs to a prohibitive level. Or revenues would decrease, which I consider the more likely scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Gee thanks Never deliberately set out to be a Poole basher - and I have a lot of time for both Holder and Ward who I think get a lot of unfair press on here. Now that you have the Gaffer on board, I might even say some nice things about Poole You never know, you might even make a visit or two next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigsby Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) The statement made by Rick Frost does appear indeed to be ambiguous, however had it been his intention not to run in the EL why walk out and commence legal proceedings? It would have been logical to have done what Ipswich have done and apply to join the PL. His actions imply to me that he had every intention of running in the EL but something in the rule changes for 2011 would increase costs to a prohibitive level. I think that that probably sums it up with Frost's previous planning also badly affected I'd imagine Edited December 20, 2010 by Rigsby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGT Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 The AGM was always an accident waiting to happen; this was the year! Nail hit firmly on head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colincooke Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 From what I have heard Trump stormed out of the building after the BBC changed his seat number. well that would be odd cos he weren't even on the invite list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 I think that that probably sums it up with Frost's previous planning also affected I'd imagine Here's a thought for all our would be legal-counsellors to mull over: if Coventry (and Peterborough) have asked the BSPA to embargo deals involving their riders are they not encouraging the BSPA to break EU Employment Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts