ladyluck Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Perhaps the presence of an independent skilled mediator or negotiator at such meetings is worth a consideration. Might have avoided this dispute? A nanny or primary school teacher would probably do just as well - telling the children to play fair and soothing the bruised egos with a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Then let them roll the dice and take their chances. I wouldn't have an independent body, just an independent commissioner along the lines of most American sports and Poland's Ekstraliga, with no mandate to actually determine the rules but as someone to oversee the implementation of the rules and to address any concerns and deliver judgement of instances brought to his (or her, let's not be sexist) attention. Thus, Matt Ford (or any of the promotions who called him to complain) could have raised the "Pawlicki situation" (which even he only seems to have noticed after Poole were beaten, or he could've noted it in the play-off final programme) with the commissioner, who could have then considered it and delivered a judgement for the consideration of the BSPA or SCB or ACU. Most of the speedway world noticed the Pawlicki situation,let alone Matt Ford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pollyanna Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) Has it not occurred to you that Coventry and Peterborough might actually have grounds for a legal challenge. It appears to me that two promoters have been tried and convicted without hearing the evidence. As has the BSPA ! No idea whose fault it is, since information is so sparse. Edited December 20, 2010 by Pollyanna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Most of the speedway world noticed the Pawlicki situation,let alone Matt Ford. Then it really only became an issue when his supposedly all conquering team were humbled. Before that he might have been willing to see it as a clever piece of work from Coventry, since he only mentioned it "after the fact" and not beforehand. Don't get me wrong, I think the situation needed addressing and I have no problem with the way it has been addressed, but through his actions Matt Ford has left himself wide open to the kind of comment that has been directed in his direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philfromcov Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 [/b] As has the BSPA ! No idea whose fault it is, since information is so sparse. but its been good fun guessing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pollyanna Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 but its been good fun guessing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no-brakes-uk Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Because it is Sandhu's fault. P.S are you the model man? That's me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigsby Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 By the same thinking shouldn't the Cov-Pet fans stop convicting the BSPA without evidence? Unfortunately those throwing mud in our direction will get it thrown back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roddy Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) " It is a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is considered revolutionary" Edited December 20, 2010 by roddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Jasper Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 I wouldn't have an independent body, just an independent commissioner along the lines of most American sports and Poland's Ekstraliga, with no mandate to actually determine the rules but as someone to oversee the implementation of the rules and to address any concerns and deliver judgement of instances brought to his (or her, let's not be sexist) attention. Thus, Matt Ford (or any of the promotions who called him to complain) could have raised the "Pawlicki situation" (which even he only seems to have noticed after Poole were beaten, or he could've noted it in the play-off final programme) with the commissioner, who could have then considered it and delivered a judgement for the consideration of the BSPA or SCB or ACU. Thats a decent idea and one that should please all, and it should go a long way to stop this type of situation from arising in the future. it would also help if the BSPA set rules for the future ie 12 months in advance this allows teams to plan for the future rather than lurching from one set of rules to another as we seem to have done this year. I applauded the 3 year plan, I didnt particularly agree with all of it, however there was no doubt that promoters were able to plan ahead and think of the future slightly more and it also encouraged Elite teams to try and sign younger riders and build teams rather than throwing one together every November, yes it allowed certain riders to "play the game" and ensure they were in a strong position for the follwoing season however that could be stopped either by a complaints process to the commissioner or rolling averages. It also gave an illusion of professionalism and unity as it really did look like the promoters were working together for the good of the sport in this country. However with the new rulings it all seems to fly in the face of the last 3 years so it definetly was an illusion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirocat Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Thats a decent idea and one that should please all, and it should go a long way to stop this type of situation from arising in the future. it would also help if the BSPA set rules for the future ie 12 months in advance this allows teams to plan for the future rather than lurching from one set of rules to another as we seem to have done this year. I applauded the 3 year plan, I didnt particularly agree with all of it, however there was no doubt that promoters were able to plan ahead and think of the future slightly more and it also encouraged Elite teams to try and sign younger riders and build teams rather than throwing one together every November, yes it allowed certain riders to "play the game" and ensure they were in a strong position for the follwoing season however that could be stopped either by a complaints process to the commissioner or rolling averages. It also gave an illusion of professionalism and unity as it really did look like the promoters were working together for the good of the sport in this country. However with the new rulings it all seems to fly in the face of the last 3 years so it definetly was an illusion... " ie 12 months in advance " I may be missing the point but it does seem like a lot of fans are happy for the change so long as they have a good shout at the title again this year. Had the shoe been on any other foot I would expect blue murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javw Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Then let them roll the dice and take their chances. My comment was not intended to be confronational, merely to demonstrate to the referred post that the dispute has not been resolved and that there are two sides to every story. I sincerely hope that legal action does not ensue and that this can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javw Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) As has the BSPA ! No idea whose fault it is, since information is so sparse. Totally agree Edited December 20, 2010 by The Mad Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc61 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 " ie 12 months in advance " I may be missing the point but it does seem like a lot of fans are happy for the change so long as they have a good shout at the title again this year. Had the shoe been on any other foot I would expect blue murder. no i think the issue is that changing the rules after some teams have started planning for the following season can be looked upon as sour grapes. panthers have built up a good base of young riders some of which they were possibly hoping to bring into the side this year, now despite planning ahead they have had an increase in their points cost of 20%. and like i have already said coventry havent broke any rules so why get punished. some argue that its not being applied retrospectively but in my opinion it is. at the start of 2010 season every rider knew that what they finished the season with they would start the following 2011 season with, however by changing the rules for 2011 the bspa are basically saying we are changing what every rider thought at the start of 2010. lets change any rules that they want to change by a democratic decision but give every team notice that this is to happen ie from the start of the 2012 season. plan ahead and we wont have this argument every year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogstar Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 (edited) no i think the issue is that changing the rules after some teams have started planning for the following season can be looked upon as sour grapes. panthers have built up a good base of young riders some of which they were possibly hoping to bring into the side this year, now despite planning ahead they have had an increase in their points cost of 20%. and like i have already said coventry havent broke any rules so why get punished. some argue that its not being applied retrospectively but in my opinion it is. at the start of 2010 season every rider knew that what they finished the season with they would start the following 2011 season with, however by changing the rules for 2011 the bspa are basically saying we are changing what every rider thought at the start of 2010. lets change any rules that they want to change by a democratic decision but give every team notice that this is to happen ie from the start of the 2012 season. plan ahead and we wont have this argument every year And also let's not delude ourselves that the likes of Poole and Wolverhampton would not have agreed deals with the riders they wanted to keep long before the AGM, based on their green sheet averages at season end being their starting averages for 2011. Just because they don't announce them straight away doesn't mean they haven't been signed up or agreed new deals. All signs point to the fact that some Clubs were very worried about the team Coventry were putting together and decided to sabotage their plans. Edited December 20, 2010 by Dogstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirocat Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 no i think the issue is that changing the rules after some teams have started planning for the following season can be looked upon as sour grapes. panthers have built up a good base of young riders some of which they were possibly hoping to bring into the side this year, now despite planning ahead they have had an increase in their points cost of 20%. and like i have already said coventry havent broke any rules so why get punished. some argue that its not being applied retrospectively but in my opinion it is. at the start of 2010 season every rider knew that what they finished the season with they would start the following 2011 season with, however by changing the rules for 2011 the bspa are basically saying we are changing what every rider thought at the start of 2010. lets change any rules that they want to change by a democratic decision but give every team notice that this is to happen ie from the start of the 2012 season. plan ahead and we wont have this argument every year Ok Point taken on board but surely all teams know how this has worked and if they want change then the AGM is the place to bring it up for that change to come in the following season. By this I mean every other team will not have started team planning in until they know the rules set at the AGM. Please note doc61 this is not aimed at you but before I get drawn into the pointless debate we lost fair and square and I have no grudge against Cov. Really hope you guys are with us next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
190557 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Official statement on Coventry Website! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc61 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Ok Point taken on board but surely all teams know how this has worked and if they want change then the AGM is the place to bring it up for that change to come in the following season. By this I mean every other team will not have started team planning in until they know the rules set at the AGM. Please note doc61 this is not aimed at you but before I get drawn into the pointless debate we lost fair and square and I have no grudge against Cov. Really hope you guys are with us next season. piro i am really offended by what you have written. im not a coventry fan lol. i was actually thinking more of panthers who i do support and rik frosts forward planning with assets like bach north bjerre jnr poole and then signing sundstrom. these riders are now 20% dearer in points terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazaar3 Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Has it not occurred to you that Coventry and Peterborough might actually have grounds for a legal challenge. What...you mean like the same legal challenge that England have about their world cup bid to FIFA. Democracy rules.....no club is bigger then all combined. I can't see anyway how they can legally challenge and if they did they would be wasting more money like the 6 figures they did last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted December 20, 2010 Report Share Posted December 20, 2010 Today's latest Coventry Speedway statement can be found below (don't hold your breath)... Excluding the info gathered from the Swindon do last Thursday, I would very much like to know if anyone in the BSPA is actually going to impart some official news re the 2011 EL League or are we to be continually treated like mugs and kept in the dark forever ! http://www.coventryb...php?extend.1438 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts