YerRopes Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Is it not possible to make an argument without abuse? I dislike your biased opinions intensely but never resort to abuse. You've lost me there.. What biased opinions do you allude too - please enlighten ? And as you have acccused me of being abusive to you - I would hope that you explain yourself. Most disappointed in you EW.. I wouldn't invite you to my AGM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dump that clutch Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 That sounds disgusting, couldn't they use beans instead? ..................I'll get me coat i've got it for ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Jones Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Now if the Matt Ford/CVS haters who hurl such foul abuse at them (and have also probably never met them) would show a little restraint the forum would be a happier place. And ,if you and a few others with your own agendas were to show a little restraint also,there would be less friction on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) You've lost me there.. What biased opinions do you allude too - please enlighten ? And as you have acccused me of being abusive to you - I would hope that you explain yourself. Most disappointed in you EW.. I wouldn't invite you to my AGM Don't worry if I did come to your AGM I wouldn't bring my toys to chuck. :D Guess that's a truce then Edited December 21, 2010 by eastern wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authorised Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 I am enjoying the meltdown that some fans are going through....SS and Eastern Wolf, great entertainment. First, you say that Coventry have to go to the tapes under agreed rules, we have weeks of "democracy" debates. A couple of non descript press releases, and they are speculating on what compromise has been made. Oh boy! What a turn around, the biggest since, well, Poole lost the title. Come on, we all know that the BSPA was politically motivated decision making, the pre AGM was a farce with rules agreed then backed down from, and Sandhu and Frost MUST have had a valid reason to contest the issue. It says far more about the BSPA and their rule making, than it does Sandhu and Frost. Fair play to someone standing up to the BSPA. As I have said, compromise was the weaker outcome. I await how the cracks will be covered up for 2011 and future AGMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeone Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 I never said it was broken, but it was bent. And it was manipulation of gargantuan proportions which led directly to Coventry winning the playoffs. Why should they double dip and benefit twice on a rider who has proved he should be on an average over two points higher? I can understand fans of that particular club wanting him back on a 4 because it gives an instant massive advantage over every other club. But if Poole had done this with Madsen for example, left him out of his twelth meeting with some PL 6 pointer taking his place so he could ride at reserve in the playoffs, and were bringing him back on a 4 in 2011 at reserve when he averaged 6.20, would you still say its fine? You won't believe me, but yes, because it was not against the rules as they stood at the time, I might not like it, in fact I'm sure I would have had a good moan, but in the end the letter of the rule was obeyed, so I would have accepted it. I would argue that the rule was faulty and must be changed so that it cannot happen in future, but as no rules were broken at the time then on this occasion it was completely legal. A rule change should be made so that in future there must be a bona fida reason for a rider being replaced, but it should surely only apply from this coming season onward. Regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 You should see some of the women at Monmore. More than a few that go down well there. And that's a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 I never said it was broken, but it was bent. And it was manipulation of gargantuan proportions which led directly to Coventry winning the playoffs. No, you lose me there. Coventry won the play-offs because Poole chose wrongly when it came to semi-final opponents and because the Poole team performed awfully in the final itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogstar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 And that's a bad thing? Ha..Ha.. I just deleted it cos I thought some grumpy mod might take offence. In answer to your question. No.... it aint such a bad thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 No, you lose me there. Coventry won the play-offs because Poole chose wrongly when it came to semi-final opponents and because the Poole team performed awfully in the final itself. But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Ha..Ha.. I just deleted it cos I thought some grumpy mod might take offence. In answer to your question. No.... it aint such a bad thing! No wonder everybody likes coming to Monmore. You take advantage of our women, learn English as it should be spoke AND get great racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Why should they double dip and benefit twice on a rider who has proved he should be on an average over two points higher? I can understand fans of that particular club wanting him back on a 4 because it gives an instant massive advantage over every other club. Why do you insist on babbling on about this "double dip"? Is it because you view a "single dip" as being acceptable? I'd have wanted Pawlicki's average reviewed regardless of the outcome of the EL Final, would you? Or would a Poole victory last October have left you (and Matt Ford) ambivalent towards Pawlicki's average? To be honest, the points limit doesn't bother me and nor does the EL-PL conversion rate; the only rule that interests me is Pawlicki's average and it's not because of some anti-Coventry or anti-Sandhu agenda I have, it's because to me it lacks integrity. It lacked integrity when wolbert missed an Edinburgh meeting the season before last and should have been addressed at the 2009 AGM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javw Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Poor riding by Poole allowed Pawlicki to score 20 odd points. Poole No. 1 scored, what, 8 points from both legs...c'mon ! The following week Ludvig Lindgren beat Shamek at Coventry. No disrespect to Wolves, but you'd expect a GP rider (Holder) to do a better job against a supposed 6 pointer. Oh... and Wolves were winning the match on a very wet track too... Edited December 21, 2010 by The Mad Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Shovlar Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Why do you insist on babbling on about this "double dip"? Is it because you view a "single dip" as being acceptable? I'd have wanted Pawlicki's average reviewed regardless of the outcome of the EL Final, would you? Or would a Poole victory last October have left you (and Matt Ford) ambivalent towards Pawlicki's average? To be honest, the points limit doesn't bother me and nor does the EL-PL conversion rate; the only rule that interests me is Pawlicki's average and it's not because of some anti-Coventry or anti-Sandhu agenda I have, it's because to me it lacks integrity. It lacked integrity when wolbert missed an Edinburgh meeting the season before last and should have been addressed at the 2009 AGM. By Double dipping I mean by having him two years on the trot on his 4 point starting average. Agree completely with the rest of your post, though not having an interest in what goes on at PL level I had no idea that Edinburgh had done the same rule bending with Wolbert as Coventry did this time around with Pawlicki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Pawlicki scored so many because Poole's riders rode so abjectly. Pawlicki's position in the team should've made no difference. That Poole team should've rolled Coventry over easily enough. They let themselves and Poole down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 But you can't make a rule that would punish only one team! Rules were made to suit ALL teams at the AGM. To expect rules to change to suit YOUR clubs means you get it on your own terms. Not fair either! It surely should be so Sandie, I'll bet that would go down well over Monmore way Regards, Martin Doesnt bother me Martin. If we didnt qualify for the competition then we shouldnt be in it! thinks its only fair the 2 most hated clubs lock horns! See you at the Green next year mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Is it not possible to make an argument without abuse? I dislike your biased opinions intensely but never resort to abuse. I have not been abusive to you in any way, shape or form.. I have already asked you in a previous post to back up your scurrilous statements which you have failed to do.. Back it up or apologize...(or most likely run away).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastern wolf Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 I have not been abusive to you in any way, shape or form.. I have already asked you in a previous post to back up your scurrilous statements which you have failed to do.. Back it up or apologize...(or most likely run away).... You obviously haven't read my response to your previous post yet. And with my back I ain't running anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 Deary deary me, ive never Laughed or read such drivel in my life. Eastern Wolf and Steve Shovlar make some good points, and they get shot down in flames!! Oh, and by the way, if 140k is lose change to Mr Frost could he lend, no, give me 30k, i know just the Horse!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyluck Posted December 21, 2010 Report Share Posted December 21, 2010 But you can't make a rule that would affect only one team! Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts