pirateandi Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Sorry are you saying your father would agree or disagree that the Bees will be back in, I find the wording of your post somewhat confusing. Regards, Martin Agree they will be in the elite next year.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 When Cov come back (as they surely will) it can surely only be under the 2011 BSPA rules. KL and Birmingham joined the league under those rules (and indeed KL have almost finalised their team based on that) and wouldn't they have a right to take action if the rules were changed to suit Coventry? (not that they would). Â It's hard to imagine that there won't be some sort of review of the workings of the BSPA during the coming year and hopefully that will be compromise enough for Coventry to commit to 2011. I'd imagine Coventry would be perfectly happy if the rule regarding the conversion between the EL & PL, and the re-assessment of Pawlicki were scrapped. Neither of those really affect any other team's team-building plans. The 8.01+ rule (which was laughable, anyway) is moot under a 40-point limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeone Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Agree they will be in the elite next year.. Â Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philfromcov Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Of course i dont! But many are sure to point out that the BSPA are backing down!! Â We will ALL have to wait till official press release. Â Otherwise its all a point of view really. Â I personally cant see the BSPA altering ANY rules or plans now to suit one team. It just aint gonna happen i believe. Unless of course they couldn't defend them in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 I'd imagine Coventry would be perfectly happy if the rule regarding the conversion between the EL & PL, and the re-assessment of Pawlicki were scrapped. Neither of those really affect any other team's team-building plans. The 8.01+ rule (which was laughable, anyway) is moot under a 40-point limit. Â So you don't really want Cov to make too much of a compromise then. I doubt that the voted-for 2011 rules will now be changed. Sandhu claims he wants transparency and I reckon the BSPA will offer a review (and I don't think many of us would argue with that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackrat Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Perhaps this is why every other fan despises Coventry. Their fans are just like their owners. How pitiful. No, it's because your jealous of the most succesful speedway team in recent years. They have to make pathetic rules so we are not mighty once again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 So you don't really want Cov to make too much of a compromise then. I doubt that the voted-for 2011 rules will now be changed. Sandhu claims he wants transparency and I reckon the BSPA will offer a review (and I don't think many of us would argue with that). I would argue that compromising on the points limit by a massive 5 points, and willing to share around the 8.01+ (it gets more ridiculous the more you look at it) riders is enough of a compromise. Throwing in a review of the way things are done by the BSPA is essential, I'd say, given that Jon Cook has also voiced his opinion in favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeone Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 So would you agree that would be enough of a compromise on both sides? I can't speak for the promotion but for me it would, mind you it would have to be a root and branch review of the organisation, and performed by an independent person, not some sort of carve up by the usual suspects. Someone or some organisation who have absolutely no connection to any speedway club either now or historically. I reckon I would want assurance also that any future AGM inspired regulation changes would be for a season ahead, ie, decisions made in 2011 stand for 2013 etc. Â Â Of course if the retrospective change of regulation regarding Przemek Pawlicki and others affected by it was rescinded, all the better!! Regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 I would argue that compromising on the points limit by a massive 5 points, and willing to share around the 8.01+ (it gets more ridiculous the more you look at it) riders is enough of a compromise. Throwing in a review of the way things are done by the BSPA is essential, I'd say, given that Jon Cook has also voiced his opinion in favour. Â You have to face the fact that 8 teams have accepted the new rules so there's no reason at all why they should be changed for 1 team. I think you should be accepting now that it's not going to be part of any compromise. Â I honestly think Sandhu will accept a review of the BSPA. He seems to have made transparency his major point now and, although he's not happy with the new rules, I think (hope) it'll be sufficient for him to rejoin the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refereerick Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 When Cov come back (as they surely will) it can surely only be under the 2011 BSPA rules. KL and Birmingham joined the league under those rules (and indeed KL have almost finalised their team based on that) and wouldn't they have a right to take action if the rules were changed to suit Coventry? (not that they would). Â It's hard to imagine that there won't be some sort of review of the workings of the BSPA during the coming year and hopefully that will be compromise enough for Coventry to commit to 2011. Can you point me to the 2011 rulebook then as, so far as I know, not one single rule has been announced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Can you point me to the 2011 rulebook then as, so far as I know, not one single rule has been announced? Â Because they haven't been announced doesn't mean they haven't been made. Teams seem to be building within some sort of rules. Â If there are no rules in place what are Coventry objecting to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveEvans Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 I wounder where Peterboro fit in all of this? There top 2 already loaned to King's Lynn. The PL has its 14 teams that makes its new league format work. Â If there is any compromise it would have to be on the average of Pawlicki. Teams are already been built so you can't change the points limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 (edited) You have to face the fact that 8 teams have accepted the new rules so there's no reason at all why they should be changed for 1 team. I think you should be accepting now that it's not going to be part of any compromise. Â I honestly think Sandhu will accept a review of the BSPA. He seems to have made transparency his major point now and, although he's not happy with the new rules, I think (hope) it'll be sufficient for him to rejoin the league. *sigh* Â I think we've pretty much established - in either a "this is disgusting!" or a "yeah, but Coventry deserved it" way - that Coventry were stitched up to push through the rules on average conversion, assessed averages, and the 8.01+ (bwahahahahaha) riders, and that these were the price the other teams paid to ensure the "big" teams aquiescence on the points limit. I would imagine that removing at least two of those rules would be the basis for Coventry's return, and that 6 of the 8 teams currently in the Elite League wouldn't give a flying fig about them going. Edited December 18, 2010 by alan_boon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refereerick Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Because they haven't been announced doesn't mean they haven't been made. Teams seem to be building within some sort of rules. Â If there are no rules in place what are Coventry objecting to? But nothing has been set in stone and who knows its not an outline idea not implemented yet? What i'm saying is no one knows any rules for sure yet. Â Again, no one knows, nothing has been officially announced on why Coventry weren't happy, maybe they didn't like the chioce of biscuits at the AGM? Â What i'm trying to say is nobody knows anything about whats going on with the Coventry situation or the 2011 Elite League rules until something is officailly announced, so everything on here so far is pure speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeone Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Because they haven't been announced doesn't mean they haven't been made. Teams seem to be building within some sort of rules. Â If there are no rules in place what are Coventry objecting to? I think the point being made is that we the paying public have not been made aware of any of the proposed "new" rules, therefore it could be said that we would never know if they had been changed/compromised or not. I guess the 40 limit is pretty certain as Gary patchett said as much in Speedway Star, but as for the rest, nothing has been published officially, not as far as I am aware anyway. Regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 *sigh* Â I think we've pretty much established - in either a "this is disgusting!" or a "yeah, but Coventry deserved it" way - that Coventry were stitched up to push through the rules on average conversion, assessed averages, and the 8.01+ (bwahahahahaha) riders, and that these were the price the other teams paid to ensure the "big" teams aquiescence on the points limit. I would imagine that removing at least two of those rules would be the basis for Coventry's return, and that 6 of the 8 teams currently in the Elite League wouldn't give a flying fig about them going. Â Basically most Coventry fans' idea of a compromise is no compromise or very little. I suspect Sandhu is going to adopt a more reasonable and flexible attitude. The fact that he now seems more interested in mediation than legal action seems to support that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Basically most Coventry fans' idea of a compromise is no compromise or very little. I suspect Sandhu is going to adopt a more reasonable and flexible attitude. The fact that he now seems more interested in mediation than legal action seems to support that. I would argue that the hypothetical compromise I've posted is at least that - a compromise. What you suggest - nothing but an inquiry into how the BSPA is run - is a collapse. Do you know what compromise means??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeone Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 I wounder where Peterboro fit in all of this? There top 2 already loaned to King's Lynn. The PL has its 14 teams that makes its new league format work. Â If there is any compromise it would have to be on the average of Pawlicki. Teams are already been built so you can't change the points limit. I suspect that Panthers will be in the National League, due to the fact that Mr Frost said he wasn't going in the Elite, I still can't see why the Premier league was so hastily deemed to be full, other than vindictiveness, but that's what was done and I believe at least some of the fixtures have been published. A shoddy business all round I reckon. Regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln Maybe you should have followed this advice then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_boon Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Maybe you should have followed this advice then Oh my God, everyone - he got me! He got me with my own words! Damn it, I'm down, I'm shot... help me!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts